This article reports the impact of a multicomponent quality improvement intervention on adherence with 13 measures of diabetes care and a summary measure, the Diabetes Summary Quality Index (Diabetes-SQUID). The intervention was conducted between January 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005, within 66 primary care practices in 33 states, including 372 providers and 24 250 adult patients with diabetes. Across all practices, the average Diabetes-SQUID was 50.6% (10th percentile 36.5%, 90th percentile 63.0%) on January 1, 2004, and 58.4% (10th percentile 47.6%, 90th percentile 69.7%) on July 1, 2005, with an average absolute improvement of 7.8% (95% confidence interval, 5.9%-9.7%). Significant improvements occurred for 12 of the 13 individual measures: blood pressure and urine microalbumin monitoring; HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglyceride, and glycosylated hemoglobin measurements; prescription of antiplatelet therapy; and blood pressure, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglyceride, and glycosylated hemoglobin control. The findings suggest that a multicomponent intervention can have a robust impact on quality of care for diabetes.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
"Ornstein, et al., 2004), diabetes care, (S. M. Ornstein, et al., 2007) and broad set of measures related to primary care practice. (Nemeth, et al., 2007; Nietert, et al., 2007) The Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care (C-TRIP) study evaluates the effectiveness of the PPRNet-TRIP QI model for improving provider recommendation and patient receipt of CRC screening. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Half of Americans older than age 50 are not current with recommended screening; research is needed to assess the impact of interventions designed to increase receipt of CRC screening. The Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care (C-TRIP) study is a theoretically informed group randomized trial within 32 primary care practices. Baseline median proportion of active patients aged 50 years or older up-to-date with CRC screening among the 32 practices was 50.8% (N = 55,746). Men were more likely to have been screened than women (52.9% vs. 49.2%, respectively). Patients 50 to 59 years of age were less likely to be up-to-date with screening (45.4%) than those in the 60 to 69 years and 70 to 79 years groups (58.5% in both groups). Opportunities exist to increase the proportion of CRC screening received in adults aged 50 and older. C-TRIP evaluates the effectiveness of a model for improvement for increasing this proportion.
Health Promotion Practice 04/2009; 12(2):229-34. DOI:10.1177/1524839909332139 · 0.55 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Primary care practices use different approaches in their quest for high-quality care. Previous work in the Practice Partner Research Network (PPRNet) found that improved outcomes are associated with strategies to prioritize performance, involve staff, redesign elements of the delivery system, make patients active partners in guideline adherence, and use tools embedded in the electronic medical record. The aim of this study was to examine variations in the adoption of improvements among sites achieving the best outcomes.
This study used an observational case study design. A practice-level measure of adherence to clinical guidelines was used to identify the highest performing practices in a network of internal and family medicine practices participating in a national demonstration project. We analyzed qualitative and quantitative information derived from project documents, field notes, and evaluation questionnaires to develop and compare case studies.
Nine cases are described. All use many of the same improvement strategies. Differences in the way improvements are organized define 3 distinct archetypes: the Technophiles, the Motivated Team, and the Care Enterprise. There is no single approach that explains the superior performance of high-performing practices, though each has adopted variations of PPRNet's improvement model.
Practices will vary in their path to high-quality care. The archetypes could prove to be a useful guide to other practices selecting an overall quality improvement approach.
The Annals of Family Medicine 05/2007; 5(3):233-41. DOI:10.1370/afm.697 · 5.43 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for average-risk adults age 50 and older, yet half of eligible US adults are not current. This case study of highest performing practices within the Colorectal Screening in Primary Care study (C-TRIP) explains practice strategies used and provides a model for improving CRC screening in primary care.
A case study design was used to analyze practice performance data and qualitative data obtained from site visits, network meetings, and correspondence. The Practice Partner Research Network (PPRNet) Translating Research into Practice (TRIP) Quality Improvement (QI) model provided an analytic framework to evaluate the 5 highest-performing practices in the C-TRIP intervention. Practice strategies were grouped within the concepts: prioritize performance (PP), redesign delivery system (RDS), electronic medical record tools (EMR), and activate the patient (AP).
Thirteen specific practice strategies were exemplified within these four concepts (PP, RDS, EMR, AP). Most or all of these strategies were used by practices that achieved the highest proportion (up to 78%) of adults screened for CRC.
Primary care practices achieving a high proportion of CRC screening use systematic processes in the organization of their care. This case study provides a framework to organize systems that increase early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 03/2009; 22(2):141-6. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2009.02.080108 · 1.98 Impact Factor