Article

Randomized trial of quality improvement intervention to improve diabetes care in primary care settings.

HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1524, USA.
Diabetes Care (Impact Factor: 7.74). 09/2005; 28(8):1890-7. DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.8.1890
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the impact of a quality improvement (QI) intervention on the quality of diabetes care at primary care clinics.
Twelve primary care medical practices were matched by size and location and randomized to intervention or control conditions. Intervention clinic staff were trained in a seven-step QI change process to improve diabetes care. Surveys and medical record reviews of 754 patients, surveys of 329 clinic staff, interviews with clinic leaders, and analysis of training session videotapes evaluated compliance with and impact of the intervention. Mixed-model nested analyses compared differences in the quality of diabetes care before and after intervention.
All intervention clinics completed at least six steps of the seven-step QI change process in an 18-month period and, compared with control clinics, had broader staff participation in QI activities (P = 0.04), used patient registries more often (P = 0.03), and had better test rates for HbA(1c) (A1C), LDL, and blood pressure (P = 0.02). Other processes of diabetes care were unchanged. The intervention did not improve A1C (P = 0.54), LDL (P = 0.46), or blood pressure (P = 0.69) levels or a composite of these outcomes (P = 0.35).
This QI change process was successfully implemented but failed to improve A1C, LDL, or blood pressure levels. Data suggest that to be successful, such a QI change process should direct more attention to specific clinical actions, such as drug intensification and patient activation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
74 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at assessing the composition and performance of care management models evaluated in the last decade and their impact on patient important outcomes. A comprehensive literature search of electronic bibliographic databases was performed to identify care management trials in type 2 diabetes. Random effects meta-analysis was used when feasible to pool outcome measures. Fifty-two studies were eligible. Most commonly reported were surrogate outcomes (such as HbA1c and LDL), followed by process measures (clinic visit or testing frequency). Less frequently reported were quality of life, patient satisfaction, self-care, and healthcare utilization. Most care management modalities were carved out from primary care. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant but trivial reduction of HbA1c (weighted difference in means -0.21%, 95% confidence interval -0.40 to -0.03, p < .03) and LDL-cholesterol (weighted difference in means -3.38 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval -6.27 to -0.49, p < .02). Most care management programs for patients with type 2 diabetes are 'carved-out', accomplish limited effects on metabolic outcomes, and have unknown effects on patient important outcomes. Comparative effectiveness research of different models of care management is needed to inform the design of medical homes for patients with chronic conditions.
    BMC Health Services Research 03/2012; 12:72. · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Printed educational materials for clinician education are one of the most commonly used approaches for quality improvement. The objective of this pragmatic cluster randomized trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational toolkit focusing on cardiovascular disease screening and risk reduction in people with diabetes. All 933,789 people aged ≥40 years with diagnosed diabetes in Ontario, Canada were studied using population-level administrative databases, with additional clinical outcome data collected from a random sample of 1,592 high risk patients. Family practices were randomly assigned to receive the educational toolkit in June 2009 (intervention group) or May 2010 (control group). The primary outcome in the administrative data study, death or non-fatal myocardial infarction, occurred in 11,736 (2.5%) patients in the intervention group and 11,536 (2.5%) in the control group (p = 0.77). The primary outcome in the clinical data study, use of a statin, occurred in 700 (88.1%) patients in the intervention group and 725 (90.1%) in the control group (p = 0.26). Pre-specified secondary outcomes, including other clinical events, processes of care, and measures of risk factor control, were also not improved by the intervention. A limitation is the high baseline rate of statin prescribing in this population. The educational toolkit did not improve quality of care or cardiovascular outcomes in a population with diabetes. Despite being relatively easy and inexpensive to implement, printed educational materials were not effective. The study highlights the need for a rigorous and scientifically based approach to the development, dissemination, and evaluation of quality improvement interventions. http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411865 and NCT01026688 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
    PLoS Medicine 02/2014; 11(2):e1001588. · 15.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    BMJ quality & safety 07/2012; 21(11):891-3. · 2.39 Impact Factor