OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of an intervention that combined continuing medical education with process improvement methods to implement "office systems" to improve the delivery of preventive care to children. DESIGN: Randomised trial in primary care practices. SETTING:Private paediatric and family practices in two areas of North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 44 practices allocated to intervention and control groups. INTERVENTION: Practice based continuing medical education in which project staff coached practice staff in reviewing performance and identifying, testing, and implementing new care processes (such as chart screening) to improve delivery of preventive care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change over time in the proportion of children aged 24-30 months who received age appropriate care for four preventive services (immunisations, and screening for tuberculosis, anaemia, and lead). RESULTS: The proportion of children per practice with age appropriate delivery of all four preventive services changed, after a one year period of implementation, from 7% to 34% in intervention practices and from 9% to 10% in control practices. After adjustment for baseline differences in the groups, the change in the prevalence of all four services between the beginning and the end of the study was 4.6-fold greater (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 13.2) in intervention practices. Thirty months after baseline, the proportion of children who were up to date with preventive services was higher in intervention than in control practices; results for screening for tuberculosis (54% v 32%), lead (68% v 30%), and anaemia (79% v 71%) were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Continuing education combined with process improvement methods is effective in increasing rates of delivery of preventive care to children.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of an intervention that combined continuing medical education with process improvement methods to implement "office systems" to improve the delivery of preventive care to children. DESIGN: Randomised trial in primary care practices. SETTING: Private paediatric and family practices in two areas of North Carolina. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 44 practices allocated to intervention and control groups. INTERVENTION: Practice based continuing medical education in which project staff coached practice staff in reviewing performance and identifying, testing, and implementing new care processes (such as chart screening) to improve delivery of preventive care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change over time in the proportion of children aged 24-30 months who received age appropriate care for four preventive services (immunisations, and screening for tuberculosis, anaemia, and lead). RESULTS: The proportion of children per practice with age appropriate delivery of all four preventive services changed, after a one year period of implementation, from 7% to 34% in intervention practices and from 9% to 10% in control practices. After adjustment for baseline differences in the groups, the change in the prevalence of all four services between the beginning and the end of the study was 4.6-fold greater (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 13.2) in intervention practices. Thirty months after baseline, the proportion of children who were up to date with preventive services was higher in intervention than in control practices; results for screening for tuberculosis (54% v 32%), lead (68% v 30%), and anaemia (79% v 71%) were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Continuing education combined with process improvement methods is effective in increasing rates of delivery of preventive care to children.
Authors: Dave Davis; Mike Evans; Alex Jadad; Laure Perrier; Darlyne Rath; David Ryan; Gary Sibbald; Sharon Straus; Susan Rappolt; Maria Wowk; Merrick Zwarenstein Journal: BMJ Date: 2003-07-05
Authors: M A Goodwin; S J Zyzanski; S Zronek; M Ruhe; S M Weyer; N Konrad; D Esola; K C Stange Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Evelyn Ly; K Michael Peddecord; Wendy Wang; Kimberly Ralston; Mark H Sawyer Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Lisa K Christman; Paul B Jacobsen; Jennifer Schroeder; Rania Abdulla; Seft Hunter Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sharon B Meropol; Nicholas K Schiltz; Abdus Sattar; Kurt C Stange; Ann H Nevar; Christina Davey; Gerald A Ferretti; Diana E Howell; Robyn Strosaker; Pamela Vavrek; Samantha Bader; Mary C Ruhe; Leona Cuttler Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jeanne Van Cleave; Karen A Kuhlthau; Sheila Bloom; Paul W Newacheck; Alixandra A Nozzolillo; Charles J Homer; James M Perrin Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 3.107