James W Mold1, Cheryl A Aspy, Zsolt Nagykaldi. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA. james-mold@ouhsc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has found that wellness visits, recall and reminder systems, and standing orders are associated with higher rates of delivery of preventive services in primary care practices. However, there is little information about how to help practices implement these processes. METHODS: A 6-month randomized, controlled trial comparing a multicomponent quality improvement intervention to feedback and benchmarking. One clinician/nurse team from each of 24 practices was randomly assigned to one of 2 study arms. Intervention practices received performance feedback, peer-to-peer education (academic detailing), a practice facilitator, and computer (information technology) support. Implementation of the 3 targeted processes was determined by a blinded 3-clinician panel that reviewed transcribed clinician interviews before and after intervention using performance definitions. Rates of delivery of selected preventive services were determined by chart audit. RESULTS: Intervention practices implemented more of the processes than control practices overall (P = .003), for adults (P = .05), and for children (P = .04). They were also more likely to implement at least one of the processes for children (P = .04) and to implement standing orders for either children or adults (P = .02). Mammography rates increased significantly. Neither clinician and practice characteristics nor clinician readiness to change predicted implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent implementation strategy consisting of feedback, benchmarking, academic detailing, facilitation, and IT support increased implementation of evidence-based processes for delivering preventive services to a greater extent than performance feedback and benchmarking alone.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous research has found that wellness visits, recall and reminder systems, and standing orders are associated with higher rates of delivery of preventive services in primary care practices. However, there is little information about how to help practices implement these processes. METHODS: A 6-month randomized, controlled trial comparing a multicomponent quality improvement intervention to feedback and benchmarking. One clinician/nurse team from each of 24 practices was randomly assigned to one of 2 study arms. Intervention practices received performance feedback, peer-to-peer education (academic detailing), a practice facilitator, and computer (information technology) support. Implementation of the 3 targeted processes was determined by a blinded 3-clinician panel that reviewed transcribed clinician interviews before and after intervention using performance definitions. Rates of delivery of selected preventive services were determined by chart audit. RESULTS: Intervention practices implemented more of the processes than control practices overall (P = .003), for adults (P = .05), and for children (P = .04). They were also more likely to implement at least one of the processes for children (P = .04) and to implement standing orders for either children or adults (P = .02). Mammography rates increased significantly. Neither clinician and practice characteristics nor clinician readiness to change predicted implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent implementation strategy consisting of feedback, benchmarking, academic detailing, facilitation, and IT support increased implementation of evidence-based processes for delivering preventive services to a greater extent than performance feedback and benchmarking alone.
Authors: Robert L Phillips; Arthur Kaufman; James W Mold; Kevin Grumbach; Molly Vetter-Smith; Anne Berry; Bridget Teevan Burke Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lloyd Michener; Jennifer Cook; Syed M Ahmed; Michael A Yonas; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Andrew Wang; Teresa Pollack; Lauren A Kadziel; Samuel M Ross; Megan McHugh; Neil Jordan; Abel N Kho Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Steven M Ornstein; Ruth G Jenkins; Cara B Litvin; Andrea M Wessell; Paul J Nietert Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Jul-Aug 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: Jennifer S McCall-Hosenfeld; Carol S Weisman; Amanda N Perry; Marianne M Hillemeier; Cynthia H Chuang Journal: J Interpers Violence Date: 2014-01-14
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jyoti Kotecha; Han Han; Michael Green; Grant Russell; Mary I Martin; Richard Birtwhistle Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 2.497