OBJECTIVE: To test three methods of introducing health charts into the medical records of six family medicine units. DESIGN: Quasi-experiment. PARTICIPANTS: The staff physicians and family medicine residents in all six units and the nurses in two units. INTERVENTIONS: Group 1 (minimal intervention): health charts, a user's guide and one training session. Group 2 (intermediate intervention): same intervention as for group 1 plus two feedback sessions at 3 and 6 months. Group 3 (maximum intervention): same intervention as for group 2 plus promotion of the team concept (nurses were included). The intervention phase lasted from September 1987 to August 1988. OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency with which the health charts were used, the item scores of each preventive care activity and the overall unit scores. Data were gathered through chart audits at baseline and at the end of the intervention phase. RESULTS: The frequency with which the health charts were used varied from 3.9% to 26.9%. The greatest increases in item scores were observed in the use of mammography (20.0%), counselling on lifestyle (19.4%) and breast examination (17.2%). Although the overall improvement in the unit scores was statistically significant (p less than 0.05) the hypothesis of an increasing gradient of effect across the three intervention groups could not be tested because of the variation in scores across the units. CONCLUSION: Health charts and other similar tools are useful; however, they are not sufficient to change practice behaviours. The support of a "champion" on the health care team might well be a determining factor of success for the delivery of preventive services in primary care practice.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test three methods of introducing health charts into the medical records of six family medicine units. DESIGN: Quasi-experiment. PARTICIPANTS: The staff physicians and family medicine residents in all six units and the nurses in two units. INTERVENTIONS: Group 1 (minimal intervention): health charts, a user's guide and one training session. Group 2 (intermediate intervention): same intervention as for group 1 plus two feedback sessions at 3 and 6 months. Group 3 (maximum intervention): same intervention as for group 2 plus promotion of the team concept (nurses were included). The intervention phase lasted from September 1987 to August 1988. OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency with which the health charts were used, the item scores of each preventive care activity and the overall unit scores. Data were gathered through chart audits at baseline and at the end of the intervention phase. RESULTS: The frequency with which the health charts were used varied from 3.9% to 26.9%. The greatest increases in item scores were observed in the use of mammography (20.0%), counselling on lifestyle (19.4%) and breast examination (17.2%). Although the overall improvement in the unit scores was statistically significant (p less than 0.05) the hypothesis of an increasing gradient of effect across the three intervention groups could not be tested because of the variation in scores across the units. CONCLUSION: Health charts and other similar tools are useful; however, they are not sufficient to change practice behaviours. The support of a "champion" on the health care team might well be a determining factor of success for the delivery of preventive services in primary care practice.