PURPOSE: Guideline implementation in primary care has proven difficult. Although external assistance through performance feedback, academic detailing, practice facilitation (PF), and learning collaboratives seems to help, the best combination of interventions has not been determined. METHODS: In a cluster randomized trial, we compared the independent and combined effectiveness of PF and local learning collaboratives (LLCs), combined with performance feedback and academic detailing, with performance feedback and academic detailing alone on implementation of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Asthma Guidelines. The study was conducted in 3 primary care practice-based research networks. Medical records of patients with asthma seen during pre- and postintervention periods were abstracted to determine adherence to 6 guideline recommendations. McNemar's test and multivariate modeling were used to evaluate the impact of the interventions. RESULTS: Across 43 practices, 1,016 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, adherence to all 6 recommendations increased (P ≤.002). Examination of improvement by study arm in unadjusted analyses showed that practices in the control arm significantly improved adherence to 2 of 6 recommendations, whereas practices in the PF arm improved in 3, practices in the LLCs improved in 4, and practices in the PF + LLC arm improved in 5 of 6 recommendations. In multivariate modeling, PF practices significantly improved assessment of asthma severity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% CI, 1.7-3.8) and assessment of asthma level of control (OR = 2.3, 95% CI, 1.5-3.5) compared with control practices. Practices assigned to LLCs did not improve significantly more than control practices for any recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of PF to performance feedback and academic detailing was helpful to practices attempting to improve adherence to asthma guidelines.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Guideline implementation in primary care has proven difficult. Although external assistance through performance feedback, academic detailing, practice facilitation (PF), and learning collaboratives seems to help, the best combination of interventions has not been determined. METHODS: In a cluster randomized trial, we compared the independent and combined effectiveness of PF and local learning collaboratives (LLCs), combined with performance feedback and academic detailing, with performance feedback and academic detailing alone on implementation of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Asthma Guidelines. The study was conducted in 3 primary care practice-based research networks. Medical records of patients with asthma seen during pre- and postintervention periods were abstracted to determine adherence to 6 guideline recommendations. McNemar's test and multivariate modeling were used to evaluate the impact of the interventions. RESULTS: Across 43 practices, 1,016 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, adherence to all 6 recommendations increased (P ≤.002). Examination of improvement by study arm in unadjusted analyses showed that practices in the control arm significantly improved adherence to 2 of 6 recommendations, whereas practices in the PF arm improved in 3, practices in the LLCs improved in 4, and practices in the PF + LLC arm improved in 5 of 6 recommendations. In multivariate modeling, PF practices significantly improved assessment of asthma severity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% CI, 1.7-3.8) and assessment of asthma level of control (OR = 2.3, 95% CI, 1.5-3.5) compared with control practices. Practices assigned to LLCs did not improve significantly more than control practices for any recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of PF to performance feedback and academic detailing was helpful to practices attempting to improve adherence to asthma guidelines.
Entities:
Keywords:
asthma; practice facilitation; practice guidelines as topic; practice-based research network; primary health care; quality improvement
Authors: Steven Ornstein; Paul J Nietert; Ruth G Jenkins; Andrea M Wessell; Lynne S Nemeth; Heather L Rose Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2008-07
Authors: Cheryl B Aspy; James W Mold; David M Thompson; Richard D Blondell; Patti S Landers; Kathryn E Reilly; Linda Wright-Eakers Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: C Thompson; A L Kinmonth; L Stevens; R C Peveler; A Stevens; K J Ostler; R M Pickering; N G Baker; A Henson; J Preece; D Cooper; M J Campbell Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-01-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gregory B Diette; Cecilia M Patino; Barry Merriman; Laura Paulin; Kristin Riekert; Sande Okelo; Kathy Thompson; Jerry A Krishnan; Ruth Quartey; Deanna Perez-Williams; Cynthia Rand Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-07-09
Authors: Kimberly Campbell-Voytal; Jeanette M Daly; Zsolt J Nagykaldi; Cheryl B Aspy; Rowena J Dolor; Lyle J Fagnan; Barcey T Levy; Hannah L Palac; LeAnn Michaels; V Beth Patterson; Miria Kano; Paul D Smith; Andrew L Sussman; Robert Williams; Pamela Sterling; Maeve O'Beirne; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 4.689
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: Samuel Cykert; Thomas C Keyserling; Michael Pignone; Darren DeWalt; Bryan J Weiner; Justin G Trogdon; Thomas Wroth; Jacqueline Halladay; Monique Mackey; Jason Fine; Jung In Kim; Crystal Cene Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Barbara P Yawn; Peter C Wollan; Matthew A Rank; Susan L Bertram; Young Juhn; Wilson Pace Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Elizabeth H Connors; Mills Smith-Millman; Jill H Bohnenkamp; Taneisha Carter; Nancy Lever; Sharon A Hoover Journal: School Ment Health Date: 2020-05-06