Kathleen Campbell1, Paul S Carbone2, Diane Liu2, Carole H Stipelman2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah kathleen.campbell@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Universal screening for autism promotes early evidence-based treatment. However, many children are not screened, and screened children are often not referred for autism evaluation. METHODS: We implemented process changes in 3 phases: phase 1, changing the screening instrument and adding decision support; phase 2, adding automatic reminders; and phase 3, adding a referral option for autism evaluations in primary care. We analyzed the proportion of visits with autism screening at 2 intervention clinics before and after implementation of process changes versus 27 community clinics (which received only automatic reminders in phase 2) with χ2 test and interrupted time series. We evaluated changes in referral for autism evaluation by calculating the rate ratio for referral. RESULTS: In 12 233 visits over 2 years (baseline and phased improvements), autism screening increased by 52% in intervention clinics (58.6%-88.8%; P < .001) and 21% in community clinics (43.4%-52.4%; P < .001). In phase 1, interrupted time series trend for screening in intervention clinics increased by 2% per week (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1% to 2.9%) and did not increase in community clinics. In phase 2, screening in the community clinics increased by 0.46% per week (95% CI: 0.03% to 0.89%). In phase 3, the intervention clinic providers referred patients for diagnostic evaluation 3.4 times more frequently (95% CI: 2.0 to 5.8) than at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: We improved autism screening and referrals by changing the screening instrument, adding decision support, using automatic reminders, and offering autism evaluation in primary care in intervention clinics. Automatic reminders alone improved screening in community clinics.
BACKGROUND: Universal screening for autism promotes early evidence-based treatment. However, many children are not screened, and screened children are often not referred for autism evaluation. METHODS: We implemented process changes in 3 phases: phase 1, changing the screening instrument and adding decision support; phase 2, adding automatic reminders; and phase 3, adding a referral option for autism evaluations in primary care. We analyzed the proportion of visits with autism screening at 2 intervention clinics before and after implementation of process changes versus 27 community clinics (which received only automatic reminders in phase 2) with χ2 test and interrupted time series. We evaluated changes in referral for autism evaluation by calculating the rate ratio for referral. RESULTS: In 12 233 visits over 2 years (baseline and phased improvements), autism screening increased by 52% in intervention clinics (58.6%-88.8%; P < .001) and 21% in community clinics (43.4%-52.4%; P < .001). In phase 1, interrupted time series trend for screening in intervention clinics increased by 2% per week (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1% to 2.9%) and did not increase in community clinics. In phase 2, screening in the community clinics increased by 0.46% per week (95% CI: 0.03% to 0.89%). In phase 3, the intervention clinic providers referred patients for diagnostic evaluation 3.4 times more frequently (95% CI: 2.0 to 5.8) than at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: We improved autism screening and referrals by changing the screening instrument, adding decision support, using automatic reminders, and offering autism evaluation in primary care in intervention clinics. Automatic reminders alone improved screening in community clinics.
Authors: Whitney Guthrie; Kate Wallis; Amanda Bennett; Elizabeth Brooks; Jesse Dudley; Marsha Gerdes; Juhi Pandey; Susan E Levy; Robert T Schultz; Judith S Miller Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Louisa A Salisbury; Jonathan D Nyce; Charles D Hannum; R Christopher Sheldrick; Ellen C Perrin Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.225