Assisting Primary Care Practices in Using Office Systems to Promote Early Childhood Development

Are quality improvement collaboratives effective? A systematic review

Background

Quality improvement collaboratives (QIC) have proliferated internationally, but there is little empirical evidence for their effectiveness.

Method

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library databases from January 1995 to December 2014. Studies were included if they met the criteria for a QIC intervention and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) minimum study design characteristics for inclusion in a review. We assessed study bias using the EPOC checklist and the quality of the reported intervention using a subset of SQUIRE 1.0 standards.

Results

Of the 220 studies meeting QIC criteria, 64 met EPOC study design standards for inclusion. There were 10 cluster randomised controlled trials, 24 controlled before-after studies and 30 interrupted time series studies. QICs encompassed a broad range of clinical settings, topics and populations ranging from neonates to the elderly. Few reports fully described QIC implementation and methods, intensity of activities, degree of site engagement and important contextual factors. By care setting, an improvement was reported for one or more of the study’s primary effect measures in 83% of the studies (32/39 (82%) hospital based, 17/20 (85%) ambulatory care, 3/4 nursing home and a sole ambulance QIC). Eight studies described persistence of the intervention effect 6 months to 2 years after the end of the collaborative. Collaboratives reporting success generally addressed relatively straightforward aspects of care, had a strong evidence base and noted a clear evidence-practice gap in an accepted clinical pathway or guideline.

Conclusions

QICs have been adopted widely as an approach to shared learning and improvement in healthcare. Overall, the QICs included in this review reported significant improvements in targeted clinical processes and patient outcomes. These reports are encouraging, but most be interpreted cautiously since fewer than a third met established quality and reporting criteria, and publication bias is likely.

Preventive healthcare for young children: A systematic review of interventions in primary care

High rates of preventable health problems amongst children in economically developed countries have prompted governments to seek pathways for early intervention. We systematically reviewed the literature to discover what primary care-targeted interventions increased preventive healthcare (e.g. review child development, growth, vision screening, social-emotional health) for preschool children, excluding vaccinations. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched for published intervention studies, between years 2000 and 2014, which reflected preventive health activities for preschool children, delivered by health practitioners. Analysis included an assessment of study quality and the primary outcome measures employed. Of the 743 titles retrieved, 29 individual studies were selected, all originating from the United States. Twenty-four studies employed complex, multifaceted interventions and only two were rated high quality. Twelve studies addressed childhood overweight and 11 targeted general health and development. Most interventions reported outcomes that increased rates of screening, recording and recognition of health risks. Only six studies followed up children post-intervention, noting low referral rates by health practitioners and poor follow-through by parents and no study demonstrated clear health benefits for children. Preliminary evidence suggests that multi-component interventions, that combine training of health practitioners and office staff with modification of the physical environment and/or practice support, may be more effective than single component interventions. Quality Improvement interventions have been extensively replicated but their success may have relied on factors beyond the confines of individual or practice-led behaviour. This research reinforces the need for high quality studies of pediatric health assessments with the inclusion of clinical end-points.

An ontological model of the practice transformation process

Patient-centered medical home is defined as an approach for providing comprehensive primary care that facilitates partnerships between individual patients and their personal providers. The current state of the practice transformation process is ad hoc and no methodological basis exists for transforming a practice into a patient-centered medical home. Practices and hospitals somehow accomplish the transformation and send the transformation information to a certification agency, such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance, completely ignoring the development and maintenance of the processes that keep the medical home concept alive. Many recent studies point out that such a transformation is hard as it requires an ambitious whole-practice reengineering and redesign. As a result, the practices suffer change fatigue in getting the transformation done. In this paper, we focus on the complexities of the practice transformation process and present a robust ontological model for practice transformation. The objective of the model is to create an understanding of the practice transformation process in terms of key process areas and their activities. We describe how our ontology captures the knowledge of the practice transformation process, elicited from domain experts, and also discuss how, in the future, that knowledge could be diffused across stakeholders in a healthcare organization. Our research is the first effort in practice transformation process modeling. To build an ontological model for practice transformation, we adopt the Methontology approach. Based on the literature, we first identify the key process areas essential for a practice transformation process to achieve certification status. Next, we develop the practice transformation ontology by creating key activities and precedence relationships among the key process areas using process maturity concepts. At each step, we employ a panel of domain experts to verify the intermediate representations of the ontology. Finally, we implement a prototype of the practice transformation ontology using Protégé.

Improving delivery of Bright Futures preventive services at the 9- and 24-month well child visit

OBJECTIVES

To determine if clinicians and staff from 21 diverse primary care practice settings could implement the 2008 Bright Futures Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, 3rd edition recommendations, at the 9- and 24-month preventive services visits.

METHODS

Twenty-two practice settings from 15 states were selected from 51 applicants to participate in the Preventive Services Improvement Project (PreSIP). Practices participated in a 9-month modified Breakthrough Series Collaborative from January to November 2011. Outcome measures reflect whether the 17 components of Bright Futures recommendations were performed at the 9- and 24-month visits for at least 85% of visits. Additional measures identified which office systems were in place before and after the collaborative.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increase for all 17 measures. Overall participating practices achieved an 85% completion rate for the preventive services measures except for discussion of parental strengths, which was reported in 70% of the charts. The preventive services score, a summary score for all the chart audit measures, increased significantly for both the 9-month (7 measures) and 24-month visits (8 measures).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians and staff from various practice settings were able to implement the majority of the Bright Futures recommended preventive services at the 9- and 24-month visits at a high level after participation in a 9-month modified Breakthrough Series collaborative.

The national improvement partnership network: state-based partnerships that improve primary care quality

Improvement partnerships (IPs) are a model for collaboration among public and private organizations that share interests in improving child health and the quality of health care delivered to children. Their partners typically include state public health and Medicaid agencies, the local chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and an academic health care organization or children's hospital. Most IPs also engage other partners, including a variety of public, private, and professional organizations and individuals. IPs lead and support measurement-based, systems-focused quality improvement (QI) efforts that primarily target primary care practices that care for children. Their projects are most often conducted as learning collaboratives that involve a team from each of 8 to 15 participating practices over 9 to 12 months. The improvement teams typically include a clinician, office manager, clinical staff (nurses or medical assistants), and, for some projects, a parent; the IPs provide the staff and local infrastructure. The projects target clinical topics, chosen because of their importance to public health, local clinicians, and funding agencies, including asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, developmental screening, obesity, mental health, medical home implementation, and several others. Over the past 13 years, 19 states have developed (and 5 are exploring developing) IPs. These organizations share similar aims and methods but differ substantially in leadership, structure, funding, and longevity. Their projects generally engage pediatric and family medicine practices ranging from solo private practices to community health centers to large corporate practices. The practices learn about the project topic and about QI, develop specific improvement strategies and aims that align with the project aims, perform iterative measures to evaluate and guide their improvements, and implement systems and processes to support and sustain those improvements. Since 2008, IPs have offered credit toward Part 4 of Maintenance of Certification for participants in some of their projects. To date, IPs have focused on achieving improvements in care delivery through individual projects. Rigorous measurement and evaluation of their efforts and impact will be essential to understanding, spreading, and sustaining state/regional child health care QI programs. We describe the origins, evolution to date, and hopes for the future of these partnerships and the National Improvement Partnership Network (NIPN), which was established to support existing and nurture new IPs.

Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review

CONTEXT

In response to national efforts to improve quality of care, policymakers and health care leaders have increasingly turned to quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) as an efficient approach to improving provider practices and patient outcomes through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. This article presents findings from a systematic review of the literature on QICs, focusing on the identification of common components of QICs in health care and exploring, when possible, relations between QIC components and outcomes at the patient or provider level.

METHODS

A systematic search of five major health care databases generated 294 unique articles, twenty-four of which met our criteria for inclusion in our final analysis. These articles pertained to either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups, and they reported the findings from twenty different studies of QICs in health care. We coded the articles to identify the components reported for each collaborative.

FINDINGS

We found fourteen crosscutting components as common ingredients in health care QICs (e.g., in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in QI methods). The collaboratives reported included, on average, six to seven of these components. The most common were in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, multidisciplinary QI teams, and data collection for QI. The outcomes data from these studies indicate the greatest impact of QICs at the provider level; patient-level findings were less robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting on specific components of the collaborative was imprecise across articles, rendering it impossible to identify active QIC ingredients linked to improved care. Although QICs appear to have some promise in improving the process of care, there is great need for further controlled research examining the core components of these collaboratives related to patient- and provider-level outcomes.

Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review

CONTEXT

In response to national efforts to improve quality of care, policymakers and health care leaders have increasingly turned to quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) as an efficient approach to improving provider practices and patient outcomes through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. This article presents findings from a systematic review of the literature on QICs, focusing on the identification of common components of QICs in health care and exploring, when possible, relations between QIC components and outcomes at the patient or provider level.

METHODS

A systematic search of five major health care databases generated 294 unique articles, twenty-four of which met our criteria for inclusion in our final analysis. These articles pertained to either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups, and they reported the findings from twenty different studies of QICs in health care. We coded the articles to identify the components reported for each collaborative.

FINDINGS

We found fourteen crosscutting components as common ingredients in health care QICs (e.g., in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in QI methods). The collaboratives reported included, on average, six to seven of these components. The most common were in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, multidisciplinary QI teams, and data collection for QI. The outcomes data from these studies indicate the greatest impact of QICs at the provider level; patient-level findings were less robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting on specific components of the collaborative was imprecise across articles, rendering it impossible to identify active QIC ingredients linked to improved care. Although QICs appear to have some promise in improving the process of care, there is great need for further controlled research examining the core components of these collaboratives related to patient- and provider-level outcomes.

ImproveCareNow: The development of a pediatric inflammatory bowel disease improvement network

There is significant variation in diagnostic testing and treatment for inflammatory bowel disease. Quality improvement science methods can help address unwarranted variations in care and outcomes.

METHODS

The ImproveCareNow Network was established under the sponsorship of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the American Board of Pediatrics as a prototype for a model of improving subspecialty care that included three components: 1) creating enduring multicenter collaborative networks of pediatric subspecialists, 2) sharing of performance data collected in patient registries, and 3) training in quality improvement. The network began with a focus on improving initial diagnostic testing and evaluation, the classification of the severity and extent of disease, the detection and treatment of inadequate nutrition and growth, and the appropriate dosing of immunomodulator medications. Changes are based on an evidence-based model of chronic illness care involving the use of patient registries for population management, previsit planning, decision support, promoting self-management, and auditing of care processes.

RESULTS

Currently, patients are being enrolled at 23 sites. Through 2009, data have been analyzed on over 2500 patients from over 7500 visits. Initial results suggest improvements in both care processes (e.g., appropriate medication dosing and completion of a classification bundle that includes the patient's diagnosis, disease activity, distribution and phenotype, growth status, and nutrition status) and outcomes (e.g., the percentage of patients in remission).

CONCLUSIONS

These improvements suggest that practice sites are learning how to apply quality improvement methods to improve the care of patients.

An update on assessing development in the pediatric office: has anything changed after two policy statements?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine parental reports of receiving a child developmental assessment (DA), and the child, family, and type of health care setting characteristics and well-child care processes associated with receiving this aspect of preventive developmental care.

METHODS

The 2007 National Survey of Children's Health was used to study 16 223 children, aged 10 months to 4 years, who received a DA with a structured questionnaire from their primary care provider in the previous 12 months. Data were adjusted for child characteristics, family socioeconomic factors, type of health care setting, and processes of care.

RESULTS

Few children were assessed for developmental delays by using developmental questionnaires (28%). A greater percentage of parents of children with public insurance reported receiving a developmental questionnaire compared with parents of children who were uninsured or privately insured (32% vs 26% and 25%, respectively; P = .02). The adjusted odds of receiving a developmental questionnaire were higher for children with public insurance than private insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.73), higher for children whose usual place of care was a clinic or health center than a doctor's office (OR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.07-1.74), and higher for children reporting adequate family-centered care (OR 1.41, 95% CI, 1.14-1.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Parental receipt of developmental questionnaires is low and varies by type of insurance, type of place for usual source of care, and adequacy of family-centered care. There is room for improvement in the provision of developmental questionnaires and, our results suggest, areas for continuing research to understand variations in DA practices.

How to scale up primary care transformation: what we know and what we need to know?

Becoming a medical home is a radical change, requiring both a new mental model for primary care and the skills and resources to accomplish it. Although numerous reports indicate practice change is feasible--particularly with technical support and either insulation from or alignment with financial incentives--sustained transformation appears difficult. We identified the following critical success factors: leadership, financial resources, personal and organizational relationships, engagement with patients and families, competence in management, improvement methods and coaching, health information technology properly applied, care coordination support, and staff development. Each factor raises researchable questions about what policies can facilitate achieving success so that transformation becomes mainstream rather than the province of the innovative few.

Implementing developmental screening and referrals: lessons learned from a national project

OBJECTIVES

To assess the degree to which a national sample of pediatric practices could implement American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for developmental screening and referrals, and to identify factors that contributed to the successes and shortcomings of these efforts.

BACKGROUND

In 2006, the AAP released a policy statement on developmental surveillance and screening that included an algorithm to aid practices in implementation. Simultaneously, the AAP launched a 9-month pilot project in which 17 diverse practices sought to implement the policy statement's recommendations.

METHODS

Quantitative data from chart reviews were used to calculate rates of screening and referral. Qualitative data on practices' implementation efforts were collected through semistructured telephone interviews and inductively analyzed to generate key themes.

RESULTS

Nearly all practices selected parent-completed screening instruments. Instrument selection was frequently driven by concerns regarding clinic flow. At the project's conclusion, practices reported screening more than 85% of patients presenting at recommended screening ages. They achieved this by dividing responsibilities among staff and actively monitoring implementation. Despite these efforts, many practices struggled during busy periods and times of staff turnover. Most practices were unable or unwilling to adhere to 3 specific AAP recommendations: to implement a 30-month visit; to administer a screen after surveillance suggested concern; and to submit simultaneous referrals both to medical subspecialists and local early-intervention programs. Overall, practices reported referring only 61% of children with failed screens. Many practices also struggled to track their referrals. Those that did found that many families did not follow through with recommended referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

A diverse sample of practices successfully implemented developmental screening as recommended by the AAP. Practices were less successful in placing referrals and tracking those referrals. More attention needs to be paid to the referral process, and many practices may require separate implementation systems for screening and referrals.

Designing a large-scale multilevel improvement initiative: the improving performance in practice program

Improving Performance in Practice (IPIP) is a large system intervention designed to align efforts and motivate the creation of a tiered system of improvement at the national, state, practice, and patient levels, assisting primary-care physicians and their practice teams to assess and measurably improve the quality of care for chronic illness and preventive services using a common approach across specialties. The long-term goal of IPIP is to create an ongoing, sustained system across multiple levels of the health care system to accelerate improvement. IPIP core program components include alignment of leadership and leadership accountability, promotion of partnerships to promote health care quality, development of attractive incentives and motivators, regular measurement and transparent sharing of performance data, participation in organized quality improvement efforts using a standardized model, development of enduring collaborative improvement networks, and practice-level support. A prototype of the program was tested in 2 states from March 2006 to February 2008. In 2008, IPIP began to spread to 5 additional states. IPIP uses the leadership of the medical profession to align efforts to achieve large-scale change and to catalyze the development of an infrastructure capable of testing, evaluating, and disseminating effective approaches directly into practice.

What do families want from well-child care? Including parents in the rethinking discussion

OBJECTIVE

The content and systems surrounding well-child care have received increasing attention, and some propose that it is time to rethink both the delivery structure and central themes of well-child visits. A key, but largely missing perspective in these discussions has been that of parents, whose experiences and expectations are central to developing approaches responsive to family needs. In this study, we asked parents to address several core issues: why they attend well-child visits; aspects of well-child care that they find most valuable; and changes that could enhance the well-child care experience.

METHODS

Twenty focus groups with parents (n = 131 [91% mothers]) were conducted by using a semistructured interview guide. Verbatim transcripts were coded for key words, concepts, and recurrent themes.

RESULTS

Primary reasons for visit attendance included reassurance (child and parent) and an opportunity to discuss parent priorities. Families valued an ongoing relationship with 1 clinician who was child-focused and respected parental expertise, but continuity of provider was not an option for all participants. Suggestions for enhancement included improved promotion of well-child care, greater emphasis on development and behavior, and expanded options for information exchange.

CONCLUSIONS

As the consumers of care, it is critical to understand parents' needs and desires as changes to the content and process of well-child care are considered. Taking into account the multifaceted perspectives of families suggests both challenges and opportunities for the rethinking discussion.