Cost-Effectiveness of a Quality Improvement Collaborative Focusing on Patients With Diabetes

Exploring collaborative practices for chronic disease management: Results from a new survey to primary care physicians and specialists in Italy

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent a global health challenge that requires coordination across various healthcare settings.Purpose: This study in Tuscany, Italy, investigates professional integration between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists in NCD management.Research Design: A self-developed survey was used to explore professionals' views on clinical and organizational collaboration, accountability, and service improvement.Study Sample: The study involved primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists working in the field of NCD management.Data Collection and/or Analysis: The survey gathered data on professionals' perceptions of clinical protocol use, care integration effectiveness, and other aspects of collaboration in NCD management.Results: Findings reveal disparities between PCPs and specialists in clinical protocol use and care integration effectiveness.Conclusions: The study emphasizes the need to reduce bureaucratic obstacles and enhance information sharing. Promoting peer relationships and innovative performance evaluation tools is vital for improving chronic disease management. This survey contributes valuable insights for the development of integrated care models, aiding healthcare decision-makers in enhancing chronic care system performance.

Australian general practitioners' perspectives on integrating specialist diabetes care with primary care: qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Improving the coordination and integration of health services is recognised nationally and internationally as a key strategy for improving the quality of diabetes care. The Australian Diabetes Alliance Program (DAP) is an integrated care model implemented in the Hunter New England Local Health District (HNELHD), New South Wales (NSW), in which endocrinologists and diabetes educators collaborate with primary care teams via case-conferencing, practice performance review, and education sessions. The objective of this study was to report on general practitioners' (GPs) perspectives on DAP and whether the program impacts on their skills, knowledge, and approach in delivering care to adult patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Four primary care practices with high rates of monitoring haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (> 90% of patients annually) and five practices with low rates of monitoring HbA1c levels (< 80% of patients annually) from HNELHD, NSW provided the sampling frame. A total of nine GPs were interviewed. The transcripts from the interviews were reviewed and analysed to identify emergent patterns and themes.

RESULTS

Overall, GPs were supportive of DAP. They considered that DAP resulted in significant changes in their knowledge, skills, and approach and improved the quality of diabetes care. Taking a more holistic approach to care, including assessing patients with diabetes for co-morbidities and risk factors that may impact on their future health was also noted. DAP was noted to increase the confidence levels of GPs, which enabled active involvement in the provision of diabetes care rather than referring patients for tertiary specialist care. However, some indicated the program could be time consuming and greater flexibility was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs reported DAP to benefit their knowledge, skills and approach for managing diabetes. Future research will need to investigate how to improve the intensity and flexibility of the program based on the workload of GPs to ensure long-term acceptability of the program.

The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: an integrative systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Return on Investment (ROI) is increasingly being used to evaluate financial benefits from healthcare Quality Improvement (QI). ROI is traditionally used to evaluate investment performance in the commercial field. Little is known about ROI in healthcare. The aim of this systematic review was to analyse and develop ROI as a concept and develop a ROI conceptual framework for large-scale healthcare QI programmes.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Global health, PsycInfo, EconLit, NHS EED, Web of Science, Google Scholar using ROI or returns-on-investment concepts (e.g., cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, value). We combined this terms with healthcare and QI. Included articles discussed at least three organisational QI benefits, including financial or patient benefits. We synthesised the different ways in which ROI or return-on-investment concepts were used and discussed by the QI literature; first the economically focused, then the non-economically focused QI literature. We then integrated these literatures to summarise their combined views.

RESULTS

We retrieved 10 428 articles. One hundred and two (102) articles were selected for full text screening. Of these 34 were excluded and 68 included. The included articles were QI economic, effectiveness, process, and impact evaluations as well as reports and conceptual literature. Fifteen of 68 articles were directly focused on QI programme economic outcomes. Of these, only four focused on ROI. ROI related concepts in this group included cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, ROI, cost-saving, cost-reduction, and cost-avoidance. The remaining articles mainly mentioned efficiency, productivity, value, or benefits. Financial outcomes were not the main goal of QI programmes. We found that the ROI concept in healthcare QI aligned with the concepts of value and benefit, both monetary and non-monetary.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of the reviewed literature indicates that ROI in QI is conceptualised as value or benefit as demonstrated through a combination of significant outcomes for one or more stakeholders in healthcare organisations. As such, organisations at different developmental stages can deduce benefits that are relevant and legitimate as per their contextual needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Review registration: PROSPERO; CRD42021236948.

Identifying and understanding benefits associated with return-on-investment from large-scale healthcare Quality Improvement programmes: an integrative systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

We previously developed a Quality Improvement (QI) Return-on-Investment (ROI) conceptual framework for large-scale healthcare QI programmes. We defined ROI as any monetary or non-monetary value or benefit derived from QI. We called the framework the QI-ROI conceptual framework. The current study describes the different categories of benefits covered by this framework and explores the relationships between these benefits.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Global health, PsycInfo, EconLit, NHS EED, Web of Science, Google Scholar, organisational journals, and citations, using ROI or returns-on-investment concepts (e.g., cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, value) combined with healthcare and QI. Our analysis was informed by Complexity Theory in view of the complexity of large QI programmes. We used Framework analysis to analyse the data using a preliminary ROI conceptual framework that was based on organisational obligations towards its stakeholders. Included articles discussed at least three organisational benefits towards these obligations, with at least one financial or patient benefit. We synthesized the different QI benefits discussed.

RESULTS

We retrieved 10 428 articles. One hundred and two (102) articles were selected for full text screening. Of these 34 were excluded and 68 included. Included articles were QI economic, effectiveness, process, and impact evaluations as well as conceptual literature. Based on these literatures, we reviewed and updated our QI-ROI conceptual framework from our first study. Our QI-ROI conceptual framework consists of four categories: 1) organisational performance, 2) organisational development, 3) external outcomes, and 4) unintended outcomes (positive and negative). We found that QI benefits are interlinked, and that ROI in large-scale QI is not merely an end-outcome; there are earlier benefits that matter to organisations that contribute to overall ROI. Organisations also found positive aspects of negative unintended consequences, such as learning from failed QI.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our analysis indicated that the QI-ROI conceptual framework is made-up of multi-faceted and interconnected benefits from large-scale QI programmes. One or more of these may be desirable depending on each organisation's goals and objectives, as well as stage of development. As such, it is possible for organisations to deduce incremental benefits or returns-on-investments throughout a programme lifecycle that are relevant and legitimate.

Assessment of Interprofessional Collaborative Practices and Outcomes in Adults With Diabetes and Hypertension in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP), the collaboration of health workers from different professional backgrounds with patients, families, caregivers, and communities, is central to optimal primary care. However, limited evidence exists regarding its association with patient outcomes.

Objective

To examine the association of ICP with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels among adults receiving primary care.

Data Sources

A literature search of English language journals (January 2013-2018; updated through March 2020) was conducted using MEDLINE; Embase; Ovid IPA; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials: Issue 2 of 12, February 2018; NHS Economic Evaluation Database: Issue 2 of 4, April 2015; Clarivate Analytics WOS Science Citation Index Expanded (1990-2018); EBSCOhost CINAHL Plus With Full Text (1937-2018); Elsevier Scopus; FirstSearch OAIster; AHRQ PCMH Citations Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; and HSRProj.

Study Selection

Studies needed to evaluate the association of ICP (≥3 professions) with HbA1c, SBP, or DBP levels in adults with diabetes and/or hypertension receiving primary care. A dual review was performed for screening and selection.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guideline for data abstractions and Cochrane Collaboration recommendations for bias assessment. Two dual review teams conducted independent data extraction with consensus. Data were pooled using a random-effects model for meta-analyses and forest plots constructed to report standardized mean differences (SMDs). For high heterogeneity (I2), data were stratified by baseline level and by study design.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes included HbA1c, SBP, and DBP levels as determined before data collection.

Results

A total of 3543 titles or abstracts were screened; 170 abstracts or full texts were reviewed. Of 50 articles in the systematic review, 39 (15 randomized clinical trials [RCTs], 24 non-RCTs) were included in the meta-analyses of HbA1c (n = 34), SBP (n = 25), and DBP (n = 24). The sample size ranged from 40 to 20 524, and mean age ranged from 51 to 70 years, with 0% to 100% participants being male. Varied ICP features were reported. The SMD varied by baseline HbA1c, although all SMDs significantly favored ICP (HbA1c <8, SMD = -0.13; P < .001; HbA1c ≥8  to < 9, SMD = -0.24; P = .007; and HbA1c ≥9, SMD = -0.60; P < .001). The SMD for SBP and DBP were -0.31 (95% CI, -0.46 to -0.17); P < .001 and -0.28 (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.14); P < .001, respectively, with effect sizes not associated with baseline levels. Overall I2 was greater than 80% for all outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ICP was associated with reductions in HbA1c regardless of baseline levels as well as with reduced SBP and DBP. However, the greatest reductions were found with HbA1c levels of 9 or higher. The implementation of ICP in primary care may be associated with improvements in patient outcomes in diabetes and hypertension.

Cost-effectiveness of Interventions to Manage Diabetes: Has the Evidence Changed Since 2008?

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) of interventions to manage diabetes, its complications, and comorbidities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of studies from high-income countries evaluating the CE of diabetes management interventions recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and published in English between June 2008 and July 2017. We also incorporated studies from a previous CE review from the period 1985-2008. We classified the interventions based on their strength of evidence (strong, supportive, or uncertain) and levels of CE: cost-saving (more health benefit at a lower cost), very cost-effective (≤$25,000 per life year gained [LYG] or quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), cost-effective ($25,001-$50,000 per LYG or QALY), marginally cost-effective ($50,001-$100,000 per LYG or QALY), or not cost-effective (>$100,000 per LYG or QALY). Costs were measured in 2017 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

Seventy-three new studies met our inclusion criteria. These were combined with 49 studies from the previous review to yield 122 studies over the period 1985-2017. A large majority of the ADA-recommended interventions remain cost-effective. Specifically, we found strong evidence that the following ADA-recommended interventions are cost-saving or very cost-effective: In the cost-saving category are 1) ACE inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for intensive hypertension management compared with standard hypertension management, 2) ACEI/ARB therapy to prevent chronic kidney disease and/or end-stage renal disease in people with albuminuria compared with no ACEI/ARB therapy, 3) comprehensive foot care and patient education to prevent and treat foot ulcers among those at moderate/high risk of developing foot ulcers, 4) telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening compared with office screening, and 5) bariatric surgery compared with no surgery for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²). In the very cost-effective category are 1) intensive glycemic management (targeting A1C <7%) compared with conventional glycemic management (targeting an A1C level of 8-10%) for individuals with newly diagnosed T2D, 2) multicomponent interventions (involving behavior change/education and pharmacological therapy targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, microalbuminuria, nephropathy/retinopathy, secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with aspirin) compared with usual care, 3) statin therapy compared with no statin therapy for individuals with T2D and history of cardiovascular disease, 4) diabetes self-management education and support compared with usual care, 5) T2D screening every 3 years starting at age 45 years compared with no screening, 6) integrated, patient-centered care compared with usual care, 7) smoking cessation compared with no smoking cessation, 8) daily aspirin use as primary prevention for cardiovascular complications compared with usual care, 9) self-monitoring of blood glucose three times per day compared with once per day among those using insulin, 10) intensive glycemic management compared with conventional insulin therapy for T2D among adults aged ≥50 years, and 11) collaborative care for depression compared with usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Complementing professional treatment recommendations, our systematic review provides an updated understanding of the potential value of interventions to manage diabetes and its complications and can assist clinicians and payers in prioritizing interventions and health care resources.

Costs and economic evaluations of Quality Improvement Collaboratives in healthcare: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare.

METHODS

Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases.

RESULTS

Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417.

Quality improvement initiatives in rheumatology: an integrative review of the last 5 years

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed recent quality improvement initiatives in the field of rheumatology to identify common strategies and themes leading to measurable change.

RECENT FINDINGS

Efforts to improve quality of care in rheumatology have accelerated in the last 5 years. Most studies in this area have focused on interventions to improve process measures such as increasing the collection of patient-reported outcomes and vaccination rates, but some studies have examined interventions to improve health outcomes. Increasingly, researchers are studying electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions, such as standardized templates, flowsheets, best practice alerts and order sets. EHR-based interventions were most successful when reinforced with provider education, reminders and performance feedback. Most studies also redesigned workflows, distributing tasks among clinical staff. Given the common challenges and solutions facing rheumatology clinics under new value-based payment models, there are important opportunities to accelerate quality improvement by building on the successful efforts to date. Structured quality improvement models such as the learning collaborative may help to disseminate successful initiatives across practices.

SUMMARY

Review of recent quality improvement initiatives in rheumatology demonstrated common solutions, particularly involving leveraging health IT and workflow redesign.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary care multidisciplinary Risk Assessment and Management Program for patients with diabetes mellitus (RAMP-DM) over lifetime

PURPOSE

The multidisciplinary Risk Assessment and Management Program for patients with diabetes mellitus (RAMP-DM) was found to be cost-saving in comparison with usual primary care over 5 years' follow-up. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of RAMP-DM over lifetime.

METHODS

We built a Discrete Event Simulation model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RAMP-DM over lifespan from public health service provider's perspective. Transition probabilities among disease states were extrapolated from a cohort of 17,140 propensity score matched participants in RAMP-DM and those under usual primary care over 5-year's follow-up. The mortality of patients with specific DM-related complications was estimated from a cohort of 206,238 patients with diabetes. Health preference and direct medical costs of DM patients referred to our previous studies among Chinese DM patients.

RESULTS

RAMP-DM individuals gained 0.745 QALYs and cost US$1404 less than those under usual care. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that RAMP-DM had 86.0% chance of being cost-saving compared to usual care under the assumptions and estimates used in the model. The probability of RAMP-DM being cost-effective compared to usual care would be over 99%, when the willingness to pay threshold is HK$20,000 (US$ 2564) or higher.

CONCLUSION

RAMP-DM added to usual primary care was cost-saving in managing people with diabetes over lifetime. These findings support the integration of RAMP-DM as part of routine primary care for all patients with diabetes.

An integrative systematic review of interprofessional education on diabetes

Interprofessional education (IPE) aims at enhancing the ability of healthcare professionals from different disciplines to work together effectively, improving the quality of patient care. An interprofessional approach is essential in diabetes management, but there is only limited evidence of the effects of diabetes-specific IPE. The aim of this integrative review is to gather all relevant recent data on the outcomes of IPE on diabetes management. The search in the CINAHL, Medline and PsycINFO databases resulted in 1136 potential studies. An inductive content analysis was used to synthesize the key findings of the 14 studies found to fulfill the inclusion criteria of the systematic review. Two main categories and four subcategories of findings were identified. Firstly, the achieved outcomes included individual gain (e.g., learner´s confidence and motivation to treat patients with diabetes) and external benefits (e.g., benefits for the patient). Secondly, the experiences of IPE included both challenges (e.g., competing interests of different professions) and strengths (e.g., practical approach to diabetes management). In conclusion, the findings indicate that both learners and patients with diabetes benefit from IPE on diabetes management. Educators are encouraged to adopt practical IP approaches in diabetes education. However, it is necessary to estimate the resources available. More research is needed on the cost-effectiveness, long-term effects, and patient perspective of IPE on diabetes management.

Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions Designed to Improve Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Weighted Regression Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Quality improvement (QI) interventions can improve glycemic control, but little is known about their value. We systematically reviewed economic evaluations of QI interventions for glycemic control among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used English-language studies from high-income countries that evaluated organizational changes and reported program and utilization-related costs, chosen from PubMed, EconLit, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, and WorldCat (January 2004 to August 2016). We extracted data regarding intervention, study design, change in HbA1c, time horizon, perspective, incremental net cost (studies lasting ≤3 years), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (studies lasting ≥20 years), and study quality. Weighted least-squares regression analysis was used to estimate mean changes in HbA1c and incremental net cost.

RESULTS

Of 3,646 records, 46 unique studies were eligible. Across 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HbA1c declined by 0.26% (95% CI 0.17-0.35) or 3 mmol/mol (2 to 4) relative to usual care. In 8 RCTs lasting ≤3 years, incremental net costs were $116 (95% CI -$612 to $843) per patient annually. Long-term ICERs were $100,000-$115,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in 3 RCTs, $50,000-$99,999/QALY in 1 RCT, $0-$49,999/QALY in 4 RCTs, and dominant in 1 RCT. Results were more favorable in non-RCTs. Our limitations include the fact that the studies had diverse designs and involved moderate risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverse multifaceted QI interventions that lower HbA1c appear to be a fair-to-good value relative to usual care, depending on society's willingness to pay for improvements in health.

Transferring skills in quality collaboratives focused on improving patient logistics

Background

A quality improvement collaborative, often used by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, is used to educate healthcare professionals and improve healthcare at the same time. However, no prior research has been done on the knowledge and skills healthcare professionals need to achieve improvements or the extent to which quality improvement collaboratives help enhance both knowledge and skills. Our research focused on quality improvement collaboratives aiming to improve patient logistics and tried to identify which knowledge and skills are required and to what extent these were enhanced during the QIC.

Methods

We defined skills important for logistic improvements in a three-phase Delphi study. Based on the Delphi results we made a questionnaire. We surveyed participants in a national quality improvement collaborative to assess the skills rated as 1) important, 2) available and 3) improved during the collaborative. At two sense-making meetings, experts reflected on our findings and hypothesized on how to improve (logistics) collaboratives.

Results

The Delphi study found 18 skills relevant for reducing patient access time and 21 for reducing throughput time. All skills retrieved from the Delphi study were scored as ‘important’ in the survey. Teams especially lacked soft skills connected to project and change management. Analytical skills increased the most, while more reflexive skills needed for the primary goal of the collaborative (reduce access and throughput times) increased modestly.

At two sense-making meetings, attendees suggested four improvements for a quality improvement collaborative: 1) shift the focus to project- and change management skills; 2) focus more on knowledge transfer to colleagues; 3) teach participants to adapt the taught principles to their own situations; and 4) foster intra-project reflexive learning to translate gained insights to other projects (inter-project learning).

Conclusions

Our findings seem to suggest that Quality collaboratives could benefit if more attention is paid to the transfer of ‘soft skills’ (e.g. change, project management and communication skills) and reflexive skills (e.g. adjusting logistics principles to specific situations and inter-project translation of experiences).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3051-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Citizen science applied to building healthier community environments: advancing the field through shared construct and measurement development

BACKGROUND

Physical inactivity across the lifespan remains a public health issue for many developed countries. Inactivity has contributed considerably to the pervasiveness of lifestyle diseases. Government, national and local agencies and organizations have been unable to systematically, and in a coordinated way, translate behavioral research into practice that makes a difference at a population level. One approach for mobilizing multi-level efforts to improve the environment for physical activity is to engage in a process of citizen science. Citizen Science here is defined as a participatory research approach involving members of the public working closely with research investigators to initiate and advance scientific research projects. However, there are no common measures or protocols to guide citizen science research at the local community setting.

OBJECTIVES

We describe overarching categories of constructs that can be considered when designing citizen science projects expected to yield multi-level interventions, and provide an example of the citizen science approach to promoting PA. We also recommend potential measures across different levels of impact.

DISCUSSION

Encouraging some consistency in measurement across studies will potentially accelerate the efficiency with which citizen science participatory research provides new insights into and solutions to the behaviorally-based public health issues that drive most of morbidity and mortality. The measures described in this paper abide by four fundamental principles specifically selected for inclusion in citizen science projects: feasibility, accuracy, propriety, and utility. The choice of measures will take into account the potential resources available for outcome and process evaluation. Our intent is to emphasize the importance for all citizen science participatory projects to follow an evidence-based approach and ensure that they incorporate an appropriate assessment protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

We provided the rationale for and a list of contextual factors along with specific examples of measures to encourage consistency among studies that plan to use a citizen science participatory approach. The potential of this approach to promote health and wellbeing in communities is high and we hope that we have provided the tools needed to optimally promote synergistic gains in knowledge across a range of Citizen Science participatory projects.

The Case for Diabetes Population Health Improvement: Evidence-Based Programming for Population Outcomes in Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to describe diabetes within a population health improvement framework and to review the evidence for a diabetes population health continuum of intervention approaches, including diabetes prevention and chronic and acute diabetes management, to improve clinical and economic outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have shown that compared to usual care, lifestyle interventions in prediabetes lower diabetes risk at the population-level and that group-based programs have low incremental medial cost effectiveness ratio for health systems. Effective outpatient interventions that improve diabetes control and process outcomes are multi-level, targeting the patient, provider, and healthcare system simultaneously and integrate community health workers as a liaison between the patient and community-based healthcare resources. A multi-faceted approach to diabetes management is also effective in the inpatient setting. Interventions shown to promote safe and effective glycemic control and use of evidence-based glucose management practices include provider reminder and clinical decision support systems, automated computer order entry, provider education, and organizational change. Future studies should examine the cost-effectiveness of multi-faceted outpatient and inpatient diabetes management programs to determine the best financial models for incorporating them into diabetes population health strategies.

[Introduction of capillary glycosylated haemoglobin determination in a Primary Care Health Area: Multicentre study of the evolution of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus]

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of a joint intervention that included educational components, self-assessment, and information to optimise diabetes control through the introduction of instant capillary glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) determination in Primary Care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre prospective descriptive study was carried out over 3years in 10Primary Care Centres of the Area VII Murcia East. At the end of the study there were 804 patients with type 2 diabetes (DM2). Patients were divided into 4 groups based on initial values of HbA1c, and if changes in their treatment were needed. HbA1c, body mass index, and blood pressure were monitored. A financial assessment was also performed on the impact of the implementation of a protocol to measure instant capillary RESULTS: A significant reduction was observed in HbA1c values. The initial HbA1c mean value was 7.4±1.4%, which decreased to a final value of 6.9±1.0% (P<.001). At the end of the study, 71.4% of patients included reached diabetic control objectives. In addition, the financial assessment demonstrated that the implementation of this diabetes control system led to a decrease of the 24.7% in spending on glucose strips after the first year of study in Area VII Murcia Health Service.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of capillary HbA1c determination in Primary Care has demonstrated to improve diabetes control and the efficiency of the health personnel. Furthermore, a reduction in the health costs of patients with DM2 was also shown.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

The Costs of Participating in a Diabetes Quality Improvement Collaborative: Variation Among Five Clinics

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) support rapid testing and implementation of interventions through the collective experience of participating organizations to improve care quality and reduce costs. Although QICs have been societally cost-effective in improving the care of chronic diseases, they may not be adopted by outpatient clinics if their costs are high. Diabetes QICs warrant reexamination as secular trends in the quality of diabetes care, new care guidelines for diabetes, and evolving strategies for quality improvement may have altered implementation costs.

METHODS

The costs over the first four years-from June 2009 through May 2013-of an ongoing diabetes QIC were characterized by activities and over time. The QIC, linking six clinics on Chicago's South Side, tailored interventions to minority populations and built community partnerships. Costs were calculated from clinic surveys regarding activities, labor, and purchases.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from five of the six participating clinics. Cost/diabetic patient/year ranged across clinic sites from $6 (largest clinic) to $68 (smallest clinic). Clinics spent 62%-88% of their total QIC costs on labor. The cost/diabetic patient/year changed over time from Year 1 (range across clinics, $5-$51), Year 2 ($11-$84), Year 3 ($4-$57), to Year 4 ($4-$80), with costs peaking at Year 2 for all clinics except Clinic 4, where costs peaked at Year 4.

DISCUSSION

Cost experiences of QICs in clinics were di- verse over time and setting. High per-patient costs may stem from small clinic size, a sicker patient population, and variation in personnel type used. Cost decreases over time may represent increasing organizational learning and efficiency. Sharing resources may have achieved additional cost savings. This practical information can help administrators and policy makers predict, manage, and support costs of QICs as payers increasingly seek high-value health care.

Interplay among patient empowerment and clinical and person-centered outcomes in type 2 diabetes. The BENCH-D study

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated empowerment in T2DM and identified its correlates.

METHODS

A sample of individuals self-administered the Diabetes Empowerment Scale-Short Form (DES-SF) and other 9 validated instruments (person-centered outcomes). Correlates of DES-SF were identified through univariate and multivariate analyses. For person-centered outcomes, ORs express the likelihood of being in upper quartile of DES-SF (Q4) by 5 units of the scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 2390 individuals were involved. Individuals in Q4 were younger, more often males, had higher levels of school education, lower HbA1c levels and prevalence of complications as compared to individuals in the other quartiles. The likelihood of being in Q4 was directly associated with higher selfreported self-monitoring of blood glucose (SDSCA6-SMBG) (OR=1.09; 95% CI: 1.03-1.15), higher satisfaction with diabetes treatment (GSDT) (OR=1.15; 95% CI: 1.07-1.25), perceived quality of chronic illness care and patient support (PACIC-SF) (OR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.16-1.31), and better person-centered communication (HCC-SF) (OR=1.10; 95% CI: 1.01-1.19) and inversely associated with diabetes-related distress (PAID-5) (OR=0.95; 95% CI: 0.92-0.98). Adjusted DES-SF mean scores ranged between centers from 69.8 to 93.6 (intra-class correlation=0.10; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Empowerment was associated with better glycemic control, psychosocial functioning and perceived access to person-centered chronic illness care. Practice of diabetes center plays a specific role.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

DES-SF represents a process and outcome indicator in the practice of diabetes centers.

A stepped strategy that aims at the nationwide implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme in major gynaecological surgery: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes aim at an early recovery after surgical trauma and consequently at a reduced length of hospitalisation. This paper presents the protocol for a study that focuses on large-scale implementation of the ERAS programme in major gynaecological surgery in the Netherlands. The trial will evaluate effectiveness and costs of a stepped implementation approach that is characterised by tailoring the intensity of implementation activities to the needs of organisations and local barriers for change, in comparison with the generic breakthrough strategy that is usually applied in large-scale improvement projects in the Netherlands.

Methods

All Dutch hospitals authorised to perform major abdominal surgery in gynaecological oncology patients are eligible for inclusion in this cluster randomised controlled trial. The hospitals that already fully implemented the ERAS programme in their local perioperative management or those who predominantly admit gynaecological surgery patients to an external hospital replacement care facility will be excluded. Cluster randomisation will be applied at the hospital level and will be stratified based on tertiary status. Hospitals will be randomly assigned to the stepped implementation strategy or the breakthrough strategy. The control group will receive the traditional breakthrough strategy with three educational sessions and the use of plan-do-study-act cycles for planning and executing local improvement activities. The intervention group will receive an innovative stepped strategy comprising four levels of intensity of support. Implementation starts with generic low-cost activities and may build up to the highest level of tailored and labour-intensive activities. The decision for a stepwise increase in intensive support will be based on the success of implementation so far. Both implementation strategies will be completed within 1 year and evaluated on effect, process, and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome is length of postoperative hospital stay. Additional outcome measures are length of recovery, guideline adherence, and mean implementation costs per patient.

Discussion

This study takes up the challenge to evaluate an efficient strategy for large-scale implementation. Comparing effectiveness and costs of two different approaches, this study will help to define a preferred strategy for nationwide dissemination of best practices.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR4058

Stratified patient-centered care in type 2 diabetes: a cluster-randomized, controlled clinical trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes treatment should be effective and cost-effective. HbA1c-associated complications are costly. Would patient-centered care be more (cost-) effective if it was targeted to patients within specific HbA1c ranges?

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled trial involved 13 hospitals (clusters) in the Netherlands and 506 patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to patient-centered (n=237) or usual care (controls) (n=269). Primary outcomes were change in HbA1c and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); costs and incremental costs (USD) after 1 year were secondary outcomes. We applied nonparametric bootstrapping and probabilistic modeling over a lifetime using a validated Dutch model. The baseline HbA1c strata were <7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 7.0-8.5%, and >8.5% (69 mmol/mol).

RESULTS

Patient-centered care was most effective and cost-effective in those with baseline HbA1c>8.5% (69 mmol/mol). After 1 year, the HbA1c reduction was 0.83% (95% CI 0.81-0.84%) (6.7 mmol/mol [6.5-6.8]), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 261 USD (235-288) per QALY. Over a lifetime, 0.54 QALYs (0.30-0.78) were gained at a cost of 3,482 USD (2,706-4,258); ICER 6,443 USD/QALY (3,199-9,686). For baseline HbA1c 7.0-8.5% (53-69 mmol/mol), 0.24 QALY (0.07-0.41) was gained at a cost of 4,731 USD (4,259-5,205); ICER 20,086 USD (5,979-34,193). Care was not cost-effective for patients at a baseline HbA1c<7.0% (53 mmol/mol).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-centered care is more valuable when targeted to patients with HbA1c>8.5% (69 mmol/mol), confirming clinical intuition. The findings support treatment in those with baseline HbA1c 7-8.5% (53-69 mmol/mol) and demonstrate little to no benefit among those with HbA1c<7% (53 mmol/mol). Further studies should assess different HbA1c strata and additional risk profiles to account for heterogeneity among patients.

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.

Evaluating tools to support a new practical classification of diabetes: excellent control may represent misdiagnosis and omission from disease registers is associated with worse control

AIMS

To conduct a service evaluation of usability and utility on-line clinical audit tools developed as part of a UK Classification of Diabetes project to improve the categorisation and ultimately management of diabetes.

METHOD

We conducted the evaluation in eight volunteer computerised practices all achieving maximum pay-for-performance (P4P) indicators for diabetes; two allowed direct observation and videotaping of the process of running the on-line audit. We also reported the utility of the searches and the national levels of uptake.

RESULTS

Once launched 4235 unique visitors accessed the download pages in the first 3 months. We had feedback about problems from 10 practices, 7 were human error. Clinical audit naive staff ran the audits satisfactorily. However, they would prefer more explanation and more user-familiar tools built into their practice computerised medical record system. They wanted the people misdiagnosed and misclassified flagged and to be convinced miscoding mattered. People with T2DM misclassified as T1DM tended to be older (mean 62 vs. 47 years old). People misdiagnosed as having T2DM have apparently 'excellent' glycaemic control mean HbA1c 5.3% (34 mmol/mol) vs. 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) (p<0.001). People with vague codes not included in the P4P register (miscoded) have worse glycaemic control [HbA1c 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) SEM=0.42 vs.7.0% (53mmol/mol) SEM=0.11, p=0.006].

CONCLUSIONS

There was scope to improve diabetes management in practice achieving quality targets. Apparently 'excellent' glycaemic control may imply misdiagnosis, while miscoding is associated with worse control. On-line clinical audit toolkits provide a rapid method of dissemination and should be added to the armamentarium of quality improvement interventions.

Outpatient costs in pharmaceutically treated diabetes patients with and without a diagnosis of depression in a Dutch primary care setting

Background

To assess differences in outpatient costs among pharmaceutically treated diabetes patients with and without a diagnosis of depression in a Dutch primary care setting.

Methods

A retrospective case control study over 3 years (2002-2004). Data on 7128 depressed patients and 23772 non-depressed matched controls were available from the electronic medical record system of 20 general practices organized in one large primary care organization in the Netherlands. A total of 393 depressed patients with diabetes and 494 non-depressed patients with diabetes were identified in these records. The data that were extracted from the medical record system concerned only outpatient costs, which included GP care, referrals, and medication.

Results

Mean total outpatient costs per year in depressed diabetes patients were €1039 (SD 743) in the period 2002-2004, which was more than two times as high as in non-depressed diabetes patients (€492, SD 434). After correction for age, sex, type of insurance, diabetes treatment, and comorbidity, the difference in total annual costs between depressed and non-depressed diabetes patients changed from €408 (uncorrected) to €463 (corrected) in multilevel analyses. Correction for comorbidity had the largest impact on the difference in costs between both groups.

Conclusions

Outpatient costs in depressed patients with diabetes are substantially higher than in non-depressed patients with diabetes even after adjusting for confounders. Future research should investigate whether effective treatment of depression among diabetes patients can reduce health care costs in the long term.

Short- and long-term effects of a quality improvement collaborative on diabetes management

Introduction

This study examined the short- and long-term effects of a quality improvement collaborative on patient outcomes, professional performance, and structural aspects of chronic care management of type 2 diabetes in an integrated care setting.

Methods

Controlled pre- and post-intervention study assessing patient outcomes (hemoglobin A1c, cholesterol, blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, and smoking status), professional performance (guideline adherence), and structural aspects of chronic care management from baseline up to 24 months. Analyses were based on 1,861 patients with diabetes in six intervention and nine control regions representing 37 general practices and 13 outpatient clinics.

Results

Modest but significant improvement was seen in mean systolic blood pressure (decrease by 4.0 mm Hg versus 1.6 mm Hg) and mean high density lipoprotein levels (increase by 0.12 versus 0.03 points) at two-year follow up. Positive but insignificant differences were found in hemoglobin A1c (0.3%), cholesterol, and blood lipid levels. The intervention group showed significant improvement in the percentage of patients receiving advice and instruction to examine feet, and smaller reductions in the percentage of patients receiving instruction to monitor blood glucose and visiting a dietician annually. Structural aspects of self-management and decision support also improved significantly.

Conclusions

At a time of heightened national attention toward diabetes care, our results demonstrate a modest benefit of participation in a multi-institutional quality improvement collaborative focusing on integrated, patient-centered care. The effects persisted for at least 12 months after the intervention was completed.

Trial number

http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 00160017