Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Quality Improvement Interventions (quality + improvement_intervention)
Selected AbstractsImproving Care for Minorities: Can Quality Improvement Interventions Improve Care and Outcomes For Depressed Minorities?HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, Issue 2 2003Controlled Trial, Results of a Randomized Objective. Ethnic minority patients often receive poorer quality care and have worse outcomes than white patients, yet practice-based approaches to reduce such disparities have not been identified. We determined whether practice-initiated quality improvement (QI) interventions for depressed primary care patients improve care across ethnic groups and reduce outcome disparities. Study Setting. The sample consists of 46 primary care practices in 6 U.S. managed care organizations; 181 clinicians; 398 Latinos, 93 African Americans, and 778 white patients with probable depressive disorder. Study Design. Matched practices were randomized to usual care or one of two QI programs that trained local experts to educate clinicians; nurses to educate, assess, and follow-up with patients; and psychotherapists to conduct Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Patients and physicians selected treatments. Interventions featured modest accommodations for minority patients (e.g., translations, cultural training for clinicians). Data Extraction Methods. Multilevel logistic regression analyses assessed intervention effects within and among ethnic groups. Principal Findings. At baseline, all ethnic groups (Latino, African American, white) had low to moderate rates of appropriate care and the interventions significantly improved appropriate care at six months (by 8,20 percentage points) within each ethnic group, with no significant difference in response by ethnic group. The interventions significantly decreased the likelihood that Latinos and African Americans would report probable depression at months 6 and 12; the white intervention sample did not differ from controls in reported probable depression at either follow-up. While the intervention significantly improved the rate of employment for whites and not for minorities, precision was low for comparing intervention response on this outcome. It is important to note that minorities remained less likely to have appropriate care and more likely to be depressed than white patients. Conclusions. Implementation of quality improvement interventions that have modest accommodations for minority patients can improve quality of care for whites and underserved minorities alike, while minorities may be especially likely to benefit clinically. Further research needs to clarify whether employment benefits are limited to whites and if so, whether this represents a difference in opportunities. Quality improvement programs appear to improve quality of care without increasing disparities, and may offer an approach to reduce health disparities. [source] Predictors of colorectal cancer screening from patients enrolled in a managed care health plan,CANCER, Issue 6 2008Melissa M. Farmer PhD Abstract BACKGROUND Despite the growing recognition of the importance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in reducing cancer mortality, national screening rates are low, indicating a critical need to understand the barriers and remedies for underutilization of CRC screening tests. METHODS Using results from independent cross-sectional telephone surveys with patients aged ,50 years performed before (2000; n = 498) and after (2003; n = 482) a quality improvement intervention for CRC screening within a large managed care health plan, the trends and predictors of CRC screening with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and/or endoscopy (flexible sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy) were examined from a patient perspective. RESULTS In 2000, patient reported screening rates within guidelines were 38% for any test, 23% for endoscopy, and 22% for FOBT. In 2003, screening rates increased to 50% for any test, 39% for endoscopy, and 24% for FOBT. Having discussed CRC with a doctor significantly increased the odds of being screened (FOBT: odds ratio [OR], 2.09 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.47,2.96]; endoscopy: OR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.67,3.26]; and any test: OR, 2.86 [95% CI, 2.06,3.96]), and reporting barriers to CRC in general decreased the odds of being screened (FOBT: OR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60,0.95]; endoscopy: OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60,0.92]; and any test: OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.54,0.80]). CONCLUSIONS Although screening rates increased over the 3-year period, evidence was found of ongoing underutilization of CRC screening. The 2 strongest determinants of obtaining CRC screening were provider influence and patient barriers related to CRC screening in general, pointing to the need for multilevel interventions that target both the provider and patient. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society. [source] Adult Emergency Department Patients with Sickle Cell Pain Crisis: A Learning Collaborative Model to Improve Analgesic ManagementACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 4 2010Paula Tanabe PhD Abstract Objectives:, The objectives were to report the baseline (prior to quality improvement interventions) patient and visit characteristics and analgesic management practices for each site participating in an emergency department (ED) sickle cell learning collaborative. Methods:, A prospective, multisite longitudinal cohort study in the context of a learning-collaborative model was performed in three midwestern EDs. Each site formed a multidisciplinary team charged with improving analgesic management for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). Each team developed a nurse-initiated analgesic protocol for SCD patients (implemented after a baseline data collection period of 3.5 months at one site and 10 months at the other two sites). All sites prospectively enrolled adults with an acute pain crisis and SCD. All medical records for patients meeting study criteria were reviewed. Demographic, health services, and analgesic management data were abstracted, including ED visit frequency data, ED disposition, arrival and discharge pain score, and name and route of initial analgesic administered. Ten interviews per quarter per site were conducted with patients within 14 days of their ED discharge, and subjects were queried about the highest level of pain acceptable at discharge. The primary outcome variable was the time to initial analgesic administration. Variable data were described as means and standard deviations (SDs) or medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for nonnormal data. Results:, A total of 155 patients met study criteria (median age = 32 years, IQR = 24,40 years) with a total of 701 ED visits. Eighty-six interviews were conducted. Most patients (71.6%) had between one and three visits to the ED during the study period. However, after removing Site 3 from the analysis because of the short data enrollment period (3.5 months), which influenced the mean number of visits for the entire cohort, 52% of patients had between one and three ED visits over 10 months, 21% had four to nine visits, and 27% had between 10 and 67 visits. Fifty-nine percent of patients were discharged home. The median time to initial analgesic for the cohort was 74 minutes (IQR = 48,135 minutes). Differences between choice of analgesic agent and route selected were evident between sites. For the cohort, 680 initial analgesic doses were given (morphine sulfate, 42%; hydromorphone, 46%; meperidine, 4%; morphine sulfate and ibuprofen or ketorolac, 7%) using the following routes: oral (2%), intravenous (67%), subcutaneous (3%), and intramuscular (28%). Patients reported a significantly lower targeted discharge pain score (mean ± SD = 4.19 ± 1.18) compared to the actual documented discharge pain score within 45 minutes of discharge (mean ± SD = 5.77 ± 2.45; mean difference = 1.58, 95% confidence interval = .723 to 2.44, n = 43). Conclusions:, While half of the patients had one to three ED visits during the study period, many patients had more frequent visits. Delays to receiving an initial analgesic were common, and post-ED interviews reveal that sickle cell pain patients are discharged from the ED with higher pain scores than what they perceive as desirable. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:399,407 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [source] Improving Care for Minorities: Can Quality Improvement Interventions Improve Care and Outcomes For Depressed Minorities?HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, Issue 2 2003Controlled Trial, Results of a Randomized Objective. Ethnic minority patients often receive poorer quality care and have worse outcomes than white patients, yet practice-based approaches to reduce such disparities have not been identified. We determined whether practice-initiated quality improvement (QI) interventions for depressed primary care patients improve care across ethnic groups and reduce outcome disparities. Study Setting. The sample consists of 46 primary care practices in 6 U.S. managed care organizations; 181 clinicians; 398 Latinos, 93 African Americans, and 778 white patients with probable depressive disorder. Study Design. Matched practices were randomized to usual care or one of two QI programs that trained local experts to educate clinicians; nurses to educate, assess, and follow-up with patients; and psychotherapists to conduct Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Patients and physicians selected treatments. Interventions featured modest accommodations for minority patients (e.g., translations, cultural training for clinicians). Data Extraction Methods. Multilevel logistic regression analyses assessed intervention effects within and among ethnic groups. Principal Findings. At baseline, all ethnic groups (Latino, African American, white) had low to moderate rates of appropriate care and the interventions significantly improved appropriate care at six months (by 8,20 percentage points) within each ethnic group, with no significant difference in response by ethnic group. The interventions significantly decreased the likelihood that Latinos and African Americans would report probable depression at months 6 and 12; the white intervention sample did not differ from controls in reported probable depression at either follow-up. While the intervention significantly improved the rate of employment for whites and not for minorities, precision was low for comparing intervention response on this outcome. It is important to note that minorities remained less likely to have appropriate care and more likely to be depressed than white patients. Conclusions. Implementation of quality improvement interventions that have modest accommodations for minority patients can improve quality of care for whites and underserved minorities alike, while minorities may be especially likely to benefit clinically. Further research needs to clarify whether employment benefits are limited to whites and if so, whether this represents a difference in opportunities. Quality improvement programs appear to improve quality of care without increasing disparities, and may offer an approach to reduce health disparities. [source] The economic burden of depression and the cost-effectiveness of treatmentINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF METHODS IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, Issue 1 2003Philip S. Wang Abstract Cost-of-illness research has shown that depression is associated with an enormous economic burden, in the order of tens of billions of dollars each year in the US alone. The largest component of this economic burden derives from lost work productivity due to depression. A large body of literature indicates that the causes of the economic burden of depression, including impaired work performance, would respond both to improvement in depressive symptomatology and to standard treatments for depression. Despite this, the economic burden of depression persists, partly because of the widespread underuse and poor quality use of otherwise efficacious and tolerable depression treatments. Recent effectiveness studies conducted in primary care have shown that a variety of models, which enhance care of depression through aggressive outreach and improved quality of treatments, are highly effective in clinical terms and in some cases on work performance outcomes as well. Economic analyses accompanying these effectiveness studies have also shown that these quality improvement interventions are cost efficient. Unfortunately, widespread uptake of these enhanced treatment programmes for depression has not occurred in primary care due to barriers at the level of primary care physicians, healthcare systems, and purchasers of healthcare. Further research is needed to overcome these barriers to providing high-quality care for depression and to ultimately reduce the enormous adverse economic impact of depression disorders. Copyright © 2003 Whurr Publishers Ltd. [source] | ||||||||||