Can a facilitated programme promote effective multidisciplinary audit in secondary care teams? An exploratory trial. Strategies for improving the quality of health care in maternal and child health in low- and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. Interdisciplinary collaboration between primary care, social insurance and social services in the rehabilitation of people with musculoskeletal disorder: effects on self-rated health and physical performance. Comparison of an enhanced versus a written feedback model on the management of Medicare inpatients with venous thrombosis. Exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of shared care development for long-term mental illness. The effect of a quality improvement collaborative to improve antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical patients: a randomized trial. Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Implementing collaborative care for depression treatment in primary care: a cluster randomized evaluation of a quality improvement practice redesign. Participatory supervision model: building health promotion capacity among health officers and the community.
This 24-month exploratory study evaluated whether a 6-month programme supported by a trained external facilitator was feasible, acceptable and led to the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach to audit by secondary care staff. Undertaken in five acute hospital sites in the East Midlands UK, 22 multidisciplinary teams were randomised to either an intervention or control arm. Employing mixed methods, a range of outcomes, including collaborative behaviour, was measured. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to staff. Involvement in the facilitated programme had a positive impact on self-reported knowledge (P=0.000 post-intervention and at 4-months follow-up), skills (P=0.000 post-intervention and P=0.02 at 4-months follow-up) and attitudes (P<0.01 post-intervention), appeared to have some influence on improving self-reported (P<0.05 post-intervention) and observed collaborative behaviour (P=0.01) and led to better quality audit resulting in measurable improvements to care. Improved collaborative behaviour may have resulted from an increase in assertive behaviour by nurses. Research to test approaches to support teams to work effectively together is currently hampered by a lack of suitable research instruments and needs addressing before main (phase 111) trials are undertaken. There are many systematic reviews of continuing education programmes and educational strategies for quality improvement in health care. Most of the reviewed studies are one-off evaluations rather than impact evaluations with long-term follow-up. There are few systematic reviews of organisational, financial and regulatory interventions, and few high-quality studies. These interventions are probably as or more important than educational strategies, although they are less well evaluated. Few studies have been undertaken in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) or that address maternal and child health (MCH). Thus, the results of the available studies and reviews need to be interpreted cautiously when applied to LMIC. Interactive workshops, reminders and multifaceted interventions can improve professional practice, and they generally have moderate effects. Educational outreach visits consistently improve prescribing but have variable effects on other behaviours. Audit and feedback interventions have variable effects on professional practice, but most often these are small to moderate effects. Mass-media and patient-mediated interventions may change professional practice. Multifaceted interventions that combine several quality-improvement strategies are also effective but may not be more so than single interventions. While all of these strategies are applicable to MCH in LMIC, the applicability of the results to rural settings, in particular, may be limited. Use of these strategies could exacerbate inequalities, and this should be taken into consideration when planning implementation. Scaling up and sustainability may be difficult to achieve in LMIC contexts and need careful consideration. The use of financial interventions has not been well studied; financial incentives and disincentives may be difficult to use effectively and efficiently, although their impact on practice needs to be considered. Organisational interventions are likely to be important, given that there are often underlying organisational or system problems. Regulatory interventions have not been well evaluated, but may sometimes be both inexpensive and effective. There are no 'magic bullets' or simple solutions for ensuring the quality of health care services. Interventions should be selected or tailored to address the underlying reasons for a failure to deliver effective services. Decision-makers should select the most appropriate interventions for specific problems. This requires a governance structure that clearly assigns responsibility for quality-improvement activities, priority setting, selection and design of interventions, and evaluation. Previous research shows there can be good results from co-financing between welfare sectors on the perceived quality of interprofessional collaboration. However, little is known about the impact on patient outcome of such schemes. This study aimed to assess whether co-financed teams with personnel from primary care, social insurance and social services have any effect on patients' health status. A comparative study of patients attending health care centres with and without a co-financed collaboration model was carried out. Although research has shown positive results from co-financed collaboration on staff and organization, we could not find that this new interdisciplinary team structure gave a better patient health outcome than conventional care. A multistate randomized study conducted under the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA's) Health Care Quality Improvement Program (HCQIP) offered the opportunity to compare the effect of a written feedback intervention (WFI) with that of an enhanced feedback intervention (EFI) on improving the anticoagulant management of Medicare beneficiaries who present to the hospital with venous thromboembolic disease.
                Twenty-nine hospitals in five states were randomly assigned to receive written hospital-specific feedback (WFI) of feedback enhanced by the participation of a trained physician, quality improvement tools, and an Anticoagulant Management of Venous Thrombosis (AMVT) project liaison (EFI). Differences in the performance of five quality indicators between baseline and remeasurement were assessed. Quality managers were interviewed to determine perceptions of project implementation.
                No significant differences in the change from baseline to remeasurement were found between the two intervention groups. Significant improvement in one indicator and significant decline in two indicators were found for one or both groups. Yet 59% of all quality managers perceived the AMVT project as being successful to very successful, and more EFI quality managers perceived success than did WFI managers (71% versus 40%). In the majority of EFI hospitals, physician liaisons played an important role in project implementation.
                Study results indicated that the addition of a physician liaison, quality improvement tools, and a project liaison did not provide incremental value to hospital-specific feedback for improving quality of care. Future studies with larger sample sizes, lengthier follow-up periods, and interventions that include more of the elements shown to affect practice behavior change are needed to identify an optimal feedback model for use by external quality management organizations. Primary care clinicians have a considerable amount of contact with patients suffering from long-term mental illness. The United Kingdom's National Health Service now requires general practices to contribute more systematically to care for this group of patients.
                To determine the effects of Mental Health Link, a facilitation-based quality improvement programme designed to improve communication between the teams and systems of care within general practice. Design of study: Exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial.
                Twenty-three urban general practices and associated community mental health teams.
                Practices were randomised to service development as usual or to the Mental Health Link programme. Questionnaires and an audit of notes assessed 335 patients' satisfaction, unmet need, mental health status, processes of mental and physical care, and general practitioners' satisfaction with services and beliefs about service development. Service use and intervention costs were also measured.
                There were no significant differences in patients' perception of their unmet need, satisfaction or general health. Intervention patients had fewer psychiatric relapses than control patients (mean = 0.39 versus 0.71, respectively, P = 0.02) but there were no differences in documented processes of care. Intervention practitioners were more satisfied and services improved significantly for intervention practices. There was an additional mean direct cost of pound 63 per patient with long-term mental illness for the intervention compared with the control.
                Significant differences were seen in relapse rates and practitioner satisfaction. Improvements in service development did not translate into documented improvements in care. This could be explained by the intervention working via the improvements in informal shared care developed through better link working. This type of facilitated intervention tailored to context has the potential to improve care and interface working. Quality improvement collaboratives are used to improve health care quality, but their efficacy remains controversial.
                To assess the effects of a quality improvement collaborative on preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis.
                Longitudinal cluster randomized trial, with the quality improvement collaborative as the intervention.
                United States.
                44 acute care hospitals, each of which randomly sampled approximately 100 selected surgical cases (cardiac, hip or knee replacement, and hysterectomy) at both the baseline and remeasurement phases.
                All hospitals received a comparative feedback report. Hospitals randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 22) participated in a quality improvement collaborative comprising 2 in-person meetings led by experts, monthly teleconferences, and receipt of supplemental materials over 9 months.
                Change in the proportion of patients receiving at least 1 antibiotic dose within 60 minutes of surgery (primary outcome) and change in the proportions of patients given any antibiotics, given antibiotics for 24 hours or less, given an appropriate drug, and given a single preoperative dose and receipt of any of the 5 measures (secondary outcome).
                The groups did not differ in the change in proportion of patients who received a properly timed antimicrobial prophylaxis dose (-3.8 percentage points [95% CI, -13.9 to 6.2 percentage points]) after adjustment for region, hospital size, and surgery type. Similarly, the groups did not differ in individual measures of antibiotic duration; use of appropriate drug; receipt of a single preoperative dose; or an all-or-none measure combining timing, duration, and selection.
                Hospitals volunteered for the effort, thereby resulting in selection for participants who were motivated to change. Implementation of the surgical infection prevention measure reporting requirements by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and The Joint Commission may have motivated improvement in prophylaxis performance.
                At a time of heightened national attention toward measures of antimicrobial prophylaxis performance, the trial did not demonstrate a benefit of participation in a quality improvement collaborative over performance feedback for improvement of these measures. A consulting method known as 'shared decision making' (SDM) has been described and operationalized in terms of several 'competences'. One of these competences concerns the discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment or care options-'risk communication'. Few data exist on clinicians' ability to acquire skills and implement the competences of SDM or risk communication in consultations with patients.
                The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of skill development workshops for SDM and the use of risk communication aids on the process of consultations.
                A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. Half the consultations were randomly selected for audio-taping, of which 352 patients attended and were audio-taped successfully. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were allocated randomly to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations were audio-taped from each phase. Raters (independent, trained and blinded to study phase) assessed the audio-tapes using a validated scale to assess levels of patient involvement (OPTION: observing patient involvement), and to analyse the nature of risk information discussed. Clinicians completed questionnaires after each consultation, assessing perceived clinician-patient agreement and level of patient involvement in decisions. Multilevel modelling was carried out with the OPTION score as the dependent variable, and rater, consultation and clinician levels of data, standardized by rater within clinician.
                Following each of the interventions, the clinicians significantly increased their involvement of patients in decision making (OPTION score increased by 10.6 following risk communication training [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9 -13.3; P < 0.001] and by 12.9 after SDM skill development (95% CI 10 -15.8, P < 0.001), a moderate effect size. The level of involvement achieved by the risk communication aids was significantly increased by the subsequent introduction of the skill development workshops (7.7 increase in OPTION score, 95% CI 3.4-12; P < 0.001). The alternative sequence (skills followed by risk communication aids) did not achieve this effect. The use of most risk information formats increased after the provision of specific risk communication aids (P < 0.001). Clinicians using the risk communication tools perceived significantly higher patient and clinician agreement on treatment (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction with information (P < 0.01), clinician satisfaction with decision (P < 0.01) and general overall satisfaction with the consultation (P < 0.001) than those who were exposed to SDM skill development workshops.
                These clinicians were able to acquire the skills to implement SDM competences and to use risk communication aids. Each intervention provided independent effects. Further progress towards greater patient involvement in health care decision making is possible, and skill development in this area should be incorporated into postgraduate professional development programmes. Meta-analyses show collaborative care models (CCMs) with nurse care management are effective for improving primary care for depression. This study aimed to develop CCM approaches that could be sustained and spread within Veterans Affairs (VA). Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) uses QI approaches within a research/clinical partnership to redesign care. The study used EBQI methods for CCM redesign, tested the effectiveness of the locally adapted model as implemented, and assessed the contextual factors shaping intervention effectiveness.
                The study intervention is EBQI as applied to CCM implementation. The study uses a cluster randomized design as a formative evaluation tool to test and improve the effectiveness of the redesign process, with seven intervention and three non-intervention VA primary care practices in five different states. The primary study outcome is patient antidepressant use. The context evaluation is descriptive and uses subgroup analysis. The primary context evaluation measure is naturalistic primary care clinician (PCC) predilection to adopt CCM.For the randomized evaluation, trained telephone research interviewers enrolled consecutive primary care patients with major depression in the evaluation, referred enrolled patients in intervention practices to the implemented CCM, and re-surveyed at seven months.
                Interviewers enrolled 288 CCM site and 258 non-CCM site patients. Enrolled intervention site patients were more likely to receive appropriate antidepressant care (66% versus 43%, p = 0.01), but showed no significant difference in symptom improvement compared to usual care. In terms of context, only 40% of enrolled patients received complete care management per protocol. PCC predilection to adopt CCM had substantial effects on patient participation, with patients belonging to early adopter clinicians completing adequate care manager follow-up significantly more often than patients of clinicians with low predilection to adopt CCM (74% versus 48%%, p = 0.003).
                Depression CCM designed and implemented by primary care practices using EBQI improved antidepressant initiation. Combining QI methods with a randomized evaluation proved challenging, but enabled new insights into the process of translating research-based CCM into practice. Future research on the effects of PCC attitudes and skills on CCM results, as well as on enhancing the link between improved antidepressant use and symptom outcomes, is needed.
                ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00105820. The Thai traditional health supervision model has been developed since 1991. However, many supervisors lack supervisory knowledge and skills. This study aimed to compare and identify the strengths and challenges of two different supervision models, in order to determine their effects on enhancing the health promotion capacity of health officers in two primary care units (PCU) in Chiang Mai Province, northern Thailand.
                The two models were implemented at two PCU in one semi-district, Chiang Mai Province, over a six-month period. The first model involved supervisors from the district level, with the full participation of health officers at the sub-district level. The second model was designed with the addition of community involvement in the supervision process. Before implementing the models, the district supervisors attended a retraining course to enhance their supervisory knowledge and ability. Questionnaires were used to assess health officers' job satisfaction, clients' perceived service quality and care satisfaction. Semi-structured interviews and qualitative observations were used to explore the involvement of health officers and the community, and to determine the strengths and challenges of each supervisory model.
                Both before and after the intervention, the PCU health officers appeared to have good and comparable job satisfaction levels. Bivariate analysis indicated that after the intervention, both supervisory models appeared effective in terms of clients' perceived service quality and satisfaction with care, among those who utilized the PCU. However, the second model, which allowed the community to participate in the supervision process, achieved better results. The qualitative findings suggested that the involvement of health officers caused a rapid change and improvement after the supervision. The involvement of the community helped the community itself to identify problems and formulate alternatives to meet the community's needs.
                This study shows positive outcomes for two forms of participatory supervision in a rural setting. There appear to be additional positive outcomes for the model that involved community participation. To ensure successful implementation, several issues, such as the supervisor's knowledge and ability, health officer workload and supervisory communication skills, need to be improved.
Collaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that interagency collaboration, compared to standard services, necessarily leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, difficulties in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these weaknesses are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programmes; using more robust designs, integrated process evaluations to show how well the partners of the collaboration worked together, and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why. It is possible that local collaborative partnerships delivering environmental Interventions may result in health gain but the evidence base for this is very limited.
Evaluations of interagency collaborative arrangements face many challenges. The results demonstrate that collaborative community partnerships can be established to deliver interventions but it is important to agree goals, methods of working, monitoring and evaluation before implementation to protect programme fidelity and increase the potential for effectiveness.