Practice-level quality improvement interventions in primary care: a review of systematic reviews

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (06) ◽  
pp. 556-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Irwin ◽  
Tim Stokes ◽  
Tom Marshall

AimTo present an overview of effective interventions for quality improvement in primary care at the practice level utilising existing systematic reviews.BackgroundQuality improvement in primary care involves a range of approaches from the system-level to patient-level improvement. One key setting in which quality improvement needs to occur is at the level of the basic unit of primary care – the individual general practice. Therefore, there is a need for practitioners to have access to an overview of the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions available in this setting.MethodsDesign:A tertiary evidence synthesis was conducted (a review of systematic reviews). A systematic approach was used to identify and summarise published literature relevant to understanding primary-care quality improvement at the practice level. Quality assessment was via the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for systematic reviews, with data extraction identifying evidence of effect for the examined interventions.Scope:Included reviews had to be relevant to quality improvement at the practice level and relevant to the UK primary-care context. Reviews were excluded if describing system-level interventions.Outcome measures:A range of measures across care structure, process and outcomes were defined and interpreted across the quality improvement interventions.FindingsAudit and feedback, computerised advice, point-of-care reminders, practice facilitation, educational outreach and processes for patient review and follow-up all demonstrated evidence of a quality improvement effect. Evidence of an improvement effect was higher where baseline performance was low and was particularly demonstrated across process measures and measures related to prescribing. Evidence was not sufficient to suggest that multifaceted approaches were more effective than single interventions.ConclusionEvidence exists for a range of quality improvement interventions at the primary-care practice level. More research is required to determine the use and impact of quality improvement interventions using theoretical frameworks and cost-effectiveness analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer M. Weiss ◽  
Perry J. Pickhardt ◽  
Jessica R. Schumacher ◽  
Aaron Potvien ◽  
David H. Kim ◽  
...  

Aims. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Increasing CRC screening rates requires interventions targeting multiple barriers at each level of the healthcare organization (patient, provider, and system). We examined groups of primary care providers (PCPs) based on perceptions of screening barriers and the relationship to CRC screening rates to inform approaches for conducting barrier assessments prior to designing and implementing quality improvement interventions.Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking EHR and survey data. PCPs with complete survey responses for questions addressing CRC screening barriers were included (N=166PCPs; 39,430 patients eligible for CRC screening). Cluster analysis identified groups of PCPs. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for predictors of membership in one of the PCP groups.Results. We found two distinct groups: (1) PCPs identifying multiple barriers to CRC screening at patient, provider, and system levels (N=75) and (2) PCPs identifying no major barriers to screening (N=91). PCPs in the top half of CRC screening performance were more likely to identify multiple barriers than the bottom performers (OR, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.43–7.08).Conclusions. High-performing PCPs can more effectively identify CRC screening barriers. Targeting high-performers when conducting a barrier assessment is a novel approach to assist in designing quality improvement interventions for CRC screening.


2009 ◽  
Vol 166 (9) ◽  
pp. 1002-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Rosenbaum Asarnow ◽  
Lisa H. Jaycox ◽  
Lingqi Tang ◽  
Naihua Duan ◽  
Anne P. LaBorde ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Fahim ◽  
William E. Bruhn ◽  
John G. Albertini ◽  
Marty A. Makary

Abstract Background The Improving Wisely intervention is a peer-to-peer audit and feedback intervention to reduce overuse of Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS). The objective of this study was to conduct a process evaluation to evaluate Mohs surgeons’ perceptions of the implementation quality and perceived impact of the Improving Wisely intervention. Methods Surgeons in the Improving Wisely intervention arm, comprised of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons (ACMS) who co-led the intervention, were invited to complete surveys and key informant interviews. Participants described perceptions of implementation quality (evaluated via dose, quality of implementation, reach and participant responsiveness), perceived impact of the Improving Wisely intervention (evaluated on a 1–5 Likert and qualitatively), and barriers and facilitators to changing surgeons’ clinical practice patterns to reduce Mohs overuse. Results Seven hundred thirty-seven surgeons participated in the survey. 89% were supportive of the intervention. Participants agreed that the intervention would improve patient care and reduce the annual costs of Mohs surgery. Thirty surgeons participated in key informant interviews. 93% were interested in receiving additional data reports in the future. Participants recommended the reports be disseminated annually, that the reports be expanded to include appropriateness data, and that the intervention be extended to non ACMS members. Six themes identifying factors impacting potential MMS overuse were identified. Conclusions Participants were strongly supportive of the intervention. We present the template used to design and implement the Improving Wisely intervention and provide suggestions for specialty societies interested in leading similar quality improvement interventions among their members.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document