Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster‐randomized trial

Patient Dropouts Substance-Related Disorders Interprofessional Relations Patient Acceptance of Health Care Quality Improvement United States 3. Good health Time-to-Treatment 03 medical and health sciences Ambulatory Care Telecommunications Cluster Analysis Humans Substance Abuse Treatment Centers Cooperative Behavior 0305 other medical science
DOI: 10.1111/add.12117 Publication Date: 2013-01-14T14:29:19Z
ABSTRACT
Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout health care to improve quality, but no study has identified which work best. This tested the effectiveness different in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination all would be most effective.An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics one four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings) and three. Interest functioned as minimal intervention comparison group.Out-patient United States.Two hundred five states.Clinic data managers submitted on three primary outcomes: waiting-time (mean days between first contact treatment), retention (percentage patients retained from fourth session) annual number new patients. State group costs were collected for cost-effectiveness analysis.Waiting-time declined significantly coaching (an average 4.6 days/clinic, P = 0.001), (3.5 0.012) (4.7 0.001). The groups increased (19.5%, 0.028; 8.9%, 0.029; respectively). showed significant effect outcomes. None improved significantly. estimated cost per clinic was $2878 versus $7930 combination. Coaching collaborative about equally effective achieving aims, substantially more cost-effective.When trying appears help while other improvement (interest circles sessions) do not seem add further value.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Coming soon ....
REFERENCES (30)
CITATIONS (102)