AIM: To determine the impact and cost-effectiveness of telephone versus written access to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and of different strategies for disseminating locally produced guidelines, upon requests by general practitioners (GPs) for knee and lumbar spine investigation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two sequential pragmatic open cluster-randomized trials were conducted within 39 general practices. The outcome measure in each trial was concordance of request with local guidelines. Trial 1: practices requested MRI by telephone or in writing. Trial 2: all practices received guidelines, plus either: a practice-based seminar, practice-specific audit feedback, both seminar and feedback, or neither.
RESULTS: A total of 414 requests were assessed in the two trials. Trial 1: telephone access cost pound4.86 more per request but rates of concordant requests were equivalent (65%/64%: telephone/written). Trial 2: compared to the control group, costs per practice were pound1911 higher in seminar group, pound1543 higher in feedback group and pound3578 higher for those receiving both. Concordance was greater following the intervention (74% vs 65%; P < 0.05), but there was no difference between the four study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Method of access did not affect concordance. Written access was more cost-effective. Seminars and feedback were no more effective in modifying practice than guidelines alone, which was thus the most cost-effective option.
BACKGROUND: Improvement in the delivery of influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations to high-risk groups is an important aspect of preventive care for primary healthcare teams. AIM: To investigate the effect of an educational outreach visit to primary healthcare teams on influenza and pneumococcal vaccination uptake in high-risk patients. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty general practices in the Trent region, UK. METHODS: Fifteen practices were randomised to intervention and 15 to the control group after stratifying for baseline vaccination rate. All intervention practices were offered and received an educational outreach visit to primary healthcare teams, in addition to audit and feedback directed at improving influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates in high-risk groups. Control practices received audit and feedback alone. All practices measured influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates in high-risk groups. Primary outcomes were improvements in vaccination rates in patients aged 65 years and over, and patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), diabetes and a history of splenectomy. RESULTS: Improvements in pneumococcal vaccination rates in the intervention practices were significantly greater compared with controls in patients with CHD, 14.8% versus 6.5% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 1.34) and diabetes, 15.5% versus 6.8% (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.29) but not splenectomy, 6.5% versus 4.7% (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.42). Improvements for influenza vaccination were also usually greater in intervention practices but did not reach statistical significance. The increases for influenza vaccination in intervention versus control practices were for CHD, 18.1% versus 13.1% (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.12); diabetes, 15.5% versus 12.0% (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.16), splenectomy 16.1% versus 2.9% (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.78 to 1.93); and those over 65 years 20.7% versus 25.4% (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.02). CONCLUSION: Practices where primary care teams received an educational outreach visit demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in uptake in high-risk groups for pneumococcal but not influenza vaccine.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of postal feedback with clinically relevant data on general practitioners' prescribing compared with feedback with aggregate data on prescribing patterns of asthma drugs. METHODS: The study was a randomised, controlled trial. The general practitioners (GPs) in the County of Funen, Denmark (292 GPs representing 178 practices) were randomised to one of three groups receiving different forms of prescriber feedback. The first group received detailed and clinically relevant data on asthma drug prescribing patterns and a guideline statement. These data included tables with counts of asthma patients following classification of each individual's consumption of inhaled beta2-agonists and use of inhaled steroids. The second group received aggregate data on asthma drug prescribing patterns and a guideline statement, and the third group received feedback on an unrelated subject and served as control for the other groups. Each GP received prescriber feedback three times within a 6-month period. The last two letters with prescriber feedback had updated information with the purpose of showing changes in prescribing patterns. Effects were followed for a period of 1 year. The main outcome measures were change in fraction of asthmatics treated with inhaled steroids and incidence rate of treatment with inhaled steroids. RESULTS: The three groups had similar baseline characteristics. None of the two types of feedback on prescribing of asthma drugs had a statistically significant impact on GPs' prescribing patterns. CONCLUSION: Mailed prescriber feedback of detailed and clinically relevant data with a guideline statement, without revealing patient identities, has little or no impact on prescribing patterns.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of three different methods of promoting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care. DESIGN: Pragmatic, unblinded, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Warwickshire. SUBJECTS: 21 general practices received intervention; outcome measured in 1906 patients aged 55-75 years with established coronary heart disease. INTERVENTIONS: Audit of notes with summary feedback to primary health care team (audit group); assistance with setting up a disease register and systematic recall of patients to general practitioner (GP recall group); assistance with setting up a disease register and systematic recall of patients to a nurse led clinic (nurse recall group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At 18 months' follow up: adequate assessment (defined) of 3 risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking status); prescribing of hypotensive agents, lipid lowering drugs, and antiplatelet drugs; blood pressure, serum cholesterol level, and plasma cotinine levels. RESULTS: Adequate assessment of all 3 risk factors was much more common in the nurse and GP recall groups (85%, 76%) than the audit group (52%). The advantage in the nurse recall compared with the audit group was 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 46%); in the GP recall group compared with the audit group 23% (10% to 36%), and in the nurse recall group compared with the GP recall group 9% (-3% to 22%). However, these differences in assessment were not reflected in clinical outcomes. Mean blood pressure (148/80, 147/81, 148/81 mm Hg), total cholesterol (5.4, 5.5, 5.5 mmol/l), and cotinine levels (% probable smokers 17%, 16%, 19%) varied little between the nurse recall, GP recall, and audit groups respectively, as did prescribing of hypotensive and lipid lowering agents. Prescribing of antiplatelet drugs was higher in the nurse recall group (85%) than the GP recall or audit groups (80%, 74%). After adjustment for baseline levels, the advantage in the nurse recall group compared with the audit group was 10% (3% to 17%), in the nurse recall group compared with the GP recall group 8% (1% to 15%) and in the GP recall group compared with the audit group 2% (-6% to 10%). CONCLUSIONS: Setting up a register and recall system improved patient assessment at 18 months' follow up but was not consistently better than audit alone in improving treatment or risk factor levels. Understanding the reasons for this is the key next step in improving the quality of care of patients with coronary heart disease.
BACKGROUND: Radiological tests are often used by general practitioners (GPs). These tests can be overused and contribute little to clinical management. We aimed to assess two methods of reducing GP requests for radiological tests in accordance with the UK Royal College of Radiologists' guidelines on lumbar spine and knee radiographs.
METHODS: We assessed audit and feedback, and educational reminder messages in six radiology departments and 244 general practices that they served. The study was a before-and-after, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with a 232 factorial design. A random subset of GP patients' records were examined for concordance with the guidelines. The main outcome measure was number of radiograph requests per 1000 patients per year. Analysis was by intention to treat.
FINDINGS: The effect of educational reminder messages (ie, the change in request rate after intervention) was an absolute change of -1.53 (95% CI -2.5 to -0.57) for lumbar spine and of -1.61 (-2.6 to -0.62) for knee radiographs, both relative reductions of about 20%. The effect of audit and feedback was an absolute change of -0.07 (-1.3 to 0.9) for lumbar spine of 0.04 (-0.95 to 1.03) for knee radiograph requests, both relative reductions of about 1%. Concordance between groups did not differ significantly.
INTERPRETATION: 6-monthly feedback of audit data is ineffective but the routine attachment of educational reminder messages to radiographs is effective and does not affect quality of referrals. Any department of radiology that handles referrals from primary care could deliver this intervention to good effect.
CONTEXT: Performance feedback and benchmarking, common tools for health care improvement, are rarely studied in randomized trials. Achievable Benchmarks of Care (ABCs) are standards of excellence attained by top performers in a peer group and are easily and reproducibly calculated from existing performance data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of using achievable benchmarks to enhance typical physician performance feedback and improve care. DESIGN: Group-randomized controlled trial conducted in December 1996, with follow-up through 1998. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventy community physicians and 2978 fee-for-service Medicare patients with diabetes mellitus who were part of the Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project in Alabama. INTERVENTION: Physicians were randomly assigned to receive a multimodal improvement intervention, including chart review and physician-specific feedback (comparison group; n = 35) or an identical intervention plus achievable benchmark feedback (experimental group; n = 35). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Preintervention (1994-1995) to postintervention (1997-1998) changes in the proportion of patients receiving influenza vaccination; foot examination; and each of 3 blood tests measuring glucose control, cholesterol level, and triglyceride level, compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who received influenza vaccine improved from 40% to 58% in the experimental group (P<.001) vs from 40% to 46% in the comparison group (P =.02). Odds ratios (ORs) for patients of achievable benchmark physicians vs comparison physicians who received appropriate care after the intervention, adjusted for preintervention care and nesting of patients within physicians, were 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-1.96) for influenza vaccination, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.05-1.69) for foot examination, and 1.33 (95% CI, 1.04-1.69) for long-term glucose control measurement. For serum cholesterol and triglycerides, the achievable benchmark effect was statistically significant only after additional adjustment for physician characteristics (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.08-1.82] and OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.09-1.79], respectively). CONCLUSION: Use of achievable benchmarks significantly enhances the effectiveness of physician performance feedback in the setting of a multimodal quality improvement intervention.
BACKGROUND: The rapid increase of antibiotic resistance poses a significant threat to human health. Overuse of antibiotics has been linked to rates of antibiotic resistance. This study assessed the utility of two common interventions--1) practice profiling and feedback and 2) patient education materials--implemented to decrease antibiotic prescribing for pediatric upper respiratory infections (URIs). METHODS: Based on Medicaid regions in Kentucky, primary care physicians managing pediatric respiratory infections in Medicaid were randomized into four groups. Groups received either 1) performance feedback only, 2) patient education materials only, 3) both feedback and education materials, or 4) no intervention. Participating physicians had their antibiotic prescribing assessed for the period of July 1, 1996, to November 30, 1997, with an intervention in June 1997. The study included 216 physicians and 124,092 episodes of care. RESULTS: All groups increased in proportion of episodes with antibiotics between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods. Prescribing in the patient education group and the patient education and feedback group increased at a significantly lower rate than in the control group. Physicians did not change their coding of illness to justify antibiotics after the intervention, and there was no significant generalization of effect of the pediatric intervention on prescribing for adult URIs. CONCLUSIONS: These interventions demonstrate little if any impact on promoting appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Antibiotic prescribing for viral respiratory infections continues to increase, suggesting concomitant increases in antibiotic resistance.
We studied whether a hospital intervention utilizing medical opinion leaders and performance feedback reduced the proportion of women who reported that surgeons did not discuss options prior to surgery for early stage breast cancer. Opinion leaders provided clinical education to their peers using a variety of strategies and were selected for their ability to influence their peers. Performance feedback involved distributing performance reports that contained data on the outcomes of interest as well as on other treatment patterns. Twenty-eight hospitals in Minnesota were randomized to the intervention or to a control group that received performance feedback only. The proportion of patients at intervention hospitals who said that their surgeon did not discuss options decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from 33% to 17%, but a similar decrease was observed among control hospitals. Using medical opinion leaders to intervene in hospitals appeared as effective as performance feedback.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate performance feedback delivered by on-site presentations compared to mailed feedback on improving acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care. We used a randomized trial including 18 hospitals nested within the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Patients comprised AMI Medicare patients admitted before (n = 929, 1994 and 1995) and after intervention (n = 438, 1996). Control hospitals received written feedback by mail. The experimental intervention group received a presentation led by a cardiologist and a quality improvement specialist. We assessed the proportion of patients receiving appropriate AMI care before and after the intervention. Both univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated no effect of the intervention in increasing the proportion of patients who received reperfusion, aspirin, beta-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. On-site feedback presentations were not associated with a larger improvement in AMI care compared to the mailed feedback. Other interventions, such as opinion leaders and patient-directed interventions, may be necessary in order to improve the care of AMI patients.
To determine the impact and cost-effectiveness of telephone versus written access to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and of different strategies for disseminating locally produced guidelines, upon requests by general practitioners (GPs) for knee and lumbar spine investigation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Two sequential pragmatic open cluster-randomized trials were conducted within 39 general practices. The outcome measure in each trial was concordance of request with local guidelines. Trial 1: practices requested MRI by telephone or in writing. Trial 2: all practices received guidelines, plus either: a practice-based seminar, practice-specific audit feedback, both seminar and feedback, or neither.
RESULTS:
A total of 414 requests were assessed in the two trials. Trial 1: telephone access cost pound4.86 more per request but rates of concordant requests were equivalent (65%/64%: telephone/written). Trial 2: compared to the control group, costs per practice were pound1911 higher in seminar group, pound1543 higher in feedback group and pound3578 higher for those receiving both. Concordance was greater following the intervention (74% vs 65%; P < 0.05), but there was no difference between the four study groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
Method of access did not affect concordance. Written access was more cost-effective. Seminars and feedback were no more effective in modifying practice than guidelines alone, which was thus the most cost-effective option.
