Evaluating an Integrated Approach to Clinical Quality Improvement

Clinical Guidelines, Quality Measurement, and Supportive System Design

Published in: Medical Care, v. 39, no. 8, suppl. 2, Aug. 2001, p. II-70-II-82

by Shan Cretin, Donna O. Farley, Kathryn J. Dolter, Will Nicholas

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.lww-medicalcare.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: Implementing clinical practice guidelines to change patient outcomes presents a challenge. Studies of single interventions focused on changing provider behavior demonstrate modest effects, suggesting that effective guideline implementation requires a multifaceted approach. Traditional biomedical research designs are not well suited to evaluating systems interventions. OBJECTIVES: RAND and the Army Medical Department collaborated to develop and evaluate a system for implementing guidelines and documenting their effects on patient care. RESEARCH DESIGN: The evaluation design blended quality improvement, case study, and epidemiologic methods. A formative evaluation of implementation process and an outcome evaluation of patient impact were combined. SUBJECTS: Guidelines were implemented in 3 successive demonstrations targeting low back pain, asthma, and diabetes. This paper reports on the first wave of 4 facilities implementing a low back pain guideline. METHODS: Organizational climate and culture, motivation, leadership commitment, and resources were assessed. Selected indicators of processes and outcomes of care were compared before, during, and after guideline implementation at the demonstration facilities and at comparison facilities. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for guideline effects on patient care. RESULTS: Process evaluation documented varied approaches to quality improvement across sites. Outcome evaluation revealed a significant downward trend in the percentage of acute low back pain patients referred to physical therapy or chiropractic care (10.7% to 7.2%) at demonstration sites and no such trend at control sites. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results suggest the power of this design to stimulate improvements in guideline implementation while retaining the power to evaluate rigorously effects on patient care.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.