Assessing the Implementation of the Chronic Care Model in Quality Improvement Collaboratives

Does Baseline System Support for Chronic Care Matter?

Published in: Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management- ViI / Edited by H. Luczak and K. J. Zink (Santa Monica, CA: IEA Press, 2003), Section 4, p. 595-601

Posted on on January 01, 2003

by Shin-Yi Wu, Marjorie L. Pearson, Judith Schaefer, Amy E. Bonomi, Stephen M. Shortell, Peter Mendel, Jill A. Marsteller, Thomas A. Louis, Emmett B. Keeler

Read More

Access further information on this document at

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

While collaboratives are an increasingly popular approach to facilitating quality improvement (QI) in healthcare organizations, little is known about the effective implementation of collaborative processes or organizational change activities motivated by collaborative participation. The RAND/Berkeley Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation of chronic care collaboratives has found overall modest levels of implementation depth, with significant variation among participant organizations. Findings suggest a nonlinear relationship between the organizations' initial assessment of their systems' support for chronic care and their subsequent QI implementation performance. Teams that begin with middle levels of support had the greatest depth of implementation. Organizations that rated their chronic care systems as more developed, the majority of which were publicly funded, were at greatest risk for poor implementation. Risk stratification of organizations and collaborative targeting of QI guidance and facilitation are discussed.

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

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.