Does the Collaborative Model Improve Care for Chronic Heart Failure?

Steven M. Asch, David William Baker, Joan Keesey, Michael S. Broder, Matthias Schonlau, Mayde Rosen, Peggy Wallace, Emmett B. Keeler

ResearchPublished Aug 10, 2005

Background: Organizationally based, disease-targeted collaborative quality improvement efforts are widely applied but have not been subject to rigorous evaluation. We evaluated the effects of the Institute of Healthcare Improvement’s Breakthrough Series (IHI BTS) on quality of care for chronic heart failure (CHF). Research Design: We conducted a quasi-experiment in 4 organizations participating in the IHI BTS for CHF in 1999-2000 and 4 comparable control organizations. We reviewed a total of 489 medical records obtained from the sites and used a computerized data collection tool to measure performance on 23 predefined quality indicators. We then compared differences in indicator performance between the baseline and postintervention periods for participating and nonparticipating organizations. Results: Participating and control patients did not differ significantly with regard to measured clinical factors at baseline. After adjusting for age, gender, number of chronic conditions, and clustering by site, participating sites showed greater improvement than control sites for 11 of the 21 indicators, including use of lipid-lowering and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition therapy. When all indicators were combined into a single overall process score, participating sites improved more than controls (17% versus 1%, P < 0.0001). The improvement was greatest for measures of education and counseling (24% versus -1%, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Organizational participation in a common disease-targeted collaborative provider interaction improved a wide range of processes of care for CHF, including both medical therapeutics and education and counseling. Our data support the use of programs like the IHI BTS in improving the processes of care for patients with chronic diseases.

Topics

Document Details

Originally published in: Medical Care, v. 43, no. 7, July 2005, pp. 667-675.

This publication is part of the RAND reprint series. The reprint series, a product of RAND from 1992 to 2011, included previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports that were reproduced by RAND with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see external publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND 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.