Achieving organizational change in primary care: simmer gently for two years

Clinical preventive services for adolescents

CONTEXT

Most of the many clinical preventive services (CPS) recommended for adolescents by various national organizations lack good evidence of effectiveness. Improving adolescent preventive care will require focusing on those CPS for which there is such evidence and on developing better delivery strategies. The objective of the current study was to identify those CPS for adolescents that do have a strong evidence base, to update the literature review and summarize evidence gaps where research is needed, and to summarize current delivery prevalence and opportunities.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A summary was conducted of the recommendations for adolescents of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). An update is provided of the literature review for services with an inadequate evidence base to support a recommendation. A summary was prepared of the types of evidence still needed. A literature search was also conducted for current delivery prevalence of recommended services for those aged 11-17 years, and common gaps in the evidence were identified.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Although 24 CPS for adolescents have been reviewed by the USPSTF, only ten received definite recommendations and only seven of these favored delivery of the service. In addition, the ACIP recommends four immunizations for all adolescents, and two additional ones for those at high risk. There are many gaps in the evidence supporting most of the other services as well as in the information about current delivery prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

There are too many CPS recommended for adolescents with insufficient evidence of effectiveness, and there is low delivery prevalence for the few services with good evidence of effectiveness. Both more research and more attention to the practice changes that might improve delivery prevalence are needed.

Randomized trial of quality improvement intervention to improve diabetes care in primary care settings

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a quality improvement (QI) intervention on the quality of diabetes care at primary care clinics.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Twelve primary care medical practices were matched by size and location and randomized to intervention or control conditions. Intervention clinic staff were trained in a seven-step QI change process to improve diabetes care. Surveys and medical record reviews of 754 patients, surveys of 329 clinic staff, interviews with clinic leaders, and analysis of training session videotapes evaluated compliance with and impact of the intervention. Mixed-model nested analyses compared differences in the quality of diabetes care before and after intervention.

RESULTS

All intervention clinics completed at least six steps of the seven-step QI change process in an 18-month period and, compared with control clinics, had broader staff participation in QI activities (P = 0.04), used patient registries more often (P = 0.03), and had better test rates for HbA(1c) (A1C), LDL, and blood pressure (P = 0.02). Other processes of diabetes care were unchanged. The intervention did not improve A1C (P = 0.54), LDL (P = 0.46), or blood pressure (P = 0.69) levels or a composite of these outcomes (P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

This QI change process was successfully implemented but failed to improve A1C, LDL, or blood pressure levels. Data suggest that to be successful, such a QI change process should direct more attention to specific clinical actions, such as drug intensification and patient activation.