Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Addiction. 2013 Jun;108(6):1145-57. doi: 10.1111/add.12117. Epub 2013 Mar 1.

Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial.

Author information

1
Center for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1513 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706, USA. dhgustaf@wisc.edu

Abstract

AIMS:

Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout health care to improve quality, but no study has identified which components work best. This study tested the effectiveness of different components in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination of all components would be most effective.

DESIGN:

An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics to one of four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings) and a combination of all three. Interest circle calls functioned as a minimal intervention comparison group.

SETTING:

Out-patient addiction treatment clinics in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS:

Two hundred and one clinics in five states.

MEASUREMENTS:

Clinic data managers submitted data on three primary outcomes: waiting-time (mean days between first contact and first treatment), retention (percentage of patients retained from first to fourth treatment session) and annual number of new patients. State and group costs were collected for a cost-effectiveness analysis.

FINDINGS:

Waiting-time declined significantly for three groups: coaching (an average of 4.6 days/clinic, P = 0.001), learning sessions (3.5 days/clinic, P = 0.012) and the combination (4.7 days/clinic, P = 0.001). The coaching and combination groups increased significantly the number of new patients (19.5%, P = 0.028; 8.9%, P = 0.029; respectively). Interest circle calls showed no significant effect on outcomes. None of the groups improved retention significantly. The estimated cost per clinic was $2878 for coaching versus $7930 for the combination. Coaching and the combination of collaborative components were about equally effective in achieving study aims, but coaching was substantially more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS:

When trying to improve the effectiveness of addiction treatment services, clinic-level coaching appears to help improve waiting-time and number of new patients while other components of improvement collaboratives (interest circles calls and learning sessions) do not seem to add further value.

PMID:
23316787
PMCID:
PMC3651751
DOI:
10.1111/add.12117
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center