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

David H. Gustafson, Andrew R. Quanbeck, James M. Robinson, James H. Ford, Alice Pulvermacher, Michael T. French, Kenneth (John) McConnell, Paul B. Batalden, Kim A. Hoffman, Dennis McCarty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

66 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1145-1157
Number of pages13
JournalAddiction
Volume108
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2013

Fingerprint

Learning
Costs and Cost Analysis
Telecommunications
Public Opinion
Therapeutics
Mentoring
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Outpatients
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Coaching
  • Quality improvement
  • Treatment organizations.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Gustafson, D. H., Quanbeck, A. R., Robinson, J. M., Ford, J. H., Pulvermacher, A., French, M. T., ... McCarty, D. (2013). Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial. Addiction, 108(6), 1145-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12117

Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial. / Gustafson, David H.; Quanbeck, Andrew R.; Robinson, James M.; Ford, James H.; Pulvermacher, Alice; French, Michael T.; McConnell, Kenneth (John); Batalden, Paul B.; Hoffman, Kim A.; McCarty, Dennis.

In: Addiction, Vol. 108, No. 6, 06.2013, p. 1145-1157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gustafson, DH, Quanbeck, AR, Robinson, JM, Ford, JH, Pulvermacher, A, French, MT, McConnell, KJ, Batalden, PB, Hoffman, KA & McCarty, D 2013, 'Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial', Addiction, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1145-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12117
Gustafson DH, Quanbeck AR, Robinson JM, Ford JH, Pulvermacher A, French MT et al. Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial. Addiction. 2013 Jun;108(6):1145-1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12117
Gustafson, David H. ; Quanbeck, Andrew R. ; Robinson, James M. ; Ford, James H. ; Pulvermacher, Alice ; French, Michael T. ; McConnell, Kenneth (John) ; Batalden, Paul B. ; Hoffman, Kim A. ; McCarty, Dennis. / Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial. In: Addiction. 2013 ; Vol. 108, No. 6. pp. 1145-1157.
@article{29484e97b6de45c482718575f915c834,
title = "Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial",
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.",
keywords = "Coaching, Quality improvement, Treatment organizations.",
author = "Gustafson, {David H.} and Quanbeck, {Andrew R.} and Robinson, {James M.} and Ford, {James H.} and Alice Pulvermacher and French, {Michael T.} and McConnell, {Kenneth (John)} and Batalden, {Paul B.} and Hoffman, {Kim A.} and Dennis McCarty",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/add.12117",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "108",
pages = "1145--1157",
journal = "Addiction",
issn = "0965-2140",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial

AU - Gustafson, David H.

AU - Quanbeck, Andrew R.

AU - Robinson, James M.

AU - Ford, James H.

AU - Pulvermacher, Alice

AU - French, Michael T.

AU - McConnell, Kenneth (John)

AU - Batalden, Paul B.

AU - Hoffman, Kim A.

AU - McCarty, Dennis

PY - 2013/6

Y1 - 2013/6

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Coaching

KW - Quality improvement

KW - Treatment organizations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84877673486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84877673486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/add.12117

DO - 10.1111/add.12117

M3 - Article

C2 - 23316787

AN - SCOPUS:84877673486

VL - 108

SP - 1145

EP - 1157

JO - Addiction

JF - Addiction

SN - 0965-2140

IS - 6

ER -