Skip to main content
. 2008 Jun 24;336(7659):1491–1494. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39570.749884.BE

Table 2.

 Overview of effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in included controlled studies

Study, reference, study outcome measures No of measures (No of significant measures)† Significant outcomes* (post measurement intervention group v control group)
1, Pierce-Bulger et alw72
Infant mortality 1 (1) Annual days between deaths: increase from pre-programme average of 55 days (1989-94) to an average of 114 days (1995-2000)‡
2, Baier et alw61
Residents with pain 1 (1) Prevalence: 7.2% v 11.2% patients
3, Benedetti et alw62
End organ surveillance or therapy 5 (3) Eye examination annually (NS); foot examination annually (NS); patients aged >40 years taking acetylsalicylic acid (NS)
Glycaemic control 2 (1) Haemoglobin A1C <9.5 (NS)
Dyslipidaemia therapy 2 (1) Low density lipoprotein test <130 (75% v 45% patients)
Hypertension control 2 (1) Blood pressure <130/85 (49% v 35% patients)
4, Landon et alw63
Antiretroviral therapy 2 (0)
Screening and prophylaxis 5 (0)
Access to care 1 (0)
5, Homer et alw64
Primary study outcomes:
 Written asthma management plan 1 (0)
 Daily use of inhaled steroids, 1 (0)
 Daily use of controller drugs [Author: Please clarify dash] 1 (0)
Secondary study outcomes:
 Asthma attack 1 (0)
 Parent report of limited activities 1 (0)
 Parents’ experience of care 1 (0)
 Parent reported functional status 1 (0)
 Admission to hospital or emergency department for asthma 1 (0)
6, Mangione-Smith et alw65
Medical records process indicators 9 (7) Peak expiratory flow rate measured annually (49% v 4% patients); written action plan (42% v 3% patients); ≥2 follow-up visits annually (86% v 78% patients); educated in self management (41% v 17% patients); instructed in use of metered dose inhalers (30% v 9% patients); collaborative goal setting between patient and provider (10% v 0% patients); overall asthma process of care summary score (56% v 40% patients)
Quality of life 3 (2) General quality of life (80.2 v 77.0); asthma specific quality of life: treatment problems (88.6 v 85.3)
Patient self management 3 (2) Peak flow monitoring (70% v 43% patients); written action plan (41% v 22% patients)
Satisfaction with care, impact on family functioning, acute care service use, missed school days, parent lost work days, asthma knowledge, use of long term drugs for control 2 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0)
6, Schonlau et alw66
Medical records process indicators 9 (5) Peak expiratory flow rate measured annually (28% v 14% patients); written action plan (27% v 0% patients); instructed in use of metered dose inhalers (22% v 7% patients); collaborative goal setting between patient and provider (7% v 0% patients); overall asthma process of care summary score (46% v 38% patients)
Self management 4 (1) Attended educational session (20% v 5% patients)
Satisfaction with communication 1 (1) With clinician or lay educator communication (overall score 62% v 39% patients)
Quality of life, use of acute care, bed days resulting from asthma related illness, asthma knowledge, drugs for asthma control 2 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0), 1 (0)
7, Asch et alw67
Counselling indicators 8 (7) Drugs (44% v 17% patients); diet (46% v 11% patients); exercise (42% v 12% patients); weight loss (42% v 7% patients); disease management (61% v 23% patients); water weight management (42% v 4% patients); goal setting (5% v 4% patients)
Drug indicators 4 (2) Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor for left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (93% v 87% patients); lipid lowering therapy for coronary artery disease (66% v 64% patients)
Outcome indicators, diagnostic indicators, follow-up indicators 4 (0), 4 (0), 5 (0)
7, Baker et alw68
Knowledge 15 (8) Not to drink more fluids than normal (69% v 53% patients); check weight (84% v 44% patients); heart not pumping blood as well as it should (64% v 53% patients); high salt food (canned vegetables) (89% v 85% patients); high salt food (cheese) (76% v 68% patients); shortness of breath (61% v 55% patients); swelling of legs or ankles (80% v 70% patients); weight gain (76% v 61% patients)
Educational components received 14 (5) Not to add salt (91% v 83% patients); avoid drinking large amounts (59% v 38% patients); weigh yourself (87% v 34% patients); regular exercise (90% v 83% patients); use pillbox (58% v 49% patients)
Communication 4 (4) Given choices and options about treatment (3.9 v 3.7); have given me confidence (4.1 v 3.9); are interested (4.2 v 4.1); review self management (4.0 v 3.9)
Self management behaviours 4 (2) Have functioning scale at home (93% v 81% patients); how frequently weighed oneself (4.2 v 3.2)
Healthcare use 3 (2) Emergency department visits (adjusted difference −0.25); number of admissions to hospital (0.85 v 0.95)
Quality of life, self efficacy, satisfaction, heart failure symptoms 2 (0), 3 (0), 4 (0), 7 (0)
8, Horbar et alw69
Rates of infection 2 (1) Coagulase negative staphylococcal infection rate (12.3% v 16.5% infants)
Rates of oxygen supplementation 1 (1) Oxygen supplementation rate (34% v 38.7% infants)
Death 1 (0)
8, Rogowski et alw70
Median treatment cost per infant 2 (1) Median treatment cost per infant ($57 606 before measurement v $45 874 after measurement)
9, Horbar et alw71
Primary study outcomes:
 Surfactant treatment in delivery room 1 (1) Surfactant treatment in delivery room (54.7% v 18.2%)
 First dose surfactant given after 2 hours 1 (1) First dose surfactant given after two hours (9.4% v 24.9%)
 Mortality (death before discharge), pneumothorax 1 (0), 1 (0)
Secondary study outcomes:
 Delivery room resuscitation 7 (1) Endotracheal intubation (78% v 69.8%)
 Respiratory 6 (1) Surfactant given at any time (85.1% v 79.5%)
 Neurological 3 (1) Severe intraventricular haemorrhage (10.1% v 14.2%)
 Infection, other 4 (0), 3 (0)

NS=not specified.

£1 (€1.27; $1.97).

*P<0.05.

†Number of measures with significant improvement at intervention sites.

‡Since clinic and home visiting services began.