Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30652011›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019

Evaluation of clinical quality improvement interventions: feasibility of an integrated approach.

Sandeep Reddy, Kevin Mc Namara, Mary Malakellis, Tim Denton, Cathy McDonald, Jane Opie, Andrew Sanigorski, Vincent Versace

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sandeep ReddyDeakin School of Medicine, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216 Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5824-4900
Kevin Mc NamaraDeakin School of Medicine, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216 Australia.
Mary MalakellisDeakin School of Medicine, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216 Australia.
Tim DentonKardinia Health, Belmont, VIC 3216 Australia.
Cathy McDonaldKardinia Health, Belmont, VIC 3216 Australia.
Jane OpieWestern Victoria Primary Health Network, Geelong, 3220 Australia.
Andrew SanigorskiDeakin School of Medicine, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216 Australia.
Vincent VersaceDeakin School of Medicine, Waurn Ponds, VIC 3216 Australia.
Deakin University · AUBelmont Hospital · AUWestern Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the largest cause of death and disability in Australia. Australian national guidelines for the primary prevention of CVD recommend that all adults without CVD and aged 45 years or more are screened for their absolute risk of CVD every 2 years. Despite the compelling evidence to address CVD risk, treatment gaps remain and evidence suggests that much of the shortcomings are attributed to the performance of primary care practices. To address this issue, a quality improvement initiative is being implemented in a large urban multidisciplinary primary care practice in the South West region of Victoria, Australia. The key outcome of this intervention will be to increase the use and acceptability of CVD risk assessment guidelines. To ensure the intervention is tracking toward its objectives, a robust monitoring and evaluation framework was established. METHOD/

designA novel framework that assimilates key traditional and theory-driven evaluation practices was developed to assess the impact of the intervention. The framework approach is termed the integrated model of evaluation (IMoE). Researchers and stakeholders convened several times to discuss and develop the evaluation protocol and align it with the quality intervention. The main objective here is to explore the feasibility of an integrated approach to evaluating clinical quality improvement interventions. The sub-objectives are to test the alignment of the IMoE to clinical quality improvement projects and its ability to derive findings to the satisfaction of stakeholders. The design and establishment of the evaluation approach is discussed in further detail in this article. DISCUSSION: The novel feature of the IMoE is its emphasis on tracking 'change' in practices that lead to quality improvement. This emphasis suits the quality improvement theme of this initiative as identification of change elements and explanation behind change is necessary to sustain and promote quality improvement. The other principle behind development of this model, which emphasises practicality in implementation, is to ensure stakeholders gain greatest value from the commissioning of program evaluation. By incorporating practical components and leaving out esoteric concepts, this approach ensures evaluation can be undertaken in realistic timeframes. ETHICS APPROVAL: The quality improvement intervention and evaluation framework received approval from the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number: 2017-313).

Indexed as

Cardiovascular diseaseEvaluationIntegrated model of evaluationPrimary careQuality improvement intervention

Identifiers

PMID30652011
PMCPMC6327424
OpenAlexW2916460739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.