ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
The Ability of Practices to Report Clinical Quality Measures: More Evidence of the Size Paradox?
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Place Matters: Closing the Gap on Rural Primary Care Quality Improvement Capacity-the Healthy Hearts Northwest Study.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess whether primary care practices with and without support from a larger organization differ in their ability to produce timely reports on cardiovascular disease quality measures.
backgroundAlthough many primary care practices are now part of larger organizations, it is not clear whether such a shift will improve the ability of those who work in these primary care settings to easily access and use their own data for improvement.
methodsSmaller primary care practices were enrolled in a trial of external practice support to build quality improvement (QI) capacity. A request for clinical quality measure (eCQM) data were sent to each practice and study outcomes were defined based on the date on which practices first submitted valid data for at least 1 of the 3 measures. A practice survey completed by a clinic manager captured practice characteristics, including the presence of QI support from a larger organization.
resultsOf the 209 enrolled practices, 205 had complete data for analysis. Practices without central QI support had higher rates of eCQM submission at 30 days (38% vs 20%) and 60 days, (63% vs 48%) than practices with central QI support. Practices with central QI support took longer to submit data (median, 57 days) compared with practices without centralized support (median, 40 days) although this difference was not significant.
conclusionThe ability of smaller practices without centralized QI support to report their eCQMs more quickly may have implications for their subsequent ability to improve these measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.