Learning Evaluation: blending quality improvement and implementation research methods to study healthcare innovations

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Bijal A Balasubramanian (1) (2)
  Deborah J Cohen (3)
  Melinda M Davis (3)
  Rose Gunn (3)
  L Miriam Dickinson (4)
  William L Miller (5)
  Benjamin F Crabtree (6)
  Kurt C Stange (7)
  
  1. Department of Epidemiology ; Human Genetics ; and Environmental Sciences ; University of Texas Health Science Center Houston School of Public Health ; Dallas Regional Campus ; 5323 Harry Hines Blvd ; V8.112 ; Dallas ; TX ; 75390 ; USA
  2. Harold Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center ; UT Southwestern Medical Center ; Dallas ; TX ; USA
  3. Department of Family Medicine ; Oregon Health & Science University ; Portland ; OR ; USA
  4. Department of Family Medicine ; University of Colorado School of Medicine ; Aurora ; CO ; USA
  5. Department of Family Medicine ; Lehigh Valley Health Network ; Allentown ; PA ; USA
  6. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health ; Robert Wood Johnson Medical School ; Rutgers University ; New Brunswick ; NJ ; USA
  7. Departments of Family Medicine and Community Health ; Epidemiology and Biostatistics ; and Sociology ; Case Western Reserve University ; Cleveland ; OH ; USA
  
• 关键词：Quality improvement ; Implementation science ; Evaluation ; Delivery of healthcare
• 刊名：Implementation Science
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：10
• 期：1
• 全文大小：493 KB
• 参考文献：Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C
  1. Berwick, DM, Nolan, TW, Whittington, J (2008) The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff 27: pp. 759-69 CrossRef
  2. Joint principles of the patient-centered medical home [http://www.pcpcc.net]
  3. Nutting, PA, Crabtree, BF, Miller, WL, Stange, KC, Stewart, E, Jaen, C (2011) Transforming physician practices to patient-centered medical homes: lessons from the national demonstration project. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 30: pp. 439-445 CrossRef
  4. Kathol, RG, Gruy, F, Rollman, BL (2014) Value-based financially sustainable behavioral health components in patient-centered medical homes. Ann Fam Med 12: pp. 172-175 CrossRef
  5. Academy for integrating behavioral health and primary care [http://integrationacademy.ahrq.gov]
  6. SMAHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions [http://www.integration.samhsa.gov]
  7. Balasubramanian, BA, Cohen, DJ, Clark, EC, Isaacson, NF, Hung, DY, Dickinson, LM (2008) Practice-level approaches for behavioral counseling and patient health behaviors. Am J Prev Med 35: pp. S407-413 CrossRef
  8. Cohen, DJ, Balasubramanian, BA, Isaacson, NF, Clark, EC, Etz, RS, Crabtree, BF (2011) Coordination of health behavior counseling in primary care. Ann Fam Med 9: pp. 406-415 CrossRef
  9. Crabtree, BF, Chase, SM, Wise, CG, Schiff, GD, Schmidt, LA, Goyzueta, JR (2011) Evaluation of patient centered medical home practice transformation initiatives. Med Care 49: pp. 10-16 CrossRef
  10. Davis, M, Balasubramanian, BA, Waller, E, Miller, BF, Green, LA, Cohen, DJ (2013) Integrating behavioral and physical health care in the real world: early lessons from advancing care together. J Am Board Fam Med 26: pp. 588-602 CrossRef
  11. Glasgow, RE, Emmons, KM (2007) How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health 28: pp. 413-433 CrossRef
  12. Balasubramanian, BA, Chase, SM, Nutting, PA, Cohen, DJ, Strickland, PA, Crosson, JC (2010) Using learning teams for reflective adaptation (ULTRA): insights from a team-based change management strategy in primary care. Ann Fam Med 8: pp. 425-32 CrossRef
  13. Solberg, LI, Kottke, TE, Brekke, ML, Magnan, S, Davidson, G, Calomeni, CA (2000) Failure of a continuous quality improvement intervention to increase the delivery of preventive services. A randomized trial. Effect Clin Pract 3: pp. 105-115
  14. Batalden, PB, Davidoff, F (2007) What is 鈥渜uality improvement鈥?and how can it transform healthcare?. Qual Saf Health Care 16: pp. 2-3 CrossRef
  15. Peek, CJ, Cohen, DJ, deGruy Iii, FV (2014) Research and evaluation in the transformation of primary care. Am Psychol 69: pp. 430-442 CrossRef
  16. Davidoff, F, Batalden, P, Stevens, D, Ogrinc, G, Mooney, S, Group, SD (2008) Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Saf Health Care 17: pp. i3-9 CrossRef
  17. Stange KC, Glasgow RE: Considering and reporting important contextual factors in research on the patient-centered medical home. Agency Healthcare Res Q. 2013, AHRQ Publication No. 13-0045-EF.
  18. Tomoaia-Cotisel, A, Scammon, DL, Waitzman, NJ, Cronholm, PF, Halladay, JR, Driscoll, DL (2013) Context matters: the experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. Ann Fam Med 11: pp. S115-S23 CrossRef
  19. ACT Advancing Care Together - creating systems of care for the whole person [http://www.advancingcaretogether.org/]
  20. Blount, A (2003) Integrated primary care: organizing the evidence. Fam Syst Health 21: pp. 121-133 CrossRef
  21. Butler, M, Kane, RL, McAlpine, D, Kathol, RG, Fu, S, Hagedorn, H, Wilt, T (2008) Integration of mental heatlh/substance abuse and primary care. AHRQ Publication No. 09-E003. Book Integration of mental heatlh/substance abuse and primary care. AHRQ Publication No. 09-E003. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, Rockville, MD
  22. Cohen, DJ, Leviton, LC, Isaacson, N, Tallia, AF, Crabtree, BF (2006) Online diaries for qualitative evaluation: gaining real-time insights. Am J Eval 27: pp. 163-184 CrossRef
  23. Glasgow, RE, Vogt, TM, Boles, SM (1999) Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 89: pp. 1322-1327 CrossRef
  24. Perla, RJ, Provost, LP, Murray, SK (2011) The run chart: a simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Qual Saf 20: pp. 46-51 CrossRef
  25. Benneyan, JC, Lloyd, RC, Plsek, PE (2003) Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 12: pp. 458-464 CrossRef
  26. Pawson, R, Tilley, N (1997) Realistic evaluation. Sage, London, UK
  27. Shadish, WR, Cook, TD, Campbell, DT (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY, Houghton Mifflin Boston
  28. Miller, WL, Crabtree, BF The dance of interpretation. In: Crabtree, BF, Miller, WL eds. (1999) Doing qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 127-143
  29. Raudenbush, SW, Bryk, AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA
  30. Jaen, CR, Crabtree, BF, Palmer, RF, Ferrer, RL, Nutting, PA, Miller, WL (2010) Methods for evaluating practice change toward a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med 8: pp. S9-20 CrossRef
  31. Roy-Byrne, PP, Sherbourne, CD, Craske, MG, Stein, MB, Katon, W, Sullivan, G (2003) Moving treatment research from clinical trials to the real world. Psychiatr Serv (Washington, DC) 54: pp. 327-332 CrossRef
  32. Westfall, JM, Mold, J, Fagnan, L (2007) Practice-based research - 鈥滲lue Highways鈥?on the NIH roadmap. JAMA 297: pp. 403-406 CrossRef
  33. Woolf, SH (2008) The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 299: pp. 211-213
  34. Fetterman, DM (1994) Steps of empowerment evaluation: from California to Cape Town. Eval Program Plann 17: pp. 305-313 CrossRef
  35. Fetterman, DM (1994) Empowerment evaluation. Eval Pract 15: pp. 1-15 CrossRef
  36. Pawson, R, Greenhalgh, T, Harvey, G, Walshe, K (2005) Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 1: pp. 21-34 CrossRef
  37. Ovretveit, J (2002) Action evaluation of health programmes and changes - a handbook for a user-focused approach. Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd, Oxon, United Kingdom
  38. Batalden, PB, Nelson, EC, Roberts, JS (1994) Linking outcomes measurement to continual improvement: the serial 鈥淰鈥?way of thinking about improving clinical care. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 20: pp. 167-80
  39. Edmondson, A, Moingeon, B (1998) From organizational learning to the learning organization. Manag Learn 29: pp. 5-20 CrossRef
  40. Edmondson, AC (2004) Learning from failure in health care: frequent opportunities, pervasive barriers. Qual Saf Health Care 13: pp. ii3-ii9 CrossRef
  41. Etheredge, LM (2007) A rapid-learning health system. Health Aff 26: pp. 26 CrossRef
  42. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. RFA-HS-14-009: Evaluation of AHRQ Initiative to accelerate the dissemination and implementation of PCOR findings into primary care (R01).
  
• 刊物主题：Health Promotion and Disease Prevention; Health Administration; Health Informatics;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1748-5908

文摘

Background In healthcare change interventions, on-the-ground learning about the implementation process is often lost because of a primary focus on outcome improvements. This paper describes the Learning Evaluation, a methodological approach that blends quality improvement and implementation research methods to study healthcare innovations. Methods Learning Evaluation is an approach to multi-organization assessment. Qualitative and quantitative data are collected to conduct real-time assessment of implementation processes while also assessing changes in context, facilitating quality improvement using run charts and audit and feedback, and generating transportable lessons. Five principles are the foundation of this approach: (1) gather data to describe changes made by healthcare organizations and how changes are implemented; (2) collect process and outcome data relevant to healthcare organizations and to the research team; (3) assess multi-level contextual factors that affect implementation, process, outcome, and transportability; (4) assist healthcare organizations in using data for continuous quality improvement; and (5) operationalize common measurement strategies to generate transportable results. Results Learning Evaluation principles are applied across organizations by the following: (1) establishing a detailed understanding of the baseline implementation plan; (2) identifying target populations and tracking relevant process measures; (3) collecting and analyzing real-time quantitative and qualitative data on important contextual factors; (4) synthesizing data and emerging findings and sharing with stakeholders on an ongoing basis; and (5) harmonizing and fostering learning from process and outcome data. Application to a multi-site program focused on primary care and behavioral health integration shows the feasibility and utility of Learning Evaluation for generating real-time insights into evolving implementation processes. Conclusions Learning Evaluation generates systematic and rigorous cross-organizational findings about implementing healthcare innovations while also enhancing organizational capacity and accelerating translation of findings by facilitating continuous learning within individual sites. Researchers evaluating change initiatives and healthcare organizations implementing improvement initiatives may benefit from a Learning Evaluation approach.