Cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement collaborative focusing on patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the lifelong health effects, costs, and cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement collaborative focusing on improving diabetes management in an integrated care setting. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective with lifetime horizon alongside a nonrandomized, controlled, before-after study in the Netherlands. Analyses were based on 1861 diabetes patients in 6 intervention and 9 control regions, representing 37 general practices and 13 out-patient clinics. Change in the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study score, remaining lifetime, and costs per quality-adjusted life year gained were calculated. Probabilistic life tables were constructed using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study risk engine, a validated diabetes model, and nonparametric bootstrapping of individual patient data. RESULTS: Annual United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study risk scores reduced for cardiovascular events (hazard ratio: 0.83 and 0.98) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio: 0.78 and 0.88) for men and women, respectively. Life expectancy improved by 0.97 and 0.76 years for men and women, and quality-adjusted life years by 0.44 and 0.37, respectively. Higher life expectancy in the intervention group increased lifelong costs by &OV0556;860 for men and &OV0556;645 for women. Initial program costs were about &OV0556;22 per patient. The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year were &OV0556;1937 for men and &OV0556;1751 for women compared with usual care costs. There is a probability >95% that the collaborative is cost-effective, using a threshold of &OV0556;20,000 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: Optimizing integrated and patient-centered diabetes care through a quality-improvement collaborative is cost-effective compared with usual care.

Factors that influence the stroke care team's effectiveness in reducing the length of hospital stay.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of a quality improvement program for improving stroke care and the determinants of success at the team and hospital levels. Method- For 16 months, 23 multidisciplinary stroke service teams participated in a quality improvement collaborative designed to set up stroke services and reduce the length of hospital stay (LOHS). We monitored the LOHS and the discharge delay during the project and measured indicators of well organized stroke services at baseline and after the intervention. A multiple and multilevel regression model was used to relate the outcome variables to the team and hospital characteristics. National LOHS figures served as reference data. RESULTS: Data regarding 4549 stroke patients were included in the analyses. The LOHS decreased significantly from 18.3 to 13.3 days. The mean LOHS varied substantially (9.2 to 20.9 days) after the intervention. Teams with higher team functioning scores showed lower LOHS scores and higher scores for the indicators of well organized stroke services. Team characteristics explain almost 40% of the variance in LOHS and 53% in the indicators of well organized stroke care. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a national quality improvement collaborative effected a significant decrease of the LOHS and a significant increase in the presence of key features of stroke services. Variation in ability to reduce the LOHS and increase key features of stroke services were related to team functioning. The data suggest that the composite of team functioning is pivotal in quality-of-care improvement and may need specific attention in any quality improvement program.

Determinants of success of quality improvement collaboratives: what does the literature show?

CONTEXT: The apparent inconsistency between the widespread use of quality improvement collaboratives and the available evidence heightens the importance of thoroughly understanding the relative strength of the approach. More insight into factors influencing outcome would mean future collaboratives could be tailored in ways designed to increase their chances of success. This review describes potential determinants of team success and how they relate to effectiveness. METHOD: We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases from January 1995 to June 2006. The 1995-2006 search was updated in June 2009. Reference lists of included papers were reviewed to identify additional papers. We included papers that were written in English, contained data about the effectiveness of collaboratives, had a healthcare setting, met our definition for collaborative, and quantitatively assessed a relationship between any determinant and any effect parameter. FINDINGS: Of 1367 abstracts identified, 23 papers (reporting on 26 collaboratives) provided information on potential determinants and their relationship with effectiveness. We categorised potential determinants of success using the definition for collaboratives as a template. Numerous potential determinants were tested, but only a few related to empirical effectiveness. Some aspects of teamwork and participation in specific collaborative activities enhanced short-term success. If teams remained intact and continued to gather data, chances of long-term success were higher. There is no empirical evidence of positive effects of leadership support, time and resources. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes provide guidance to organisers, participants and researchers of collaboratives. To advance knowledge in this area we propose a more systematic exploration of potential determinants by applying theory and practice-based knowledge and by performing methodologically sound studies that clearly set out to test such determinants.

Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving the quality of care. DATA SOURCES: Relevant studies through Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on topics, participants, setting, study design, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1104 articles identified, 72 were included in the study. Twelve reports representing nine studies (including two randomised controlled trials) used a controlled design to measure the effects of the quality improvement collaborative intervention on care processes or outcomes of care. Systematic review of these nine studies showed moderate positive results. Seven studies (including one randomised controlled trial) reported an effect on some of the selected outcome measures. Two studies (including one randomised controlled trial) did not show any significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence underlying quality improvement collaboratives is positive but limited and the effects cannot be predicted with great certainty. Considering that quality improvement collaboratives seem to play a key part in current strategies focused on accelerating improvement, but may have only modest effects on outcomes at best, further knowledge of the basic components effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and success factors is crucial to determine the value of quality improvement collaboratives.