Design decisions and lessons learned in the Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation
description
Transcript of Design decisions and lessons learned in the Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation
6/01 RAND1
Design decisions and lessons learned in the Improving Chronic
Illness Care Evaluation
Emmett Keeler
September 2005
6/01 RAND2
Evaluation questions
• Did the Collaboratives induce positive changes?
• Did implementing the Chronic Care Model (CCM) improve processes of care and patient health?
• What did participation and implementation cost?
• What factors were associated with success?
www.improvingchroniccare.org is a great website for information about the Chronic care model.
6/01 RAND3
ICICE results in 1 slide
• Collaborative sites made more than 30 systemic changes over the year, on average
• These changes let us test if moving towards the CCM is good for patients
• Process, self management and some outcomes improved more for intervention patients than control sites
improving most in emphasized areas such as patient goal-setting
http://www.rand.org/health/ICICE presents findings from the 15 accepted papers and other information about the study.
6/01 RAND4
Outline
Design considerations and what we did
Improving science base for QI evaluations
Dealing with challenges to validity
Reducing per subject costs
6/01 RAND5
Drug RCT paradigm
Aims at internal validity of treatment estimates
• Reduce unwanted variation byMany subjects Tight criteria for enrollment Tight protocols for treatments
• Eliminate potential bias byRandomizationBlinding
How much of this paradigm is possible in evaluating systemic change in many organizations?
6/01 RAND6
Is Randomization Feasible?
Organizations want to improve care, not do research
• Are afraid patients won’t like being subjects
Many changes are at site level: new appointment system; staff training; new information system.
• Can’t be applied to half the patients at the site
• Sites might be randomized in system QI trials, but not patients
So patient RCTs are not feasible in these evaluations, but many reviewers for medical journals believe non-RCTs have little value.
6/01 RAND7
Components of alternate strong studies
Before and after with a matched control group
Multiple sources of data and an evaluation logic model
Planning for and testing potential biases
6/01 RAND8
Baseline Measures
PilotGroup
ControlGroup
Experimenting with Care
Implementing Improved Care
Baseline Measures
Secular TrendsPost
Measures
Post Measures
Difference in Changes
Evaluation Design
Changes in pilot measures
Changes in control measures
An Evaluation of Collaborative interventions to improve Chronic Illness Care: Framework and Study Design”, Cretin S et al., Evaluation Review, 2004
6/01 RAND9
Picking a control group
External control sites
• No contamination from intervention
• But a different set of shocks
• Less likely to cooperate, more expensive to include
We tried to pick internal sites in the same organization
• Asked for a similar site, that was not likely to get CCM this year.
6/01 RAND10
Patient Sampling
Use sampling frame from site registry of patients with disease of interest
• Registries are needed for the CCM interventions
• A few sites had to develop them, which we helped
We usually took everyone in registry at our sites.
• Not a “tight” design, but better for external validity
We later discarded patients who said they did not have disease, or did not get care at the sites.
6/01 RAND11
Evaluation Data Sources
Record
Staff Survey
Patient Telephone Surveys
Medical Record Abstraction
Monthly Progress Reports
Clinical & Administrative Staff Surveys
IHIIHI
Final Calls with Leader
6/01 RAND12
Telephone Survey
Patient is best source for what care provider does:
• Education, Knowledge, Adherence,
• Communication, Satisfaction,
• General and disease specific health, limitations
• Utilization, Demographics and insurance.
Can use to see if improvements in charts are just documentation or are real.
Cost ~$100 each for the ~4000 patients phoned.
6/01 RAND13
Advantages of charts
IRB and consent difficulties delayed recruitment
• Phone surveys were at end of collaborative, but
• Charts still provide true before and after
can add baseline variables from charts to analyses of measures from phone surveys.
• Cost ~ $300 each, but give before and after.
6/01 RAND14
Monthly progress reports
The collaborative asked the team at each intervention site to fill out a brief report each month -- for their leaders, and for IHI
• what they had done that month,
• tracking their most important statistics.
Very helpful in finding out what sites did.
• We needed to develop method to code change activities
• Used changes as both dependent and independent variable.
Lack of Standardization reduced value of their statistics to us.
• e.g. for depression, 3 time periods for “in treatment”, 3 for time for a follow-up , 2 for big improvement at N months.
IHIIHI
6/01 RAND15
Outline
Design considerations and what we did
Improving science base for QI evaluations
Dealing with challenges to validity
Reducing per subject costs
6/01 RAND16
Longer Run effects ?
We mainly looked at care before and during the collaborative to shorten the study, saving time-to-results and resources.
How can one get longer run effects?
• Use risk factors as a proxy for future health?Cholesterol, HbA1c, blood pressure in people with
diabetes.
• Check in a year later with key staff for: Reflections on successes and barriersSee what happened next (maintenance, spread of quality
improvements).
6/01 RAND17
Evaluators need to know what control sites are doing
In the first collaborative, control sites made big improvements, making intervention sites insignificantly better. What was up?
Bleed of collaborative quality improvement to controls:
• We measured how “close” the control sites were using a scale including geography, overlap of staff, and of organizations. (only 6 control sites were truly external).
• This scale was a mild predictor of control sites doing better.
Other Quality improvement activities: QI activities unique to control site reduce the estimates of intervention success.
• asking about QI was a big part of the control exit phone call.
6/01 RAND18
Bias from volunteer organizations and teams?
External validity: Organizations volunteered to improve their care
• We do not know how effective the intervention would be on organizations that do not care to improve quality.
internal Validity: Site staff in the organization often volunteered to go first.
• We compared staff attitudes of the chronic care delivery teams in intervention and control sites.
Similar attitudes towards quality improvement
6/01 RAND19
Selection Bias from organizations agreeing to be evaluated?
Compare organizations in the collaborative that participated in the evaluation with non-participating.
IHI Faculty gave 1-5 ratings of success at end.
• Participating organizations averaged 4.1, non-participating had 3.9, non-significant
• None of the 7 organizations that dropped out of the collaboratives had signed up to participate.
6/01 RAND20
Bias from Funder’s pressure
• Real and perceived problem that increases with less rigid designs.
• Separate evaluation team from the intervention team
But we need their help to enhance cooperation and help us understand the intervention process
• Try to ensure independence up-front in contract
Funders can review but not censor results
Evaluators share “unpleasant”results ASAP and• work with funder to understand and present them
• But, researchers and funders are in long term relationship
6/01 RAND21
Lowering cost of evaluations
Reducing multi-site IRB and consent costs:
• Study QI in organizations with many siteswith prior patient consent for quality improvement and QI
research activities.
Reducing data collection costs
• Electronic medical record
• Clever use of existing data, like claims
• Web-based and other unconventional surveys