首页> 外文期刊>Annals of family medicine >Implementing Asthma Guidelines using practice facilitation and local learning collaboratives: A randomized controlled trial
【24h】

Implementing Asthma Guidelines using practice facilitation and local learning collaboratives: A randomized controlled trial

机译:通过实践促进和本地学习合作实施哮喘指南:一项随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: Guideline implementation in primary care has proven difficult. Although external assistance through performance feedback, academic detailing, practice facilitation (PF), and learning collaboratives seems to help, the best combination of interventions has not been determined. Methods: In a cluster randomized trial, we compared the independent and combined effectiveness of PF and local learning collaboratives (LLCs), combined with performance feedback and academic detailing, with performance feedback and academic detailing alone on implementation of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Asthma Guidelines. The study was conducted in 3 primary care practice-based research networks. Medical records of patients with asthma seen during pre- and postintervention periods were abstracted to determine adherence to 6 guideline recommendations. McNemar's test and multivariate modeling were used to evaluate the impact of the interventions. Results: Across 43 practices, 1,016 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, adherence to all 6 recommendations increased (P ≤.002). Examination of improvement by study arm in unadjusted analyses showed that practices in the control arm significantly improved adherence to 2 of 6 recommendations, whereas practices in the PF arm improved in 3, practices in the LLCs improved in 4, and practices in the PF + LLC arm improved in 5 of 6 recommendations. In multivariate modeling, PF practices significantly improved assessment of asthma severity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% CI, 1.7-3.8) and assessment of asthma level of control (OR = 2.3, 95% CI, 1.5-3.5) compared with control practices. Practices assigned to LLCs did not improve significantly more than control practices for any recommendation. Conclusions: Addition of PF to performance feedback and academic detailing was helpful to practices attempting to improve adherence to asthma guidelines.
机译:目的:已证明很难在初级保健中实施准则。尽管通过绩效反馈,学术细节,实践促进(PF)和学习合作等方式提供的外部帮助似乎有所帮助,但仍未确定干预措施的最佳组合。方法:在一项整群随机试验中,我们比较了PF和本地学习合作组织(LLC)的独立性和联合有效性,并结合了绩效反馈和学术详细信息,以及仅就实施国家心,肺和血液的绩效反馈和学术详细信息研究所的哮喘指南。该研究是在3个基于初级保健实践的研究网络中进行的。提取干预前后的哮喘患者病历,以确定是否遵循6条指南建议。 McNemar的检验和多变量模型用于评估干预措施的影响。结果:在43种实践中,有1,016名患者符合入选标准。总体而言,对所有6项建议的遵守率都有所提高(P≤.002)。研究组在未经调整的分析中对改进的检查表明,对照组的实践显着提高了对6条建议中2条的遵守,而PF组的实践则提高了3条,LLC的实践提高了4条,PF + LLC的改进了改善了6项建议中的5项。在多变量建模中,PF实践显着改善了哮喘严重程度的评估(比值比[OR] = 2.5,95%CI,1.7-3.8)和哮喘控制水平的评估(OR = 2.3,95%CI,1.5-3.5)与控制实践。分配给LLC的实践对任何建议的改进都没有比对控制实践显着改善。结论:将PF添加到绩效反馈和学术细节中有助于尝试改善对哮喘指南的依从性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号