For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
3
views
18
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      197
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Design, rationale, and baseline characteristics of a cluster randomized controlled trial of pay for performance for hypertension treatment: study protocol

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Despite compelling evidence of the benefits of treatment and well-accepted guidelines for treatment, hypertension is controlled in less than one-half of United States citizens.

          Methods/design

          This randomized controlled trial tests whether explicit financial incentives promote the translation of guideline-recommended care for hypertension into clinical practice and improve blood pressure (BP) control in the primary care setting. Using constrained randomization, we assigned 12 Veterans Affairs hospital outpatient clinics to four study arms: physician-level incentive; group-level incentive; combination of physician and group incentives; and no incentives (control). All participants at the hospital (cluster) were assigned to the same study arm. We enrolled 83 full-time primary care physicians and 42 non-physician personnel. The intervention consisted of an educational session about guideline-recommended care for hypertension, five audit and feedback reports, and five disbursements of incentive payments. Incentive payments rewarded participants for chart-documented use of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications, BP control, and appropriate responses to uncontrolled BP during a prior four-month performance period over the 20-month intervention. To identify potential unintended consequences of the incentives, the study team interviewed study participants, as well as non-participant primary care personnel and leadership at study sites. Chart reviews included data collection on quality measures not related to hypertension. To evaluate the persistence of the effect of the incentives, the study design includes a washout period.

          Discussion

          We briefly describe the rationale for the interventions being studied, as well as the major design choices. Rigorous research designs such as the one described here are necessary to determine whether performance-based payment arrangements such as financial incentives result in meaningful quality improvements.

          Trial Registration

          http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00302718

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action.

          E Wagner, B. Austin, Jasmine Davis … (2015)
          The growing number of persons suffering from major chronic illnesses face many obstacles in coping with their condition, not least of which is medical care that often does not meet their needs for effective clinical management, psychological support, and information. The primary reason for this may be the mismatch between their needs and care delivery systems largely designed for acute illness. Evidence of effective system changes that improve chronic care is mounting. We have tried to summarize this evidence in the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to guide quality improvement. In this paper we describe the CCM, its use in intensive quality improvement activities with more than 100 health care organizations, and insights gained in the process.
          Article 0 comments Cited 241 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies.

            Geraint E R Thomas, Gavin C. Donaldson, G MacLennan … (2004)
            To undertake a systematic review of the effectiveness and costs of different guideline development, dissemination and implementation strategies. To estimate the resource implications of these strategies. To develop a framework for deciding when it is efficient to develop and introduce clinical guidelines. MEDLINE, Healthstar, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, EMBASE, SIGLE and the specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. Single estimates of dichotomous process variables were derived for each study comparison based upon the primary end-point or the median measure across several reported end-points. Separate analyses were undertaken for comparisons of different types of intervention. The study also explored whether the effects of multifaceted interventions increased with the number of intervention components. Studies reporting economic data were also critically appraised. A survey to estimate the feasibility and likely resource requirements of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies in UK settings was carried out with key informants from primary and secondary care. In total, 235 studies reporting 309 comparisons met the inclusion criteria; of these 73% of comparisons evaluated multifaceted interventions, although the maximum number of replications of a specific multifaceted intervention was 11 comparisons. Overall, the majority of comparisons reporting dichotomous process data observed improvements in care; however, there was considerable variation in the observed effects both within and across interventions. Commonly evaluated single interventions were reminders, dissemination of educational materials, and audit and feedback. There were 23 comparisons of multifaceted interventions involving educational outreach. The majority of interventions observed modest to moderate improvements in care. No relationship was found between the number of component interventions and the effects of multifaceted interventions. Only 29.4% of comparisons reported any economic data. The majority of studies only reported costs of treatment; only 25 studies reported data on the costs of guideline development or guideline dissemination and implementation. The majority of studies used process measures for their primary end-point, despite the fact that only three guidelines were explicitly evidence based (and may not have been efficient). Respondents to the key informant survey rarely identified existing budgets to support guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. In general, the respondents thought that only dissemination of educational materials and short (lunchtime) educational meetings were generally feasible within current resources. There is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions about which guideline dissemination and implementation strategies are likely to be efficient under different circumstances. Decision makers need to use considerable judgement about how best to use the limited resources they have for clinical governance and related activities to maximise population benefits. They need to consider the potential clinical areas for clinical effectiveness activities, the likely benefits and costs required to introduce guidelines and the likely benefits and costs as a result of any changes in provider behaviour. Further research is required to: develop and validate a coherent theoretical framework of health professional and organisational behaviour and behaviour change to inform better the choice of interventions in research and service settings, and to estimate the efficiency of dissemination and implementation strategies in the presence of different barriers and effect modifiers.
            Article 0 comments Cited 211 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom.

              Tim Doran, Catherine Fullwood, Hugh Gravelle … (2006)
              In 2004, after a series of national initiatives associated with marked improvements in the quality of care, the National Health Service of the United Kingdom introduced a pay-for-performance contract for family practitioners. This contract increases existing income according to performance with respect to 146 quality indicators covering clinical care for 10 chronic diseases, organization of care, and patient experience. We analyzed data extracted automatically from clinical computing systems for 8105 family practices in England in the first year of the pay-for-performance program (April 2004 through March 2005), data from the U.K. Census, and data on characteristics of individual family practices. We examined the proportion of patients deemed eligible for a clinical quality indicator for whom the indicator was met (reported achievement) and the proportion of the total number of patients with a medical condition for whom a quality indicator was met (population achievement), and we used multiple regression analysis to determine the extent to which practices achieved high scores by classifying patients as ineligible for quality indicators (exception reporting). The median reported achievement in the first year of the new contract was 83.4 percent (interquartile range, 78.2 to 87.0 percent). Sociodemographic characteristics of the patients (age and socioeconomic features) and practices (size of practice, number of patients per practitioner, age of practitioner, and whether the practitioner was medically educated in the United Kingdom) had moderate but significant effects on performance. Exception reporting by practices was not extensive (median rate, 6 percent), but it was the strongest predictor of achievement: a 1 percent increase in the rate of exception reporting was associated with a 0.31 percent increase in reported achievement. Exception reporting was high in a small number of practices: 1 percent of practices excluded more than 15 percent of patients. English family practices attained high levels of achievement in the first year of the new pay-for-performance contract. A small number of practices appear to have achieved high scores by excluding large numbers of patients by exception reporting. More research is needed to determine whether these practices are excluding patients for sound clinical reasons or in order to increase income. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Article 0 comments Cited 173 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Implement Sci
                Title: Implementation Science : IS
                Publisher: BioMed Central
                ISSN (Electronic): 1748-5908
                Publication date Collection: 2011
                Publication date (Electronic): 3 October 2011
                Volume: 6
                Page: 114
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Policy and Quality Program, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, and Section for Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
                [2 ]University of Washington, Magnuson Health Sciences Center, Seattle, WA, USA
                [3 ]Department of Health Services, Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
                [4 ]Under Secretary for Health, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C., USA
                Article
                Publisher ID: 1748-5908-6-114
                DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-114
                PMC ID: 3197549
                PubMed ID: 21967830
                SO-VID: 6c5a4e65-5285-448c-b147-b573f9a09198
                Copyright © Copyright ©2011 Petersen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 29 July 2011
                Date accepted : 3 October 2011
                Categories
                Subject: Study Protocol

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content197

                See all similar

                Cited by1

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,134

                See all reference authors