|
If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||||||||||||||||
  Health Services ResearchVolume 40 Issue 4, Pages 978 - 996 Published Online: 24 Mar 2005 © 2010 Health Research and Educational Trust Published on behalf of Health Research and Educational Trust in cooperation with AcademyHealth.
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 213K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking  Assessing the Implementation of the Chronic Care Model in Quality Improvement Collaboratives Address correspondence to Marjorie L. Pearson, Ph.D., M.S.H.S., RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, P. O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407. Shinyi Wu, Ph.D., Peter J. Mendel, Ph.D., Mayde Rosen, R.N., B.S.N., and Emmett B. Keeler, Ph.D., are all with the RAND Corporation. Judith Schaefer, M.P.H. and Amy E. Bonomi, Ph.D., M.P.H, are with the MacColl Institute for Health Care Innovation, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Puget Sound, Seattle, WA. Stephen M. Shortell, Ph.D., M.P.H., is with the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Jill A. Marsteller, Ph.D., M.P.P., and Thomas A. Louis, Ph.D., are with the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. Copyright © 2005 Health Research and Education Trust. All rights reserved KEYWORDS Quality improvement • implementation evaluation • chronic care model • organizational change • quality improvement collaboratives ABSTRACTObjective. To measure organizations' implementation of Chronic Care Model (CCM) interventions for chronic care quality improvement (QI). Data Sources/Study Setting. Monthly reports submitted by 42 organizations participating in three QI collaboratives to improve care for congestive heart failure, diabetes, depression, and asthma, and telephone interviews with key informants in the organizations. Study Design. We qualitatively analyzed the implementation activities of intervention organizations as part of a larger effectiveness evaluation of yearlong collaboratives. Key study variables included measures of implementation intensity (quantity and depth of implementation activities) as well as fidelity to the CCM. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. We developed a CCM-based scheme to code sites' intervention activities and criteria to rate their depth or likelihood of impact. Principal Findings. The sites averaged more than 30 different change efforts each to implement the CCM. The depth ratings for these changes, however, were more modest, ranging from 17 percent to 76 percent of the highest rating possible. The participating organizations significantly differed in the intensity of their implementation efforts (p<.001 in both quantity and depth ratings). Fidelity to the CCM was high. Conclusions. Collaborative participants were able, with some important variation, to implement large numbers of diverse QI change strategies, with high CCM fidelity and modest depth of implementation. QI collaboratives are a useful method to foster change in real world settings. | 
| |||||||||||||||
