CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Healthcare Quality and ManagementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A hospital-randomized controlled trial of a formal quality improvement educational program in rural and small community Texas hospitals: one year results

Filardo, G., Nicewander, D., Herrin, J., Edwards, J., Galimbertti, P., Tietze, M., Mcbride, S., Gunderson, J., Collinsworth, A., Haydar, Z., Williams, J., Ballard, D. J.·2009·International Journal for Quality in Health Care
DOI 10.1093/intqhc/mzp019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a quality improvement educational program in rural hospitals. DESIGN: Hospital-randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 47 rural and small community hospitals in Texas that had previously received a web-based benchmarking and case-review tool. INTERVENTION: The 47 hospitals were randomized either to receive formal quality improvement educational program or to a control group. The educational program consisted of two 2-day didactic sessions on continuous quality improvement techniques, followed by the design, implementation and reporting of a local quality improvement project, with monthly coaching conference calls and annual follow-up conclaves. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Performance on core measures for community-acquired pneumonia and congestive heart failure were compared between study groups to evaluate the impact of the educational program. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the study groups on any measures. Of the 23 hospitals in the intervention group, only 16 completed the didactic program and 6 the full training program. Similar results were obtained when these groups were compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: While the observed results suggest no incremental benefit of the quality improvement educational program following implementation of a web-based benchmarking and case-review tool in rural hospitals, given the small number of hospitals that completed the program, it is not conclusive that such programs are ineffective. Further research incorporating supporting infrastructure, such as physician champions, financial incentives and greater involvement of senior leadership, is needed to assess the value of quality improvement educational programs in rural hospitals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/intqhc/mzp019

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Filardo 2009 found that education regarding continuous quality improvement had no statistically significant impact on hospital-based quality indicators for pneumonia or heart failure compared to feedback alone (median adjusted RD = -1.7%; P = 0.47).

    “Filardo 2009 found that education regarding continuous quality improvement had no statistically significant impact on hospital‐based quality indicators for pneumonia or heart failure compared to feedback alone (median adjusted RD = ‐1.7%; P = 0.47)”

    From Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (2012) · cites this paper as Filardo 2009

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Gordon, 2001, The Quality letter for healthcare leaders, 13, 12
  2. 2003, Federal register, 68, 3435

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Filardo, G., Nicewander, D., Herrin, J., Edwards, J., Galimbertti, P., Tietze, M., Mcbride, S., Gunderson, J., Collinsworth, A., Haydar, Z., Williams, J., & Ballard, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Baylor Scott & White Health (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
Corresponding author
Ballard, D. J.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal for Quality in Health Care
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-04-24
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
225-232
ISSN
  • 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3677
DOI
10.1093/intqhc/mzp019
OpenAlex
W2160843863
Cited by
25
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal for Quality in Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1uc1hs015431-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
quality improvement education, rural hospitals, small community hospitals, continuous quality improvement, community-acquired pneumonia, congestive heart failure, case review, program completion, Texas
MeSH terms
Heart Failure, Hospitals, Community, Humans, Inservice Training, Pneumonia, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Texas, Program Evaluation, Community-Acquired Infections, Benchmarking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review