A cluster-randomised quality improvement study to improve two inpatient stroke quality indicators
Abstract
Background: Quality indicator collection and feedback improves stroke care. We sought to determine whether quality improvement training plus indicator feedback was more effective than indicator feedback alone in improving inpatient stroke indicators. Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomised quality improvement trial, randomising hospitals to quality improvement training plus indicator feedback versus indicator feedback alone to improve deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis and dysphagia screening. Intervention sites received collaborative-based quality improvement training, external facilitation and indicator feedback. Control sites received only indicator feedback. We compared indicators pre-implementation (pre-I) to active implementation (active-I) and post-implementation (post-I) periods. We constructed mixed-effect logistic models of the two indicators with a random intercept for hospital effect, adjusting for patient, time, intervention and hospital variables. Results: Patients at intervention sites (1147 admissions), had similar race, gender and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores to control sites (1017 admissions). DVT prophylaxis improved more in intervention sites during active-I period (ratio of ORs 4.90, p<0.001), but did not differ in post-I period. Dysphagia screening improved similarly in both groups during active-I, but control sites improved more in post-I period (ratio of ORs 0.67, p=0.04). In logistic models, the intervention was independently positively associated with DVT performance during active-I period, and negatively associated with dysphagia performance post-I period. Conclusion: Quality improvement training was associated with early DVT improvement, but the effect was not sustained over time and was not seen with dysphagia screening. External quality improvement programmes may quickly boost performance but their effect may vary by indicator and may not sustain over time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Many promising improvement initiatives fail to sustain and do not produce long-term benefits.
“Despite the significant investment of staff time and other resources, many promising initiatives fail to sustain and do not produce long term benefits [1–6].”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548 · see citing works
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531 · see citing works
Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510 · see citing works
Wiltsey Stirman, S., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-17 · Cited by 1,355 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lennox, L., Maher, L., & Reed, J. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0707-4 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
Peden, C. J., Stephens, T., Martin, G., Kahan, B. C., Thomson, A., Rivett, K., Wells, D., Richardson, G., Kerry, S., Bion, J., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32521-2 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Lennox, L., Doyle, C., Reed, J. E., & Bell, D. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014417 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Williams, L., Daggett, V., Slaven, J. E., Yu, Z., Sager, D., Myers, J., Plue, L., Woodward-Hagg, H., & Damush, T. M.
- Affiliations
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Linda
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-08-24
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 257-264
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W1885024307
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 5.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IP1 HX001994)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- stroke care, quality indicators, quality improvement education, deep vein thrombosis prevention, dysphagia screening, hospital performance
- MeSH terms
- Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Feedback, Hospitals, Humans, Inpatients, Middle Aged, Sex Factors, United States, Multivariate Analysis, Cluster Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Venous Thrombosis, Stroke, Quality Improvement
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