Cited by 125Primary Care and Health OutcomesClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

A Multimethod Quality Improvement Intervention To Improve Preventive Cardiovascular Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Ornstein, Steven, Jenkins, Ruth G., Nietert, Paul J., Feifer, Chris, Roylance, Loraine F., Nemeth, Lynne, Corley, Sarah, Dickerson, Lori +2 more·2004·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research is needed to validate effective and practical strategies for improving the provision of evidence-based medicine in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multimethod quality improvement intervention was more effective than a less intensive intervention for improving adherence to 21 quality indicators for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke. DESIGN: 2-year randomized, controlled clinical trial with the practice as the unit of randomization. SETTING: 20 community-based family or general internal medicine practices in 14 states. All used the same electronic medical record. PARTICIPANTS: 44 physicians, 17 midlevel providers, and approximately 200 staff members; data from the electronic medical records of 87,291 patients. INTERVENTIONS: All practices received copies of practice guidelines and quarterly performance reports. Intervention practices also hosted quarterly site visits to help them adopt quality improvement approaches and participated in 2 network meetings to share "best practice" approaches. MEASUREMENTS: The percentage of indicators at or above predefined targets and the percentage of patients who had achieved each clinical indicator. RESULTS: Intervention practices improved 22.4 percentage points (from 11.3% to 33.7%) in the percentage of indicators at or above the target; control practices improved 16.4 percentage points (from 6.3% to 22.7%). The 6.0-percentage point absolute difference between the intervention and control group was not statistically significant (P > 0.2). Patients in intervention practices had greater improvements than those in control practices for diagnoses of hypertension (improvement difference, 15.7 percentage points [95% CI, 5.2 to 26.3 percentage points]) and blood pressure control in patients with hypertension (improvement difference, 8.0 percentage points [CI, 0.0 to 16.0 percentage points]). LIMITATIONS: The study involved a small number of practices and lacked a pure control group. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices that use electronic medical records and receive regular performance reports can improve their adherence to clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease and stroke prevention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-141-7-200410050-00008

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Ornstein 2004 found statistically significant improvement in only two of 21 outcomes related to preventive cardiovascular care in the primary care setting.

    “Ornstein 2004 found statistically significant improvement in only two of 21 outcomes related to preventive cardiovascular care in the primary care setting”
  • Ornstein 2004 found a difference in overall improvement that was not statistically significant (adjusted RD = 5.5%, P > 0.2).

    “and a difference in overall improvement that was not statistically significant (adjusted RD = 5.5%, P > 0.2)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ornstein, S., Jenkins, R. G., Nietert, P. J., Feifer, C., Roylance, L. F., Nemeth, L., Corley, S., Dickerson, L., Bradford, W. D., & Litvin, C.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2004-10-05
Volume
141
Issue
7
Pages
523-532
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2083613800
Cited by
125
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
24.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1 U18 HS11132-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
quality improvement intervention, cardiovascular disease prevention, stroke prevention, primary care, guideline adherence, quality indicators, performance reports, electronic health records, hypertension diagnosis, blood pressure control
MeSH terms
Adult, Cardiovascular Diseases, Family Practice, Feedback, Female, Humans, Internal Medicine, Male, Medical Audit, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Stroke

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