Can Vignettes Be Used to Improve Practice & Outcome

February 4, 2010 updated by: US Department of Veterans Affairs

Can Vignettes be Used to Improve Practice and Outcomes?

This is a pilot study to first measure the cross-sectional relationship between variations in physicians� vignette scores and aggregated scores of individual physicians� patient health outcomes; and second to (longitudinally) determine whether feedback of vignette scores improves physicians� clinical performance as measured by vignettes

Study Overview

Status

Terminated

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

  1. Study Design: Physicians will complete computerized vignettes for four conditions � diabetes, coronary artery diseases (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and depression. We will collect retrospective outcomes data and develop composite outcome measures for on two conditions, Diabetes and CAD. For the longitudinal analysis, only vignette data will be collected and fed back to providers. Feedback will consist of specific data on vignette outcome scores for the individual physicians and for the sites overall.
  2. Site Selection: Primary care clinics at 2 VAMCs
  3. Study Population and Sampling: We will enroll primary care physicians at 2 VAMCs. 30 consenting physicians will be prospectively randomized into two groups. One group will receive feedback of their vignette scores, and the other group will serve as control, receiving no feedback.
  4. Variables and Measurement Instruments: Computerized vignettes measuring clinical practice completed by the physicians for diabetes, CAD, COPD, and Depression and a composite health outcome measures from the medical records of these physicians� patients with diabetes and CAD.
  5. Data Collection Strategy and Timeline: Vignettes will be administered to all physicians at baseline, with feedback of scores 3 months later and readministration of vignettes 9 months thereafter to measure the trend in improvement. The composite outcome data will only be collected at baseline only.
  6. Data Analysis: The statistical analysis will compare the effects within the context of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The analyte is the quality of care physicians give to patients with four common conditions. The relationship between vignette scores and patient outcomes will be modeled accounting for clustering effects. The prospective experimental design will be used to quantify possible differences between the intervention and control groups. The data will be analyzed using a three-way crossed, one-way nested ANCOVA model where the covariate is the baseline vignette score. This model can be used to look at case effects, by domain, level of training, and by site.

Study Type

Interventional

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • California
      • San Francisco, California, United States, 94121-1598
        • San Francisco

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Physician at SF VAMC with panel of primary care patients

Exclusion Criteria:

None

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: 1
Behavioral: Feedback on provision of care

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Disease-specific patient care indicators, comparing results at six months.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

US Department of Veterans Affairs

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Sharad Jain, MD, San Francisco

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

September 1, 2005

Study Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2006

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 18, 2005

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 18, 2005

First Posted (Estimate)

July 21, 2005

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

February 8, 2010

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 4, 2010

Last Verified

August 1, 2006

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • IIR 01-189

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Healthy

Clinical Trials on Feedback on provision of care

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Ghana

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe