A Quality Improvement Process to Support Delivery of Cardiovascular Care in Community Mental Health Organizations

September 8, 2025 updated by: Johns Hopkins University

Using an Innovative Quality Improvement Process to Increase Delivery of Evidence-based Cardiovascular Risk Factor Care in Community Mental Health Organizations

This pilot study will examine whether an implementation strategy will improve delivery of evidence-based care for cardiovascular risk factors for people with serious mental illness.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

In this pilot study, the investigators will work with health home programs and pilot test an adapted Comprehensive Unit Safety Program (CUSP) implementation strategy to improve mental health providers' delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular risk factor care for hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes for individuals with serious mental illness. The project will also characterize implementation processes, organizational and provider-level factors, and cardiovascular disease risk factor care and control.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

85

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

    • Maryland
      • Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21224
        • Johns Hopkins Adult Psychiatric Rehabilitation Program

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

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Study population 1:

  • Psychiatric rehabilitation program and health home team staff, including providers and leadership are those employed by the psychiatric rehabilitation program or health home program.
  • English-speaking.

Study population 2:

  • People with serious mental illness participating in psychiatric rehabilitation health home programs.
  • English-speaking

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

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: Comprehensive unit based safety (CUSP) intervention arm
CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery.
CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Quality Improvement Culture as Assessed by the Modified Version of the Validated Survey on Patient Safety
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Each of the items in the modified survey is scored individually on 1-5 Likert scales. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher average score signifies an organizational culture that is more supportive of quality improvement.
Baseline, 12 Months
Self-efficacy as Assessed by an Adapted Version of Compeau & Higgins' Task-focused Self-efficacy Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Each of the items (Hypertension, Dyslipidemia, Diabetes) are scored individually on a 1-10 Likert scale, where 1=not at all confident and 10=totally confident. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-10. A higher score signifies greater self-efficacy.
Baseline, 12 Months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Acceptability as Assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Validated 4-item instrument measuring intervention acceptability of the Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater acceptability.
Baseline, 12 Months
Appropriateness as Assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Four item instrument measuring intervention appropriateness of Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5= completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater appropriateness.
Baseline, 12 Months
Feasibility as Assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Four item instrument measuring intervention feasibility of Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater feasibility.
Baseline, 12 Months
Clients With Hypertension Control
Time Frame: Baseline and 12 Months
Measured with blood pressure (BP) readings reported by staff . Clients with control defined as a BP <130/80 mmHg.
Baseline and 12 Months
Clients With Dyslipidemia Control
Time Frame: Baseline and 12 Months
Measured with cholesterol readings reported by staff. Clients with controlled dyslipidemia defined as total cholesterol <200 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) <130 mg/dL.
Baseline and 12 Months
Clients With Diabetes Control
Time Frame: Baseline and 12 Months
Measured using HbA1c tests reported by staff . Clients with controlled diabetes defined as HbA1c<7.0.
Baseline and 12 Months
Clients Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received HBA1c Measurement
Time Frame: Baseline and 12 Months
The number of clients who have a HBA1c measurement reported by the participating staff.
Baseline and 12 Months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Lipid Panel
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received Statin Therapy
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Dilated Eye Exam
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Foot Exam
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Clients Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Received a Lipid Panel
Time Frame: Baseline and 12 Months
The number of clients who have a lipid panel reported by the participating staff.
Baseline and 12 Months
Teamwork Within Teams as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Four items measuring teamwork. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better teamwork within units.
Baseline, 12 Months
Supervisor/Manager Expectations and Actions Promoting Quality as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Four items measuring the degree to which a provider's supervisor promotes quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater promotion of quality improvement.
Baseline, 12 Months
Organizational Learning Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Three items measuring organizational learning environment. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater organizational learning.
Baseline, 12 Months
Management Support for Patient Safety as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Three items measuring the degree to which organization management supports quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater management support for quality improvement.
Baseline, 12 Months
Overall Perceptions of Quality Improvement Culture as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Three items measuring the perception's of the organization's quality improvement culture. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better quality improvement culture.
Baseline, 12 Months
Feedback and Communication About Error as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Three items measuring feedback and communication about quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better feedback and communication.
Baseline, 12 Months
Communication Openness as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Three items measuring perceptions of communication openness in the organization. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better communication openness.
Baseline, 12 Months
Frequency of Events Reported as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Three items assessing the degree to which mistakes are reported at the organization. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies more frequent mistake reporting.
Baseline, 12 Months
Teamwork Across Teams as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Four items assessing teamwork across units. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better teamwork across units.
Baseline, 12 Months
Staffing as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale
Time Frame: Baseline, 12 Months
Two items assessing staffing capacity. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better staffing capacity.
Baseline, 12 Months
Clients With Hypertension Who Had a Blood Pressure Measurement
Time Frame: Baseline and 12 Months
The number of clients who have a blood pressure measurement reported by the participating staff.
Baseline and 12 Months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Urine-protein-creatinine Test
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Are on a Statin Medication
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Hypertension Who Received Lifestyle Counseling
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received Lifestyle Counseling
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Received Lifestyle Counseling
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 and 12 months
Baseline, 6 and 12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Gail L Daumit, MD, Johns Hopkins University

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.

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 (Actual)

February 24, 2021

Primary Completion (Actual)

November 21, 2022

Study Completion (Actual)

April 5, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 4, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 4, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

January 6, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimated)

September 26, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 8, 2025

Last Verified

September 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

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 Hypertension

Clinical Trials on Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP)

Subscribe