Evaluating Improvement Strategies in Addiction Treatment (NIATx 200)
2013년 7월 29일 업데이트: University of Wisconsin, Madison
Randomized Control Trial (RCT) Evaluating Improvement Strategies in Addiction Treatment
Addiction treatment is often characterized by long delays between first contact and treatment as well as high no-show and drop out rates leading to unused capacity in apparently full agencies.
Patients do not get needed care and agency financial stability is threatened.
The Network for Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) began as a high-intensity improvement collaborative of 39 addiction treatment agencies distributed across 25 states.
NIATx substantially improved time to treatment and continuation in treatment by making improvements to organizational processes (such as first contact, intake and assessment, engagement, level of care transitions, paperwork, social support, outreach, and scheduling) in preliminary studies.
While the results are very encouraging, they have, by intent, been obtained from a select group of agencies using a high-cost combination of services.
A more practical diffusion model is needed to spread process improvements across the spectrum of treatment agencies.
This study is a cluster-randomized trial to test the effectiveness and cost of less expensive combinations of the services that make up the NIATx collaborative (interest circles, coach calls, coach visits and learning sessions).
연구 개요
상세 설명
This cluster-RCT randomly assign 201 treatment agencies in 5 states to four experimental arms.
The agencies were randomized to an intervention for 18 months with a 9 month sustainability period.
The study aimed to: 1) Determine whether a state-based strategy can (with NIATx support) can lead mainstream treatment agencies to implement and sustain process changes that improve the study's primary outcomes: time to treatment, annual clinic admissions, and continuation in treatment; and 2) Evaluate the effectiveness and cost of the services making up NIATx.
This study aims to create a practical model for improving efficiency and effectiveness of addiction treatment.
연구 유형
중재적
등록 (실제)
201
단계
- 3단계
연락처 및 위치
이 섹션에서는 연구를 수행하는 사람들의 연락처 정보와 이 연구가 수행되는 장소에 대한 정보를 제공합니다.
연구 장소
-
-
Wisconsin
-
Madison, Wisconsin, 미국, 53706
- University of Wisonsin-Madison
-
-
참여기준
연구원은 적격성 기준이라는 특정 설명에 맞는 사람을 찾습니다. 이러한 기준의 몇 가지 예는 개인의 일반적인 건강 상태 또는 이전 치료입니다.
자격 기준
공부할 수 있는 나이
- 어린이
- 성인
- 고령자
건강한 자원 봉사자를 받아들입니다
예
연구 대상 성별
모두
설명
Inclusion Criteria:
- at least 60 admissions/year
- provide outpatient and intensive outpatient levels of care (as defined by ASAM)
- provide or use detox services provided by others
- have tax-exempt or government status or rely on public funding (e.g., block grants, Medicare, Medicaid, local government, private philanthropy) for at least 50% of their budget
- have adopted no more than two of the planned interventions
Exclusion Criteria:
- are current NIATx members
공부 계획
이 섹션에서는 연구 설계 방법과 연구가 측정하는 내용을 포함하여 연구 계획에 대한 세부 정보를 제공합니다.
연구는 어떻게 설계됩니까?
디자인 세부사항
- 주 목적: 건강 서비스 연구
- 할당: 무작위
- 중재 모델: 병렬 할당
- 마스킹: 없음(오픈 라벨)
무기와 개입
참가자 그룹 / 팔 |
개입 / 치료 |
|---|---|
|
실험적: Interest Circle Call + Website
Interest Circles are monthly teleconferences where agency change leaders discuss change-related issues and progress.
Circles address how to improve timeliness, continuation, admissions, dropouts and transitions.
They also address specialty topics (e.g., programs for women, adolescents).
Participants discuss successes, failures, and challenges, and get advice and assignments for their improvement plans.
Meeting summaries appear on the Web site.
Interest Circles are inexpensive, but are they are sufficient?
Should Interest Circles prove effective, they would provide a low-cost, convenient diffusion approach.
|
Interest Circles are monthly teleconferences where agency change leaders discuss change-related issues and progress.
Circles address how to improve timeliness, continuation, admissions, dropouts and transitions.
They also address specialty topics (e.g., programs for women, adolescents).
Participants discuss successes, failures, and challenges, and get advice and assignments for their improvement plans.
Meeting summaries appear on the Web site.
Interest Circles are inexpensive, but are they are sufficient?
Should Interest Circles prove effective, they would provide a low-cost, convenient diffusion approach
The NIATx Web site features resources central to improvement.
The site includes: 1) a catalog of change ideas and case studies; 2) a toolbox providing just-in-time training on topics such as conducting a walk-through and key innovations; 3) on-line tools to assess organizational (or project) readiness for and ability to sustain change; 4) electronic communication services to ask questions of experts, and participate in peer discussion groups; 5) links to relevant process improvement Web sites; and 6) a secure portion for treatment agencies to report and track progress.
Hence, our control group will have access to the entire website.
|
|
실험적: Coaching + Website
Coaching assigns an expert in process improvement to work with an agency to make, sustain, and spread process improvement efforts.
Consultations focus on executive directors, change leaders and improvement teams.
Coaches help agencies address key issues, but also broker relationships with other agencies, offer process improvement training, and promote the innovations to make and how to make them.
Coaching takes place during site visits, monthly phone conferences, and via email.
|
The NIATx Web site features resources central to improvement.
The site includes: 1) a catalog of change ideas and case studies; 2) a toolbox providing just-in-time training on topics such as conducting a walk-through and key innovations; 3) on-line tools to assess organizational (or project) readiness for and ability to sustain change; 4) electronic communication services to ask questions of experts, and participate in peer discussion groups; 5) links to relevant process improvement Web sites; and 6) a secure portion for treatment agencies to report and track progress.
Hence, our control group will have access to the entire website.
Coaching assigns an expert in process improvement to work with an agency to make, sustain, and spread process improvement efforts.
Consultations focus on executive directors, change leaders and improvement teams.
Coaches help agencies address key issues, but also broker relationships with other agencies, offer process improvement training, and promote the innovations to make and how to make them.
Coaching takes place during site visits, monthly phone conferences, and via email.
|
|
실험적: Full: LS, Coaching, ICC, Website
Learning Session, Coaching, Interest Circle Calls, Website, see descriptions above
|
Interest Circles are monthly teleconferences where agency change leaders discuss change-related issues and progress.
Circles address how to improve timeliness, continuation, admissions, dropouts and transitions.
They also address specialty topics (e.g., programs for women, adolescents).
Participants discuss successes, failures, and challenges, and get advice and assignments for their improvement plans.
Meeting summaries appear on the Web site.
Interest Circles are inexpensive, but are they are sufficient?
Should Interest Circles prove effective, they would provide a low-cost, convenient diffusion approach
The NIATx Web site features resources central to improvement.
The site includes: 1) a catalog of change ideas and case studies; 2) a toolbox providing just-in-time training on topics such as conducting a walk-through and key innovations; 3) on-line tools to assess organizational (or project) readiness for and ability to sustain change; 4) electronic communication services to ask questions of experts, and participate in peer discussion groups; 5) links to relevant process improvement Web sites; and 6) a secure portion for treatment agencies to report and track progress.
Hence, our control group will have access to the entire website.
Coaching assigns an expert in process improvement to work with an agency to make, sustain, and spread process improvement efforts.
Consultations focus on executive directors, change leaders and improvement teams.
Coaches help agencies address key issues, but also broker relationships with other agencies, offer process improvement training, and promote the innovations to make and how to make them.
Coaching takes place during site visits, monthly phone conferences, and via email.
Learning Sessions occur bi-annually as change teams convene to learn and gather support from each other and outside experts who offer advice on how best to adopt the innovations and learn about new directions for the collaborative (e.g., the need to create business cases for improvements).
Learning Sessions and Interest Circles (see below) have similar objectives-to help agencies learn and gather support from each other and from outside experts.
|
|
실험적: Learning Session + Website
Learning Sessions occur bi-annually as change teams convene to learn and gather support from each other and outside experts who offer advice on how best to adopt the innovations and learn about new directions for the collaborative (e.g., the need to create business cases for improvements).
Learning Sessions and Interest Circles (see below) have similar objectives-to help agencies learn and gather support from each other and from outside experts.
|
The NIATx Web site features resources central to improvement.
The site includes: 1) a catalog of change ideas and case studies; 2) a toolbox providing just-in-time training on topics such as conducting a walk-through and key innovations; 3) on-line tools to assess organizational (or project) readiness for and ability to sustain change; 4) electronic communication services to ask questions of experts, and participate in peer discussion groups; 5) links to relevant process improvement Web sites; and 6) a secure portion for treatment agencies to report and track progress.
Hence, our control group will have access to the entire website.
Learning Sessions occur bi-annually as change teams convene to learn and gather support from each other and outside experts who offer advice on how best to adopt the innovations and learn about new directions for the collaborative (e.g., the need to create business cases for improvements).
Learning Sessions and Interest Circles (see below) have similar objectives-to help agencies learn and gather support from each other and from outside experts.
|
연구는 무엇을 측정합니까?
주요 결과 측정
결과 측정 |
측정값 설명 |
기간 |
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Average Waiting Time From First Contact to Treatment
기간: Baseline and 15 months
|
The average length of time in days it takes from when a patient first calls for help to the time a patient was able to meet a clinician. In this quality improvement study, changes in this measure over time are reported. Estimates of improvement show the average days of improvement per month based on a best linear unbiased predictor estimate for each site. Note: this study has three primary outcomes. The number of participants analyzed varies for each outcome. The (higher) number of clinics shown in the flow diagram results because clinics may have been analyzed on a subset of the three primary outcomes (e.g., analyzed for waiting time and continuation, but not for annual number of new patients). To be considered "analyzed" in the flow diagram, a clinic must have been included in at least one primary outcomes analysis. |
Baseline and 15 months
|
|
Change in Annual Number of Patient Admissions
기간: 48 months (2 year baseline period and 2 year post-intervention period)
|
We aimed to increase clinics' treatment capacity in this quality improvement study. Capacity was measured by counting clinics' annual number of patient admissions. We monitored changes in admission counts, per clinic, in a pre-post analysis. Changes in the natural logarithm of annual admissions are presented, which approximates the average percentage change (year-to-year) in the number of new patient admissions per clinic. Note: this study has three primary outcomes. The number of participants analyzed varies for each outcome. The (higher) number of clinics shown in the flow diagram results because clinics may have been analyzed on a subset of the three primary outcomes (e.g., analyzed for waiting time and continuation, but not for annual number of new patients). To be considered "analyzed" in the flow diagram, a clinic must have been included in at least one primary outcomes analysis. |
48 months (2 year baseline period and 2 year post-intervention period)
|
|
Change in Average Continuation Rate Through the Fourth Treatment Session
기간: Baseline and 21 months
|
This outcome represents change in the rate at which a clinic's patients continue in treatment. Continuation rate is defined as the percentage of patients that make at least 4 visits to the clinic, on different days, before being discharged. Estimates of improvement show the average percentage points of improvement per month based on a best linear unbiased predictor estimate for each site. Note: this study has three primary outcomes. The number of participants analyzed varies for each outcome. The (higher) number of clinics shown in the flow diagram results because clinics may have been analyzed on a subset of the three primary outcomes (e.g., analyzed for waiting time and continuation, but not for annual number of new patients). To be considered "analyzed" in the flow diagram, a clinic must have been included in at least one primary outcomes analysis. |
Baseline and 21 months
|
2차 결과 측정
결과 측정 |
측정값 설명 |
기간 |
|---|---|---|
|
Cost of Group
기간: Baseline and 18 months
|
The goal of the economic analysis was to estimate costs of each group for governmental authorities who might organize improvement collaboratives.
We collected the cost of personnel (state employees, NIATx employees, coaches and consultants), data management, buildings and facilities, lodging, travel, telephone calls and miscellaneous costs.
Costs were categorized as group specific (such as hotel costs for the learning sessions group) or non-group-specific, which included state-incurred costs for outreach, data management and infrastructure, encouraging participation and administration.
Cost data were collected three times during the study period and aggregated to create a total cost estimate.
Figures reported below represent costs at the arm/group level (costs were not assessed at the organizational level).
Measure type is "Number."
|
Baseline and 18 months
|
공동 작업자 및 조사자
여기에서 이 연구와 관련된 사람과 조직을 찾을 수 있습니다.
수사관
- 수석 연구원: David H Gustafson, PhD, University of Wisconsin, Madison
간행물 및 유용한 링크
연구에 대한 정보 입력을 담당하는 사람이 자발적으로 이러한 간행물을 제공합니다. 이것은 연구와 관련된 모든 것에 관한 것일 수 있습니다.
일반 간행물
- Gustafson DH, Quanbeck AR, Robinson JM, Ford JH 2nd, Pulvermacher A, French MT, McConnell KJ, Batalden PB, Hoffman KA, McCarty D. Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial. Addiction. 2013 Jun;108(6):1145-57. doi: 10.1111/add.12117. Epub 2013 Mar 1.
- Choi D, Hoffman KA, Kim MO, McCarty D. A high-resolution analysis of process improvement: use of quantile regression for wait time. Health Serv Res. 2013 Feb;48(1):333-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01436.x. Epub 2012 Jun 20.
- Quanbeck A, Wheelock A, Ford JH 2nd, Pulvermacher A, Capoccia V, Gustafson D. Examining access to addiction treatment: scheduling processes and barriers. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013 Mar;44(3):343-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.017. Epub 2012 Sep 27.
- Hoffman KA, Quanbeck A, Ford JH 2nd, Wrede F, Wright D, Lambert-Wacey D, Chvojka P, Hanchett A, McCarty D. Improving substance abuse data systems to measure 'waiting time to treatment': lessons learned from a quality improvement initiative. Health Informatics J. 2011 Dec;17(4):256-65. doi: 10.1177/1460458211420090.
- Quanbeck AR, Gustafson DH, Ford JH 2nd, Pulvermacher A, French MT, McConnell KJ, McCarty D. Disseminating quality improvement: study protocol for a large cluster-randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 27;6:44. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-44.
- Quanbeck AR, Madden L, Edmundson E, Ford JH 2nd, McConnell KJ, McCarty D, Gustafson DH. A business case for quality improvement in addiction treatment: evidence from the NIATx collaborative. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2012 Jan;39(1):91-100. doi: 10.1007/s11414-011-9259-6.
- Roosa M, Scripa JS, Zastowny TR, Ford JH 2nd. Using a NIATx based local learning collaborative for performance improvement. Eval Program Plann. 2011 Nov;34(4):390-8. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.006. Epub 2011 Mar 2.
- Quanbeck A, Lang K, Enami K, Brown RL. A cost-benefit analysis of Wisconsin's screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment program: adding the employer's perspective. WMJ. 2010 Feb;109(1):9-14.
- McCarty D, Chandler RK. Understanding the importance of organizational and system variables on addiction treatment services within criminal justice settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Aug 1;103 Suppl 1:S91-3. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.03.001. Epub 2009 Apr 8.
- McCarty D, Gustafson D, Capoccia VA, Cotter F. Improving care for the treatment of alcohol and drug disorders. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2009 Jan;36(1):52-60. doi: 10.1007/s11414-008-9108-4. Epub 2008 Feb 8.
- McCarty D, Roman PM, Sorensen J, Weisner C. Health Services Research for Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Prevention. J Drug Issues. 2009 Jan;39(1):197-208. doi: 10.1177/002204260903900115.
- McConnell KJ, Hoffman KA, Quanbeck A, McCarty D. Management practices in substance abuse treatment programs. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Jul;37(1):79-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 4.
- Gustafson DH. Essential Ingredients for Successful Redesign of Addiction Treatment. Bridge (Kans City). 2012;2(2):v2i2_article01.
- Ford JH 2nd, Gilson A. Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jan 7;21(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-06026-3.
- Ford JH 2nd, Stumbo SP, Robinson JM. Assessing long-term sustainment of clinic participation in NIATx200: Results and a new methodological approach. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018 Sep;92:51-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.012. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
- Ford JH 2nd, Robinson JM, Wise ME. Adaptation of the Grasha Riechman Student Learning Style Survey and Teaching Style Inventory to assess individual teaching and learning styles in a quality improvement collaborative. BMC Med Educ. 2016 Sep 29;16(1):252. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0772-4.
유용한 링크
연구 기록 날짜
이 날짜는 ClinicalTrials.gov에 대한 연구 기록 및 요약 결과 제출의 진행 상황을 추적합니다. 연구 기록 및 보고된 결과는 공개 웹사이트에 게시되기 전에 특정 품질 관리 기준을 충족하는지 확인하기 위해 국립 의학 도서관(NLM)에서 검토합니다.
연구 주요 날짜
연구 시작
2006년 10월 1일
기본 완료 (실제)
2009년 7월 1일
연구 완료 (실제)
2011년 1월 1일
연구 등록 날짜
최초 제출
2009년 7월 6일
QC 기준을 충족하는 최초 제출
2009년 7월 7일
처음 게시됨 (추정)
2009년 7월 8일
연구 기록 업데이트
마지막 업데이트 게시됨 (추정)
2013년 8월 12일
QC 기준을 충족하는 마지막 업데이트 제출
2013년 7월 29일
마지막으로 확인됨
2013년 7월 1일
추가 정보
이 정보는 변경 없이 clinicaltrials.gov 웹사이트에서 직접 가져온 것입니다. 귀하의 연구 세부 정보를 변경, 제거 또는 업데이트하도록 요청하는 경우 register@clinicaltrials.gov. 문의하십시오. 변경 사항이 clinicaltrials.gov에 구현되는 즉시 저희 웹사이트에도 자동으로 업데이트됩니다. .
Interest Circle Calls에 대한 임상 시험
-
Anne Niquille완전한
-
University Hospital of North NorwayOslo University Hospital; Nordlandssykehuset HF; Finnmarkssykehuset HF; Helgeland Hospital...모병
-
Southcentral FoundationUniversity of Washington모집하지 않고 적극적으로