Care Quality and Implementation of the Chronic Care Model: A Quantitative Study
Ann Fam Med Solberg et al.
4: 310
Annals Journal Club Selections:
Jul/Aug 2006
The Annals Journal Club is designed to encourage a learning community of those seeking to improve health care and health through enhanced primary care. Additional information is available on the Journal Club home page.
Articles for Discussion
Solberg LI, Crain AL, Sperl-Hillen JM, Hroscikoski MC, Engebretson KI, O’Connor PJ. Care quality and implementation of the Chronic Care Model: a quantitative study. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:310-316.
Hroscikoski MC, Solberg LI, Sperl-Hillen JM, Harper PG, McGrail M, Crabtree BF. The challenges of change: implementing the Chronic Care Model. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:317-326.
Discussion Tips
This issue of Annals features multimethod research that integrates both quantitative and qualitative methods. These methods have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and their conjoint use often can provide a fuller picture than studies using either type of method alone.1 The intervention being evaluated in the articles for this journal club is based on the Chronic Care Model.2 This theoretical framework is being widely used to develop infrastructure to promote informed, activated patients interacting with a prepared, proactive practice team to improve patients’ functional and clinical outcomes.
Was the design of each study appropriate to its research question?
What designs and measures would be stronger?
What characteristics of the study practices and health care system are different from your practice in ways that affect the transportability of the findings?
To what degree can the findings be accounted for by:
Inadequate sample size?
Selection bias in who was included in the study?
Poorly measured or irrelevant constructs?
Poor implementation of the model?
High baseline performance in the participating practices?
Changes not attributable to the intervention?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the quantitative study (Solberg et al)? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the qualitative study (Hroscikoski et al)? How do the strengths of one bolster the weaknesses of the other?
What are some relative weakness in your practice’s ability to provide good chronic care (see the elements of the Chronic Care Model in Solberg or Figure 1 in Hroscikoski)? What office systems or other process changes would improve chronic care? Which changes would have the greatest impact on quality of chronic care? Which changes would be easy to implement?
Given the lessons learned by the authors, what would be your strategy for making change in your practice?
