Published eLetters
If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.
Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE:RE:
To the editors and authors,
The recent publication by K. Coleman et al. is the latest in a series describing outcomes from a randomized trial of external support strategies for cardiovascular care quality improvement in small and medium-sized primary care practices. This paper describes how the change in a measure of quality improvement capacity or QICA (i.e., activities, processes, and skills) from baseline to follow-up was associated with changes in clinical quality process measures (aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking). Previous work by these authors (Parchman et al., BMC Fam Practice (2019) 20:103) described baseline correlations between the QICA and clinical quality process measures. The novelty and importance of this current paper is topical to practices and healthcare organizations seeking to measure and invest in quality improvement (QI) capacity. While historic focus has been on capturing the downstream results of quality improvement activities via clinical outcomes and process measures, little work outside of the QICA has gone into developing tools to help smaller practices build and evaluate their abilities to conduct quality improvement. The QICA serves this purpose, and this paper provides a much-needed confirmation that investment in and use of the QICA has dividends clinically.
Several implications of this paper deserve note. First, the QICA domains could be conceptualized as practice standards in order to target activities and pr...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: I have previously collaborated with Drs. Coleman, Anderson, Michaels, Fagnan, Hsu, and Parchman on prior research that relates to the current manuscript. The current letter and opinions within are my own, and do not represent the viewpoints of the current manuscript authors nor my affiliated institutions.