↓ Skip to main content

Duration of participation in continuous quality improvement: a key factor explaining improved delivery of Type 2 diabetes services

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Duration of participation in continuous quality improvement: a key factor explaining improved delivery of Type 2 diabetes services
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12913-014-0578-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veronica Matthews, Gill Schierhout, James McBroom, Christine Connors, Catherine Kennedy, Ru Kwedza, Sarah Larkins, Elizabeth Moore, Sandra Thompson, David Scrimgeour, Ross Bailie

Abstract

BackgroundIt is generally recognised that continuous quality improvement (CQI) programs support development of high quality primary health care systems. However, there is limited evidence demonstrating their system-wide effectiveness. We examined variation in quality of Type 2 diabetes service delivery in over 100 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health care centres participating in a wide-scale CQI project over the past decade, and determined the influence of health centre and patient level factors on quality of care, with specific attention to health centre duration of participation in a CQI program.MethodsWe analysed over 10,000 clinical audit records to assess quality of Type 2 diabetes care of patients in 132 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community health centres in five states/territories participating in the ABCD project for varying periods between 2005 and 2012. Process indicators of quality of care for each patient were calculated by determining the proportion of recommended guideline scheduled services that were documented as delivered. Multilevel regression models were used to quantify the amount of variation in Type 2 diabetes service delivery attributable to health centre or patient level factors and to identify those factors associated with greater adherence to best practice guidelines.ResultsHealth centre factors that were independently associated with adherence to best practice guidelines included longer participation in the CQI program, remoteness of health centres, and regularity of client attendance. Significantly associated patient level variables included greater age, and number of co-morbidities and disease complications. Health centre factors explained 37% of the differences in level of service delivery between jurisdictions with patient factors explaining only a further 1%.ConclusionsAt the health centre level, Type 2 diabetes service delivery could be improved through long term commitment to CQI, encouraging regular attendance (for example, through patient reminder systems) and improved recording and coordination of patient care in the complex service provider environments that are characteristic of non-remote areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 21 19%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 21 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Social Sciences 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 22 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,384,336
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,460
of 7,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,206
of 362,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#118
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.