Established Evidence Results

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Expert Support (Provider), Modified Billing Practices, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Audit/Attestation, HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: The Vermont Child Health Improvement Program (VCHIP) at the University of Vermont collaborated with state agencies and professional societies to conduct a survey of Vermont pediatric and family medicine practices regarding their developmental screening and autism screening processes, referral patterns, and barriers. The survey was administered in 2009 to 103 primary care practices, with a 65% response rate (89% for pediatric practices, 53% for family medicine practices).

Intervention Results: The survey results revealed that while 88% of practices have a specific approach to developmental surveillance and 87% perform developmental screening, only 1 in 4 use structured tools with good psychometric properties. Autism screening was performed by 59% of practices, with most using the M-CHAT or CHAT tool and screening most commonly at the 18-month visit. When concerns were identified, 72% referred to a developmental pediatrician and over 50% to early intervention. Key barriers to both developmental and autism screening were lack of time, staff, and training. Over 80% of practices used a note in the patient chart to track at-risk children, and most commonly referred to child development clinics, audiology, early intervention, and pediatric specialists.

Conclusion: The survey conducted by VCHIP revealed wide variation in developmental and autism screening practices among Vermont pediatric and family medicine practices. While most practices conduct some form of screening, there is room for improvement in the use of validated tools, adherence to recommended screening ages, and implementation of office systems for tracking at-risk children. The survey identified knowledge gaps and barriers that can be addressed through quality improvement initiatives, which most respondents expressed interest in participating in.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest

Setting: Pediatric and family medicine practices in Vermont

Population of Focus: Children up to age 3

Data Source: Child medical record; ProPHDS Survey

Sample Size: Chart audits at 37 baseline and 35 follow-up sites (n=30 per site) Baseline charts (n=1381) - Children 19-23 months (n=697) - Children 31-35 months (n=684) Follow-up charts (n=1301) - Children 19-23 months (n=646) - Children 31-35 months (n=655)

Age Range: Not specified

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Data Collection Training for Staff , Provider Training/Education, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: Quality improvement (QI) methodology was used to implement routine screening using an adapted version of the Survey of Well Being of Young Children (SWYC), a child behavior and social screen, for all children ages 6 months to 10 years. Rates of screen administration and documentation were assessed for 18 months. Medical records of a convenience sample (N=349) were reviewed to track referrals and follow-up for positive screens.

Intervention Results: Over 18 months, 2028 screens were administered. Screening rates reached 90% after introducing a tablet for screening. Provider documentation of screens averaged 62%. In the convenience sample, 28% scored positive for a behavioral problem, and 25% reported at least 1 social stressor. Of those with positive child behavior or social stressor screens, approximately 80% followed up with their primary medical doctor, and approximately 50% completed referrals to the clinic social worker. Further analysis indicated that referral and follow-up rates varied depending on whether the family identified child behavior or social issues. Logistic regression revealed that parental concern was independently associated with child behavior symptoms (p = 0.001) and social stressors (p = 0.002).

Conclusion: Implementing a comprehensive psychosocial screen is feasible in pediatric primary care and may help target referrals to address psychosocial health needs.

Setting: Community health center

Population of Focus: Primary care peditricians

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Modified Billing Practices, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Audit/Attestation, HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: Early identification of children with developmental and behavioral delays is important in primary care practice, and well-child visits provide an ideal opportunity to engage parents and perform periodic screening. Integration of this activity into office process and flow is necessary for making screening a routine and consistent part of primary care practice.

Intervention Results: In the North Carolina Assuring Better Child Health and Development Project, careful attention to and training for office process has resulted in a significant increase in screening rates to >70% of the designated well-child visits. The data from the project prompted a change in Medicaid policy, and screening is now statewide in primary practices that perform Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment examinations.

Conclusion: Although there are features of the project that are unique to North Carolina, there are also elements that are transferable to any practice or state interested in integrating child development services into the medical home.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest

Setting: Partnership for Health Management, a network within Community Care of North Carolina

Population of Focus: Children ages 6 to 60 months receiving Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment services

Data Source: Child medical record

Sample Size: Unknown number of charts – screening rates tracked in 2 counties (>20,000 screens by 2004)

Age Range: Not specified

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Training/Education, Educational Material (provider), Audit/Attestation (provider), PROFESSIONAL_CAREGIVER, Education/Training (caregiver), HOSPITAL, Quality Improvement, Crib Card

Intervention Description: This quality improvement project used an interprofessional, multimodal approach to improve sleep safety for hospitalized infants. The working group for this project included the Director of Quality Improvement for the Department of Pediatrics, a Pediatric Hospitalist, a Senior Advanced Practice Nurse in Pediatrics, Senior Associate Counsel for the Office of Counsel, and a medical student with a background in social work. The interdisciplinary group met to review and discuss improvements to communication and facilitated the development of five family interventions: a designated safe sleep web page, a clear bedside guide to safe sleep, additional training for nursing staff in motivational interviewing, a card audit system, and electronic health record smart phrases. A short survey was conducted to assess how the safe sleep toolkit has been useful to care providers in the Children’s Hospital. 

Intervention Results: With the initial pilot implementation of the K-cards, staff reported increased ease of audits. Adherence to recommended safer sleep measures was a major barrier in previous attempts to improve institutional sleep safety (1). By making adherence easier, providers may be more likely to both participate in quality improvement tracking measures and follow-up with families directly.

Conclusion: These coordinated interventions reflect advantages of an interprofessional and family-centered approach: building rapport and achieving improvements to infant sleep safety.

Setting: Golisano Children’s Hospital

Population of Focus: Hospital healthcare providers

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Office Systems Assessments And Implementation Training, HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Audit/Attestation (Provider), Data Collection Training for Staff , Provider Training/Education

Intervention Description: This 1-year national quality improvement collaborative involved 19 pediatric primary care practices. Supported by virtual and in-person learning opportunities, practice teams implemented changes to early childhood screening. Monthly chart reviews were used to assess screening, discussion, referral, and follow-up for development, ASD, maternal depression, and SDoH. Parent surveys were used to assess parent-reported screening and referral and/or resource provision. Practice self-ratings and team surveys were used to assess practice-level changes.

Intervention Results: Participating practices included independent, academic, hospital-affiliated, and multispecialty group practices and community health centers in 12 states. The collaborative met development and ASD screening goals of >90%. Largest increases in screening occurred for maternal depression (27% to 87%; +222%; P < .001) and SDoH (26% to 76%; +231%; P < .001). Statistically significant increases in discussion of results occurred for all screening areas. For referral, significant increases were seen for development (53% to 86%; P < .001) and maternal depression (23% to 100%; P = .008). Parents also reported increased screening and referral and/or resource provision. Practice-level changes included improved systems to support screening.

Conclusion: Practices successfully implemented multiple screenings and demonstrated improvement in subsequent discussion, referral, and follow-up steps. Continued advocacy for adequate resources to support referral and follow-up is needed to translate increased screening into improved health outcomes.

Setting: Pediatric primary care practices

Population of Focus: Physician leader, staff and parent partner

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Expert Support (Provider), Modified Billing Practices, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: This report evaluates the impact of Phase II of Maine's First STEPS initiative

Intervention Results: Average percentage of documented use of a developmental screening tool increased substantially from baseline to followup for all three age groups (46% to 97% for children under one; 22% to 71% for children 18-23 months; and 22% to 58% for children 24-35 months). Rate of developmental screening based on MaineCare claims increased from the year prior to intervention implementation to the year after implementation for all three age groups (5.3% to 17.1% for children age one; 1.5% to 13.3% for children age two; and 1.2% to 3.3% for children age 3).

Conclusion: The authors summarize lessons learned in implementing changes in practices and challenges in using CHIPRA and IHOC developmental, autism, and lead screening measures at the practice-level to inform quality improvement.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest

Setting: Pediatric and family practices serving children with MaineCoverage

Population of Focus: Children ages 6 to 35 months

Data Source: Child medical record; MaineCare paid claims

Sample Size: Unknown number of chart reviews from 9 practice sites completing follow-up

Age Range: Not specified

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Audit/Attestation, HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: To assess the degree to which a national sample of pediatric practices could implement American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for developmental screening and referrals, and to identify factors that contributed to the successes and shortcomings of these efforts.

Intervention Results: At the project's conclusion, practices reported screening more than 85% of patients presenting at recommended screening ages. They achieved this by dividing responsibilities among staff and actively monitoring implementation. Despite these efforts, many practices struggled during busy periods and times of staff turnover. Most practices were unable or unwilling to adhere to 3 specific AAP recommendations: to implement a 30-month visit; to administer a screen after surveillance suggested concern; and to submit simultaneous referrals both to medical subspecialists and local early-intervention programs. Overall, practices reported referring only 61% of children with failed screens. Many practices also struggled to track their referrals. Those that did found that many families did not follow through with recommended referrals.

Conclusion: A diverse sample of practices successfully implemented developmental screening as recommended by the AAP. Practices were less successful in placing referrals and tracking those referrals. More attention needs to be paid to the referral process, and many practices may require separate implementation systems for screening and referrals.

Study Design: QE: interrupted timeseries design

Setting: Sixteen pediatric primary care practices from 15 different states

Population of Focus: Children ages 8 to 36 months at wellchild visits

Data Source: Child medical record

Sample Size: Chart audits: - Baseline and Follow-Up: (n=30) per practice in July 2006 and March 2007; total charts audited (n= 960) - Intervention period: (n=10) per practice per month for 7 months; total charts audited (n=1,120)

Age Range: Not specified

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, STATE, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), Audit/Attestation, HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility of implementing a bundle of strategies to facilitate the use of Bright Futures recommendations and to evaluate the effectiveness of a modified learning collaborative in improving preventive and developmental care.

Intervention Results: Office system changes most frequently adopted were use of recall/reminder systems (87%), a checklist to link to community resources (80%), and systematic identification of children with special health care needs (80%). From baseline to follow-up, increases were observed in the use of recall/reminder systems, the proportion of children's charts that had a preventive services prompting system, and the families who were asked about special health care needs. Of 21 possible office system components, the median number used increased from 10 to 15. Comparing scores between baseline and follow-up for each practice site, the change was significant. Teams reported that the implementation of office systems was facilitated by the perception that a component could be applied quickly and/or easily. Barriers to implementation included costs, the time required, and lack of agreement with the recommendations.

Conclusion: This project demonstrated the feasibility of implementing specific strategies for improving preventive and developmental care for young children in a wide variety of practices. It also confirmed the usefulness of a modified learning collaborative in achieving these results. This model may be useful for disseminating office system improvements to other settings that provide care for young children.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest

Setting: Primary care practices (15 at baseline, 8 at follow- up) throughout the US (9 states total), with most in the Midwest

Population of Focus: Children from birth through 21 years of age

Data Source: Child medical record

Sample Size: Unknown number of chart audits from 8 practice sites completing follow-up

Age Range: Not specified

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Training/Education, PROFESSIONAL_CAREGIVER, Education/Training (caregiver), HOSPITAL, Quality Improvement, Promotional Event, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: Physicians from various units within the hospital system created and led multidisciplinary safe sleep teams. After attending a kickoff event to learn more about infant mortality and sleep related deaths, safe sleep champions from four teams were encouraged to work with their teams to tailor interventions, both specific to the needs of their areas and to address the global aim of county-wide sleep-related death reduction. The teams collaborated and produced a hospital-wide key driver diagram, highlighting the importance of screening, family education, staff education, and hospital reporting interventions. They were encouraged to complete as many Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles as necessary to improve safe sleep practices in both hospital and home settings.

Intervention Results: Our teams have significantly increased compliance with safe sleep practices in the inpatient and neonatal intensive care unit settings (P < 0.01). We have also increased screening and education on appropriate safe sleep behaviors by ED and primary care providers (P < 0.01). Our county's sleep-related death rate has not significantly decreased during the collaborative.

Conclusion: Our collaborative has increased American Academy of Pediatrics-recommended safe sleep practices in our institution, and we decreased sleep-related deaths in our primary care network. We have created stronger ties to our community partners working to decrease infant mortality rates. More efforts will be needed, both within and outside of our institution, to lower our community's sleep-related death rate.

Setting: Nationwide Children’s Hospital and delivery hospitals throughout Columbus Ohio

Population of Focus: Hospital healthcare providers

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Audit/Attestation (provider), PROFESSIONAL_CAREGIVER, Education/Training (caregiver), HOSPITAL, Quality Improvement

Intervention Description: This study evaluates a quality improvement program to improve compliance with appropriate safe sleep practices in both children’s and birthing hospitals. Hospitalists from both settings were recruited to join the Ohio American Academy of Pediatrics’ EASE (Education and Sleep Environment) injury prevention collaborative to increase admitted infant safe sleep behaviors. The collaborative leadership team required hospitalist physician champions at each institution to form and lead multidisciplinary groups composed of other physicians and trainees, nursing leadership, hospital administrators, child life specialists, and other health care providers as deemed necessary. The leadership team educated participating hospital teams about safe sleep evidence-based guidelines, local statistics, quality improvement principles, and the use of Plan Do-Study-Act cycles within their institutions via interactive exercises. Multidisciplinary interventions in the areas of physician and/or nursing staff education, environmental management strategies, policy creation/revisions, and parental support and education were among the interventioned encourages. The Ohio AAP chapter instructed teams to collect data by conducting random audits, using a standardized tool (available by request).

Intervention Results: A total of 37.0% of infants in children's hospitals were observed to follow the current American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations at baseline; compliance improved to 59.6% at the project's end (P < .01). Compliance at birthing centers was 59.3% and increased to 72.5% (P < .01) at the collaborative's conclusion.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a quality improvement program in different hospital settings can improve safe sleep practices. Infants in birthing centers were more commonly observed in appropriate sleep environments than infants in children's hospitals.

Setting: 3 Children's hospitals and 6 birthing hospitals in Ohio

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Audit/Attestation, HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: Seven pediatric primary care practices participated in New Mexico's Developmental Screening Initiative in a year-long quality improvement project with the goal of implementing standardized developmental screening tools.

Intervention Results: At baseline, there were dramatic differences among the practices, with some not engaged in screening at all.

Conclusion: Overall, the use of standardized developmental screening increased from 27% at baseline to 92% at the end of the project.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest

Setting: Seven primary care practices in a large urban area and small regional community in New Mexico

Population of Focus: Children ages 1 through 60 months

Data Source: Child medical record

Sample Size: Total medical records reviewed at baseline and follow-up (n=1139)

Age Range: Not specified

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, PROFESSIONAL_CAREGIVER, Training/Education (caregiver) , Audit/Attestation, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: Pediatricians were recruited to participate in a a virtual quality improvement learning collaborative (QILC) that promoted screening for safe sleep practices in the home and counseling families on the ABCs of safe sleep during visits. Monthly hour-long learning collaborative webinars allowed practices to view their progress, share current plan-do-study-act cycles, review safe sleep best practices, and learn about quality improvement topics. Participants collected data on safe sleep documentation in a newborn discharge or well-child visit note, which was submitted at baseline and in subsequent phases.

Intervention Results: Thirty-four pediatricians from 4 inpatient and 9 outpatient practices participated in the QILC. At baseline, documentation of safe sleep practices varied greatly (0%-98%). However, by the end of the QILC, all participating practices were documenting safe sleep guidance in over 75% of patient encounters. Aggregate practice data show a significant, sustained improvement. The 12-month follow-up data were submitted from 62% of practices, with sustainment of improvement in 75% of practices.

Conclusion: A facilitated, virtual QILC is an effective methodology to improve safe sleep counseling among a diverse group of pediatric practices. It is one step in improving consistent messaging around safe sleep by healthcare providers as pediatricians work to decrease sleep-related infant deaths.

Setting: Online community of practice

Population of Focus: Inpatient and outpatient pediatricians

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROFESSIONAL_CAREGIVER, Educational Material (caregiver), Provision of Safe Sleep Item, HOSPITAL, Quality Improvement, Crib Card, Policy/Guideline (Hospital), HEALTH_CARE_PROVIDER_PRACTICE, Educational Material (Provider), Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, Audit/Attestation, Audit/Attestation (Provider)

Intervention Description: This hospital quality improvement initiative performed a series of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles designed to increase the proportion of infants placed in a “perfect sleep” environment that met all of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ infant safe sleep guidelines. The initiative took place while the hospital was preparing for Baby Friendly certification, with increased emphasis on rooming in and skin to skin at the same time. Initial cycles targeted nurse and parental education, while later cycles focused on providing sleep sacks/wearable blankets for the infants. The goal was to achieve 70% “perfect sleep” compliance among infants cared for in the hospital.

Intervention Results: While we did not meet our goal, the percentage of infants with 'perfect sleep' increased from a baseline of 41.9% to 67.3%, and we also saw improvement in each of the individual components that contribute to this composite measure. Improvements were sustained over 12 months later, suggesting that QI interventions targeting infant safe sleep in this inpatient setting can have long-lasting results.

Conclusion: This project also suggests that infant safe sleep QI initiatives and preparation towards Baby Friendly Hospital Certification can be complementary.

Population of Focus: Hospital healthcare providers