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): Multicomponent Approach, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Data Collection Training for Staff,

Intervention Description: The intervention implemented in the study aimed to improve the process of referring patients to early intervention (EI) services. The multifaceted intervention included several components: 1. Patient and provider activation: The improvement team met with local EI staff to review eligibility criteria and best practices in motivating families to connect with EI. An EI brochure was developed to educate families on EI's services and evaluation process. 2. Centralizing and tracking referrals through an EI registry: The referral routes were streamlined by encouraging the use of an electronic order form within the electronic medical record (EMR) to direct the referral into the database after an intake visit had been scheduled. An EI registry was utilized to track referrals and facilitate follow-up for patients. 3. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles: The team conducted a series of PDSA cycles regarding communication with EI sites to refine the intervention and address any identified barriers. The intervention was designed to address the identified drivers of successful EI referral and to streamline the referral process, ensuring that patients were connected with EI in a timely manner. The multifaceted approach aimed to improve the connection of patients to EI services and to track the effectiveness of the intervention.

Intervention Results: The percentage of patients evaluated by EI within 120 days increased from a baseline median of 50% to a median of 72% after implementation of the systems (N = 309). After implementation, the centralized referral system was used a median of 90% of the time. Tracking of referral outcomes revealed decreases in families refusing evaluations and improvements in exchange of information with EI.

Conclusion: Yes, the study reported statistically significant findings related to the evaluation of patients referred to early intervention (EI) services. The study found that the percentage of patients evaluated by EI within 120 days of referral increased from a baseline median of 50% to a median of 72% after the implementation of the new referral process. Additionally, the study identified demographic and clinical predictors of successful evaluation, with insurance status and specific diagnoses being statistically significant factors associated with timely evaluation. Furthermore, the study used t tests, χ2 testing, and multivariate logistic regression to identify these predictors and assess the statistical significance of the findings. The results of the study demonstrated the effectiveness of the intervention in improving the timely connection of patients to EI services.,

Study Design: The study design used in this research is a quality improvement (QI) initiative. The authors engaged in a quality improvement study to redesign the early intervention (EI) referral process with the goal of ensuring that 70% of patients referred to EI were evaluated by the program. The QI initiative involved implementing a multifaceted referral process, including a centralized electronic referral system used by providers, patient navigators responsible for processing all EI referrals, and a tracking system post-referral to facilitate identification of patients failing to connect with EI. The study utilized a QI approach to address the issue of timely connection to early intervention for young children with developmental delays.,

Setting: The quality improvement initiative was implemented at an academic hospital-based primary care clinic that cares for approximately 16,000 patients, with 17% of them being under 3 years of age and potentially eligible for early intervention services. The families primarily reside in urban neighborhoods, and 68% of them are Medicaid insured. The pediatric provider team consists of attending physicians, nurse practitioners, and resident physicians. The clinic serves a low-income population, and 20% of well-child visits are billed as having a developmental-behavioral concern. The study was conducted in this setting to improve the connection of patients to early intervention services.

Population of Focus: The target audience for the study includes healthcare professionals, particularly those involved in pediatric primary care, early intervention programs, and quality improvement initiatives. Additionally, policymakers and researchers interested in early childhood development, developmental services, and interventions for children with developmental delays would also find the study relevant. The findings and recommendations from the study are likely to be of interest to professionals and organizations involved in improving the coordination of early intervention referrals and services for young children with developmental delays.

Sample Size: The sample size for the study was 309 patients who were referred to early intervention services from the academic primary care clinic. Of these patients, 219 were evaluated within 120 days of referral. The study analyzed the demographic and diagnostic characteristics of the patients and their associations with timely referral to early intervention services.

Age Range: The article discusses early intervention for children under the age of 3 years who are experiencing or at risk for developmental delays.

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): 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, 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), Participation Incentives, Data Collection Training for Staff

Intervention Description: To explore rates of screening and identification and treatment for behavioral problems using billing data from Massachusetts Medicaid immediately following the start of the state's new court-ordered screening and intervention program.

Intervention Results: Major increase from 16.6% of all Medicaid well-child visits coded for behavioral screens in the first quarter of 2008 to 53.6% in the first quarter of 2009. Additionally, the children identified as at risk increased substantially from about 1600 in the first quarter of 2008 to nearly 5000 in quarter 1 of 2009. The children with mental health evaluations increased from an average of 4543 to 5715 per month over a 1-year period.

Conclusion: The data suggest payment and a supported mandate for use of a formal screening tool can substantially increase the identification of children at behavioral health risk. Findings suggest that increased screening may have the desired effect of increasing referrals for mental health services.

Study Design: Observational pretestposttest design

Setting: Massachusetts

Population of Focus: Children enrolled in Medicaid

Data Source: Medicaid data prepared for Rosie D. v Romney (Patrick) court case

Sample Size: Well-child visits - Baseline/first quarter 2008 (n=122,494)4 - Follow-up/first quarter 2009 (n=118,573)

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): 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): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Expert Support (Provider), Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training

Intervention Description: The aim of this study was to use family-centered measures to estimate the effect of a collaborative quality improvement program designed to help practices implement systems to promote early childhood development services.

Intervention Results: The number of care delivery systems increased from a mean of 12.9 to 19.4 of 27 in collaborative practices and remained the same in comparison practices (P=.0002). The proportion of children with documented developmental and psychosocial screening among intervention practices increased from 78% to 88% (P<.001) and from 22% to 29% (P=.002), respectively. Compared with control practices, there was a trend toward improvement in the proportion of parents who reported receiving at least 3 of 4 areas of care.

Conclusion: The learning collaborative was associated with an increase in the number of practice-based systems and tools designed to elicit and address parents' concerns about their child's behavior and development and a modest improvement in parent-reported measures of the quality of care.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group

Setting: Pediatric and family primary care practices (17 collaborative education, 18 comparison practices) in Vermont and North Carolina

Population of Focus: Children ages 0-48 months receiving well-child visits

Data Source: Child medical record

Sample Size: Unknown number of chart audits

Age Range: Not specified

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Home Visits, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Data Collection Training for Staff

Intervention Description: To determine the impact of the Healthy Steps for Young Children Program on quality of early childhood health care and parenting practices.

Intervention Results: Percentage of children with developmental assessments was 83.1% for intervention and 41.4% for control group (OR=8.00; 95% CI=6.69, 9.56; P<.001)

Conclusion: Universal, practice-based interventions can enhance quality of care for families of young children and can improve selected parenting practices.

Study Design: RCT and QE: nonequivalent control group

Setting: Pediatric practices in 14 states (6 randomization sites: San Diego, CA; Iowa City, IA; Allentown, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Florence, SC; Amarillo, TX. 9 QE sites: Birmingham, AL/Chapel Hill, NC; Grand Junction, CO/Montrose, CO; Chicago, IL; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Detroit, MI; Kansas City, MO; New York, NY; Houston, TX/Richmond, TX)

Population of Focus: Children ages 0-36 months

Data Source: Child medical record

Sample Size: Randomization Sites: - Intervention (n=832) - Control (n=761) - Total (n=1593) Quasi-Experimental Sites: - Intervention (n=1189) - Control (n=955) - Total (n=2144) Total: - All families (n=3737) - Intervention: (n=2021) - Control (n=1716)

Age Range: Not specified