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): 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): 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