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, 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), 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): Patient Navigation (Assistance), Patient Reminder/Invitation, Participation Incentives, Shortened Appointment Interval

Intervention Description: Women were randomized to receive 3–4 and 6–8 weeks postpartum appointments and were followed for 18 months. Study participants were recruited from the VCUMC in-patient postpartum unit by using Electronic Health Records (EHR) to monitor deliveries. Eligible women were contacted within 48 h of delivery and informed about the study. Women who agreed to participate were asked to sign the informed consent form, which authorized research staff to access participants' EHR to enhance tracking of postpartum visit attendance. Study participants were interviewed in person at baseline (within 48 h of delivery) and at the postpartum visit. Participants were compensated $25 for completing the baseline interviews and $30 for completing the postpartum interviews. Follow-up assessments were administered via telephone at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18-months post-delivery to evaluate secondary outcomes including contraceptive use, infant feeding practices, pregnancy status, stress and social support, and socio-demographic and medical information. Each of the follow-up assessments lasted approximately 10–15 min, and participants were compensated $10 per follow-up assessment. To reduce loss to follow-up, participants' contact information, as well as contact information for at least three persons who would know the participants' whereabouts and could get messages to them, were collected from the patients. To compensate study subjects for their participation and encourage follow-up assessment compliance, thank you letters along with appointment reminders and additional $10 checks were mailed to each participant monthly. This was especially important for hard-to-track women who did not have working phone numbers and did not return for postpartum visits. Additionally, per study protocol, participants received appointment reminder SMS text messages and/or emails 1 day before their scheduled follow-up phone interviews. If participants could not be reached, up to four attempts were made to contact the participant on different days and times of the day, in an effort to schedule the interviews.

Intervention Results: The overall postpartum visit adherence rate was generally high in the study. However, the adherence rate was observed to be relatively lower in the 3–4 weeks group (71%) compared to the 6–8 weeks group (90%). One reason that may explain this finding is that participants may have been more familiar with the traditional 6–8 weeks postpartum visit and thus, may have had some inertia or difficulty in attending a 3–4 week postpartum visit. A large proportion of women were retained in the study as demonstrated by the high completion rates at the 18-month follow-up interview (Total sample: 87.6%; 3–4 weeks group: 88.0%; 6–8 weeks group: 87.3%). Similarly, high adherence to the protocol-directed postpartum visit schedule was reported in the overall study sample (79.7%), as well as in the 3–4 (70.5%) and 6–8 (90.0%) week postpartum groups.

Conclusion: In this trial, we successfully maintained high completion rates throughout the course of the study. This is important given that the study population included hard-to-track women who typically do not return for postpartum visits [12]. Due to economic challenges, underserved women may not have permanent addresses or phone numbers. By utilizing a participant tracking form, we obtained contact information from at least three persons who generally knew the participants' whereabouts and could contact them. This provided multiple avenues for reaching participants and enhanced retention. Additionally, monthly communication and incentives provided the opportunity to maintain participant engagement.

Study Design: Prospective, open-label randomized control trial

Setting: Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center

Sample Size: 364 women

Age Range: 18-43