Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 5 (5 total).

Gray C, Fox K,Williamson ME. Improving Health Outcomes for Children (IHOC): First STEPS II Initiative: Improving Developmental, Autism, and Lead Screening for Children: Final Evaluation. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine Muskie School of Public Service; 2013. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
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, Chart Audits (Provider), 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)
Intervention Description: This report evaluates the impact of Phase II of Maine's First STEPS initiative
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
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Pediatric and family practices serving children with MaineCoverage
Target Audience: 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

Barry S, Paul K, Aakre K, Drake-Buhr S, Willis R. Final Report: Developmental and Autism Screening in Primary Care. Burlington, VT: Vermont Child Health Improvement Program; 2012. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
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, Chart Audits (Provider), 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
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Pediatric and family medicine practices in Vermont
Target Audience: 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

Earls MF, Hay SS. Setting the stage for success: implementation of developmental and behavioral screening and surveillance in primary care practice--the North Carolina Assuring Better Child Health and Development (ABCD) Project. Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):e183-188. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
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, Chart Audits (Provider), 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
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.
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
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Partnership for Health Management, a network within Community Care of North Carolina
Target Audience: 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

Lannon CM, Flower K, Duncan P, Moore KS, Stuart J, Bassewitz J. The Bright Futures Training Intervention Project: implementing systems to support preventive and developmental services in practice. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):e163-171. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
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, Chart Audits (Provider), 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)
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.
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
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Primary care practices (15 at baseline, 8 at follow- up) throughout the US (9 states total), with most in the Midwest
Target Audience: 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

Malik F, Booker JM, Brown S, McClain C, McGrath J. Improving developmental screening among pediatricians in New Mexico: findings from the developmental screening initiative. Clin Pediatr. 2014;53(6):531-538. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
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, Chart Audits (Provider), 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
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.
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
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Seven primary care practices in a large urban area and small regional community in New Mexico
Target Audience: 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

   

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.