PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11378974

Continuous improvement evaluation: a framework for multisite evaluation studies.

Abstract

This article proposes the use of the continuous improvement evaluation (CIE), a framework for multisite demonstration or evaluation studies. This framework is designed for studying intervention programs that change during the evaluation. The development of family drug courts is provided as an example. CIE relies on outcome data collected over time and benchmarked across similar cases in comparison sites; thus, this study was designed to collect data on effectiveness of intervention programs at multiple sites and over time. A weight is calculated for similarity of any two cases based on features they share. In statistical process control charts, these weights are used to compare outcomes at the site against the average of similar cases in comparison groups. Once data are benchmarked, program staff meet to discuss process changes that have led to improvements in outcomes. To ensure that intervention programs have access to evaluation reports on demand, information technology is used to collect, clean, and pool data. Computers generate study reports, and evaluators review reports after release to clients. Statistical tools can be used to evaluate changing programs. Traditional evaluators may be concerned about some threats to validity associated with CIE. The article concludes with a discussion of typical threats to validity and how these threats are addressed in the CIE framework.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F Alemi, M R Haack, S Nemes. Continuous improvement evaluation: a framework for multisite evaluation studies.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2001.tb00345.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The diagnosis and management of polycythemia vera in the era since the Polycythemia Vera Study Group: a survey of American Society of Hematology members' practice patterns.

The Polycythemia Vera Study Group (PVSG) was organized in 1967 to identify the optimal approach to the diagnosis and treatment of polycythemia vera (PV). Nevertheless, a systematic assessment of US physicians' approach to PV has not been performed. To determine practice patterns in the management of PV, a random sample of the US American Society of Hematology (ASH) membership was surveyed. Thirty-three percent of 3000 surveys were returned. Significant variations in diagnostic and therapeutic approach were evident by region, practice type, specialty, and clinical experience. Red cell volume determinations (78% of respondents), serum erythropoietin levels (76%), and arterial blood gases (75%) were the most frequent tests used in the diagnosis of PV. Sixty-nine percent of physicians use phlebotomy as their first choice for erythrocytosis. Phlebotomy plus hydroxyurea (27.8%) and hydroxyurea alone (10%) were used less often. Despite PVSG recommendations, almost 16% of physicians used a target hematocrit of 0.55 (50%) or 0.55 (55%) for phlebotomy therapy. Eighty-two percent of physicians treated thrombocytosis only when platelet counts exceeded 1000 x 10(9)/L (1 000 000/microL) or in the event of symptoms. Hydroxyurea (62.8%) and anagrelide (35.4%) were the primary agents used to treat thrombocytosis. Thus, this national survey of US hematologists and oncologists has identified substantial variation in the approach to the diagnosis and treatment of PV. A significant minority of physicians undertreat erythrocytosis, and little consensus exists regarding the treatment of thrombocytosis.

Data Collection↗