PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 1857139

Randomized, controlled trials using the Metro Firm System.

Abstract

The Firm System at MetroHealth Medical Center was begun almost two decades ago to foster improved continuity of patient care and teaching of medical students and residents in Internal Medicine. For the past 8 years, these parallel teams of providers and patients also have been used to conduct clinical, educational, and health care delivery research. Randomized, controlled trials are made possible by ongoing random assignment of patients and providers to the three teams, or small group practices. Each group practice has equivalent inpatient and outpatient areas supported by nonrotating nursing, paramedical, and clerical staff. The system's current relationships were established after a controlled trial established both decreased costs and increased effectiveness of the "group practice model" as compared to more traditional approaches to patient care by residents in an academic medical center. Other trials, both on the inpatient and outpatient settings, have been used to guide ongoing institutional change. The unique advantages of the randomized controlled trial are high-lighted by contrasting the results of within-group changes during an intervention with results that incorporate control group changes. A variety of methodologic and logistical issues must be addressed when conducting controlled trials that use ongoing randomization within a single institution. These include determination that the groups are equivalent for all important parameters preintervention, choosing an analytic approach that accounts for potential differences among providers and patients, and, in trials designed to affect behavior, assurance that a "steady state" exists prior to initiating another trial designed to affect similar behavior. Consideration also must be given to the possibilities of cross-team contamination, the Hawthorne effect, the "dominant attending effect," and ethical issues related to informed consent. Clinical trials in a single institution may be performed for common problems and those with well defined stages of severity. Since the costs of maintaining the ongoing randomization are relatively small, the incremental costs of conducting randomized controlled trials are low by comparison to traditional approaches. The establishment of analogous systems at other institutions will permit multisite trials for less common clinical problems, enhance the generalizability of findings, and permit new types of health services research, including the rigorous evaluation of practice guidelines.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R D Cebul. 1991. Randomized, controlled trials using the Metro Firm System.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1857139/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Community hospitals--the place of local service provision in a modernising NHS: an integrative thematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Recent developments within the United Kingdom's (UK) health care system have re-awakened interest in community hospitals (CHs) and their role in the provision of health care. This integrative literature review sought to identify and assess the current evidence base for CHs. METHODS: A range of electronic reference databases were searched from January 1984 to either December 2004 or February 2005: Medline, Embase, Web of Knowledge, BNI, CINAHL, HMIC, ASSIA, PsychInfo, SIGLE, Dissertation Abstracts, Cochrane Library, Kings Fund website, using both keywords and text words. Thematic analysis identified recurrent themes across the literature; narrative analyses were written for each theme, identifying unifying concepts and discrepant issues. RESULTS: The search strategy identified over 16,000 international references. We included papers of any study design focussing on hospitals in which care was led principally by general practitioners or nurses. Papers from developing countries were excluded. A review of titles revealed 641 potentially relevant references; abstract appraisal identified 161 references for review. During data extraction, a further 48 papers were excluded, leaving 113 papers in the final review. The most common methodological approaches were cross-sectional/descriptive studies, commentaries and expert opinion. There were few experimental studies, systematic reviews, economic studies or studies that reported on longer-term outcomes. The key themes identified were origin and location of CHs; their place in the continuum of care; services provided; effectiveness, efficiency and equity of CHs; and views of patients and staff. In general, there was a lack of robust evidence for the role of CHs, which is partly due to the ad hoc nature of their development and lack of clear strategic vision for their future. Evidence for the effectiveness and efficiency of the services provided was limited. Most people admitted to CHs appeared to be older, suggesting that admittance to CHs was age-related rather than condition-related. CONCLUSION: Overall the literature surveyed was long on opinion and short of robust studies on CHs. While lack of evidence on CHs does not imply lack of effect, there is an urgent need to develop a research agenda that addresses the key issues of health care delivery in the CH setting.

Health Services Research↗