Trial reportJournal of the National Medical Association2010
A novel approach to quality improvement in a safety-net practice: concurrent peer review visits.
Trial report in Journal of the National Medical Association, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical inertia in the pharmacological management of hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Team-based care and improved blood pressure control: a community guide systematic review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2014Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Therapeutic Inertia: Still a Long Way to Go That Cannot Be Postponed.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2020Article
- INTEGRA study protocol: primary care intervention in type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycaemic control.BMC family practice · 2019Article
- Modeled Health and Economic Impact of Team-Based Care for Hypertension.American journal of preventive medicine · 2016Article
- Validity of body-worn sensor acceleration metrics to index upper extremity function in hemiparetic stroke.Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveConcurrent peer review visits are structured office visits conducted by clinician peers of the primary care clinician that are specifically designed to reduce competing demands, clinical inertia, and bias. We assessed whether a single concurrent peer review visit reduced clinical inertia and improved control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes control among underserved patients.
methodsWe conducted a randomized encouragement trial to evaluate concurrent peer review visits with a community health center. Seven hundred twenty-seven patients with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes who were not at goal for systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and/or glycated hemoglobin (A1c) were randomly assigned to an invitation to participate in a concurrent peer review visit or to usual care. We compared change in these measures using mixed models and rates of therapeutic intensification during concurrent peer review visits with control visits.
resultsOne hundred seventy-one patients completed a concurrent peer review visit. SBP improved significantly (p < .01) more among those completing concurrent peer review visits than among those who failed to respond to a concurrent peer review invitation or those randomized to usual care. There were no differences seen for changes in LDL-C or A1c. Concurrent peer review visits were associated with statistically significant greater clinician intensification of blood pressure (p < .001), lipid (p < .001), and diabetes (p < .005) treatment than either for control visits for patients in either the nonresponse group or usual care group.
conclusionsConcurrent peer review visits represent a promising strategy for improving blood pressure control and improving therapeutic intensification in community health centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.