4.3 Article

Improved Outcomes With Quality Improvement Interventions in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e318262de16

关键词

care guidelines; chronic illness; fecal calprotectin; serum 25-OHD; vitamin D

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Variations in chronic illness care are common in our health care system and may lead to suboptimal outcomes. Specifically, inconsistent use and suboptimal medication dosing have been demonstrated in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Quality improvement (QI) efforts have improved outcomes in conditions such as asthma and diabetes mellitus, but have not been well studied in IBD. We hypothesized that QI efforts would lead to improved outcomes in our pediatric IBD population. Methods: A QI team was formed within our IBD center in 2005. By 2007, we began prospectively capturing physician global assessment (PGA) and patient-reported global assessment. Significant QI interventions included creating evidence-based medication guidelines, joining a national QI collaborative, initiation of preclinic planning, and monitoring serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Results: From 2007 to 2010, 505 patients have been followed at our IBD center. During this time, the frequency of patients in clinical remission increased from 59% to 76% (P<0.05), the frequency of patients who report that their global assessment is >7 increased from 69% to 80% (P<0.05), and the frequency of patients with a Short Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index (sPCDAI) <15 increased from 60% to 77% (P<0.05). The frequency of repeat steroid use decreased from 17% to 10% (P<0.05). We observed an association between the use of a vitamin D supplement (P=0.02), serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (P<0.05), and quiescent disease activity. Conclusions: Our results show that significant improvements in patient outcomes are associated with QI efforts that do not rely on new medication or therapies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据