An interventional study of Intensive quality improvement tools in Heart Failure, sponsored by Duke University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2012-06-26.
Sponsored by Duke University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
The objective of this study is to evaluate whether a quarterly feedback, education and performance improvement site-based intervention has a greater impact on quality performance and adherence to evidenced-based guidelines than existing on-demand feedback. This study will use a randomized design to compare changes in quality performance and adherence to selected measures among hospitals using existing on-demand reports and general quality improvement (QI) efforts versus those receiving intensive, targeted QI feedback via reports, teleconferences, webinars, and specialized tool kits.
5,701 studies on the registry are indexed under Heart Failure; 1,220 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 147 is above the median of 72 across 3,736 interventional studies indexed under Heart Failure.
Browse Heart Failure studies →Duke University is the lead sponsor of 2,025 studies on the registry; 275 are open to participants now.
Of its 194 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 159 (82%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Standard quality improvement approaches available through participation in Get With the Guidelines - Heart Failure.
Enhanced and/or intensive quality improvement approaches, coupled with standard approaches available through participation in Get With the Guidelines - Heart Failure.
Behavioral: Intensive quality improvement tools
Personalized performance improvement interventions, including premier site data reports, personalized feedback/teleconferences, comprehensive toolkits, and focused webinars; in addition to other general QI tools typically available through participation in Get With the Guidelines Heart Failure.
Improvement in the overall opportunity-based composite of measures eligible for intervention (absolute score difference compared to the control arm) based on the existing Get With the Guidelines Heart Failure Achievement Measures and Quality Measures.
Time frame: 1 year
Improvement in Defect Free (all or none) score based on the combined Get With the Guidelines Heart Failure Achievement and Quality Measures
Time frame: 1 year
Improvement in scores of each individual Get With the Guidelines Heart Failure Achievement and Quality Measure
Time frame: 1 year
Improvement in length of stay and in-patient mortality.
Time frame: 1 year
This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2012. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Duke University