Evaluating Improvement Strategies in Addiction Treatment

NCT00934141 | Completed Phase 3 Results DMC

• 2 other identifiers: DA0208325R01DA020832-05
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 201
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Addiction treatment is often characterized by long delays between first contact and treatment as well as high no-show and drop out rates leading to unused capacity in apparently full agencies. Patients do not get needed care and agency financial stability is threatened. The Network for Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) began as a high-intensity improvement collaborative of 39 addiction treatment agencies distributed across 25 states. NIATx substantially improved time to treatment and continuation in treatment by making improvements to organizational processes (such as first contact, intake and assessment, engagement, level of care transitions, paperwork, social support, outreach, and scheduling) in preliminary studies. While the results are very encouraging, they have, by intent, been obtained from a select group of agencies using a high-cost combination of services. A more practical diffusion model is needed to spread process improvements across the spectrum of treatment agencies. This study is a cluster-randomized trial to test the effectiveness and cost of less expensive combinations of the services that make up the NIATx collaborative (interest circles, coach calls, coach visits and learning sessions).

Conditions

Addiction

Keywords

Organizational change; process improvement; addiction treatment; cost effectiveness study

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (3)

• Change in Average Waiting Time From First Contact to Treatment

  The average length of time in days it takes from when a patient first calls for help to the time a patient was able to meet a clinician. In this quality improvement study, changes in this measure over time are reported. Estimates of improvement show the average days of improvement per month based on a best linear unbiased predictor estimate for each site. Note: this study has three primary outcomes. The number of participants analyzed varies for each outcome. The (higher) number of clinics shown in the flow diagram results because clinics may have been analyzed on a subset of the three primary outcomes (e.g., analyzed for waiting time and continuation, but not for annual number of new patients). To be considered "analyzed" in the flow diagram, a clinic must have been included in at least one primary outcomes analysis.

  Baseline and 15 months

• Change in Annual Number of Patient Admissions

  We aimed to increase clinics' treatment capacity in this quality improvement study. Capacity was measured by counting clinics' annual number of patient admissions. We monitored changes in admission counts, per clinic, in a pre-post analysis. Changes in the natural logarithm of annual admissions are presented, which approximates the average percentage change (year-to-year) in the number of new patient admissions per clinic. Note: this study has three primary outcomes. The number of participants analyzed varies for each outcome. The (higher) number of clinics shown in the flow diagram results because clinics may have been analyzed on a subset of the three primary outcomes (e.g., analyzed for waiting time and continuation, but not for annual number of new patients). To be considered "analyzed" in the flow diagram, a clinic must have been included in at least one primary outcomes analysis.

  48 months (2 year baseline period and 2 year post-intervention period)

• Change in Average Continuation Rate Through the Fourth Treatment Session

  This outcome represents change in the rate at which a clinic's patients continue in treatment. Continuation rate is defined as the percentage of patients that make at least 4 visits to the clinic, on different days, before being discharged. Estimates of improvement show the average percentage points of improvement per month based on a best linear unbiased predictor estimate for each site. Note: this study has three primary outcomes. The number of participants analyzed varies for each outcome. The (higher) number of clinics shown in the flow diagram results because clinics may have been analyzed on a subset of the three primary outcomes (e.g., analyzed for waiting time and continuation, but not for annual number of new patients). To be considered "analyzed" in the flow diagram, a clinic must have been included in at least one primary outcomes analysis.

  Baseline and 21 months

Secondary Outcomes (1)

• Cost of Group

  Baseline and 18 months

Study Arms (4)

Interest Circle Call + Website

EXPERIMENTAL

Interest Circles are monthly teleconferences where agency change leaders discuss change-related issues and progress. Circles address how to improve timeliness, continuation, admissions, dropouts and transitions. They also address specialty topics (e.g., programs for women, adolescents). Participants discuss successes, failures, and challenges, and get advice and assignments for their improvement plans. Meeting summaries appear on the Web site. Interest Circles are inexpensive, but are they are sufficient? Should Interest Circles prove effective, they would provide a low-cost, convenient diffusion approach.

Other: Interest Circle Calls; Other: Website

Coaching + Website

EXPERIMENTAL

Coaching assigns an expert in process improvement to work with an agency to make, sustain, and spread process improvement efforts. Consultations focus on executive directors, change leaders and improvement teams. Coaches help agencies address key issues, but also broker relationships with other agencies, offer process improvement training, and promote the innovations to make and how to make them. Coaching takes place during site visits, monthly phone conferences, and via email.

Other: Coaching; Other: Website

Full: LS, Coaching, ICC, Website

EXPERIMENTAL

Learning Session, Coaching, Interest Circle Calls, Website, see descriptions above

Other: Learning Session; Other: Interest Circle Calls; Other: Coaching; Other: Website

Learning Session + Website

EXPERIMENTAL

Learning Sessions occur bi-annually as change teams convene to learn and gather support from each other and outside experts who offer advice on how best to adopt the innovations and learn about new directions for the collaborative (e.g., the need to create business cases for improvements). Learning Sessions and Interest Circles (see below) have similar objectives-to help agencies learn and gather support from each other and from outside experts.

Other: Learning Session; Other: Website

Interventions

Learning Session OTHER

Learning Sessions occur bi-annually as change teams convene to learn and gather support from each other and outside experts who offer advice on how best to adopt the innovations and learn about new directions for the collaborative (e.g., the need to create business cases for improvements). Learning Sessions and Interest Circles (see below) have similar objectives-to help agencies learn and gather support from each other and from outside experts.

Full: LS, Coaching, ICC, Website; Learning Session + Website

Interest Circle Calls OTHER

Interest Circles are monthly teleconferences where agency change leaders discuss change-related issues and progress. Circles address how to improve timeliness, continuation, admissions, dropouts and transitions. They also address specialty topics (e.g., programs for women, adolescents). Participants discuss successes, failures, and challenges, and get advice and assignments for their improvement plans. Meeting summaries appear on the Web site. Interest Circles are inexpensive, but are they are sufficient? Should Interest Circles prove effective, they would provide a low-cost, convenient diffusion approach

Full: LS, Coaching, ICC, Website; Interest Circle Call + Website

Coaching OTHER

Coaching assigns an expert in process improvement to work with an agency to make, sustain, and spread process improvement efforts. Consultations focus on executive directors, change leaders and improvement teams. Coaches help agencies address key issues, but also broker relationships with other agencies, offer process improvement training, and promote the innovations to make and how to make them. Coaching takes place during site visits, monthly phone conferences, and via email.

Coaching + Website; Full: LS, Coaching, ICC, Website

Website OTHER

The NIATx Web site features resources central to improvement. The site includes: 1) a catalog of change ideas and case studies; 2) a toolbox providing just-in-time training on topics such as conducting a walk-through and key innovations; 3) on-line tools to assess organizational (or project) readiness for and ability to sustain change; 4) electronic communication services to ask questions of experts, and participate in peer discussion groups; 5) links to relevant process improvement Web sites; and 6) a secure portion for treatment agencies to report and track progress. Hence, our control group will have access to the entire website.

Coaching + Website; Full: LS, Coaching, ICC, Website; Interest Circle Call + Website; Learning Session + Website

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• at least 60 admissions/year
• provide outpatient and intensive outpatient levels of care (as defined by ASAM)
• provide or use detox services provided by others
• have tax-exempt or government status or rely on public funding (e.g., block grants, Medicare, Medicaid, local government, private philanthropy) for at least 50% of their budget
• have adopted no more than two of the planned interventions

You may not qualify if:

• are current NIATx members

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Wisconsin, Madison: lead
• Oregon Health and Science University: collaborator
• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

University of Wisonsin-Madison

Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, United States

Location

Related Publications (16)

• Gustafson DH, Quanbeck AR, Robinson JM, Ford JH 2nd, Pulvermacher A, French MT, McConnell KJ, Batalden PB, Hoffman KA, McCarty D. Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial. Addiction. 2013 Jun;108(6):1145-57. doi: 10.1111/add.12117. Epub 2013 Mar 1.

  PMID: 23316787 RESULT

• Choi D, Hoffman KA, Kim MO, McCarty D. A high-resolution analysis of process improvement: use of quantile regression for wait time. Health Serv Res. 2013 Feb;48(1):333-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01436.x. Epub 2012 Jun 20.

  PMID: 22716460 RESULT

• Quanbeck A, Wheelock A, Ford JH 2nd, Pulvermacher A, Capoccia V, Gustafson D. Examining access to addiction treatment: scheduling processes and barriers. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013 Mar;44(3):343-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.08.017. Epub 2012 Sep 27.

  PMID: 23021494 RESULT

• Hoffman KA, Quanbeck A, Ford JH 2nd, Wrede F, Wright D, Lambert-Wacey D, Chvojka P, Hanchett A, McCarty D. Improving substance abuse data systems to measure 'waiting time to treatment': lessons learned from a quality improvement initiative. Health Informatics J. 2011 Dec;17(4):256-65. doi: 10.1177/1460458211420090.

  PMID: 22193826 RESULT

• Quanbeck AR, Gustafson DH, Ford JH 2nd, Pulvermacher A, French MT, McConnell KJ, McCarty D. Disseminating quality improvement: study protocol for a large cluster-randomized trial. Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 27;6:44. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-44.

  PMID: 21524303 RESULT

• Quanbeck AR, Madden L, Edmundson E, Ford JH 2nd, McConnell KJ, McCarty D, Gustafson DH. A business case for quality improvement in addiction treatment: evidence from the NIATx collaborative. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2012 Jan;39(1):91-100. doi: 10.1007/s11414-011-9259-6.

  PMID: 21918924 RESULT

• Roosa M, Scripa JS, Zastowny TR, Ford JH 2nd. Using a NIATx based local learning collaborative for performance improvement. Eval Program Plann. 2011 Nov;34(4):390-8. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.006. Epub 2011 Mar 2.

  PMID: 21371751 RESULT

• Quanbeck A, Lang K, Enami K, Brown RL. A cost-benefit analysis of Wisconsin's screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment program: adding the employer's perspective. WMJ. 2010 Feb;109(1):9-14.

  PMID: 20942294 RESULT

• McCarty D, Chandler RK. Understanding the importance of organizational and system variables on addiction treatment services within criminal justice settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009 Aug 1;103 Suppl 1:S91-3. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.03.001. Epub 2009 Apr 8.

  PMID: 19356862 RESULT

• McCarty D, Gustafson D, Capoccia VA, Cotter F. Improving care for the treatment of alcohol and drug disorders. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2009 Jan;36(1):52-60. doi: 10.1007/s11414-008-9108-4. Epub 2008 Feb 8.

  PMID: 18259871 RESULT

• McCarty D, Roman PM, Sorensen J, Weisner C. Health Services Research for Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Prevention. J Drug Issues. 2009 Jan;39(1):197-208. doi: 10.1177/002204260903900115.

  PMID: 23378669 RESULT

• McConnell KJ, Hoffman KA, Quanbeck A, McCarty D. Management practices in substance abuse treatment programs. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Jul;37(1):79-89. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.11.002. Epub 2009 Feb 4.

  PMID: 19195813 RESULT

• Gustafson DH. Essential Ingredients for Successful Redesign of Addiction Treatment. Bridge (Kans City). 2012;2(2):v2i2_article01.

  PMID: 25243237 RESULT

• Ford JH 2nd, Gilson A. Influence of participation in a quality improvement collaborative on staff perceptions of organizational sustainability. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jan 7;21(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-06026-3.

  PMID: 33413357 DERIVED

• Ford JH 2nd, Stumbo SP, Robinson JM. Assessing long-term sustainment of clinic participation in NIATx200: Results and a new methodological approach. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2018 Sep;92:51-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2018.06.012. Epub 2018 Jun 27.

  PMID: 30032945 DERIVED

• Ford JH 2nd, Robinson JM, Wise ME. Adaptation of the Grasha Riechman Student Learning Style Survey and Teaching Style Inventory to assess individual teaching and learning styles in a quality improvement collaborative. BMC Med Educ. 2016 Sep 29;16(1):252. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0772-4.

  PMID: 27681711 DERIVED

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Behavior, Addictive

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Compulsive Behavior; Impulsive Behavior; Behavior

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Dr. David H Gustafson
• Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison

dhgustaf@wisc.edu

608-890-1436

Study Officials

• David H Gustafson, PhD

  University of Wisconsin, Madison

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: No
• Restrictive Agreement: No

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: phase 3
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: July 6, 2009
• First Posted: July 8, 2009
• Study Start: October 1, 2006
• Primary Completion: July 1, 2009
• Study Completion: January 1, 2011
• Last Updated: August 12, 2013
• Results First Posted: June 26, 2013

Record last verified: 2013-07

Locations

US (1)