title: Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout health care to improve quality, but no study has identified which components work best. This study tested the effectiveness of different components in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination of all components would be most effective.
  
  
  METHODS
  An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics to one of four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings) and a combination of all three. Interest circle calls functioned as a minimal intervention comparison group.
  
  
  METHODS
  Out-patient addiction treatment clinics in the United States.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two hundred and one clinics in five states.
  
  
  METHODS
  Clinic data managers submitted data on three primary outcomes: waiting-time (mean days between first contact and first treatment), retention (percentage of patients retained from first to fourth treatment session) and annual number of new patients. State and group costs were collected for a cost-effectiveness analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Waiting-time declined significantly for three groups: coaching (an average of 4.6 days/clinic, P = 0.001), learning sessions (3.5 days/clinic, P = 0.012) and the combination (4.7 days/clinic, P = 0.001). The coaching and combination groups increased significantly the number of new patients (19.5%, P = 0.028; 8.9%, P = 0.029; respectively). Interest circle calls showed no significant effect on outcomes. None of the groups improved retention significantly. The estimated cost per clinic was $2878 for coaching versus $7930 for the combination. Coaching and the combination of collaborative components were about equally effective in achieving study aims, but coaching was substantially more cost-effective.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  When trying to improve the effectiveness of addiction treatment services, clinic-level coaching appears to help improve waiting-time and number of new patients while other components of improvement collaboratives (interest circles calls and learning sessions) do not seem to add further value.
authors: Center for Health Enhancement Systems Studies, Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1513 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706, USA. dhgustaf@wisc.edu
authors: David H
authors: DH
authors: Gustafson
authors: Andrew R
authors: AR
authors: Quanbeck
authors: James M
authors: JM
authors: Robinson
authors: James H
authors: JH
authors: Ford
authors: Alice
authors: A
authors: Pulvermacher
authors: Michael T
authors: MT
authors: French
authors: K John
authors: KJ
authors: McConnell
authors: Paul B
authors: PB
authors: Batalden
authors: Kim A
authors: KA
authors: Hoffman
authors: Dennis
authors: D
authors: McCarty
mesh_terms: D000553:Ambulatory Care / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D016000:Cluster Analysis; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D006801:Humans; D007400:Interprofessional Relations; D010342:Patient Acceptance of Health Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D010352:Patient Dropouts / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D058996:Quality Improvement; D016320:Substance Abuse Treatment Centers / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019966:Substance-Related Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D013685:Telecommunications; D061665:Time-to-Treatment / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014481:United States