Although numerous studies have demonstrated that a high percentage of primary care providers (PCPs) are knowledgeable about the American Academy of Pediatrics' guidelines for managing ADHD, many fail to implement these guidelines correctly. The goal of this project is to increase the use of evidence-based practices (EBP) for assessing and treating children with ADHD between 5 and 12 years in the context of primary care practice. This randomized controlled trial will evaluate the whether a 3-part intervention (education about ADHD management and communication training, collaborative consultation, and performance feedback regarding use of EBPs) is effective in improving EBP use among primary care providers.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
895
The SPA intervention will last for 8 months for each study arm (first 8 months of the study for the intervention group, last 8 months for the control group). The intervention includes 3 components: 1) a series of web-based educational presentations to provide education to providers about evidence-based practice for managing ADHD and strategies for promoting effective communication with families 2) Collaborative consultation designed to address clinical issues arising in practice will be provided by members of the study team. 3\) Providers will be given systematic performance feedback with regard to their use of evidence-based practices for ADHD every 2 months during the 8-month intervention period.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline interval
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician during the baseline interval
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline interval
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician during the baseline interval
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention interval
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician during the intervention interval
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention interval
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned
This measure is based on chart review of patients of clinicians in each study arm (up to 4 patients per clinician) and reflects whether there is evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician during the intervention interval
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale - by MOC Status
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by MOC Status
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the baseline period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Baseline Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a parent rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was sent out during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation
We calculated the percent of patient charts with evidence that a teacher rating scale was received by the clinician/practice during the intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Completed All 3 Educational Presentations
We assessed the proportion of clinicians randomized to the intervention group that completed all 3 educational presentations.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Used the Collaborative Consultation Component
We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group that posted in the online networking site which was used to facilitate collaborative consultation.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in at Least One Performance Feedback Call
We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group who participated in at least one of the four performance feedback calls that were held during the study period.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in All Intervention Components and Attested to Fulfilling MOC Requirements
We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group who completed all components of the intervention and attested to fulfilling MOC requirements.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)