Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Conditions
Keywords
Evidence-Based Practice, Provider Education
Brief summary
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.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSupporting Practice for ADHD (SPA)
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.
Sponsors
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to 12 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
Primary Subjects: Clinicians Inclusion Criteria: * Non-resident clinician (physician or nurse practitioner) at participating site
Exclusion criteria
* Residents Secondary Subjects: Families Inclusion Criteria: * Children aged 5-12 years receiving care from a clinician enrolled in the study for ADHD and their parents
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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 |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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 |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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 |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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 |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by MOC Status | Intervention Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale - by MOC Status | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Completed All 3 Educational Presentations | Intervention Period (8 months) | We assessed the proportion of clinicians randomized to the intervention group that completed all 3 educational presentations. |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Used the Collaborative Consultation Component | Intervention Period (8 months) | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group that posted in the online networking site which was used to facilitate collaborative consultation. |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in at Least One Performance Feedback Call | Intervention Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in All Intervention Components and Attested to Fulfilling MOC Requirements | Intervention Period (8 months) | We calculated the proportion of clinicians in the intervention group who completed all components of the intervention and attested to fulfilling MOC requirements. |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
| Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | Baseline Period (8 months) | 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. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Note: The same group of 105 clinicians participated during both periods. Charts were reviewed for a different random sample of patients in each period (790 patients in total: 391 in the baseline and 399 in the intervention period)
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Intervention Clinicians Clinicians in the intervention arm received the three-part intervention (Supporting Practice for ADHD, or SPA) which includes: education about ADHD management and communication training, collaborative consultation, and performance feedback, for the first 8 months of the study. | 53 |
| Control Clinicians Clinicians in the control arm received no intervention for the first 8 months of the study, then received the full SPA intervention for the last 8 months of the study. | 52 |
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians Children aged 5-12 with ADHD seen by a clinician in the intervention group during the study period. | 402 |
| Patients of Control Clinicians Children aged 5-12 with an ADHD diagnosis seen by clinicians in the control group during the study period. | 388 |
| Total | 895 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Patients of Control Clinicians | Total | Intervention Clinicians | Control Clinicians |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 9.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.9 | 9.2 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2 | 9.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 2 | — | — |
| Baseline Perception of Acceptability of Managing ADHD in Primary Care- Assessing ADHD | — | — | 3.3 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 | 3.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 3.3 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.4 |
| Baseline Perception of Acceptability of Managing ADHD in Primary Care- Providing Mental Health Care | — | — | 3.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 | 3.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 | 3.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 |
| Baseline Perception of Acceptability of Managing ADHD in Primary Care- Recommending Medications | — | — | 3.6 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 | 3.5 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 3.6 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.4 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 16 Participants | 18 Participants | 34 Participants | — | — |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 386 Participants | 370 Participants | 756 Participants | — | — |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | — | — |
| Insurance payer Medicaid | 169 Participants | 224 Participants | 393 Participants | — | — |
| Insurance payer Missing | 3 Participants | 1 Participants | 4 Participants | — | — |
| Insurance payer Private | 230 Participants | 163 Participants | 393 Participants | — | — |
| Perceived effectiveness at managing ADHD in primary care | — | — | 3.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7 | 2.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.8 | 3.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 |
| Provider Type Nurse Practitioner | — | — | 12 Participants | 8 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Provider Type Pediatrician | — | — | 93 Participants | 45 Participants | 48 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black | 104 Participants | 221 Participants | 325 Participants | — | — |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Other | 50 Participants | 24 Participants | 74 Participants | — | — |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 248 Participants | 143 Participants | 391 Participants | — | — |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 107 Participants | 129 Participants | 324 Participants | 43 Participants | 45 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 295 Participants | 259 Participants | 571 Participants | 10 Participants | 7 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 53 | 0 / 52 | 0 / 402 | 0 / 388 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 53 | 0 / 52 | 0 / 402 | 0 / 388 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 53 | 0 / 52 | 0 / 402 | 0 / 388 |
Outcome results
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | 29 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | 28 Participants |
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | 59 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned | 47 Participants |
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | 52 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | 47 Participants |
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | 28 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned | 31 Participants |
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | 33 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | 37 Participants |
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | 85 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parents Rating Scale | 65 Participants |
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | 67 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | 60 Participants |
Primary
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)
Population: We reviewed charts for a total of 402 patients of intervention clinicians (200 who had an office visit in the 8-month baseline period and 202 who had an office visit in the 8-month intervention period). We reviewed charts for a total of 388 patients of control clinicians (191 in the baseline period and 197 in the control period).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | 33 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale | 34 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Completed All 3 Educational Presentations | 42 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in All Intervention Components and Attested to Fulfilling MOC Requirements | 19 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Participated in at Least One Performance Feedback Call | 30 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for intervention clinicians.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Implementation Outcome: Number of Clinicians Who Used the Collaborative Consultation Component | 5 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 19 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 10 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 35 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 24 Participants |
Secondary
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 intervention period, separately for intervention clinicians who did and did not complete Maintenance of Certification (MOC) attestation.
Time frame: Intervention Period (8 months)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 26 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 33 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 12 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Parent Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 17 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 30 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 22 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 21 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by Feedback Call Participation | 7 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 21 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 31 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 12 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Whose Teacher Rating Scale Was Returned- by MOC Status | 16 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 56 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 29 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 21 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 12 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale - by MOC Status | 12 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale - by MOC Status | 21 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by MOC Status | 40 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Parent Rating Scale- by MOC Status | 45 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 42 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 25 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not participate in at least one performance feedback call. The feedback call group included 115 patients in the baseline and 112 in the intervention period. The non-feedback call group included 85 and 90.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 24 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by Feedback Call Participation | 9 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | 28 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | 39 Participants |
Secondary
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)
Population: This outcome was only assessed for patients of clinicians in the intervention group, and compared patients of clinicians who did and did not fulfill all requirements to receive Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credit. The MOC group included 76 patients in the baseline and 73 in the intervention period. The non-MOC group included 124 and 129.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients of Intervention Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | 12 Participants |
| Patients of Control Clinicians | Number of Patients Who Were Sent the Teacher Rating Scale- by MOC Status | 21 Participants |