Teaching Commentary on “A Primary Care-Based Multidisciplinary Readmission Prevention Program”: Essential Aspects of Comparability and Context in Practice-Based Program Evaluation

Elizabeth M Yano

doi:10.1007/s11606-014-2820-2

Abstract

Teaching Commentary on “A Primary Care-Based Multidisciplinary Readmission Prevention Program”: Essential Aspects of Comparability and Context in Practice-Based Program Evaluation

Highlights

In their paper evaluating a primary care-based multidisciplinary readmission prevention program, Cavanaugh and colleagues describe the quality improvement processes they underwent to develop, iteratively refine, implement and evaluate a program designed to improve post-discharge planning and care transitions, thereby reducing readmissions.[1]
This paper provides an excellent example of the potential for and challenges of identifying an appropriate and comparable comparison group in non-experimental study designs, as well as the value of what Jubelt and colleagues described as “thick descriptions” of program content and processes of implementation, in context such that actions and behaviors become clear to outsiders.[2]
I lay out the implications of both comparability and context for evaluating quality improvement (QI) programs, with an eye to their contribution to implementation and spread of local innovations

Summary

Introduction

In their paper evaluating a primary care-based multidisciplinary readmission prevention program, Cavanaugh and colleagues describe the quality improvement processes they underwent to develop, iteratively refine, implement and evaluate a program designed to improve post-discharge planning and care transitions, thereby reducing readmissions.[1]. Use of the same facility means that patients in both intervention and comparison groups shared the same area and organizational environments, which reduces the need to adjust for contextual factors.

Results

Conclusion