CS2day: Award-Winning, 9-Collaborator, Performance-Improvement CME With an Outcomes-Based Evaluation Model

I saved the best for the last entry in the Back to School Tweet Fest. The Cease Smoking Today (CS2day) initiative cannot be ignored in a series about effective educational interventions in changing practice and improving quality of health care. An entire 2011 supplement of the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (JCEHP) reports the complex CS2day educational program and its findings, with six research articles [1-6] and three forum articles [7-9] written by multi-institutional teams among the nine initiative partners. This study was awarded the Alliance for CME (now ACEhp) Award for Outstanding CME Collaboration in 2009 (see PDF pages 15-18 of www.acehp.org/d/do/150), and was presented in a 2012 CME Congress poster (P50: http://www.cmecongress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/CME-Congress-2012-Abstracts.pdf). The study boasts collaboration among universities, professional societies, accredited CME providers, ACEhp presidents and conference chairs, CME directors at academic medical centers, the JCEHP Editor-in-Chief, and other published researchers [1,10] who carefully define the educational program’s framework and collaboration model in the new quality improvement paradigm of CME called for by the Institute of Medicine in 2001 [11].

The CS2day initiative is so big that this blog post cannot feature just one article reporting it. I will focus on the introductory editorial [10] and 2 study articles that focus on (a) developing competencies to assess needs and outcomes [3] and (b) the educational and patient health outcomes data themselves [4]. The medical education expert Donald Moore introduces the supplement and one article therein reports the outcomes data. I hope you will do as Moore recommends, when you question what you can take from articles describing “a huge project with significant funding,” which is to ask, “What are the general principles that I can identify in these articles and how can I use them in my CME practice[?]” [10].

In my previous post, I noted the difficulties of using PI-CME to change patient health outcomes in a condition posing a major public health challenge: the COSEHC study addressed cardiometabolic risk factors and saw performance and patient health improvements. The CS2day initiative faced the same challenge, and happily also reported performance change and a change in patient health outcomes: smoking cessation. Moore nicely summarizes the challenge of connecting Level 5 performance changes among clinicians to Level 7 changes in public health outcomes: “All of us want to improve the health of the public in some way, but our approaches … may prevent us from having the impact that we wish to have. The [CS2day] articles … suggest there might be another approach that we should consider to address the important public health issues that surround but do not seem to be impacted by our CME programs” [10; emphasis added].

The articles in the JCEHP supplement are organized around 4 themes [10], to which I have added themes from the articles: 

a) Collaboration is challenging but worth doing if guidelines are set and a formative evaluation of the collaboration against known success factors is carried out [1,2,5]
b) Best-practice CME includes an outcomes orientation that connects learning and performance objectives from the needs assessment to the outcomes assessment in a valid framework to support content in all educational activities [3-6]
c) A public health focus can lead to development of CME/CEhp activities with a translational or implementation science function that transcends what can happen when education addresses only a practice gap [7]
d) Standards and competencies for CEhp and members of the CEhp profession help initiatives meet the principles and characteristics of the IOM report’s expectations [8,9,11] 

The two featured research articles [3,4] function together as the Methods and Results sections of a typical IMRAD-structured paper, but each is extensive enough to stand alone and inform CEhp professionals. McKeithen et al describe the following: the need for establishing clinical competency statements related to supporting smoking cessation; the clinical guidelines that informed performance expectations; “the 5 A’s” of support for smoking cessation (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange); the 14 competencies or the 8 performance outcomes measures that fit into the 5 A’s algorithm being assessed; and collaboration of clinical and educational experts on outcomes tools to develop “a comprehensive set of measures at Levels 3 through 6” [3].

The summative outcomes data are extensively reported by Shershneva et al, where “evaluation of a collaborative program” is presented as “translating” the outcomes framework into practice [3,4]. Defining desired outcomes of the program across Levels 1 to 6* was seen as useful in facilitating agreement among stakeholders; guiding the evaluation process; gathering data from multiple activities and collaborators in a central repository; and studying the effects of mechanisms that link education to outcomes [4]. Thanks to effective planning, the researchers were also able to add to the literature on instructional design in CEhp by distinguishing performance outcomes from two groups of activity types: a) live PI activities with either a collaborative or practice-facilitator model and b) self-directed learning PI activities.

Also worth reading are additional insights about using the Success Case Method (SCM) to determine whether and why educational interventions succeed [6]. In CS2day reporting, using the SCM allowed the research team to conclude remarkably confidently, stating, “the PI activities were a primary and proximal cause of improvement in clinical practice” [4]. Moore notes that “the results were impressive: physicians integrated a new guideline into their practices and many patients stopped smoking” [10]. The guideline integrated into practice through the CS2day initiative was a “heavily researched evidence-based practice guideline published by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,” due to be updated in 2008, the year after this collaborative initiative was begun [1].

Finally, a comment: In CEhp, change data are often seen as valid only when educational and program interventions do not change before activity expiration, nor even when a formative assessment shows changes to be necessary. This attitude can leave participating clinicians with suboptimal educational opportunities and stakeholders in the educational design frustrated. The use of the formative program evaluations that improved the CS2day initiative, with acknowledgements of changes, is in my opinion better than a pure pre/post comparison on an activity where valuable investments are not updated when indicated. If the CME/CEhp profession helps clinicians link medical care to public health through disease prevention, accountability to quality, and more, then educational design should respond to data collected in lengthy and large interventions.

The CS2day initiative is a model study in educational and performance improvement methods for a challenging public health problem. Please read the study articles if you have print or online access to JCEHP, for I have only touched the surface of the initiative's methodology, results, and rationales in the limited confines of this space. 

* Note: In this study, “Learning” was used as Level 3 and included knowledge and clinical skill (competence) measures, while “Performance” including commitment to change (CTC) queries was used as Level 4. Thus Level 5 was “Patient Health Status” and Level 6 was “Population Health Status.”

References cited: 

1. Olson CA, Balmer JT, Mejicano GC. Factors contributing to successful interorganizational collaboration: the case of CS2day. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S3-S12.
2. Ales MW, Rodrigues SB, Snyder R, Conklin M. Developing and implementing an effective framework for collaboration: the experience of the CS2day collaborative. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1): S13-S20.
3. McKeithen T, Robertson S, Speight M. Developing clinical competencies to assess learning needs and outcomes: the experience of the CS2day initiative. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S21-S27. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22190097. [Featured Article]
4. Shershneva MB, Larrison C, Robertson S, Speight M. Evaluation of a collaborative program on smoking cessation: translating outcomes framework into practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S28-S36. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22190098. [Featured Article]
5. Mullikin EA, Ales MW, Cho J, Nelson TM, Rodrigues SB, Speight M. Sharing collaborative designs of tobacco cessation performance improvement CME projects. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S37-S49.
6. Olson CA, Shershneva MB, Brownstein MH. Peering inside the clock: using success case method to determine how and why practice-based educational interventions succeed. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S50-S59.
7. Hudmon KS, Addleton RL, Vitale FM, Christiansen BA, Mejicano GC. Advancing public health through continuing education of health care professionals. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S60-S66.
8. Balmer JT, Bellande BJ, Addleton RL, Havens CS. The relevance of the Alliance for CME competencies for planning, organizing, and sustaining an interorganizational educational collaborative. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S67-S75.
9. Cervero RM, Moore DE. The Cease Smoking Today (CS2day) initiative: a guide to pursue the 2010 IOM report vision for CPD. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S76-S82.
10. Moore DE. Collaboration, best-practice CME, public health focus, and the Alliance for CME competencies: a formula for the new CME? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31(Suppl 1):S1-S2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22190095. [Featured Editorial]
11. Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Planning a Continuing Health Professional Education Institute. Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2010. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12704. Accessed September 17, 2015.

MeSH “Major” Terms for the 3 Featured Articles (common items italicized): 

McKeithen et al [3]: Benchmarking; Clinical Competence; Education, Medical, Continuing/methods; Needs Assessment; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care)/organization & administration; Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards; Smoking Cessation/methods; Tobacco Use Disorder/prevention & control
Shershneva et al [4]: Benchmarking/methods; Clinical Competence/standards; Health Personnel/classification; Health Personnel/psychology; Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data; Interprofessional Relations; Outcome Assessment (Health Care)/organization & administration; Program Evaluation; Smoking Cessation/methods; Tobacco Use Disorder/prevention & control
Moore [11]: Benchmarking; Clinical Competence; Delivery of Health Care, Integrated; Education, Medical, Continuing/methods; Interinstitutional Relations; Public Health

Today's Landmark NHLBI SPRINT study results relate to this 2008 PI-CME article by Shershneva, Olson, et al

Today the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the United States National Institutes of Health announced the early completion of the landmark SPRINT study into recommended systolic blood pressure, which was led by researchers in my own town, at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Therefore I am featuring a hypertension performance-improvement CME study by Marianna Shershneva, Curt Olson, and others, whose care is a quality measure in this country and elsewhere.

This PI-CME study was published in 2008, before most educational providers who now have outcomes-reporting capacities were able to study educational outcomes within a clinical context. Marianna Shershneva, M.D., Ph.D., is Building Block Leader for Quality Metrics of the Alliance's Quality Improvement Education (ACEhp QIE) Initiative, and Curtis Olson, Ph.D., has been guiding our field through his influence and tenure as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. With their coauthors, Elizabeth Mullikin and Anne-Sophie Loos, we have a nice study for historical review that might have escaped attention on this day because the article title does not specify hypertension.

Consider this excerpt from the abstract, which lays out the opportunities for quality improvement professionals and clinical educators to work together for better patient care: "Although QI practices and CME approaches have been recognized for years, what emerges from their integration is largely unfamiliar, because it requires the collaboration of CME providers and stakeholders within the health care systems who traditionally have not worked together and may not have the same understanding of QI issues to close performance gaps." This was an observational case study with nine clinicians completing the study, and while we could wish for a larger sample, we should agree with the authors that "PI CME required unprecedented collaboration between CME planners and QI stakeholders to enable change in clinical practice." Let's applaud the effort and enjoy the three core findings that you'll see if you access this article.

This is a FREE article in PubMed Central, and I encourage you to review it for findings on physicians' practice patterns that have bearing on today's news from NHLBI. Thanks to the National Library of Medicine reviewers of articles for their assignments to this article's medical subject headings (MeSH terms), without which this article may not have risen to most noteworthy mention after today's NHLBI news. And by the way, proving the relevance of this sort of work to our nation, this study was also funded by two NIH grants.

References Cited: Shershneva MB, Mullikin EA, Loose A-S, Olson CA. Learning to collaborate: a case study of performance improvement CME. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008;28(3):140-147. doi:10.1002/chp.181.
NHLBI. Landmark NIH study shows intensive blood pressure management may save lives: lower blood pressure target greatly reduces cardiovascular complications and deaths in older adults [press release]. NHLBI Website. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2015/nhlbi-11.htm. Accessed September 11, 2015.
Reboussin D, NHLBI, NIDDK, NINDS, and NIA. Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). NCT01206062. ClinicalTrials.gov Website. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01206062. Accessed Accessed September 11, 2015.
MeSH *Major* Terms: Education, Medical, Continuing/standards; Hypertension/prevention & control; Physician's Practice Patterns; Quality Assurance, Health Care.

ACEhp’s President Ed Dellert Co-Authored COPD CME Mayo Clinic Article With Robust Follow-Up Data

Mayo Clinic Proceedings published this free 2012 article by SG Adams (University of Texas Health Science Center) and colleagues on an educational change intervention on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) among primary care clinic. What’s more, our own Alliance for CE in the Health Professions president, Ed Dellert, is a co-author!

There was a clear educational gap among target clinicians: The authors report that, “before the program, 173 of 320 participants (54.1%) had never used the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease recommendations for COPD.” Those of us who collect educational outcomes data can applaud the tremendous follow-up survey’s response rate of 48.7% of the 313 participants. We all struggle with the problematic use of self reported performance data in CEhp outcomes articles; the authors even acknowledge this, stating, “physician self assessment is unreliable” (Methods). Yet, this article is impressive because of its inclusion of the word “completely: “Of the follow-up survey respondents, 92 of 132 (69.7%) reported completely implementing at least one clinical practice change.” This helps us appreciate the knowledge and comprehension data reported as increasing significantly, as well as the value of improved self-confidence developed through CME/CEhp. Confidence is a measure of competence (Moore’s Level 4), and competence is, to me, “the glue that sticks” knowledge to performance-in-practice. 

The initiative featured systematic instructional design methods using the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) approach. This construct was followed by a team of educators and medical experts from multiple disciplines, particularly from the American College of Chest Physicians and American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. Especially interesting for us instructional designers, the team used “self-directed learning” and “case and problem-based learning” before ever beginning “lecture-based learning” (Table 1), indicating that they incorporated the benefits of exploration in scientific learning that ideally occurs before the didactic introduction of terms (per the Learning Cycle teaching model). 

To challenge medical educators, I ask that we all continue to look for and share CEhp studies that feature professional instructional design that other clinical sites and educational teams can reproduce. This will help us highlight Why We Matter. So I close with the image that my educational outcomes colleague, Wendy Turell, tweeted (@WTevalu8), showing Ed Dellert discussing Why We Matter at the Alliance Industry Summit in May 2015. 

PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22958990
PubMed Central: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538496/
MeSH *Major* terms: Clinical Competence; Education, Medical, Continuing; Physicians, Primary Care/education; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/diagnosis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/therapy

Back to School: See How Clinical Continuing Education Has Improved Health Care Quality – Proven in Peer-Reviewed Journals!

We often hear that there is little evidence of CME’s success in teaching clinicians relevant strategies for better patient care, for changing practice through education, and for connecting with the quality improvement (QI) movement. Witness the current initiatives of the Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Profession (ACEhp), “Why We Matter” and the 10-year Roadmap and 10 complementary Building Blocks of the Quality Improvement Education (QIE) Initiative. While Davis and others have noted historical effectiveness of CEhp, such as in this 1992 article, later articles by Bloom, Davis, and Ratanawongsa have questioned CME effectiveness (e.g., in 1995 and 2005) and identified reporting inconsistencies that reduce the validity of CME outcomes reports.

It is true that our reporting of CEhp methods and outcomes has need of greater readership and better reporting. Yet CME, performance improvement (PI), interprofessional education (IPE), and education-driven QI projects already have many achievements reported, in both initiative-level outcomes reports and the published, peer-reviewed literature. Going beyond JCEHP, where articles feature methods and case studies for improving clinical education, and CE Measure, which reports on-the-ground initiatives and specific outcomes data, we see that clinical journals and meetings are publishing increasing numbers of CEhp studies. What’s more, reporting of these achievements is certain to grow after the ACEhp QIE Initiative launches its custom version of the SQUIRE tool this month, at September 2015’s Alliance Quality Symposium. The SQUIRE tool, created by the group developing Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, will help all of us doing CEhp research design our studies and publish our findings in a standardized manner … for later meta-analyses of into CME/CEhp effectiveness as a mechanism for quality improvement.

Today our goal is to show the past effectiveness of CEhp initiatives in published educational outcomes studies, as we prepare—as a profession—to begin reporting CME and IPE initiatives with greater rigor, and to illustrate the effectiveness of certified clinical education by accredited providers on a greater scale. Therefore, Don Harting, my friend and colleague who specializes in medical education needs assessments, and I have embarked on a “Back-to-School” campaign to highlight published articles where CME, IPE, PI, and QI initiatives worked to change clinicians’ behavior or improve performance in routine, clinical practice. Don featured 15 of our 30 articles on Twitter (@CME_Scout) and his blog from August 17 – August 31, 2015, and I will be posting to publicize another 15 articles at @SHB_CMEedit and this blog from September 1 – September 15, 2015. You can sign up to receive a summary report of the published studies we feature by following fullcirclece.blogspot.com, or find me in person at the Alliance Quality Symposium at the end of September.

We want you to take away these messages from this campaign, so let me encourage you to put yourself in the first person and say these motivational statements:

• I can talk about CEhp initiatives that were effective in improving the quality of health care
• There is evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to prove CEhp effectiveness
• I am ready to read CEhp outcomes studies, to help me learn to prepare my own (if you are not sure you’re ready, check out the 12-article research and statistics series in the ACEhp Almanac, which started in February 2015)
• My group’s CEhp outcomes data do not have to show change to be worth publishing, i.e., it’s okay to publish negative findings because I am a dispassionate researcher of clinical education
• I can find clinical and educational journals to whom to submit my CME outcomes data
• My CEhp work in content and faculty development, instructional design, and outcomes analysis matters

Now don’t you feel better? Not sure? Ready to go? Follow our tweets, read the articles or their abstracts, and then say these points to yourself again. 

Finally, to promote articles showing the achievements of the continuing education profession in improvement health care quality, we have a contest where you can Retweet to Win (see rules) by sharing our featured articles with your network of CEhp professionals. Harting Communications LLC is offering a $100 Amazon gift card as first prize, and Full Circle Clinical Education, Inc, is offering a $50 Amazon gift card as second prize!

Remember to follow us on Twitter @SHB_CMEedit and @CME_Scout so that you can notified via direct message if you win! And tell Don and me whether this service campaign supporting awareness of CEhp effectiveness was helpful to you. 

Good luck, happy reading, and enjoy! 

Best wishes, and thanks for viewing my updates, 

Sandra