JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baker, N. J.
Right arrow Articles by Reif, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baker, N. J.
Right arrow Articles by Reif, C. J.

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol 15, Issue 5 355-360, Copyright © 2002 by American Board of Family Practice

ARTICLES

Use of clinical indicators to evaluate COPC projects

N. J. Baker, P. G. Harper and C. J. Reif
Ramsey Family and Community Medicine, HealthPartners Institute for Medical Education, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

BACKGROUND: In 1989, Ramsey Family and Community Medicine Residency adopted a population-based focus for teaching and clinical activities based on the principles of community-oriented primary care (COPC). Evaluation and outcomes measurement proved problematic for each of the five COPC projects we implemented. METHODS: Surrogate measures, or key clinical indicators, were used to monitor the following COPC projects at Ramsey Family Physicians clinic: preschool immunization, family-centered birth, intimate interpersonal violence, teenage pregnancy-sexually transmitted disease prevention, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 1998, we documented a decline in preschool immunization rates, an increase in preterm births and low-birth-weight infants, improved intimate interpersonal violence screening, a high but stable teenage pregnancy rate, a decrease in teenage chlamydia rate, and improved HIV prenatal screening. Our data collection and analysis were complicated by a lack of relevant indicators related to target goals, a shifting denominator, incomplete data and an unstable numerator, disconnected data sources, and missing comparison data. CONCLUSIONS: COPC project evaluation is an evolving process, and measurement deficiencies become recognized with time. Even so, outcomes measurement legitimizes COPC interventions and provides a value-added component to resident education and clinical activities.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
M. Plescia and M. Groblewski
A Community-Oriented Primary Care Demonstration Project: Refining Interventions for Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes
Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2004; 2(2): 103 - 109.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Board of Family Medicine.