Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| P50MH115842 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This pilot study will examine whether an implementation strategy will improve delivery of evidence-based care for cardiovascular risk factors for people with serious mental illness.
In this pilot study, the investigators will work with health home programs and pilot test an adapted Comprehensive Unit Safety Program (CUSP) implementation strategy to improve mental health providers' delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular risk factor care for hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes for individuals with serious mental illness. The project will also characterize implementation processes, organizational and provider-level factors, and cardiovascular disease risk factor care and control.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive unit based safety (CUSP) intervention arm | Other | CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP) | Other | CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Quality Improvement Culture as Assessed by the Modified Version of the Validated Survey on Patient Safety | Each of the items in the modified survey is scored individually on 1-5 Likert scales. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher average score signifies an organizational culture that is more supportive of quality improvement. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Self-efficacy as Assessed by an Adapted Version of Compeau & Higgins' Task-focused Self-efficacy Scale | Each of the items (Hypertension, Dyslipidemia, Diabetes) are scored individually on a 1-10 Likert scale, where 1=not at all confident and 10=totally confident. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-10. A higher score signifies greater self-efficacy. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability as Assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure | Validated 4-item instrument measuring intervention acceptability of the Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater acceptability. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Study population 1:
Study population 2:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Gail L Daumit, MD | Johns Hopkins University | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johns Hopkins Adult Psychiatric Rehabilitation Program | Baltimore | Maryland | 21224 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 39958153 | Derived | Murphy KA, Gennusa J, Dalcin AT, Cook C, Goldsholl S, Fink T, Daumit GL, Wang NY, Thompson D, McGinty EE. Pilot of a team-based quality improvement strategy to improve cardiovascular risk factors care in community mental health centers. Front Psychiatry. 2025 Jan 31;16:1446985. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1446985. eCollection 2025. | |
| 33663620 | Derived | McGinty EE, Thompson D, Murphy KA, Stuart EA, Wang NY, Dalcin A, Mace E, Gennusa JV 3rd, Daumit GL. Adapting the Comprehensive Unit Safety Program (CUSP) implementation strategy to increase delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular risk factor care in community mental health organizations: protocol for a pilot study. Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Mar 4;2(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00129-6. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
A total of 85 participants (health home staff) were enrolled from 5 behavioral health home programs. The behavioral health home programs had a total of 498 health home clients (not enrolled) with data that was included in the analysis.
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Comprehensive Unit Based Safety (CUSP) Intervention Arm | CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP): CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Comprehensive Unit Based Safety (CUSP) Intervention Arm | CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP): CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Quality Improvement Culture as Assessed by the Modified Version of the Validated Survey on Patient Safety | Each of the items in the modified survey is scored individually on 1-5 Likert scales. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher average score signifies an organizational culture that is more supportive of quality improvement. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
Not provided
Adverse Events Not Collected
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Comprehensive Unit Based Safety (CUSP) Intervention Arm | CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program (CUSP): CUSP is a quality improvement strategy developed by the Johns Hopkins University Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality that is used to improve care delivery. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gail Daumit, MD, MHS | Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine | 410-614-6460 | gdaumit@jhmi.edu |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Mar 8, 2022 | Aug 1, 2025 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003920 | Diabetes Mellitus |
| D006973 | Hypertension |
| D050171 | Dyslipidemias |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D044882 | Glucose Metabolism Disorders |
| D008659 | Metabolic Diseases |
| D009750 | Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases |
| D004700 | Endocrine System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Baseline, 12 Months |
| Appropriateness as Assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure | Four item instrument measuring intervention appropriateness of Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5= completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater appropriateness. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Feasibility as Assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure | Four item instrument measuring intervention feasibility of Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater feasibility. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Clients With Hypertension Control | Measured with blood pressure (BP) readings reported by staff . Clients with control defined as a BP <130/80 mmHg. | Baseline and 12 Months |
| Clients With Dyslipidemia Control | Measured with cholesterol readings reported by staff. Clients with controlled dyslipidemia defined as total cholesterol <200 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) <130 mg/dL. | Baseline and 12 Months |
| Clients With Diabetes Control | Measured using HbA1c tests reported by staff . Clients with controlled diabetes defined as HbA1c<7.0. | Baseline and 12 Months |
| Clients Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received HBA1c Measurement | The number of clients who have a HBA1c measurement reported by the participating staff. | Baseline and 12 Months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Lipid Panel | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received Statin Therapy | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Dilated Eye Exam | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Foot Exam | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Clients Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Received a Lipid Panel | The number of clients who have a lipid panel reported by the participating staff. | Baseline and 12 Months |
| Teamwork Within Teams as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Four items measuring teamwork. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better teamwork within units. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Supervisor/Manager Expectations and Actions Promoting Quality as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Four items measuring the degree to which a provider's supervisor promotes quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater promotion of quality improvement. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Organizational Learning Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring organizational learning environment. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater organizational learning. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Management Support for Patient Safety as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring the degree to which organization management supports quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater management support for quality improvement. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Overall Perceptions of Quality Improvement Culture as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring the perception's of the organization's quality improvement culture. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better quality improvement culture. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Feedback and Communication About Error as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring feedback and communication about quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better feedback and communication. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Communication Openness as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring perceptions of communication openness in the organization. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better communication openness. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Frequency of Events Reported as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items assessing the degree to which mistakes are reported at the organization. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies more frequent mistake reporting. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Teamwork Across Teams as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Four items assessing teamwork across units. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better teamwork across units. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Staffing as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Two items assessing staffing capacity. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better staffing capacity. | Baseline, 12 Months |
| Clients With Hypertension Who Had a Blood Pressure Measurement | The number of clients who have a blood pressure measurement reported by the participating staff. | Baseline and 12 Months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Urine-protein-creatinine Test | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Are on a Statin Medication | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Hypertension Who Received Lifestyle Counseling | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received Lifestyle Counseling | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Received Lifestyle Counseling | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
| Participants |
|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Comprehensive Unit Safety Program (CUSP) team membership | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | Self-efficacy as Assessed by an Adapted Version of Compeau & Higgins' Task-focused Self-efficacy Scale | Each of the items (Hypertension, Dyslipidemia, Diabetes) are scored individually on a 1-10 Likert scale, where 1=not at all confident and 10=totally confident. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-10. A higher score signifies greater self-efficacy. | CUSP team members with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Acceptability as Assessed by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure | Validated 4-item instrument measuring intervention acceptability of the Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater acceptability. | CUSP team members with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Appropriateness as Assessed by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure | Four item instrument measuring intervention appropriateness of Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5= completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater appropriateness. | CUSP team members with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Feasibility as Assessed by the Feasibility of Intervention Measure | Four item instrument measuring intervention feasibility of Evidence based practice and CUSP strategy using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=completely disagree and 5=completely agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across all items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater feasibility. | CUSP team members with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Clients With Hypertension Control | Measured with blood pressure (BP) readings reported by staff . Clients with control defined as a BP <130/80 mmHg. | Clients identified as having hypertension with collected blood pressure reading at either baseline or 12 months were analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline and 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Clients With Dyslipidemia Control | Measured with cholesterol readings reported by staff. Clients with controlled dyslipidemia defined as total cholesterol <200 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) <130 mg/dL. | Clients identified as having dyslipidemia with collected lipid data at either baseline or 12 months were analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline and 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Clients With Diabetes Control | Measured using HbA1c tests reported by staff . Clients with controlled diabetes defined as HbA1c<7.0. | Clients identified as having diabetes with collected HBA1c at either baseline or 12 months were analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline and 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Clients Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received HBA1c Measurement | The number of clients who have a HBA1c measurement reported by the participating staff. | Clients identified as having diabetes at either baseline or 12 months were analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline and 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Lipid Panel | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received Statin Therapy | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Dilated Eye Exam | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Foot Exam | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Clients Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Received a Lipid Panel | The number of clients who have a lipid panel reported by the participating staff. | Clients identified as having dyslipidemia at either baseline or 12 months were analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline and 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Teamwork Within Teams as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Four items measuring teamwork. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better teamwork within units. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Supervisor/Manager Expectations and Actions Promoting Quality as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Four items measuring the degree to which a provider's supervisor promotes quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater promotion of quality improvement. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Organizational Learning Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring organizational learning environment. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater organizational learning. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Management Support for Patient Safety as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring the degree to which organization management supports quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies greater management support for quality improvement. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Overall Perceptions of Quality Improvement Culture as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring the perception's of the organization's quality improvement culture. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better quality improvement culture. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Feedback and Communication About Error as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring feedback and communication about quality improvement. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better feedback and communication. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Communication Openness as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items measuring perceptions of communication openness in the organization. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better communication openness. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Frequency of Events Reported as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Three items assessing the degree to which mistakes are reported at the organization. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=never and 5=always. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies more frequent mistake reporting. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Teamwork Across Teams as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Four items assessing teamwork across units. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better teamwork across units. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Staffing as Assessed by the Implementation Climate Scale | Two items assessing staffing capacity. Each of the items will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. An average score is calculated by summing responses across items and dividing by the total number of items. The average score ranges from 1-5. A higher score signifies better staffing capacity. | Staff with data collected analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Clients With Hypertension Who Had a Blood Pressure Measurement | The number of clients who have a blood pressure measurement reported by the participating staff. | Clients identified as having hypertension at either baseline or 12 months were analyzed under modeling approach. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Baseline and 12 Months |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received a Urine-protein-creatinine Test | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection. | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Are on a Statin Medication | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection. | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Hypertension Who Received Lifestyle Counseling | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection. | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Diabetes Mellitus Who Received Lifestyle Counseling | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection. | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| Secondary | Change in the Percent of Individuals Diagnosed With Dyslipidemia Who Received Lifestyle Counseling | This data was supposed to be sourced from the electronic health record of participating sites. Sites did not collect this data, and the study is now completed so there will be no future data collection. | Posted | Baseline, 6 and 12 months |
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
Not provided
Not provided
| D014652 | Vascular Diseases |
| D002318 | Cardiovascular Diseases |
| D052439 | Lipid Metabolism Disorders |
| Title | Measurements |
|---|---|
|
| Dyslipidemia - 12 Months |
|
| Diabetes - Baseline |
|
| Diabetes - 12 Months |
|
| Mean Difference (Net) |
| 1.1 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| 0.0 |
| 2.1 |
| Superiority |
| diabetes | Mean Difference (Net) | 1.0 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.1 | 2.0 | Superiority |
|
| CUSP Strategy - 12 Months |
|
| Mean Difference (Net) |
| -0.2 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.6 |
| 0.1 |
| Superiority |
|
| CUSP Strategy - 12 Months |
|
| Mean Difference (Net) |
| -0.2 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.5 |
| 0.1 |
| Superiority |
|
| CUSP Strategy - 12 Months |
|
| Mean Difference (Net) |
| -0.1 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.5 |
| 0.2 |
| Superiority |