American Diabetes Association

Table 2—

Evaluation of Breakthrough Series by diabetes quality improvement team members

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	n
Overall
The Diabetes Collaborative was worth the effort.		1	4	43	52	93^*
Participation in the Diabetes Collaborative was successful.		1	5	41	52	92^*
Will continue Diabetes Collaborative model and interventions. (5 items)		1	18	65	16	79
Models and tools
PDSA System was used to implement change, useful, will continue to use. (3 items)	1	10	18	53	18	78
Chronic Disease Model
• Chronic Disease Model used as conceptual guide, useful, will continue to use. (3 items)			9	72	19	79
• Diabetes Collaborative helpful in improving elements of Chronic Disease Model in CHC (6 items)		3	11	57	29	79
Data in monthly reports useful to clinic.		6	12	64	18	90^*
Patient registry useful. (2 items)	0	4	5	52	36	78
Education and assistance
Institute for Healthcare Improvement training helpful.			9	65	27	79
Institute for Healthcare Improvement training clear.		10	24	53	13	79
Midwest Cluster Coordinator helpful. (2 items)		4	5	47	44	79
Team learned from other CHCs in Midwest Cluster.		5	14	63	18	79
Communication within Collaborative. (6 items)			25	65	10	79

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	n
Overall
The Diabetes Collaborative was worth the effort.		1	4	43	52	93^*
Participation in the Diabetes Collaborative was successful.		1	5	41	52	92^*
Will continue Diabetes Collaborative model and interventions. (5 items)		1	18	65	16	79
Models and tools
PDSA System was used to implement change, useful, will continue to use. (3 items)	1	10	18	53	18	78
Chronic Disease Model
• Chronic Disease Model used as conceptual guide, useful, will continue to use. (3 items)			9	72	19	79
• Diabetes Collaborative helpful in improving elements of Chronic Disease Model in CHC (6 items)		3	11	57	29	79
Data in monthly reports useful to clinic.		6	12	64	18	90^*
Patient registry useful. (2 items)	0	4	5	52	36	78
Education and assistance
Institute for Healthcare Improvement training helpful.			9	65	27	79
Institute for Healthcare Improvement training clear.		10	24	53	13	79
Midwest Cluster Coordinator helpful. (2 items)		4	5	47	44	79
Team learned from other CHCs in Midwest Cluster.		5	14	63	18	79
Communication within Collaborative. (6 items)			25	65	10	79

	Very inaccurate	Mostly inaccurate	Slightly inaccurate	Uncertain	Slightly accurate	Mostly accurate	Very accurate	n

Team functioning
Team functioning (14-item scale)			4	14	28	39	15	79

	Very inaccurate	Mostly inaccurate	Slightly inaccurate	Uncertain	Slightly accurate	Mostly accurate	Very accurate	n

Team functioning
Team functioning (14-item scale)			4	14	28	39	15	79

	Never	Rarely	Occasionally	Sometimes	Fairly often	Almost always	Always	n

Team role
Individual role clarity (4 items)		1		15	38	41	5	79
Mission clarity (4 items)			3	10	28	49	10	79

	Never	Rarely	Occasionally	Sometimes	Fairly often	Almost always	Always	n

Team role
Individual role clarity (4 items)		1		15	38	41	5	79
Mission clarity (4 items)			3	10	28	49	10	79

			Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	n
Team interpersonal relations
Team interpersonal relations (7 items)				1	31	57	10	79
Team efficacy (3 items)			1	3	20	61	15	79

			Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	n
Team interpersonal relations
Team interpersonal relations (7 items)				1	31	57	10	79
Team efficacy (3 items)			1	3	20	61	15	79

			1	2	3	4	5	n
Collaborative atmosphere/consensus at meetings: (2 items) (atmosphere: 1 = tense/confrontational, . . . , 5 = relaxed/collaborative) (consensus: 1 = never, seldom, sometimes, often, 5 = always)				4	1	41	54	78

			1	2	3	4	5	n
Collaborative atmosphere/consensus at meetings: (2 items) (atmosphere: 1 = tense/confrontational, . . . , 5 = relaxed/collaborative) (consensus: 1 = never, seldom, sometimes, often, 5 = always)				4	1	41	54	78

Meetings and hours of work
Frequency of team meetings	Monthly	Biweekly	Weekly	n
	30	42	29	77

Average attendance of respondent: percent of meetings	0%	20%	40%	60%	80%	100%	n
	6	6	6	9	39	33	79

Average attendance of respondent: percent of meetings	0%	20%	40%	60%	80%	100%	n
	6	6	6	9	39	33	79

Hours per week on collaborative	1–5	6–10	11–15	16–20	≥21	n
	62	24	10		4	78

Hours per week on collaborative	1–5	6–10	11–15	16–20	≥21	n
	62	24	10		4	78

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	n
Costs of Diabetes Collaborative participation
Data collection burdensome (2 items)		5	18	53	24	79
Adequate time to work on Diabetes Collaborative (3 items)	1	30	39	28	1	79
Support
Administrative support	2	5	8	45	40	93^*
Nonteam coworker support		8	21	60	12	78
Time away from other duties by administration to work on collaborative	13	22	23	36	5	77
General institutional environment
Significant team member/clinic staff turnover during collaborative (2 items)	8	19	22	32	20	79
Diffusion
Patients/nonteam coworkers commented on changes initiated by team (2 items)			22	62	17	78

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	n
Costs of Diabetes Collaborative participation
Data collection burdensome (2 items)		5	18	53	24	79
Adequate time to work on Diabetes Collaborative (3 items)	1	30	39	28	1	79
Support
Administrative support	2	5	8	45	40	93^*
Nonteam coworker support		8	21	60	12	78
Time away from other duties by administration to work on collaborative	13	22	23	36	5	77
General institutional environment
Significant team member/clinic staff turnover during collaborative (2 items)	8	19	22	32	20	79
Diffusion
Patients/nonteam coworkers commented on changes initiated by team (2 items)			22	62	17	78

Data are % unless otherwise indicated.

*

Includes telephone respondents.