Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where A.D. Pulvermacher is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by A.D. Pulvermacher.


Addiction | 2013

Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial

David H. Gustafson; Andrew Quanbeck; James Robinson; James H. Ford; A.D. Pulvermacher; Michael T. French; K. John McConnell; Paul B. Batalden; Kim A. Hoffman; Dennis McCarty

AIMS Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout health care to improve quality, but no study has identified which components work best. This study tested the effectiveness of different components in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination of all components would be most effective. DESIGN An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics to one of four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings) and a combination of all three. Interest circle calls functioned as a minimal intervention comparison group. SETTING Out-patient addiction treatment clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred and one clinics in five states. MEASUREMENTS Clinic data managers submitted data on three primary outcomes: waiting-time (mean days between first contact and first treatment), retention (percentage of patients retained from first to fourth treatment session) and annual number of new patients. State and group costs were collected for a cost-effectiveness analysis. FINDINGS Waiting-time declined significantly for three groups: coaching (an average of 4.6 days/clinic, P = 0.001), learning sessions (3.5 days/clinic, P = 0.012) and the combination (4.7 days/clinic, P = 0.001). The coaching and combination groups increased significantly the number of new patients (19.5%, P = 0.028; 8.9%, P = 0.029; respectively). Interest circle calls showed no significant effect on outcomes. None of the groups improved retention significantly. The estimated cost per clinic was


Implementation Science | 2011

Disseminating quality improvement: study protocol for a large cluster-randomized trial

Andrew Quanbeck; David H. Gustafson; James H. Ford; A.D. Pulvermacher; Michael T. French; K. John McConnell; Dennis McCarty

2878 for coaching versus


Health Promotion Practice | 2010

Using Action Research to Implement an Integrated Pediatric Asthma Case Management and eHealth Intervention for Low-Income Families:

Meg Wise; A.D. Pulvermacher; K.K. Shanovich; David H. Gustafson; Christine A. Sorkness; Abhik Bhattacharya

7930 for the combination. Coaching and the combination of collaborative components were about equally effective in achieving study aims, but coaching was substantially more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS When trying to improve the effectiveness of addiction treatment services, clinic-level coaching appears to help improve waiting-time and number of new patients while other components of improvement collaboratives (interest circles calls and learning sessions) do not seem to add further value.


Journal for Healthcare Quality | 2015

What Influences Participation in QI? A Randomized Trial of Addiction Treatment Organizations

Kyle L. Grazier; Andrew Quanbeck; John Oruongo; James C. Robinson; James H. Ford; Dennis McCarty; A.D. Pulvermacher; Roberta A. Johnson; David H. Gustafson

BackgroundDissemination is a critical facet of implementing quality improvement in organizations. As a field, addiction treatment has produced effective interventions but disseminated them slowly and reached only a fraction of people needing treatment. This study investigates four methods of disseminating quality improvement (QI) to addiction treatment programs in the U.S. It is, to our knowledge, the largest study of organizational change ever conducted in healthcare. The trial seeks to determine the most cost-effective method of disseminating quality improvement in addiction treatment.MethodsThe study is evaluating the costs and effectiveness of different QI approaches by randomizing 201 addiction-treatment programs to four interventions. Each intervention used a web-based learning kit plus monthly phone calls, coaching, face-to-face meetings, or the combination of all three. Effectiveness is defined as reducing waiting time (days between first contact and treatment), increasing program admissions, and increasing continuation in treatment. Opportunity costs will be estimated for the resources associated with providing the services.OutcomesThe study has three primary outcomes: waiting time, annual program admissions, and continuation in treatment. Secondary outcomes include: voluntary employee turnover, treatment completion, and operating margin. We are also seeking to understand the role of mediators, moderators, and other factors related to an organizations success in making changes.AnalysisWe are fitting a mixed-effect regression model to each programs average monthly waiting time and continuation rates (based on aggregated client records), including terms to isolate state and intervention effects. Admissions to treatment are aggregated to a yearly level to compensate for seasonality. We will order the interventions by cost to compare them pair-wise to the lowest cost intervention (monthly phone calls). All randomized sites with outcome data will be included in the analysis, following the intent-to-treat principle. Organizational covariates in the analysis include program size, management score, and state.DiscussionThe study offers seven recommendations for conducting a large-scale cluster-randomized trial: provide valuable services, have aims that are clear and important, seek powerful allies, understand the recruiting challenge, cultivate commitment, address turnover, and encourage rigor and flexibility.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials. govNCT00934141


Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment | 2013

Examining access to addiction treatment: Scheduling processes and barriers

Andrew Quanbeck; Anna Wheelock; James H. Ford; A.D. Pulvermacher; Victor Capoccia; David H. Gustafson

Asthma case management and education programs improve pediatric asthma outcomes, but designing rigorous randomized controlled studies that accurately measure effects while encouraging parent participation is challenging. This is especially so for low-income African American families, who face significantly more severe asthma and social stress than their middle-class counterparts. Action research can help health education researchers negotiate between the elegant and complex designs favored by scientists with the real-life challenges of recruitment, implementation, and retention. This article discusses how a multidisciplinary team uses action research concepts to continuously adjust originally proposed protocols through the planning and implementation phases to encourage participation in a year-long randomized controlled trial of a program that combines telephone asthma case management and comprehensive online asthma education. As a result of these efforts, a higher proportion of low-income African American families are recruited into the study than originally proposed.


The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | 2008

Nurse Case Management Services Provided to Supplement a Web-Based Asthma Education Program

K.K. Shanovich; A.D. Pulvermacher; S.J. Hollman; P.A. Richardson; Meg Wise; S.H. Lee; C.A. Sorkness; David H. Gustafson

Abstract: Healthcare providers have increased the use of quality improvement (QI) techniques, but organizational variables that affect QI uptake and implementation warrant further exploration. This study investigates organizational characteristics associated with clinics that enroll and participate over time in QI. The Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment (NIATx) conducted a large cluster-randomized trial of outpatient addiction treatment clinics, called NIATx 200, which randomized clinics to one of four QI implementation strategies: (1) interest circle calls, (2) coaching, (3) learning sessions, and (4) the combination of all three components. Data on organizational culture and structure were collected before, after randomization, and during the 18-month intervention. Using univariate descriptive analyses and regression techniques, the study identified two significant differences between clinics that enrolled in the QI study (n = 201) versus those that did not (n = 447). Larger programs were more likely to enroll and clinics serving more African Americans were less likely to enroll. Once enrolled, higher rates of QI participation were associated with clinics’ not having a hospital affiliation, being privately owned, and having staff who perceived management support for QI. The study discusses lessons for the field and future research needs.


The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | 2009

Internet Telehealth for Pediatric Nurse Case Management Improves Asthma Control

K.K. Shanovich; C.A. Sorkness; Meg Wise; A.D. Pulvermacher; Abhik Bhattacharya; David H. Gustafson


The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | 2008

Barriers to Usage of a Web-Based Asthma Education Program

S.J. Hollman; P.A. Richardson; A.D. Pulvermacher; K.K. Shanovich; E.Y. Lee; S.H. Lee; C.A. Sorkness; David H. Gustafson


The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | 2008

Predictors of Usage of a Web-based Asthma Education Program

P.A. Richardson; S.J. Hollman; K.K. Shanovich; A.D. Pulvermacher; Abhik Bhattacharya; E.Y. Lee; C.A. Sorkness; David H. Gustafson


The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | 2008

Healthcare Utilization for Parent's whose Children have Poorly-Controlled Asthma: Self-Report Compared to Medical Claims Data

A.D. Pulvermacher; Abhik Bhattacharya; K.K. Shanovich; P.A. Richardson; S.J. Hollman; C.A. Sorkness; David H. Gustafson

Collaboration


Dive into the A.D. Pulvermacher's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David H. Gustafson

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

C.A. Sorkness

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Abhik Bhattacharya

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

K.K. Shanovich

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andrew Quanbeck

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

James H. Ford

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

P.A. Richardson

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

S.J. Hollman

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Meg Wise

University of Wisconsin-Madison

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge