Back

Implementing the SWYC: A Quality Improvement Project and Its Impact on Care Delivery

Matsuura, Y.; Richter, F.; Block, G.; Rosen, C.; Katz, C.

2025-01-30 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.01.28.25320926 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDespite AAP recommending the use of validated developmental screening tools, national adoption remains low. To address this issue, we initiated a QI project to implement the Survey of Well-being in Young Children (SWYC) and assess its impact within our residency clinic. Our objective was to achieve over 50% screening coverage for well-child visits for children aged 8 to 33 months, with equitable implementation for both English-primary and non-English-primary speaking families. Additionally, we hypothesized that SWYC would significantly increase early intervention (EI) referral rates. MethodsPatients aged 8 to 33 months attending well-child visits were included. During implementation, various interventions, including staff emails, daily huddles, and integration of SWYC into the electronic health record, were employed. As part of the clinic workflow, a designated social worker (SW) initiates EI referrals; thus, SW referrals served as a proxy for EI referrals. Referral rates were compared pre- and post-SWYC implementation. Statistical significance was assessed using a chi-square test in R software. ResultsSWYC utilization reached 50% within five months of implementation. Analysis showed no significant difference in SWYC use between English-primary and non-English-primary speakers (p = 0.13). Post-SWYC, SW referral rates increased by 34% compared to pre-SWYC rates (p = 0.009). ConclusionsThis QI project showcased the swift adoption of a standardized developmental screening tool through system and cultural changes. SWYC implementation significantly increased SW referral rates, suggesting improved identification of developmental delays. Standardized developmental screening has the potential to enhance developmental outcomes and promote care equity through objective assessment systems.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.