Characteristics and Disparities among Primary Care Practices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite new incentives for US primary care, concerns abound that patient-centered practice capabilities are lagging. OBJECTIVE: Describe the practice structure, patient-centered capabilities, and payment relationships of US primary care practices; identify disparities in practice capabilities. DESIGN: Analysis of the 2015 Medical Organizations Survey (MOS), part of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). SETTING: Practice-reported information from primary care practices of MEPS respondents who reported receiving primary care and made at least one visit in 2015 to that practice. PARTICIPANTS: Surveyed primary care practices (n = 4318; 77% response rate) providing primary care to 7161 individuals, representing 101,159,263 Americans. MAIN MEASURES: Practice structure (ownership and personnel); practice capabilities (certification as a patient-centered medical home [PCMH], electronic health record [EHR] use, and x-ray capability); and payment orientation (accountable care organization [ACO] and capitation). KEY RESULTS: Independently owned practices served 55% of patients, hospital-owned practices served 19%, and nonprofit/government/academic-owned served 20%. Solo practices served 25% of patients and practices with 2-10 physicians served 53% of patients. Forty-one percent of patients were served by practices certified as PCMHs. Practices with EHRs cared for 90% of patients and could exchange secure messages with 78% of patients. Practices with in-office x-ray capability cared for 34% of patients. Practices participating in ACOs and capitation served 44% and 46% of patients, respectively. Primary care patients in the South, compared to the rest of the country, had less access to nearly all practice capabilities, including patient care coordination (adjusted difference, 13% [95% CI, 8-18]) and secure EHR messaging (adjusted difference, 6% [95% CI, 1-10]). Uninsured patients were less likely to be served at a practice that used an EHR (adjusted difference, 9% [95% CI, 2-16]). CONCLUSIONS: Participants' primary care practices were mostly independently owned, nearly always used EHRs (albeit of varying capability), and frequently participated in innovative payment arrangements for a portion of their patients. Patient practices in the South had fewer capabilities than the rest of the country.

Association of Structured Virtual Visits for Hypertension Follow-Up in Primary Care with Blood Pressure Control and Use of Clinical Services.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of hypertension requires frequent monitoring and follow-up. Novel, pragmatic interventions have the potential to engage patients, maintain blood pressure control, and enhance access to busy primary care practices. "Virtual visits" are structured asynchronous online interactions between a patient and a clinician to extend medical care beyond the initial office visit. OBJECTIVE: To compare blood pressure control and healthcare utilization between patients who received virtual visits compared to usual hypertension care. DESIGN: Propensity score-matched, retrospective cohort study with adjustment by difference-in-differences. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care patients with hypertension. EXPOSURE: Patient participation in at least one virtual visit for hypertension. Usual care patients did not use a virtual visit but were seen in-person for hypertension. MAIN MEASURES: Adjusted difference in mean systolic blood pressure, primary care office visits, specialist office visits, emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions in the 180 days before and 180 days after the in-person visit. KEY RESULTS: Of the 1051 virtual visit patients and 24,848 usual care patients, we propensity score-matched 893 patients from each group. Both groups were approximately 61 years old, 44% female, 85% White, had about five chronic conditions, and about 20% had a mean pre-visit systolic blood pressure of 140-160 mmHg. Compared to usual care, virtual visit patients had an adjusted 0.8 (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.2) fewer primary care office visits. There was no significant adjusted difference in systolic blood pressure control (0.6 mmHg [95% CI, - 2.0 to 3.1]), specialist visits (0.0 more visits [95% CI, - 0.3 to 0.3]), emergency department visits (0.0 more visits [95% CI, 0.0 to 0.01]), or inpatient admissions (0.0 more admissions [95% CI, 0.0 to 0.1]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reasonably well-controlled hypertension, virtual visit participation was associated with equivalent blood pressure control and reduced in-office primary care utilization.

Home Hospital Outcomes for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Factors Associated With Escalation of Care.

BACKGROUND: Overall outcomes and the escalation rate for home hospital admissions for heart failure (HF) are not known. We report overall outcomes, predict escalation, and describe care provided after escalation among patients admitted to home hospital for HF. METHODS: Our retrospective analysis included all patients admitted for HF to 2 home hospital programs in Massachusetts between February 2020 and October 2022. Escalation of care was defined as transfer to an inpatient hospital setting (emergency department, inpatient medical unit) for at least 1 overnight stay. Unexpected mortality was defined as mortality excluding those who desired to pass away at home on admission or transitioned to hospice. We performed the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression to predict escalation. RESULTS: We included 437 hospitalizations; patients had a median age of 80 (interquartile range, 69-89) years, 58.1% were women, and 64.8% were White. Of the cohort, 29.2% had reduced ejection fraction, 50.9% had chronic kidney disease, and 60.6% had atrial fibrillation. Median admission Get With The Guidelines HF score was 39 (interquartile range, 35-45; 1%-5% predicted inpatient mortality). Escalation occurred in 10.3% of hospitalizations. Thirty-day readmission occurred in 15.1%, 90-day readmission occurred in 33.8%, and 6-month mortality occurred in 11.5%. There was no unexpected mortality during home hospitalization. Patients who experienced escalation had significantly longer median length of stays (19 versus 7.5 days, P<0.001). The most common reason for escalation was progressive renal dysfunction (36.2%). A low mean arterial pressure at the time of admission to home hospital was the most significant predictor of escalation in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression. CONCLUSIONS: About 1 in 10 home hospital patients with HF required escalation; none had unexpected mortality. Patients requiring escalation had longer length of stays. A low mean arterial pressure at the time of admission to home hospital was the most important predictor of escalation of care in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression model.

Expert Consensus on Currently Accepted Measures of Harm.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-five years after the seminal work of the Harvard Medical Practice Study, the numbers and specific types of health care measures of harm have evolved and expanded. Using the World Café method to derive expert consensus, we sought to generate a contemporary list of triggers and adverse event measures that could be used for chart review to determine the current incidence of inpatient and outpatient adverse events. METHODS: We held a modified World Café event in March 2018, during which content experts were divided into 10 tables by clinical domain. After a focused discussion of a prepopulated list of literature-based triggers and measures relevant to that domain, they were asked to rate each measure on clinical importance and suitability for chart review and electronic extraction (very low, low, medium, high, very high). RESULTS: Seventy-one experts from 9 diverse institutions attended (primary acceptance rate, 72%). Of 525 total triggers and measures, 67% of 391 measures and 46% of 134 triggers were deemed to have high or very high clinical importance. For those triggers and measures with high or very high clinical importance, 218 overall were deemed to be highly amenable to chart review and 198 overall were deemed to be suitable for electronic surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The World Café method effectively prioritized measures/triggers of high clinical importance including those that can be used in chart review, which is considered the gold standard. A future goal is to validate these measures using electronic surveillance mechanisms to decrease the need for chart review.