Exemplary Practices in Cardiovascular Care: Results on Clinical Quality Measures from the EvidenceNOW Southwest Cooperative.

BACKGROUND: Identifying characteristics of primary care practices that perform well on cardiovascular clinical quality measures (CQMs) may point to important practice improvement strategies. OBJECTIVE: To identify practice characteristics associated with high performance on four cardiovascular disease CQMs. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study among 211 primary care practices in Colorado and New Mexico. Quarterly CQM reports were obtained from 178 (84.4%) practices. There was 100% response rate for baseline practice characteristics and implementation tracking surveys. Follow-up implementation tracking surveys were completed for 80.6% of practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients, staff, and clinicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and mixed-specialty practices. INTERVENTION: Practices received 9 months of practice facilitation and health information technology support, plus biannual collaborative learning sessions. MAIN MEASURES: This study identified practice characteristics associated with overall highest performance using area under the curve (AUC) analysis on aspirin therapy, blood pressure management, and smoking cessation CQMs. RESULTS: Among 178 practices, 39 were exemplars. Exemplars were more likely to be a Federally Qualified Health Center (69.2% vs 35.3%, p = 0.0006), have an underserved designation (69.2% vs 45.3%, p = 0.0083), and have higher percentage of patients with Medicaid (p < 0.0001). Exemplars reported greater use of cardiovascular disease registries (61.5% vs 29.5%,), standing orders (38.5 vs 22.3%) or electronic health record prompts (84.6% vs 49.6%) (all p < 0.05), were more likely to have medical home recognition (74.4% vs 43.2%, p = 0.0006), and reported greater implementation of building blocks of high-performing primary care: regular quality improvement team meetings (3.0 vs 2.2), patient experience survey (3.1 vs 2.2), and resources for patients to manage their health (3.0 vs 2.3). High improvers (n = 45) showed greater improvement implementing team-based care (32.8 vs 11.7, p = 0.0004) and population management (37.4 vs 20.5, p = 0.0057). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple strategies-registries, prompts and protocols, patient self-management support, and patient-team partnership activities-were associated with delivering high-quality cardiovascular care over time, measured by CQMs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02515578.

Effect of Combined Patient Decision Aid and Patient Navigation vs Usual Care for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Vulnerable Patient Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, especially among vulnerable populations. Decision aids and patient navigation are potentially complementary interventions for improving CRC screening rates, but their combined effect on screening completion is unknown. Objective: To determine the combined effect of a CRC screening decision aid and patient navigation compared with usual care on CRC screening completion. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, data were collected from January 2014 to March 2016 at 2 community health center practices, 1 in North Carolina and 1 in New Mexico, serving vulnerable populations. Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had average CRC risk, spoke English or Spanish, were not current with recommended CRC screening, and were attending primary care visits were recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. Interventions: Intervention participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid in English or Spanish immediately before their clinician encounter. The decision aid promoted screening and presented colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing as screening options. After the clinician encounter, intervention patients received support for screening completion from a bilingual patient navigator. Control participants viewed a food safety video before the encounter and otherwise received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months of the index study visit assessed by blinded medical record review. Results: Characteristics of the 265 participants were as follows: their mean age was 58 years; 173 (65%) were female, 164 (62%) were Latino; 40 (15%) were white non-Latino; 61 (23%) were black or of mixed race; 191 (78%) had a household income of less than $20 000; 101 (38%) had low literacy; 75 (28%) were on Medicaid; and 91 (34%) were uninsured. Intervention participants were more likely to complete CRC screening within 6 months (68% vs 27%); adjusted-difference, 40 percentage points (95% CI, 29-51 percentage points). The intervention was more effective in women than in men (50 vs 21 percentage point increase, interaction P = .02). No effect modification was observed across other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: A patient decision aid plus patient navigation increased the rate of CRC screening completion in compared with usual care invulnerable primary care patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054598.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Low-income, low-literacy, limited English-proficient populations have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and experience poor patient-provider communication and decision-making processes around screening. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a CRC screening decision aid on screening-related communication and decision making in primary care visits. STUDY DESIGN: RCT with data collected from patients at baseline and immediately after the provider encounter. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50-75 years, due for CRC screening, were recruited from two safety net clinics in North Carolina and New Mexico (data collection, January 2014-September 2015; analysis, 2015). INTERVENTION: Participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid or a food safety (control) video immediately before their provider encounter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CRC screening-related knowledge, discussion, intent, test preferences, and test ordering. RESULTS: The study population (N=262) had a mean age of 58.3 years and was 66% female, 61% Latino, 17% non-Latino black, and 16% non-Latino white. Among Latino participants, 71% preferred Spanish. Compared with controls, intervention participants had greater screening-related knowledge (on average 4.6 vs 2.8 of six knowledge items correct, adjusted difference [AD]=1.8, 95% CI=1.5, 2.1) and were more likely to report screening discussion (71.0% vs 45.0%, AD=26.1%, 95% CI=14.3%, 38.0%) and high screening intent (93.1% vs 84.7%, AD=9.0%, 95% CI=2.0%, 16.0%). Intervention participants were more likely to indicate a specific screening test preference (93.1% vs 68.0%, AD=26.5%, 95% CI=17.2%, 35.8%) and to report having a test ordered (56.5% vs 32.1%, AD=25.8%, 95% CI=14.4%, 37.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Viewing a CRC screening decision aid before a primary care encounter improves knowledge and shared decision making around screening in a racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse safety net clinic population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02054598.