Unintended consequences of implementing a national performance measurement system into local practice.

BACKGROUND: Although benefits of performance measurement (PM) systems have been well documented, there is little research on negative unintended consequences of performance measurement systems in primary care. To optimize PM systems, a better understanding is needed of the types of negative unintended consequences that occur and of their causal antecedents. OBJECTIVES: (1) Identify unintended negative consequences of PM systems for patients. (2) Develop a conceptual framework of hypothesized relationships between PM systems, facility-level variables (local implementation strategies, primary care staff attitudes and behaviors), and unintended negative effects on patients. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, APPROACH: Qualitative study design using dissimilar cases sampling. A series of 59 in-person individual semi-structured interviews at four Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities was conducted between February and July 2009. Participants included members of primary care staff and facility leaders. Sites were selected to assure variability in the number of veterans served and facility scores on national VHA performance measures. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and content coded to identify thematic categories and relationships. RESULTS: Participants noted both positive effects and negative unintended consequences of PM. We report three negative unintended consequences for patients. Performance measurement can (1) lead to inappropriate clinical care, (2) decrease provider focus on patient concerns and patient service, and (3) compromise patient education and autonomy. We also illustrate examples of negative consequences on primary care team dynamics. In many instances these problems originate from local implementation strategies developed in response to national PM definitions and policies. CONCLUSIONS: Facility-level strategies undertaken to implement national PM systems may result in inappropriate clinical care, can distract providers from patient concerns, and may have a negative effect on patient education and autonomy. Further research is needed to ascertain how features of centralized PM systems influence whether measures are translated locally by facilities into more or less patient-centered policies and processes.

Prolonging the return visit interval in primary care.

PURPOSE: Extending the scheduled return visit interval has been suggested as one means to improve clinic access to the provider. However, prolonging the return visit interval may affect quality of care if prevention measures and chronic disease management receive less attention as clinic visits become less frequent. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a comprehensive education program could encourage providers to lengthen their return visit interval without compromising performance on key quality indicators. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study monitoring scheduling and performance data of primary care providers at the Milwaukee Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Following collection of baseline data (January through June 1999), providers were encouraged to lengthen the return visit interval while increasing reliance on nurses and other clinic staff for interim management of chronic disease. Provider-specific feedback of return visit interval and performance data was utilized to motivate behavioral change. Scheduling and clinical data were abstracted from random medical record audits performed at baseline and from July through December in the years 2000 and 2001. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline period, the percent of patients scheduled > or =6 months was significantly increased among staff providers and medicine residents at 2 years (Staff providers: 31% vs. 62%, P <0.001; Medicine residents: 22 vs. 44%, P <0.001). Colorectal screening, pneumonia immunizations, and achievement of therapeutic goals for diabetes, hypertension, and lipid disorders significantly improved at 2 years compared with baseline measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions can successfully retrain providers to extend the return visit interval and reduce the scheduling of routine and perhaps unnecessary appointments. This can be accomplished without compromising important performance monitors for diabetes, lipid disorders, hypertension, and prevention.

Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to assess the acute prokinetic efficacy of nizatidine-controlled release (150 and 300 mg) in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study is to test whether nizatidine delivered via a unique bimodal pulsatile-controlled release system, nizatidine controlled release (CR), accelerates gastric emptying in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Combined data were analyzed on 39 patients with delayed gastric emptying (DGE) from 2 studies (n = 84) assessing the prokinetic effect of nizatidine CR. A single-blind placebo baseline was followed by double-blind nizatidine CR (150 and 300 mg) in randomized sequence, 2 to 5 days apart. Each dose was followed 1 hour later by an egg-beater meal, labeled with Tc99m. Gamma camera images were obtained at meal completion, 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-hour postmeal. All the 84 patients were classified at baseline with DGE (gastric retention >6.3% at 4 hours) or normal gastric emptying. RESULTS: In the 39 patients identified with DGE, change from placebo baseline (CFB) for percent gastric retention at 4-hour postmeal with nizatidine CR (150 and 300 mg) was each improved and statistically significant (P < 0.05). In a subgroup of diabetic patients with DGE (n = 10), the CFB with nizatidine CR (300 mg) was significant (P < 0.05) at 3- and 4-hour postmeal. CONCLUSIONS: Nizatidine CR (150 and 300 mg) significantly enhanced gastric emptying of a standard meal in patients with GERD with DGE.

Impact of American College of Surgeons verification on trauma outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of trauma patient outcomes before and after Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS) verification was received in a not-for-profit community hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of hospital discharge data for timeframes before and after Level II ACS verification was conducted. Originally, 8,674 patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes for trauma. These data were parsed to 7,811 patients by using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes 800 xx through 959.9 x, which signify an admitting diagnosis of trauma; 3,835 of the patients were admitted after the July 28, 1998, verification date. Blunt injuries constituted the vast majority of the patients (n = 7,488). Outcome measures studied included changes in length of stay (LOS), mortality, and total cost. Internal control was coronary artery bypass graft patients at the same hospital, and external control was trauma patients at a non-ACS hospital over the same time period. Data are presented with p values and SE and the ratio of observed/expected values on the basis of the all-payer severity-adjusted diagnosis-related group severity model. RESULTS: The two timeframes exhibited statistically different outcomes in several variables. Adjusting for severity postverification, LOS was 10% less (p < 0.000). Similarly, severity-adjusted mortality observed/expected ratios were significantly different: 0.81 before versus 0.59 after (p < 0.000). The severity-adjusted ratio of costs found that the postverification era was 5% lower (p < 0.000). The contribution margin of the trauma patient population to the hospital well exceeded any postverification costs. Both control groups exhibited no significant changes in their severity-adjusted outcomes, which could have invalidated these results. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the efforts and resources consumed achieving ACS Level II trauma center verification appear to result in desired outcomes as evidenced by decreased LOS, reduced in-hospital mortality rates, reduced cost, and improved contribution margins.