Practice facilitation to improve diabetes care in primary care: a report from the EPIC randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: We investigated 3 approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care: (1) practice facilitation over 6 months using a reflective adaptive process (RAP) approach; (2) practice facilitation for up to 18 months using a continuous quality improvement (CQI) approach; and (3) providing self-directed (SD) practices with model information and resources, without facilitation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial, called Enhancing Practice, Improving Care (EPIC), that compared these approaches among 40 small to midsized primary care practices. At baseline and 9 months and 18 months after enrollment, we assessed practice diabetes quality measures from chart audits and Practice Culture Assessment scores from clinician and staff surveys. RESULTS: Although measures of the quality of diabetes care improved in all 3 groups (all P <.05), improvement was greater in CQI practices compared with both SD practices (P <.0001) and RAP practices (P <.0001); additionally, improvement was greater in SD practices compared with RAP practices (P <.05). In RAP practices, Change Culture scores showed a trend toward improvement at 9 months (P = .07) but decreased below baseline at 18 months (P <.05), while Work Culture scores decreased from 9 to 18 months (P <.05). Both scores were stable over time in SD and CQI practices. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional CQI interventions are effective at improving measures of the quality of diabetes care, but may not improve practice change and work culture. Short-term practice facilitation based on RAP principles produced less improvement in quality measures than CQI or SD interventions and also did not produce sustained improvements in practice culture.

A qualitative comparison of primary care clinicians' and their patients' perspectives on achieving depression care: implications for improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Improving the patient experience of primary care is a stated focus of efforts to transform primary care practices into "Patient-centered Medical Homes" (PCMH) in the United States, yet understanding and promoting what defines a positive experience from the patient's perspective has been de-emphasized relative to the development of technological and communication infrastructure at the PCMH. The objective of this qualitative study was to compare primary care clinicians' and their patients' perceptions of the patients' experiences, expectations and preferences as they try to achieve care for depression. METHODS: We interviewed 6 primary care clinicians along with 30 of their patients with a history of depressive disorder attending 4 small to medium-sized primary care practices from rural and urban settings. RESULTS: Three processes on the way to satisfactory depression care emerged: 1. a journey, often from fractured to connected care; 2. a search for a personal understanding of their depression; 3. creation of unique therapeutic spaces for treating current depression and preventing future episodes. Relative to patients' observations regarding stigma's effects on accepting a depression diagnosis and seeking treatment, clinicians tended to underestimate the presence and effects of stigma. Patients preferred clinicians who were empathetic listeners, while clinicians worried that discussing depression could open "Pandora's box" of lengthy discussions and set them irrecoverably behind in their clinic schedules. Clinicians and patients agreed that somatic manifestations of mental distress impeded the patients' ability to understand their suffering as depression. Clinicians reported supporting several treatment modalities beyond guideline-based approaches for depression, yet also displayed surface-level understanding of the often multifaceted support webs their patient described. CONCLUSIONS: Improving processes and outcomes in primary care may demand heightened ability to understand and measure the patients' experiences, expectations and preferences as they receive primary care. Future research would investigate a potential mismatch between clinicians' and patients' perceptions of the effects of stigma on achieving care for depression, and on whether time spent discussing depression during the clinical visit improves outcomes. Improving care and outcomes for chronic disorders such as depression may require primary care clinicians to understand and support their patients' unique 'therapeutic spaces.'

Launching a Laboratory Testing Process Quality Improvement Toolkit: From the Shared Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP).

INTRODUCTION: Family medicine and internal medicine physicians order diagnostic laboratory tests for nearly one-third of patient encounters in an average week, yet among medical errors in primary care, an estimated 15% to 54% are attributed to laboratory testing processes. From a practice improvement perspective, we (1) describe the need for laboratory testing process quality improvements from the perspective of primary care practices, and (2) describe the approaches and resources needed to implement laboratory testing process quality improvements in practice. METHODS: We applied practice observations, process mapping, and interviews with primary care practices in the Shared Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP)-affiliated practice-based research networks that field-tested in 2013 a laboratory testing process improvement toolkit. RESULTS: From the data collected in each of the 22 participating practices, common testing quality issues included, but were not limited to, 3 main testing process steps: laboratory test preparation, test tracking, and patient notification. Three overarching qualitative themes emerged: practices readily acknowledge multiple laboratory testing process problems; practices know that they need help addressing the issues; and practices face challenges with finding patient-centered solutions compatible with practice priorities and available resources. CONCLUSION: While practices were able to get started with guidance and a toolkit to improve laboratory testing processes, most did not seem able to achieve their quality improvement aims unassisted. Providing specific guidance tools with practice facilitation or other rapid-cycle quality improvement support may be an effective approach to improve common laboratory testing issues in primary care.

The role of the champion in primary care change efforts: from the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP).

BACKGROUND: Change champions are important for moving new innovations through the phases of initiation, development, and implementation. Although research attributes positive health care changes to the help of champions, little work provides details about the champion role. METHODS: Using a combination of immersion/crystallization and matrix techniques, we analyzed qualitative data, which included field notes of team meetings, interviews, and transcripts of facilitator meetings, from a sample of 8 practices. RESULTS: Our analysis yielded insights into the value of having 2 discrete types of change champions: (1) those associated with a specific project (project champions) and (2) those leading change for entire organizations (organizational change champions). Relative to other practices under study, those that had both types of champions who complemented each other were best able to implement and sustain diabetes care processes. We provide insights into the emergence and development of these champion types, as well as key qualities necessary for effective championing. CONCLUSIONS: Practice transformation requires a sustained improvement effort that is guided by a larger vision and commitment and assures that individual changes fit together into a meaningful whole. Change champions--both project and organizational change champions--are critical players in supporting both innovation-specific and transformative change efforts.