Implementing Lean in Academic Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Lean is emerging as a quality improvement (QI) strategy in health care, but there has been minimal adoption in primary care teaching practices. This study describes a strategy for implementing Lean in an academic family medicine center and provides a formative assessment of this approach. METHODS: A case study of the University of North Carolina Family Medicine Center that used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide a formative evaluation. The implementation strategy included partnering with Lean content experts and creating a leadership team; planning and completing QI events and Lean training modules; and evaluating and reporting activities related to QI and training. RESULTS: During the initial period of Lean implementation, there was (1) minimal to no change in the quality of care as determined by the Preventive Care Index (46-48); (2) a decrease patient appointment cycle time from 89 minutes to 65 minutes; (3) an increase in overall practice productivity from $8144 to $9160; (4) a decrease in patient satisfaction from 94% to 91%; and (5) an increase in monthly visit volume from 4112 to 5076. CONCLUSION: Lean had an uneven effect on QI in an academic primary care practice during the first year of implementation.

Accountable Care in Transitions (ACTion): A Team-Based Approach to Reducing Hospital Utilization in a Patient-Centered Medical Home.

BACKGROUND: There is limited data describing the role of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) in successful transitions programs and more information is needed to determine the transition points where pharmacist involvement is most impactful. METHODS: A family medicine center developed a multidisciplinary outpatient-based transitions program focused on reducing emergency department (ED) and hospital use in medically complex patients. Key team members were a medical provider, clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP), and care manager. The objective was to evaluate the impact of the program by comparing utilization before and after the intervention and to identify patient and process characteristic predictors of 30-day rehospitalizations. RESULTS: Of the 268 patients included, the mean time to follow-up appointment attended was 11.6 (11.8) days after discharge. The majority of patients (72%) saw their primary care provider at follow-up. Patients experiencing the multidisciplinary intervention had lower 30-day rehospitalizations at 7, 14, and 30 days postdischarge with significance achieved at 14 and 30 days. Compared to before the intervention, reductions in both ED visits and hospitalizations as well as increases in clinic visits were seen at 1, 3, and 6 months. CPP involvement was associated with lower rehospitalizations (7.7% vs 18.8%; P = .04). CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary outpatient-based transitions program embedded in the PCMH increased access to primary care and reduced hospital and ED utilization. Face-to-face CPP involvement significantly lowered rehospitalizations. This program describes a standardized approach to complex care needs with defined roles, a model that may be generalizable and reproduced in other medical homes.

The antibody response to influenza vaccination is not impaired in type 2 diabetics.

BACKGROUND: Diabetics are considered to be at high risk for complications from influenza infection and type 2 diabetes is a significant comorbidity of obesity. Obesity is an independent risk factor for complications from infection with influenza. Annual vaccination is considered the best strategy for protecting against influenza infection and it's complications. Our previous study reported intact antibody responses 30 days post vaccination in an obese population. This study was designed to determine the antibody response to influenza vaccination in type 2 diabetics. METHODS: Subjects enrolled were 18 or older without immunosuppressive diseases or taking immunosuppressive medications. A pre-vaccination blood draw was taken at time of enrollment, the subjects received the influenza vaccine and returned 28-32 days later for a post-vaccination blood draw. Height and weight were also obtained at the first visit and BMI was calculated. Antibody levels to the vaccine were determined by both ELISA and hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assays. RESULTS: As reported in our previous work, obesity positively correlates with the influenza antibody response (p=0.02), while age was negatively correlated with antibody response (p<0.001). In both year 1 and year 2 of our study there was no significant difference in the percentage of the type 2 diabetic subjects classified as seroprotected or a responder to the influenza vaccine compared to the non-diabetic subjects. CONCLUSIONS: These data are important because they demonstrate that diabetics, considered a high risk group during influenza season, are able to mount an antibody response to influenza vaccination that may protect them from influenza infection.

Feasibility and diagnostic validity of the M-3 checklist: a brief, self-rated screen for depressive, bipolar, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders in primary care.

PURPOSE: Mood and anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric conditions seen in primary care, yet they remain underdetected and undertreated. Screening tools can improve detection, but available instruments are limited by the number of disorders assessed. We wanted to assess the feasibility and diagnostic validity of the My Mood Monitor (M-3) checklist, a new, 1-page, patient-rated, 27-item tool developed to screen for multiple psychiatric disorders in primary care. METHODS: We enrolled a sample of 647 consecutive participants aged 18 years and older who were seeking primary care at an academic family medicine clinic between July 2007 and February 2008. We used a 2-step scoring procedure to make screening more efficient. The main outcomes measured were the sensitivity and specificity of the M-3 for major depression, bipolar disorder, any anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a specific type of anxiety disorder. Using a split sample technique, analysis proceeded from determination of optimal screening thresholds to assessment of the psychometric properties of the self-report instrument using the determined thresholds. We used the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview as the diagnostic standard. Feasibility was assessed with patient and physician exit questionnaires. RESULTS: The depression module had a sensitivity of 0.84 and a specificity of 0.80. The bipolar module had a sensitivity of 0.88, and a specificity of 0.70. The anxiety module had a sensitivity of 0.82 and a specificity of 0.78, and the PTSD module had a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.76. As a screen for any psychiatric disorder, sensitivity was 0.83 and specificity was 0.76. Patients took less than 5 minutes to complete the M-3 in the waiting room, and less than 1% reported not having time to complete it. Eighty-three percent of clinicians reviewed the checklist in 30 or fewer seconds, and 80% thought it was helpful in reviewing patients' emotional health. CONCLUSIONS: The M-3 demonstrates utility as a valid, efficient, and feasible tool for screening multiple common psychiatric illnesses, including bipolar disorder and PTSD, in primary care. Its diagnostic accuracy equals that of currently used single-disorder screens and has the additional benefit of being combined into a 1-page tool. The M-3 potentially can reduce missed psychiatric diagnoses and facilitate proper treatment of identified cases.

A controlled trial of an advanced access appointment system in a residency family medicine center.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The implementation of advanced access appointment systems has improved continuity of care, patient and physician satisfaction, physician productivity, and average physician panel size in private practice and group-model HMO settings. This study's purpose was to document the patient care benefits, practice management benefits, and educational outcomes from the controlled implementation of an advanced access appointment system in a residency family medicine center. METHODS: Two faculty-resident teams were created. One team adopted the advanced access system while the other team continued using a traditional access system. Outcome measures included length of time needed to obtain an appointment (days to third available appointment), continuity (percentage of visits with the patient's designated provider), no-show rates, productivity, visits lost to outside providers, panel sizes, and patient satisfaction. Outcomes were measured at baseline and quarterly for 1 year after initial implementation. RESULTS: After implementation, the "days to third available appointment" for the advanced access group was 5 days, compared to 21 days for the traditional access group. A significant improvement in continuity (ie, a match between the primary care physician and patient) for the advanced access team was found. Comparison of no-show rates between the advanced access and traditional access teams revealed significant between-subjects effect, but controlling for within-subject variation using repeated measures ANOVA eliminated this effect. Advanced access residents increased their continuity above 50% while increasing provider satisfaction with office practice and scope of practice. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty and residents can successfully use advanced access. Advanced access can enhance residency education by reducing appointment delays and significantly increasing the patient-primary care physician match.