Inclusion of short-term care patients affects the perceived performance of specialists: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current publicly reported quality performance measures directly compare primary care to specialty care. Specialists see short-term patients referred due to poor control of their disease who then return to their local provider. Our study looked to determine if outcomes measured in short-term care patients differed from those in long-term care patients and what impact those differences may have on quality performance profiles for specialists. METHODS: Retrospective cohort from a large academic medical Center. Performance was measured as "Optimal Care"--all or none attainment of goals. Patients with short-term care (<90 days contact) versus long-term care (>90 days contact) were evaluated for both specialty and primary care practices during the year 2008. RESULTS: Patients with short-term care had significantly lower "Optimal Care": 7.2% vs. 19.7% for optimal diabetes care in endocrinology and 41.3% vs. 53.1% for optimal ischemic vascular disease care in cardiology (p < 0.001). Combining short and long term care patients lowered overall perceived performance for the specialty practice. CONCLUSIONS: Factors other than quality affect the perceived performance of the specialty practice. Extending current primary care quality measurement to short-term specialty care patients without adjustment produces misleading results.

The asthma ePrompt: a novel electronic solution for chronic disease management.

OBJECTIVE: This study tested the ability of an electronic prompt to promote an asthma assessment during primary care visits. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of all eligible adult patients with previously diagnosed asthma in three geographically distinct ambulatory family medicine clinics within a 4-month period. The usual clinic visit process was performed at two geographically distinct control sites (n = 75 and n = 55 patients, respectively). The intervention group site (n = 64) had an electronic flag embedded in the Patient Check-in Locator field which prompted the distribution of a self-administered Asthma Management Questionnaire (AMQ) in the waiting room. The primary outcome measure was a documented asthma severity assessment. RESULTS: The front desk distributed the AMQ successfully in 100% of possible opportunities and the AMQ was completed by 84% of patients. Providers in the intervention group were significantly more likely than providers in the two non-intervention groups to document asthma severity in the medical record during a non-asthma ambulatory clinic visit (63.3% vs. 18.7% vs. 3.6%; p < .001). CONCLUSION: The provision of standardized asthma information triggered by an electronic prompt at the time of check-in effectively initiates an asthma assessment during the primary care visits.

Comparison of provider claims data versus medical records review for assessing provision of adult preventive services.

Administrative claims data are often used to assess the delivery of preventive services, yet there are important limitations. This study assessed the use of claims data to measure quality for pay-for-performance and as a preventive services screening tool compared with medical records review. Accuracy and bias in relying on claims data from a provider perspective were investigated, including a comparison of practice types. Claims data consistently underestimated the rate of preventive services, but the type of practice influenced accuracy. Claims data should be used cautiously, if at all, for pay for performance or to trigger reminders for preventive services completion.

Web-based proactive system to improve breast cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography is recommended for early detection of breast cancer but screening rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: A primary care portal for a large academic primary practice was developed for all preventive services. Another Web-based system (PRECARES [PREventive CAre REminder System]) was developed for appointment secretaries to manage proactive breast cancer screening. Female patients aged 40 to 75 years were randomly assigned to a control group (usual care) and an intervention group. For the intervention group, 2 monthly letters inviting patients to undergo mammography were sent starting 3 months before they were due for annual screening, followed by a telephone call to nonresponding patients. A subgroup of women employees was further randomized to receive a reminder by either US mail or e-mail. RESULTS: Of the total eligible population of 6665 women identified as having consented to participate in research, 3339 were randomly assigned to the control group and 3326 to the intervention group. The screening rate for annual mammography was 64.3% for the intervention group and 55.3% for the control group (P <.001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for any of the other adult preventive services. For the employee subgroup, the screening rate was 57.5% for the control group, 68.1% for the US mail group, and 72.2% for the e-mail group (intervention vs control, P <.001; e-mail vs US mail; P = .24). CONCLUSION: The breast cancer screening rate improved significantly with the practice redesign of having appointment secretaries proactively manage breast cancer screening needs.

Service census caps and unit-based admissions: resident workload, conference attendance, duty hour compliance, and patient safety.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of census caps and unit-based admissions on resident workload, conference attendance, duty hour compliance, and patient safety. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We implemented a census cap of 14 patients on 6 Mayo Clinic internal medicine resident hospital services and a unit-based admissions process in which patients and care teams were consolidated within hospital units. All 280 residents and 15,926 patient admissions to resident and nonresident services 1 year before the intervention (September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007) and 1 year after the intervention (May 1, 2008, through April 30, 2009) were included. Residents' workload, conference attendance, and duty hours were tracked electronically. Patient safety variables including Rapid Response Team and cardiopulmonary resuscitation events, intensive care unit transfers, Patient Safety Indicators, and 30-day readmissions were compared preintervention and postintervention. RESULTS: After the intervention, residents' mean (SE) ratings of workload appropriateness improved (3.10 [0.08] vs 3.87 [0.08] on a 5-point scale; P<.001), as did conference attendance (1523 [56. 8%] vs 1700 [63.5%] conferences attended; P<.001). Duty hour violations for working more than 30 consecutive hours and not having 10 hours off between duty periods decreased from 77 of 9490 possible violations (0.81%) to 27 (0.28%) and from 70 (0.74%) to 14 (0.15%) violations, respectively (both, P<.001). Thirty-day readmissions to resident services decreased (1010 [18.14%] vs 682 [15. 37%]; P<.001). All other patient safety measures remained unchanged. After adjustment for illness severity, there were no significant differences in patient outcomes between resident and nonresident services. CONCLUSION: Census caps and unit-based admissions were associated with improvements in resident workload, conference attendance, duty hour compliance, and readmission rates while patient outcomes were maintained.

Validity of the revised Impact on Family (IOF) scale.

OBJECTIVE: To assess psychometric properties of the revised 15-item Impact on Family (IOF) Scale. STUDY DESIGN: A secondary analysis of items using data collected from 252 parents during an earlier randomized clinical trial. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis identified a single factor with factor loadings similar to that of IOF developers. The one factor accounts for 45.7% of the sample variance. An Item Response Theory analysis found that 11 of the 15 items had alpha values greater than 1.00, with good to excellent item characteristic and item information curves. The test information and measurement error curves for the entire IOF were excellent. Construct validity of the IOF also was supported. Parent IOF scores correlated in the expected directions with maternal mood (r = -0.50), sibling behavior problems (r = -0.35), and severity of illness (r = 0.31) and were associated with family socioeconomic status (t = -4.5, all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides independent support for validity and reliability of the revised IOF scale. This scale is a promising, easy-to-use instrument for the measurement of impact of illness and disability on families of children with chronic illness or disability.

The cost-effectiveness of acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of rofecoxib and celecoxib compared with high-dose acetaminophen or ibuprofen with and without misoprostol for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A decision analysis model was designed over 6 months using two measures of effectiveness: 1) number of upper gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events averted; and 2) number of patients who achieved perceptible pain relief. Separate analyses were conducted for all patients and for those who did not respond to acetaminophen. Outcome probabilities were obtained from a comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Costs were derived from actual resource utilization of OA patients. RESULTS: In terms of averting GI events, acetaminophen dominates the other options for an average risk patient population. For patients who did not respond to acetaminophen, rofecoxib had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per GI event avoided (32,000 US dollars) relative to ibuprofen. In terms of pain control, ibuprofen had an ICER of 610.77 US dollars per additional patient achieving minimal perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI) relative to acetaminophen, while rofecoxib had an ICER of 12,000 US dollars relative to ibuprofen. For patients who did not respond to acetaminophen and who are at high risk of developing an adverse GI event, rofecoxib dominates ibuprofen as the preferred alternative for both measures of effectiveness. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses established that these results were generally robust. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for average-risk knee OA patients, acetaminophen dominates the other therapies in terms of cost per GI event averted. In terms of pain relief, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that if one values pain relief below 275 US dollars per patient achieving MPCI, acetaminophen is the therapy most likely to be optimal; between 275 US dollars and 14,150 US dollars, ibuprofen is most likely to be optimal; and above 14,150 US dollars, rofecoxib is most likely to be optimal.