Enabling System Functionalities of Primary Care Practices for Team Dynamics in Transformation to Team-Based Care: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).

Team-based primary care has been shown to be an important initiative for transforming primary care to achieve whole-person care, enhance health equity, and reduce provider burnout. Organizational approaches have been explored to better implement team-based care but a thorough understanding of the role of system functions is lacking. We aimed to identify the combinations of system functionalities in primary care practices that most enable effective teamwork. We used a novel method, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), to identify cross-case patterns in 19 primary care practices in the Harvard Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC), an initiative for transforming primary care practices by establishing teams and implementing team-based care. QCA findings identified that primary care practices with strong team dynamics exhibited strengths in three operational care process functionalities, including management of abnormal test results, cancer screening and medication management for high-priority patients, care transitions, and in health information technology (HIT) functionality. HIT functionality alone was not sufficient to achieve the desired outcomes. System functionalities in a primary care practice that support physicians and their teams in identifying patients with urgent and complex acute illnesses requiring immediate response and care and overcoming barriers to collaboration within and across institutional settings, may be essential for sustaining strong team-based primary care.

Team-Based Primary Care Practice Transformation Initiative and Changes in Patient Experience and Recommended Cancer Screening Rates.

Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices' successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.

Physician and facility drivers of spending variation in locoregional prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer, with a wide range of treatment options. Payment reform to reduce unnecessary spending variation is an important strategy for reducing waste, but its magnitude and drivers within prostate cancer are unknown. METHODS: In total, 38,971 men aged ≥66 years with localized prostate cancer who were enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service and were included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database from 2009 to 2014 were included. Multilevel linear regression with physician and facility random effects was used to examine the contributions of urologists, radiation oncologists, and their affiliated facilities to variation in total patient spending in the year after diagnosis within geographic region. The authors assessed whether spending variation was driven by patient characteristics, disease risk, or treatments. Physicians and facilities were sorted into quintiles of adjusted patient-level spending, and differences between those that were high-spending and low-spending were examined. RESULTS: Substantial variation in spending was driven by physician and facility factors. Differences in cancer treatment modalities drove more variation across physicians than differences in patient and disease characteristics (72% vs 2% for urologists, 20% vs 18% for radiation oncologists). The highest spending physicians spent 46% more than the lowest and had more imaging tests, inpatient care, and radiotherapy spending. There were no differences across spending quintiles in the use of robotic surgery by urologists or the use of brachytherapy by radiation oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were observed for patients with similar demographics and disease characteristics. This variation across both physicians and facilities suggests that efforts to reduce unnecessary spending must address decision making at both levels.

Comparing Diagnostic Evaluations for Rectal Bleeding and Breast Lumps in Primary Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding in primary care are an important source of medical errors. Delays appear particularly common in evaluation of rectal bleeding. Comparing pursuit and completion of diagnostic testing for these two conditions within the same practice settings could help highlight barriers and inform interventions. OBJECTIVES: To examine processes undertaken for diagnostic evaluations of breast lumps and rectal bleeding within the same practices and to compare them with regard to (a) the likelihood that diagnostic tests are ordered according to guidelines and (b) the timeliness of order placement and completion. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using explicit chart abstraction methods. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred women aged 30-80 presenting with breast lumps and 300 men and women aged 40-80 years presenting with rectal bleeding to 15 academically affiliated primary care practices, 2012-2016. MAIN MEASURES: Rates and timing of test ordering and completion and patterns of visits and communications. KEY RESULTS: At initial presentation, physicians ordered recommended imaging or procedures at higher rates for patients with breast lumps compared to those with rectal bleeding (97% vs. 86% of patients recommended to receive imaging or endoscopy; p < 0.01). Most (90%) patients with breast lumps completed recommended diagnostic testing within 1 month, versus 31% of patients with rectal bleeding (p < 0.01). By 1 year, 7% of patients with breast lumps had not completed indicated imaging, versus 27% of those with rectal bleeding. Patients with breast lumps had fewer subsequent primary care visits related or unrelated to their symptom and had fewer related communications with specialists. LIMITATIONS: The study relied on documented care, and findings may be most generalizable to academically affiliated institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic processes for rectal bleeding were less frequently guideline-concordant and timely than those for breast lumps. The largest discrepancies occurred in initial ordering of indicated tests and the timeliness of test completion.

What drives variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic regions?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate and describe factors driving variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic region. DATA SOURCE: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from 2009-2013. STUDY DESIGN: The proportion of variation in monthly medical spending within geographic region attributed to patient and physician factors was estimated using multilevel regression models with individual patient and physician random effects. Using sequential models, we estimated the contribution of differences in patient and disease characteristics or use of cancer treatment modalities to patient-level and physician-level variance in spending. Services associated with high spending physicians were estimated using linear regression. DATA EXTRACTION METHOD: A total of 20 818 women with a breast cancer diagnosis in 2010-2011. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We observed substantial between-patient and between-provider variation in spending following diagnosis and at the end-of-life. Immediately following diagnosis, 48% of between-patient and 31% of between-physician variation were driven by differences in delivery of cancer treatment modalities to similar patients. At the end-of-life, patients of high spending physicians had twice as many inpatient days, double the chemotherapy spending, and slightly more hospice days. CONCLUSIONS: Similar patients receive very different treatments, which yield significant differences in spending. Efforts to reduce unwanted variation may need to target treatment choices within patient-doctor discussions.

Racial disparities in fifth-grade sun protection: Evidence from the Healthy Passages study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Despite rising skin cancer rates in children, multiple studies reveal inadequate youth sun-protective behavior (eg, sunscreen use). Using Healthy Passages data for fifth-graders, we set out to determine sunscreen adherence in these children and investigated factors related to sunscreen performance. METHODS: Survey data were collected from 5119 fifth-graders and their primary caregivers. Logistic regression was used to assess associations between sunscreen adherence and performance of other preventive health behaviors (eg, flossing, helmet use) and examine predictors of sunscreen adherence. Analyses were repeated in non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white subgroups. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred nineteen (23.4%) children almost always used sunscreen, 5.9% of non-Hispanic blacks (n = 1748), 23.7% of Hispanics (n = 1802), and 44.8% of non-Hispanic whites (n = 1249). Performing other preventive health behaviors was associated with higher odds of sunscreen adherence (all P < .001), with the greatest association with flossing teeth (odds ratio = 2.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.86-3.13, P < .001). Factors for lower odds of sunscreen adherence included being male and non-Hispanic black or Hispanic and having lower socioeconomic status. School-based sun-safety education and involvement in team sports were not significant factors. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm low use of sun protection among fifth-graders. Future research should explore how public health success in increasing prevalence of other preventive health behaviors may be applied to enhance sun protection messages. Identifying risk factors for poor adherence enables providers to target patients who need more education. Improving educational policies and content in schools may be an effective way to address sun safety.

Assessment of Hospitalist-Subspecialist Agreement About Who Should Be in Charge and Comparison With Actual Assignment Practices.

BACKGROUND: A key juncture in patient hospitalization is determining which type of physician should be primarily responsible for directing treatment. We (1) examine the frequency hospitalists and subspecialists agree on preferred assignments and (2) compare preferred assignment with actual assignment. METHODS: Using a mixed methods approach, we first surveyed 66 physicians in 8 specialties about hospitalist assignments versus subspecialist assignments for 176 diagnoses at an academic children's hospital. Agreement was calculated by using the interrater reliability coefficient, Pi . We subsequently compared survey responses to actual hospitalization data from January 2009 to August 2015. RESULTS: Specialty and physician response rates were 100% and 44%, respectively. For preferred assignment among hospitalists and specialists, some diagnoses (eg, gastroesophageal reflux, syncope) experienced high agreement (π = 0.714-1.000); other diagnoses (eg, Guillain-Barre, encephalopathy) had less agreement (π = 0.000-0.600). Hematologists and oncologists agreed among themselves most frequently (73%); endocrinologists agreed among themselves least frequently (9%). Perceptions of agreement were often higher than actual survey results. Of the 25 highest volume diagnoses, 7 were conditions with consensus (Pi ≥ 0.6) about assignment, and of those conditions, 6 were assigned to a subspecialist at least 50% of the time, although consensus indicated a hospitalist should have been assigned (1597 hospitalizations). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study used to analyze preferences of hospitalist-subspecialist assignment and show variation from actual practice. Although physicians assessed the same patient information, agreement on preferred assignment varied noticeably across diagnoses and subspecialties. With our results, we reveal potential challenges in integrating hospitalists with other specialists and provide evidence for standardizing certain aspects of physician roles.

A Cost Analysis of Universal versus Targeted Cholesterol Screening in Pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the number of children needed to screen to identify a case of childhood dyslipidemia and estimate costs under universal vs targeted screening approaches. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the health system costs of universal vs targeted screening for hyperlipidemia in US children aged 10 years over a 1-year time horizon. Targeted screening was defined by family history: dyslipidemia in a parent and/or early cardiovascular disease in a first-degree relative. Prevalence of any hyperlipidemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] ≥130 mg/dL) and severe hyperlipidemia (LDL ≥190 mg/dL or LDL ≥160 mg/dL with family history) were obtained from published estimates. Costs were estimated from the 2016 Maryland Medicaid fee schedule. We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the influence of key variables on the incremental cost per case detected. RESULTS: For universal screening, the number needed to screen to identify 1 case was 12 for any hyperlipidemia and 111 for severe hyperlipidemia. For targeted screening, the number needed to screen was 7 for any hyperlipidemia and 49 for severe hyperlipidemia. The incremental cost per case detected for universal compared with targeted screening was $1980 for any hyperlipidemia and $32 170 for severe hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that universal cholesterol screening detects hyperlipidemia at a low cost per case, but may not be the most cost-efficient way to identify children with severe hyperlipidemia who are most likely to benefit from treatment.

Diagnostic Evaluation of Patients Presenting to Primary Care with Rectal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Rectal bleeding is a common, frequently benign problem that can also be an early sign of colorectal cancer. Diagnostic evaluation for rectal bleeding is complex, and clinical practice may deviate from available guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree to which primary care physicians document risk factors for colorectal cancer among patients with rectal bleeding and order colonoscopies when indicated, and the likelihood of physicians ordering and patients receiving recommended colonoscopies based on demographic characteristics, visit patterns, and clinical presentations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using explicit chart abstraction methods. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred adults, 40-80 years of age, presenting with rectal bleeding to 15 academically affiliated primary care practices between 2012 and 2016. MAIN MEASURES: 1) The frequency at which colorectal cancer risk factors were documented in patients' charts, 2) the frequency at which physicians ordered colonoscopies and patients received them, and 3) the odds of ordering and patients receiving recommended colonoscopies based on patient demographic characteristics, visit patterns, and clinical presentations. KEY RESULTS: Risk factors for colorectal cancer were documented between 9% and 66% of the time. Most patients (89%) with rectal bleeding needed a colonoscopy according to a clinical guideline. Physicians placed colonoscopy orders for 74% of these patients, and 56% completed the colonoscopy within a year (36% within 60 days). The odds of physicians ordering recommended colonoscopies were significantly higher in patients aged 50-64 years of age than in those aged 40-50 years (OR = 2.23, 95% CI: 1.04, 4.80), and for patients whose most recent colonoscopy was 5 or more years ago (OR = 4.04, 95% CI: 1.50, 10.83). The odds of physicians ordering and patients receiving recommended colonoscopies were significantly lower for each primary care visit unrelated to rectal bleeding (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic evaluation of patients presenting to primary care with rectal bleeding may be suboptimal because of inadequate risk factor assessment and prioritization of patients' other concurrent medical problems.

A Randomized Trial of Displaying Paid Price Information on Imaging Study and Procedure Ordering Rates.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have demonstrated how price transparency lowers the test-ordering rates of trainees in hospitals, and physician-targeted price transparency efforts have been viewed as a promising cost-controlling strategy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of displaying paid-price information on test-ordering rates for common imaging studies and procedures within an accountable care organization (ACO). DESIGN: Block randomized controlled trial for 1 year. SUBJECTS: A total of 1205 fully licensed clinicians (728 primary care, 477 specialists). INTERVENTION: Starting January 2014, clinicians in the Control arm received no price display; those in the intervention arms received Single or Paired Internal/External Median Prices in the test-ordering screen of their electronic health record. Internal prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the ACO's services; external paid prices were the amounts paid by insurers for the same services when delivered by unaffiliated providers. MAIN MEASURES: Ordering rates (orders per 100 face-to-face encounters with adult patients): overall, designated to be completed internally within the ACO, considered "inappropriate" (e.g., MRI for simple headache), and thought to be "appropriate" (e.g., screening colonoscopy). KEY RESULTS: We found no significant difference in overall ordering rates across the Control, Single Median Price, or Paired Internal/External Median Prices study arms. For every 100 encounters, clinicians in the Control arm ordered 15.0 (SD 31.1) tests, those in the Single Median Price arm ordered 15.0 (SD 16.2) tests, and those in the Paired Prices arms ordered 15.7 (SD 20.5) tests (one-way ANOVA p-value 0.88). There was no difference in ordering rates for tests designated to be completed internally or considered to be inappropriate or appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Displaying paid-price information did not alter how frequently primary care and specialist clinicians ordered imaging studies and procedures within an ACO. Those with a particular interest in removing waste from the health care system may want to consider a variety of contextual factors that can affect physician-targeted price transparency.

Recognizing Differences in Hospital Quality Performance for Pediatric Inpatient Care.

BACKGROUND: Hospital quality-of-care measures are publicly reported to inform consumer choice and stimulate quality improvement. The number of hospitals and states with enough pediatric hospital discharges to detect worse-than-average inpatient care remains unknown. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of hospital discharges for children aged 0 to 17 years from 3974 hospitals in 44 states in the 2009 Kids' Inpatient Database. For 11 measures of all-condition or condition-specific quality, we assessed the number of hospitals and states that met a "power standard" of 80% power for a 5% level significance test to detect when care is 20% worse than average over a 3-year period. For this assessment, we approximated volume as 3 times actual 2009 admission volumes. RESULTS: For all-condition quality, 1380 hospitals (87% of all pediatric discharges) and all states met the power standard for the family experience-of-care measure; 1958 hospitals (95% of discharges) and all states met the standard for adverse drug events. For condition-specific quality measures of asthma, birth, and mental health, 203 to 482 hospitals (52%-90% of condition-specific discharges) met the power standard and 40 to 44 states met the standard. One hospital and 16 states met the standard for sickle cell disease. No hospital and ≤27 states met the standard for the remaining measures studied (appendectomy, cerebrospinal fluid shunt surgery, gastroenteritis, heart surgery, and seizure). CONCLUSIONS: Most children are admitted to hospitals in which all-condition measures of quality have adequate power to show modest differences in performance from average, but most condition-specific measures do not. Policies regarding incentives for pediatric inpatient quality should take these findings into account.

Small numbers limit the use of the inpatient pediatric quality indicators for hospital comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of hospitals with adequate sample size to meaningfully compare performance by using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) pediatric quality indicators (PDIs), which measure pediatric inpatient adverse events such as decubitus ulcer rate and infections due to medical care, have been nationally endorsed, and are currently publicly reported in at least 2 states. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of California hospital discharges from 2005-2007 for patients aged <18 years. For 9 hospital-level PDIs, after excluding discharges with PDIs indicated as present on admission, we determined for each PDI the volume of eligible pediatric patients for each measure at each hospital, the statewide mean rate, and the percentage of hospitals with adequate volume to identify an adverse event rate twice the statewide mean. RESULTS: Unadjusted California-wide event rates for PDIs during the study period (N = 2 333 556 discharges) were 0.2 to 38 per 1000 discharges. Event rates for specific measures were, for example, 0.2 per 1000 (iatrogenic pneumothorax in non-neonates), 19 per 1000 (postoperative sepsis), and 38 per 1000 (pediatric heart surgery mortality), requiring patient volumes of 49 869, 419, and 201 to detect an event rate twice the statewide average; 0%, 6.6%, and 25%, respectively, of California hospitals had this pediatric volume. CONCLUSION: Using these AHRQ-developed, nationally endorsed measures of the quality of inpatient pediatric care, one would not be able to identify many hospitals with performance 2 times worse than the statewide average due to extremely low event rates and inadequate pediatric hospital volume.

Qualitative insights into how pediatric pay-for-performance programs are being designed.

OBJECTIVE: Pediatric pay-for-performance (P4P) programs are proliferating, and little is known about them. The goal of this study is to better understand how these programs began, and how they are designed and implemented from the perspectives of those with experience running pediatric P4P programs. METHODS: Cross-sectional semistructured interviews with named program directors and key supporting staff from 11 of 17 publicly described pediatric P4P programs that have been in operation for at least 1 year (commercial and Medicaid sponsored) regarding their program's beginning, design, top challenges and recommendations, impact, and considerations regarding the needs of children with chronic health conditions. RESULTS: Eleven programs have allocated approximately $221 million toward pediatric P4P efforts by means of both bonus and penalty incentives, potentially affecting 4.3 million children. They struggle with involving pediatricians, desiring more vetted pediatric performance measures and strategies for generally dealing with small sample sizes, and targeting the quality of care delivered to children with chronic health conditions, but they generally view these efforts to be effective. CONCLUSIONS: Those with experience running these early pediatric P4P programs show that pediatricians have not necessarily been involved in program design, face basic uncertainties of P4P program design, and generally do not target the care provided to children with chronic health conditions. They desire greater input from physicians who care for children and vetted pediatric measures, and they need help facing methodological challenges, such as small sample size and risk adjustment.

Community health center quality improvement: a systematic review and future directions for research.

BACKGROUND: Leaders and policymakers need an accurate appraisal of the federally qualified community health center (CHC) quality improvement (QI) literature to make informed decisions for the CHC program. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to (1) summarize the content and findings of CHC QI studies to date, (2) systematically rate the quality of those studies, and (3) outline 10 important areas for future CHC QI research. METHODS: We searched medical and nonmedical databases to identify QI studies in CHC settings. We systematically reviewed identified studies for the features of their QI interventions and for the methodological quality of their evaluations. We combined results from the review with input from the CHC community to generate an agenda for future CHC QI research. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified and reviewed. Interventions mainly targeted chronic conditions and screening practices and used 1 to 11 of 14 different QI tactics; evaluations comprised 14 observational and 4 randomized study designs. CHC QI interventions have been effective in improving processes of care for diabetes and cancer screening in the short term; their effectiveness in the long term and regarding outcomes of care have not been demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: QI interventions in CHC setting are promising, but future interventions and evaluations should answer critical basic questions about QI, including the following: What are the best models of QI? How can QI improvements be effectively implemented and sustained? What are the global effects of QI (positive and negative)? How can QI be made financially viable and sensible from both the CHC and societal perspectives?