Diverse community leaders' perspectives about quality primary healthcare and healthcare measurement: Qualitative community-based participatory research.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare quality measurements in the United States illustrate disparities by racial/ethnic group, socio-economic class, and geographic location. Redressing healthcare inequities, including measurement of and reimbursement for healthcare quality, requires partnering with communities historically excluded from decision-making. Quality healthcare is measured according to insurers, professional organizations and government agencies, with little input from diverse communities. This community-based participatory research study aimed to amplify the voices of community leaders from seven diverse urban communities in Minneapolis-Saint Paul Minnesota, view quality healthcare and financial reimbursement based on quality metric scores. METHODS: A Community Engagement Team consisting of one community member from each of seven urban communities -Black/African American, Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer-Two Spirit, Hmong, Latino/a/x, Native American, Somali, and White-and two community-based researchers conducted listening sessions with 20 community leaders about quality primary healthcare. Transcripts were inductively analyzed and major themes were identified. RESULTS: Listening sessions produced three major themes, with recommended actions for primary care clinics. #1: Quality Clinics Utilize Structures and Processes that Support Healthcare Equity. #2: Quality Clinics Offer Effective Relationships, Education, and Health Promotion. #3: Funding Based on Current Quality Measures Perpetuates Health Inequities. CONCLUSION: Community leaders identified ideal characteristics of quality primary healthcare, most of which are not currently measured. They expressed concern that linking clinic payment with quality metrics without considering social and structural determinants of health perpetuates social injustice in healthcare.

Mobile Health Intervention to Close the Guidelines-To-Practice Gap in Hypertension Treatment: Protocol for the mGlide Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal treatment of hypertension remains a widespread problem, particularly among minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. We present a health system-based intervention with diverse patient populations using readily available smartphone technology. This intervention is designed to empower patients and create partnerships between patients and their provider team to promote hypertension control. OBJECTIVE: The mGlide randomized controlled trial is a National Institutes of Health-funded study, evaluating whether a mobile health (mHealth)-based intervention that is an active partnership between interprofessional health care teams and patients results in better hypertension control rates than a state-of-clinical care comparison. METHODS: We are recruiting 450 participants including stroke survivors and primary care patients with elevated cardiovascular disease risk from diverse health systems. These systems include an acute stroke service (n=100), an academic medical center (n=150), and community medical centers including Federally Qualified Health Centers serving low-income and minority (Latino, Hmong, African American, Somali) patients (n=200). The primary aim tests the clinical effectiveness of the 6-month mHealth intervention versus standard of care. Secondary aims evaluate sustained hypertension control rates at 12 months; describe provider experiences of system usability and satisfaction; examine patient experiences, including medication adherence and medication use self-efficacy, self-rated health and quality of life, and adverse event rates; and complete a cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: To date, we have randomized 107 participants (54 intervention, 53 control). CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide evidence for whether a readily available mHealth care model is better than state-of-clinical care for bridging the guideline-to-practice gap in hypertension treatment in health systems serving diverse patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03612271; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03612271. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/25424.

Primary care clinicians' perspectives about quality measurements in safety-net clinics and non-safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Quality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes. RESULTS: Three themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity. CONCLUSION: Aligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.