It takes a village: Exploring the impact of social determinants on delivery system outcomes for heart failure patients.

BACKGROUND: Local social determinants may act as effect modifiers for the impact of neighborhood material deprivation on patient-level healthcare outcomes. The objective of this study was to understand the mediating effect of local social determinants on neighborhood material deprivation and delivery outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 4737 HF patients receiving inpatient care (n=6065 encounters) from an integrated healthcare delivery system from 2010 to 2014. Outcomes included post-discharge mortality, readmission risk and length of stay. Deprivation was measured using an area deprivation index by address of residence. Effect modifications measured included urban-rural residency and faith identification using generalized linear regression models. Patient-level data was drawn from the delivery system data warehouse. RESULTS: Faith identification had a significant protective effect on HF patients from deprived areas, lowering 30-day mortality odds by one-third over patients who did not identify with a faith (OR 0.35 95%CI:0.12-0.98;p=0.05). Significant effects persisted at the 90 and 180-day timeframes. In rural areas, lack of faith identification had a multiplicative effect on 30-day mortality for deprived patients (OR 14.0 95%CI:1.47-132.7;p=0.02). No significant effects were noted for other healthcare outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of expected association between area deprivation and healthcare outcomes in some communities may be explained by the presence of effect modifiers. IMPLICATIONS: Understanding existing effect modifiers for area deprivation in local communities that delivery systems serve can inform targeted quality improvement. These factors should also be considered when comparing delivery system performance for reimbursement and in population health management.

Stepping Back to Move Forward: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Diabetes Prevention Program Within a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term effectiveness of the Intermountain Healthcare (IH) Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) for patients with prediabetes (preDM) deployed within primary care clinics. STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study design was used to deploy the DPP within the IH system to identify patients with preDM and target a primary goal of a 5% weight loss within 6-12 months of enrollment. STUDY POPULATION: Adults (aged 18-75 years) who met the American Diabetes Association criteria for preDM were included for study. Patients who attended DPP counseling between August 2013 and July 2014 were considered as the intervention (or DPP) group. The DPP group was matched using propensity scores at a 1:4 ratio with a control group of patients with preDM who did not participate in DPP. RESULTS: Of the 17,142 patients who met the inclusion criteria for preDM, 40% had an in-person office visit with their provider. On average, patients were 58 years old, and greater than 60% were women. Based on multivariate logistic regression, the DPP group was more likely to achieve a 5% weight loss within 6-12 months after enrollment (OR = 1.70; 95% CI = 1.29-2.25; p < .001) when compared with the no-DPP group. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes Prevention Program-based lifestyle interventions demonstrated significant reduction in body weight and incident Type 2 diabetes mellitus when compared with nonenrollees.

Introduction of an Area Deprivation Index Measuring Patient Socioeconomic Status in an Integrated Health System: Implications for Population Health.

INTRODUCTION: Intermountain Healthcare is a fully integrated delivery system based in Salt Lake City, Utah. As a learning healthcare system with a mission of performance excellence, it became apparent that population health management and our efforts to move towards shared accountability would require additional patient-centric metrics in order to provide the right care to the right patients at the right time. Several European countries have adopted social deprivation indices in measuring the impact that social determinants can have on health. Such indices provide a geographic, area-based measure of how socioeconomically deprived residents of that area are on average. Intermountain's approach was to identify a proxy measure that did not require front-line data collection and could be standardized for our patient population, leading us to the area deprivation index or ADI. This paper describes the specifications and calculation of an ADI for the state of Utah. Results are presented along with introduction of three use cases demonstrating the potential for application of an ADI in quality improvement in a learning healthcare system. CASE DESCRIPTION: The Utah ADI shows promise in providing a proxy for patient-reported measures reflecting key socio-economic indicators useful for tailoring patient interventions to improve health care delivery and patient outcomes. Strengths of this approach include a consistent standardized measurement of social determinants, use of more granular block group level measures and a limited data capture burden for front-line teams. While the methodology is generalizable to other communities, results of this index are limited to block groups within the state of Utah and will differ from national calculations or calculations for other states. The use of composite measures to evaluate individual characteristics must also be approached with care. Other limitations with the use of U.S. Census data include use of estimates and missing data. CONCLUSION: Initial applications in three meaningfully different areas of an integrated health system provide initial evidence of its broad applicability in addressing the impact of social determinants on health. The variation in socio-economic status by quintile also has potential for clinical significance, though more research is needed to link variation in ADI with variation in health outcomes overall and by disease type.

Association of Integrated Team-Based Care With Health Care Quality, Utilization, and Cost.

IMPORTANCE: The value of integrated team delivery models is not firmly established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of receiving primary care in integrated team-based care (TBC) practices vs traditional practice management (TPM) practices (usual care) with patient outcomes, health care utilization, and costs. DESIGN: A retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study to assess the association of integrating physical and mental health over time in TBC practices with patient outcomes and costs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who received primary care at 113 unique Intermountain Healthcare Medical Group primary care practices from 2003 through 2005 and had yearly encounters with Intermountain Healthcare through 2013, including some patients who received care in both TBC and TPM practices. EXPOSURES: Receipt of primary care in TBC practices compared with TPM practices for patients treated in internal medicine, family practice, and geriatrics practices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included 7 quality measures, 6 health care utilization measures, payments to the delivery system, and program investment costs. RESULTS: During the study period (January 2010-December 2013), 113,452 unique patients (mean age, 56.1 years; women, 58.9%) accounted for 163,226 person-years of exposure in 27 TBC practices and 171,915 person-years in 75 TPM practices. Patients treated in TBC practices compared with those treated in TPM practices had higher rates of active depression screening (46.1% for TBC vs 24.1% for TPM; odds ratio [OR], 1.91 [95% CI, 1.75 to 2.08), adherence to a diabetes care bundle (24.6% for TBC vs 19.5% for TPM; OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.42]), and documentation of self-care plans (48.4% for TBC vs 8.7% for TPM; OR, 5.59 [95% CI, 4.27 to 7.33]), lower proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (<140/90 mm Hg) (85.0% for TBC vs 97.7% for TPM; OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95]), and no significant differences in documentation of advanced directives (9.6% for TBC vs 9.9% for TPM; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.03]). Per 100 person-years, rates of health care utilization were lower for TBC patients compared with TPM patients for emergency department visits (18.1 for TBC vs 23.5 for TPM; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74 to 0.80]), hospital admissions (9.5 for TBC vs 10.6 for TPM; IRR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85 to 0.94]), ambulatory care sensitive visits and admissions (3.3 for TBC vs 4.3 for TPM; IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85]), and primary care physician encounters (232.8 for TBC vs 250.4 for TPM; IRR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.94]), with no significant difference in visits to urgent care facilities (55.7 for TBC vs 56.2 for TPM; IRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.02]) and visits to specialty care physicians (213.5 for TBC vs 217.9 for TPM; IRR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99], P > .008). Payments to the delivery system were lower in the TBC group vs the TPM group ($3400.62 for TBC vs $3515.71 for TPM; ß, -$115.09 [95% CI, -$199.64 to -$30.54]) and were less than investment costs of the TBC program. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults enrolled in an integrated health care system, receipt of primary care at TBC practices compared with TPM practices was associated with higher rates of some measures of quality of care, lower rates for some measures of acute care utilization, and lower actual payments received by the delivery system.

Cost and quality impact of Intermountain's mental health integration program.

Most patients with mental health (MH) conditions, such as depression, receive care for their conditions from a primary care physician (PCP) in their health/medical home. Providing MH care, however, presents many challenges for the PCP, including (1) the difficulty of getting needed consultation from an MH specialist; (2) the time constraints of a busy PCP practice; (3) the complicated nature of recognizing depression, which may be described with only somatic complaints; (4) the barriers to reimbursement and compensation; and (5) associated medical and social comorbidities. Practice managers, emergency departments, and health plans are stretched to provide care for complex patients with unmet MH needs. At the same time, payment reform linked to accountable care organizations and/or episodic bundle payments, MH parity rules, and increasing MH costs to large employers and payers all highlight the critical need to identify high-quality, efficient, integrated MH care delivery practices. Over the past ten years, Intermountain Healthcare has developed a team-based approach-known as mental health integration (MHI)-for caring for these patients and their families. The team includes the PCPs and their staff, and they, in turn, are integrated with MH professionals, community resources, care management, and the patient and his or her family. The integration model goes far beyond co-location in its team-based approach; it is operationalized at the clinic, thereby improving both physician and staff satisfaction. Patients treated in MHI clinics also show improved satisfaction, lower costs, and better quality outcomes. The MHI program is financially sustainable in routinized clinics without subsidies. MHI is a successful approach to improving care for patients with MH conditions in primary care health homes.

Clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus and failure of intrapartum prophylaxis to prevent early-onset disease.

Guidelines recommend intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) for parturient women who have a screen positive for group B Streptococcus (GBS). Clindamycin should be used for IAP only if the maternal GBS isolate is susceptible. We report a case of clindamycin-resistant GBS disease in a newborn infant whose mother received clindamycin IAP, and we review clindamycin susceptibility testing.

Adoption and implementation of strategies for diabetes management in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Secondary and tertiary prevention of chronic illness is a major challenge for the United States healthcare system. Controlled studies show that interventions can enhance secondary prevention in primary care practices, but they shed little light on implementation of secondary prevention outside the experimental context. This study examines the adoption and implementation of an important set of secondary and tertiary prevention efforts--diabetes management strategies--for type 2 diabetes in the everyday clinical practice of primary care. It explores whether adoption and implementation processes differ by type of strategy or prevalence of diabetes among patients in the practice. METHODS: Holistic case studies (those used to assess a single analytic unit, in this case, the physician group practice, as opposed to multiple embedded subunits) were conducted in 2001-2002 on six primary care practices in North Carolina identified from a statewide physician survey on strategies for diabetes management. Practices were selected by prevalence of diabetes and type of strategy for diabetes management--patient oriented (focused on self-management) versus biomedical (focused on secondary prevention practices). Results were derived from thematic analysis of interviews and secondary documents. RESULTS: Adoption and implementation did not differ by diabetes prevalence or type of diabetes strategy. All practices had a routine forum for vetting new strategies, and most used traditional channels for identifying them. Implementation often required adaptation of the strategy and the organization. Sustained use of a diabetes strategy depended on favorable organizational policies and procedures (e.g., training, job redesign) and ongoing commitment of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes management strategies are often complex and require adoption and implementation processes different from those described by classic innovation diffusion models. Alternative conceptual models that consider organizational process, structure, and culture are needed.

How do integrated delivery systems adopt and implement clinical information systems?

We examined how five integrated delivery systems make decisions about and implement clinical information systems. Using case study methods, we identified general themes and explored how organizational context factors and information technology characteristics affect adoption and implementation processes.