ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We investigated 3 approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care: (1) practice facilitation over 6 months using a reflective adaptive process (RAP) approach; (2) practice facilitation for up to 18 months using a continuous quality improvement (CQI) approach; and (3) providing self-directed (SD) practices with model information and resources, without facilitation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial, called Enhancing Practice, Improving Care (EPIC), that compared these approaches among 40 small to midsized primary care practices. At baseline and 9 months and 18 months after enrollment, we assessed practice diabetes quality measures from chart audits and Practice Culture Assessment scores from clinician and staff surveys. RESULTS: Although measures of the quality of diabetes care improved in all 3 groups (all P <.05), improvement was greater in CQI practices compared with both SD practices (P <.0001) and RAP practices (P <.0001); additionally, improvement was greater in SD practices compared with RAP practices (P <.05). In RAP practices, Change Culture scores showed a trend toward improvement at 9 months (P = .07) but decreased below baseline at 18 months (P <.05), while Work Culture scores decreased from 9 to 18 months (P <.05). Both scores were stable over time in SD and CQI practices. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional CQI interventions are effective at improving measures of the quality of diabetes care, but may not improve practice change and work culture. Short-term practice facilitation based on RAP principles produced less improvement in quality measures than CQI or SD interventions and also did not produce sustained improvements in practice culture.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Family Practice/methods , Primary Health Care/methods , Aged , Family Practice/organization & administration , Family Practice/standards , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/standards , Quality ImprovementABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Despite tests that can detect and enable removal of precancerous polyps, effectively preventing this disease, screening for colon cancer lags behind other cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a community-based participatory approach to increase colon cancer screening. METHODS: Using a community-based participatory research approach, the High Plains Research Network and their Community Advisory Council developed a multicomponent intervention-Testing to Prevent Colon Cancer-to increase colon cancer screening. A controlled trial compared 9 intervention counties in northeast Colorado with 7 control counties in southeast Colorado. We performed a baseline and postintervention random digit-dial telephone survey and conducted both intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses. RESULTS: In all, 1,050 community members completed a preintervention questionnaire and 1,048 completed a postintervention questionnaire. During the study period, there was a 5% absolute increase in the proportion of respondents who reported ever having had any test in the intervention region (from 76% to 81%) compared with no increase in the control region (77% at both time points) (P = .22). No significant differences between these groups were found in terms of being up to date generally or on specific tests. The extent of exposure to intervention materials was associated with a significant and cumulative increase in screening. CONCLUSIONS: This community-based multicomponent intervention engaged hundreds of community members in wide dissemination aimed at increasing colorectal cancer screening. Although we did not find any statistically significant differences, the findings are consistent with an intervention-related increase in screening and provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of such interventions to improve colon cancer screening.
Subject(s)
Colonic Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/statistics & numerical data , Health Education/methods , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Precancerous Conditions/diagnosis , Rural Population , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Colorado , Community-Based Participatory Research , Female , Humans , Information Dissemination/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Precancerous Conditions/surgeryABSTRACT
PURPOSE: An increasing number of Americans are putting their health at risk from being overweight. We undertook a study to compare patient-level outcomes of 2 methods of implementing the Americans In Motion-Healthy Interventions (AIM-HI) approach to promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and emotional well-being. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial in which 24 family medicine practices were randomized to (1) an enhanced practice approach in which clinicians and office staff used AIM-HI tools to make personal changes and created a healthy environment, or (2) a traditional practice approach in which physicians and staff were trained and asked to use the tools with patients. Of the 610 patients enrolled, 331 were in healthy practices, and 279 were in traditional practices. At 0, 4, and 10 months we assessed blood pressure, body mass index, fasting blood glucose and insulin levels, nuclear magnetic resonance lipoprotein profiles, fitness, dietary intake, physical activity, and emotional well-being. Outcome data were analyzed using linear, mixed-effects multivariate models, adjusting for practices as a random effect. RESULTS: Regardless of patient group, 16.2% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (n = 378 patients, 62% of enrollees) and 10% of all patients enrolled lost 5% or more of their body weight; 16.7% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (10.3% of all enrollees) had a 2-point or greater increase in their fitness level; and 29.2% of 10-month completers (18.0% of all enrollees) lost 5% or more of their body weight and/or increased their fitness level by 2 or more points. There were no significant differences in these outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the 2 groups in the primary and most secondary outcomes. Both patient groups were able to show significant before-after improvements in selected patient-level outcomes.
Subject(s)
Diet, Reducing/methods , Exercise , Health Behavior , Health Promotion/methods , Obesity/therapy , Patient Participation , Weight Reduction Programs/methods , Adult , Feeding Behavior , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Obesity/prevention & control , Self Concept , Social Support , United StatesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to determine if physicians' attitudes and recommendations surrounding implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are regionally associated with ICD use. METHODS AND RESULTS: A national sample of 9969 members of the American College of Cardiology was surveyed electronically. Responses were merged with rates of ICD implantation from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Multivariable regression was used to assess trends between regional use and responses. We received 1210 responses (12%) and used 1124 after exclusions. Across regions, physicians were equally likely to recommend ICDs to males or females with ischemic (â¼99% for both; P = NS) or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (85 vs. 88% P = 0.85). Significant increasing trends in the probability recommending ICD therapy were found when the patient was "frail" (21% to 32%; P = .03) or had a life expectancy <1 year (5% to 10%; P = .05). These differences were not associated with attitudes toward ICDs. CONCLUSIONS: Independent of variations in physicians' attitudes towards ICDs, physicians in regions of low ICD use are not less likely to recommend ICDs in situations clearly supported by guidelines while those in regions of high ICD use are more likely to recommend ICDs to patients who might have limited benefit.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Defibrillators, Implantable/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Cardiology , Female , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Male , Multivariate Analysis , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trendsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) has increased tremendously during the past decade. Recent changes in the DTCA environment may have affected its impact on clinical encounters. Our objective was to determine the rate of patient medication inquiries and their influence on clinical encounters in primary care. METHODS: Our methods consisted of a cross-sectional survey in the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners, a collaboration of 3 practice-based research networks. Clinicians completed a short patient encounter form after consecutive patient encounter for one-half or 1 full day. The main outcomes were the rate of inquiries, independent predictors of inquiries, and overall impact on clinical encounters. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight clinicians in 22 practices completed forms after 1,647 patient encounters. In 58 encounters (3.5%), the patient inquired about a specific new prescription medication. Community health center patients made fewer inquiries than private practice patients (1.7% vs 7.2%, P<.001). Predictors of inquiries included taking 3 or more chronic medications and the clinician being female. Most clinicians reported the requested medication was not their first choice for treatment (62%), but it was prescribed in 53% of the cases. Physicians interpreted the overall impact on the visit as positive in 24% of visits, neutral in 66%, and negative in 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Patient requests for prescription medication were uncommon overall, and even more so among patients in lower income groups. These requests were rarely perceived by clinicians as having a negative impact on the encounter. Future mixed methods studies should explore specific socioeconomic groups and reasons for clinicians' willingness to prescribe these medications.
Subject(s)
Advertising , Patient Participation , Physician-Patient Relations , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Primary Health Care , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Drug Industry , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Observation , Prescription Drugs/administration & dosage , Socioeconomic Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Americans in Motion-Healthy Interventions (AIM-HI) is an initiative designed to assist family physicians with positioning fitness (physical activity, nutrition, and emotional well-being) as the treatment of choice for prevention and management of chronic disease. We investigated whether the concept of a culture of fitness would benefit office personnel and carry over to patient care. METHODS: This randomized, controlled trial provided an intervention based on the AIM-HI curriculum to 12 enhanced offices with support for office activities, while 12 traditional offices received only AIM-HI tools with encouragement for use with patients. Before intervention, at 4 months, and at 14 months, we measured the practice personnel's dietary behavior (PrimeScreen), physical activity (International Physical Activity Questionnaire), self-determined (intrinsic) motivation (Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire [TSRQ]), perceived ability to carry out health behaviors (Perceived Competence Scale), and readiness to improve and/or maintain health behaviors (Stages of Change). RESULTS: From 24 practices we enrolled 470 subjects; 21 practices completed the study, and data from 341 patients were analyzed. Differential change from baseline between the enhanced and traditional offices was not evident for behavior changes. An overall decrease from baseline in self-reported total physical activity measured as metabolic equivalent-minutes for all surveyed groups occurred over the study time period (4-month ß = -11.97; 14-month ß = -9.01; P = .003). A statistically significant increase occurred at 4 months among participants from the enhanced practices for the TSRQ outcomes of Healthy Eating (baseline, 3.00 ± 0.12; 4 months, 3.26 ± 0.13; P = .013). Among clinicians, TSRQ Healthy Eating scores increased from 3.19 ± 0.13 at baseline to 3.52 ± 0.14 at 4 months (P = .005). However, increases in TSRQ Eating scores were not sustained by 14 months. Stages of Change scores decreased from baseline to 4 months in enhanced group offices. There was also a decrease in Stages of Change scores among staff from baseline to 14 months. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians and office staff are resistant to health behavior change. External motivation did not seem to help them change. The effect of this intervention on patient care is not yet known.