Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to identify conditions and operational changes linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure (BP) outcomes in primary care. METHODS: We purposively sampled and interviewed practice staff (eg, office managers, clinicians) from a subset of 104 practices participating in EvidenceNOW-a multisite cardiovascular disease prevention initiative. We calculated Clinical Quality Measure improvements, with targets of 10-point or greater absolute improvements in the proportion of patients with smoking screening and, if relevant, counseling and in the proportion of hypertensive patients with adequately controlled BP. We analyzed interview data to identify operational changes, transforming these into numeric data. We used Configurational Comparative Methods to assess the joint effects of multiple factors on outcomes. RESULTS: In clinician-owned practices, implementing a workflow to routinely screen, counsel, and connect patients to smoking cessation resources, or implementing a documentation change or a referral to a resource alone led to an improvement of at least 10 points in the smoking outcome with a moderate level of facilitation support. These patterns did not manifest in health- or hospital system-owned practices or in Federally Qualified Health Centers, however. The BP outcome improved by at least 10 points among solo practices after medical assistants were trained to take an accurate BP. Among larger, clinician-owned practices, BP outcomes improved when practices implemented a second BP measurement when the first was elevated, and when staff learned where to document this information in the electronic health record. With 50 hours or more of facilitation, BP outcomes improved among larger and health- and hospital system-owned practices that implemented these operational changes. CONCLUSIONS: There was no magic bullet for improving smoking or BP outcomes. Multiple combinations of operational changes led to improvements, but only in specific contexts of practice size and ownership, or dose of external facilitation.

The Affordable Care Act improved health insurance coverage and cardiovascular-related screening rates for cancer survivors seen in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the impact of Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on health insurance rates and receipt of cardiovascular-related preventive screenings (body mass index, glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], low-density lipoproteins, and blood pressure) for cancer survivors seen in community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: This study identified cancer survivors aged 19 to 64 years with at least 3 CHC visits in 13 states from the Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network (ADVANCE). Via inverse probability of treatment weighting multilevel multinomial modeling, insurance rates before and after the ACA were estimated by whether a patient lived in a state that expanded Medicaid, and changes between a pre-ACA time period and 2 post-ACA time periods were assessed. RESULTS: The weighted estimated sample size included 409 cancer survivors in nonexpansion states and 2650 in expansion states. In expansion states, the proportion of uninsured cancer survivors decreased significantly from 20.3% in 2012-2013 to 4.5%in 2016-2017, and the proportion of those with Medicaid coverage increased significantly from 38.8% to 55.6%. In nonexpansion states, there was a small decrease in uninsurance rates (from 33.6% in 2012-2013 to 22.5% in 2016-2017). Cardiovascular-related preventive screening rates increased over time in both expansion and nonexpansion states: HbA1c rates nearly doubled from the pre-ACA period (2012-2013) to the post-ACA period (2016-2017) in expansion states (from 7.2% to 12.8%) and nonexpansion states (from 9.3% to 16.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study found a substantial decline in uninsured visits among cancer survivors in Medicaid expansion states. Yet, 1 in 5 cancer survivors living in a state that did not expand Medicaid remained uninsured. Several ACA provisions likely worked together to increase cardiovascular-related preventive screening rates for cancer survivors seen in CHCs.

Use of Quality Improvement Strategies Among Small to Medium-Size US Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: Improving primary care quality is a national priority, but little is known about the extent to which small to medium-size practices use quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve care. We examined variations in use of QI strategies among 1,181 small to medium-size primary care practices engaged in a national initiative spanning 12 US states to improve quality of care for heart health and assessed factors associated with those variations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, practice characteristics were assessed by surveying practice leaders. Practice use of QI strategies was measured by the validated Change Process Capability Questionnaire (CPCQ) Strategies Scale (scores range from -28 to 28, with higher scores indicating more use of QI strategies). Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between practice characteristics and the CPCQ strategies score. RESULTS: The mean CPCQ strategies score was 9.1 (SD = 12.2). Practices that participated in accountable care organizations and those that had someone in the practice to configure clinical quality reports from electronic health records (EHRs), had produced quality reports, or had discussed clinical quality data during meetings had higher CPCQ strategies scores. Health system-owned practices and those experiencing major disruptive changes, such as implementing a new EHR system or clinician turnover, had lower CPCQ strategies scores. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in the use of QI strategies among small to medium-size primary care practices across 12 US states. Findings suggest that practices may need external support to strengthen their ability to do QI and to be prepared for new payment and delivery models.

Does Ownership Make a Difference in Primary Care Practice?

PURPOSE: We assessed differences in structural characteristics, quality improvement processes, and cardiovascular preventive care by ownership type among 989 small to medium primary care practices. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used electronic health record and survey data collected between September 2015 and April 2017 as part of an evaluation of the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care Initiative by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. We compared physician-owned practices, health system or medical group practices, and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) by using 15 survey-based practice characteristic measures, 9 survey-based quality improvement process measures, and 4 electronic health record-based cardiovascular disease prevention quality measures, namely, aspirin prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation support (ABCS). RESULTS: Physician-owned practices were more likely to be solo (45.0% compared with 8.1%, P < .001 for health system practices and 12.8%, P = .009 for FQHCs) and less likely to have experienced a major change (eg, moved to a new location) in the last year (43.1% vs 65.4%, P = .01 and 72.1%, P = .001, respectively). FQHCs reported the highest use of quality improvement processes, followed by health system practices. ABCS performance was similar across ownership type, with the exception of smoking cessation support (51.0% for physician-owned practices vs 67.3%, P = .004 for health system practices and 69.3%, P = .004 for FQHCs). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practice ownership was associated with differences in quality improvement process measures, with FQHCs reporting the highest use of such quality-improvement strategies. ABCS were mostly unrelated to ownership, suggesting a complex path between quality improvement strategies and outcomes.