Bolstering the Business Case for Adoption of Shared Decision-Making Systems in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited budgets may often constrain the ability of health care delivery systems to adopt shared decision-making (SDM) systems designed to improve clinical encounters with patients and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of an SDM system shown to improve diabetes and cardiovascular patient outcomes on factors affecting revenue generation in primary care clinics. METHODS: As part of a large multisite clinic randomized controlled trial (RCT), we explored the differences in 1 care system between clinics randomized to use an SDM intervention (n=8) versus control clinics (n=9) regarding the (1) likelihood of diagnostic coding for cardiometabolic conditions using the 10th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and (2) current procedural terminology (CPT) billing codes. RESULTS: At all 24,138 encounters with care gaps targeted by the SDM system, the proportion assigned high-complexity CPT codes for level of service 5 was significantly higher at the intervention clinics (6.1%) compared to that in the control clinics (2.9%), with P<.001 and adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.64 (95% CI 1.02-2.61). This was consistently observed across the following specific care gaps: diabetes with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)>8% (n=8463), 7.2% vs 3.4%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.01-3.67); blood pressure above goal (n=8515), 6.5% vs 3.7%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.42 (95% CI 0.72-2.79); suboptimal statin management (n=17,765), 5.8% vs 3%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.41 (95% CI 0.76-2.61); tobacco dependency (n=7449), 7.5% vs. 3.4%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 2.14 (95% CI 1.31-3.51); BMI >30 kg/m2 (n=19,838), 6.2% vs 2.9%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.45 (95% CI 0.75-2.8). Compared to control clinics, intervention clinics assigned ICD-10 diagnosis codes more often for observed cardiometabolic conditions with care gaps, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized study, use of a clinically effective SDM system at encounters with care gaps significantly increased the proportion of encounters assigned high-complexity (level 5) CPT codes, and it was associated with a nonsignificant increase in assigning ICD-10 codes for observed cardiometabolic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02451670; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451670.

Association of an Automated Blood Pressure Measurement Quality Improvement Program With Terminal Digit Preference and Recorded Mean Blood Pressure in 11 Clinics.

Importance: Terminal digit preference has been shown to be associated with inaccurate blood pressure (BP) recording. Objective: To evaluate whether converting from manual BP measurement with aneroid sphygmomanometers to automated BP measurement was associated with terminal digit preference, mean levels of recorded BP, and the rate at which hypertension was diagnosed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted from May 9, 2021, to March 24, 2022, using interrupted time series analysis of medical record data from 11 primary care clinics in a single health care system from April 2008 to April 2015. The study population was patients aged 18 to 75 years who had their BP measured and recorded at least once during the study period. Exposures: Manual BP measurement before April 2012 vs automated BP measurement with the Omron HEM-907XL monitor from May 2012 to April 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the distribution of terminal digits and mean systolic BP (SBP) values obtained during 4 years of manual measurement vs 3 years of automated measurement, assessed using a generalized linear mixed regression model with a random intercept for clinic and adjusted for seasonal fluctuations and patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: The study included 1 541 227 BP measurements from 225 504 unique patients during the entire study period, with 849 978 BP measurements from 165 137 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [15.2] years; 58.2% female) during the manual measurement period and 691 249 measurements from 149 080 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.4 [15.3] years; 56.3% female) during the automated measurement period. With manual measurement, 32.8% of SBP terminal digits were 0 (20% was the expected value because nursing staff was instructed to record BP to the nearest even digit). This proportion decreased to 12.4% during the automated measurement period (expected value, 10%) when both even and odd digits were to be recorded. After automated measurement was implemented, the mean SBP estimated with statistical modeling increased by 5.09 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.98-5.19 mm Hg). Fewer BP values recorded during the automated than the manual measurement period were below 140/90 mm Hg (69.9% vs 84.3%; difference, -14.5%; 95% CI, -14.6% to -14.3%) and below 130/80 mm Hg (42.1% vs 60.0%; difference, -17.9%; 95% CI, -18.0% to -17.7%). The proportion of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension was 4.3 percentage points higher (23.4% vs 19.1%) during the automated measurement period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, automated BP measurement was associated with decreased terminal digit preference and significantly higher mean BP levels. The method of BP measurement was also associated with the rate at which hypertension was diagnosed. These findings may have implications for pay-for-performance programs, which may create an incentive to record BP levels that meet a particular goal and a disincentive to adopt automated measurement of BP.

Can patient safety be measured by surveys of patient experiences?

BACKGROUND: A study was conducted to test whether patient reports of medical errors via surveys could produce sufficiently accurate information to be used as a measure of patient safety. METHODS: A survey mailed regularly by a large multispecialty medical group to recent patients to assess their satisfaction and error experiences was expanded to collect more details about the patient-perceived errors. Following an initial mailing to 3,109 patients and parents of child patients soon after they had office visits in June 2005, usable mailed or phone follow-up responses were obtained from 1,998 respondents (65.1% adjusted). Responses were reviewed through a two-stage process that included chart audits and implicit physician reviewer judgments. The analysis categorized the review results and compared patient-reported errors with satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 1,998 respondents, 219 (11.0%) reported 247 separate incidents, for a rate of 12.4 errors per 100 patients. After complete review, only 5 (2.0%) of these incidents were judged to be real clinician errors. Most appeared to represent misunderstandings or behavior/communication problems, but 15.4% lacked sufficient information to categorize. Women, Hispanics, and those aged 41-60 years were most likely to report errors. Those respondents making error reports were much more likely to report visit dissatisfaction than those not reporting them (odds ratio [OR] = 13.8, p < .001). DISCUSSION: Although patient reports of perceived errors might be useful to improve the patient experience of care, they cannot be used to measure technical medical errors and patient safety reliably without added evaluation. This study's findings need to be replicated elsewhere before generalizing from one metropolitan region and a patient population that is about two-thirds members of one health plan.