Effectiveness of a Population Health Intervention on Disparities in Hypertension Control: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in hypertension control across race, ethnicity, and language have been a long-standing problem in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a multi-pronged intervention can improve hypertension control for a target population and reduce disparities. DESIGN: This stepped wedge cluster randomized trial was conducted at 15 adult primary care clinics affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital. PCPs were randomized to receive the intervention in twelve groups. PARTICIPANTS: The target population was patients who met one of the following criteria based on self-identification: (1) Asian, Black, Indigenous, multi-racial, or other race; (2) Hispanic ethnicity; or (3) preferred language other than English. Reference population was White, English-speaking patients. INTERVENTIONS: PCPs were given access to an online equity dashboard that displays disparities in chronic disease management and completed an equity huddle with population health coordinators (PHCs), which involved reviewing target patients whose hypertension was not well controlled. In addition, community health workers (CHWs) were available in some practices to offer additional support. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in the proportion of target patients meeting the hypertension control goal when comparing intervention and control periods. KEY RESULTS: Of the 365 PCPs who were randomized, 311 PCPs and their 10,865 target patients were included in the analysis. The intervention led to an increase in hypertension control in the target population (RD 0.9%; 95% CI [0.3,1.5]) and there was a higher intervention effect in the target population compared to the reference population (DiD 2.1%; 95% CI [1.1, 3.1]). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing data on disparities in quality outcome measures in routine clinical practice augmented by clinical support provided by PHCs and CHWs led to modest, but statistically significant, improvement in hypertension control among BIPOC, Hispanic, and LEP patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05278806.

An Audit and Feedback Intervention to Improve Internal Medicine Residents' Performance on Ambulatory Quality Measures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Audit and feedback is an effective method to improve attending physician performance. However, there are limited data on how audit and feedback impacts care provided by resident physicians. The authors conducted a 3-arm randomized clinical trial among internal medicine resident physicians to examine the impact of an audit and feedback intervention on ambulatory quality measures (AQMs). Residents in all 3 groups received an email containing the contact information of a population health coordinator and a list of AQMs (control). In addition, the Practice Target group received individual AQM data compared to the target AQM goals for all primary care practices. The Peer Comparison group received information on individual AQM data compared to the average performance of residents in the same postgraduate year. Residents in each intervention group received updated information 6 months later. Ten AQMs related to diabetes care, hypertension management, lipid control, and cancer screening, as well as a composite quality score, were examined at baseline, 6 months, and 13 months. At 13 months follow-up, the Practice Target group had statistically significant improvement in cervical cancer screening rate (77% vs. 65.3%), colorectal cancer screening rate (72.5% vs. 64.6%), and composite quality score (71.7% vs 65.4%) compared to baseline. Providing internal medicine residents with individual AQMs data compared to target goal for the practice led to statistically significant improvement in cancer screening rates and the composite quality score. Audit and feedback may be a relatively simple yet effective tool to improve population health in the resident clinic setting.

Defining Team Effort Involved in Patient Care from the Primary Care Physician's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the attributes of patients who require more effort to manage may improve risk adjustment approaches and lead to more efficient resource allocation, improved patient care and health outcomes, and reduced burnout in primary care clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize high-effort patients from the physician's perspective. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-nine primary care physicians in an academic primary care network. MAIN MEASURES: From a list of 100 randomly selected patients in their panels, PCPs identified patients who required a high level of team-based effort and patients they considered complex. For high-effort patients, PCPs indicated which factors influenced their decision: medical/care coordination, behavioral health, and/or socioeconomic factors. We examined differences in patient characteristics based on PCP-defined effort and complexity. KEY RESULTS: Among 9594 eligible patients, PCPs classified 2277 (23.7 %) as high-effort and 2676 (27.9 %) as complex. Behavioral health issues were the major driver of effort in younger patients, while medical/care coordination issues predominated in older patients. Compared to low-effort patients, high-effort patients were significantly (P < 0.01 for all) more likely to have higher rates of medical (e.g. 23.2 % vs. 6.3 % for diabetes) and behavioral health problems (e.g. 9.8 % vs. 2.9 % for substance use disorder), more frequent primary care visits (10.9 vs. 6.0 visits), and higher acute care utilization rates (25.8 % vs. 7.7 % for emergency department [ED] visits and 15.0 % vs. 3.9 % for hospitalization). Almost one in five (18 %) patients who were considered high-effort were not deemed complex by the same PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients defined as high-effort by their primary care physicians, not all of whom were medically complex, appear to have a high burden of psychosocial issues that may not be accounted for in current chronic disease-focused risk adjustment approaches.

Targeted Reminder Phone Calls to Patients at High Risk of No-Show for Primary Care Appointment: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No-shows, or missed appointments, are a problem for many medical practices. They result in fragmented care and reduce access for all patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether telephone reminder calls targeted to patients at high risk of no-show can reduce no-show rates. DESIGN: Single-center randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2247 primary care patients in a hospital-based primary care clinic at high risk of no-show (>15 % risk) for their appointment in 7 days. INTERVENTION: Seven days prior to their appointment, intervention arm patients were placed in a calling queue to receive a reminder phone call from a patient service coordinator. Coordinators were trained to engage patients in concrete planning. All patients received an automated phone call (usual care). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was no-show rate. Secondary outcomes included arrival rate, cancellation rate, reschedule rate, time to cancellation, and change in revenue. KEY RESULTS: The no-show rate in the intervention arm (22.8 %) was significantly lower (absolute risk difference -6.4 %, p < 0.01, 95 % CI [-9.8 to -3.0 %]) than that in the control arm (29.2 %). Arrival, cancellation, and reschedule rates did not differ significantly. In the intervention arm, rescheduling and cancellations occurred further in advance of the appointment (mean difference, 0.35 days; 95 % CI [0.07-0.64]; p = 0.01). Reimbursement did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: A phone call 7 days prior to an appointment led to a significant reduction in no-shows and increased reimbursement among patients at high risk of no-show. The use of targeted interventions may be of interest to practices taking on increased accountability for population health.

Appointment "no-shows" are an independent predictor of subsequent quality of care and resource utilization outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Identifying individuals at high risk for suboptimal outcomes is an important goal of healthcare delivery systems. Appointment no-shows may be an important risk predictor. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that patients with a high propensity to "no-show" for appointments will have worse clinical and acute care utilization outcomes compared to patients with a lower propensity. DESIGN: We calculated the no-show propensity factor (NSPF) for patients of a large academic primary care network using 5 years of outpatient appointment data. NSPF corrects for patients with fewer appointments to avoid over-weighting of no-show visits in such patients. We divided patients into three NSPF risk groups and evaluated the association between NSPF and clinical and acute care utilization outcomes after adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 140,947 patients who visited a network practice from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009, and were either connected to a primary care physician or to a primary care practice, based on a previously validated algorithm. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were incomplete colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening, and above-goal hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels at 1-year follow-up, and hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the subsequent 3 years. KEY RESULTS: Compared to patients in the low NSPF group, patients in the high NSPF group (n=14,081) were significantly more likely to have incomplete preventive cancer screening (aOR 2.41 [2.19-.66] for colorectal, aOR 1.85 [1.65-.08] for cervical, aOR 2.93 [2.62-3.28] for breast cancer), above-goal chronic disease control measures (aOR 2.64 [2.22-3.14] for HbA1c, aOR 1.39 [1.15-1.67] for LDL], and increased rates of acute care utilization (aRR 1.37 [1.31-1.44] for hospitalization, aRR 1.39 [1.35-1.43] for emergency department visits). CONCLUSIONS: NSPF is an independent predictor of suboptimal primary care outcomes and acute care utilization. NSPF may play an important role in helping healthcare systems identify high-risk patients.

An Internet-based technique for the identification of persons with symptoms of inflammatory polyarthritis of less than 12 weeks.

Identifying persons with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a major challenge. The role of the Internet in making decisions about seeking care has not been studied. We developed a method for early diagnosis and referral using the Arthritis Foundation's website. A person with less than 3 months of joint pain symptom who has not yet sought medical attention was screened. Prescreened persons are linked to a self-scoring questionnaire and get a "likelihood" of RA statement. If "likely," the person is offered a free evaluation and biomarker testing performed by Quest Diagnostics. The system available only to Massachusetts's residents yielded a small steady flow of screen-positive individuals. Over 21 months, 43,244 persons took the Arthritis Foundation website prescreening questionnaire; 196 were from Massachusetts and 60 took the self-scoring algorithm. Of the 48 who screened positive, 29 set up an appointment for a free evaluation, but six never came in. Twenty-four subjects were evaluated and diagnosed independently by three rheumatologists. One met the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for RA and two met the 2010 ACR/EULAR RA criteria. The 24 examined individuals were contacted at a minimum of 1 year and asked to redo the case-finding questionnaire and asked about their health resource utilization during the interval. Seventeen of the 24 subjects responded, and 10 had seen a health professional. Three of the 17 had a diagnosis of RA; all were on at least methotrexate. Internet case finding was useful in identifying new potential RA cases. The system's performance characteristics are theoretically limited only by the number of study sites available. However, the major barrier may be that seeing a health professional is not a priority for many individuals with early symptoms.

Evaluation of the internet for finding persons with undiagnosed rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.

BACKGROUND: The internet is used by many new rheumatology patients before visiting a health care provider, and is also used for health education, for recruiting study participants, administering surveys, conducting clinical trials, data entry and management of multicenter trials, and providing a forum for patients to share experiences in chat rooms. The internet has not been used for nor evaluated for public health applications. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the internet for early detection and referral of individuals with "typical" early symptoms of undiagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: The websites and selected links identified by search terms of typical symptoms were evaluated for health information quality, readability, and whether or not the sites prioritized possibilities and suggested actions. RESULTS: None of the websites examined were completely suitable for finding undiagnosed persons with early RA or SLE. Although the websites had accurate information, their reading levels were too high for the average reader, and were generally poor in terms of giving a differential diagnosis, prioritizing the possibilities and none provided an algorithm for action. CONCLUSIONS: Internet sites could be enhanced for early detection and referral. The internet has become an important factor in clinical practice and physicians are increasingly explaining or responding to the information that their patients find on the internet. Our study shows that the information available to individuals with undiagnosed RA and SLE is likely to be of little help to them and could delay their seeking appropriate attention.