Practice context affects efforts to improve diabetes care for primary care patients: a pragmatic cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve primary care diabetes management have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients and practices. However, there is substantial variability in how well practices implement interventions and achieve desired outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To examine practice contextual features that moderate intervention effectiveness. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial of three approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care. PARTICIPANTS: Forty small to mid-sized primary care practices participated, with 522 clinician and staff member surveys. Outcomes were assessed for 822 established patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes who had at least one visit to the practice in the 18 months following enrollment. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite measure of diabetes process of care, ascertained by chart audit, regarding nine quality measures from the American Diabetes Association Physician Recognition Program: HgA1c, foot exam, blood pressure, dilated eye exam, cholesterol, nephropathy screen, flu shot, nutrition counseling, and self-management support. Data from practices included structural and demographic characteristics and Practice Culture Assessment survey subscales (Change Culture, Work Culture, Chaos). KEY RESULTS: Across the three implementation approaches, demographic/structural characteristics (rural vs. urban + .70(p = .006), +2.44(p < .001), -.75(p = .004)); Medicaid: < 20 % vs. ≥ 20 % (-.20(p = .48), +.75 (p = .08), +.60(p = .02)); practice size: < 4 clinicians vs. ≥ 4 clinicians (+.56(p = .02), +1.96(p < .001), +.02(p = .91)); practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.86(p = .048), +1.71(p = .005), +.34(p = .22)), Work Culture (high vs. low: -.67(p = .18), +2.41(p < .001), +.67(p = .005)) and variability in practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.24(p = .006), -.20(p = .0771), -.44(p = .0019) and Work Culture (high vs. low: +.56(p = .3160), -1.0(p = .008), -.25 (p = .0216) were associated with trajectories of change in diabetes process of care, either directly or differentially by study arm. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the need for broader use of methodological approaches to better examine contextual effects on implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in primary care settings.

Practice facilitation to improve diabetes care in primary care: a report from the EPIC randomized clinical trial.

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.

Colorado's Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot met numerous obstacles, yet saw results such as reduced hospital admissions.

The Colorado Multipayer Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot, which ran from May 2009 through April 2012, was one of the first voluntary multipayer medical home pilot projects in the country. Six health plans, the state's high-risk pool carrier, and sixteen family or internal medicine practices with approximately 100,000 patients participated. Although a full analysis is currently under way, preliminary results show that the pilot significantly reduced emergency department visits and also reduced hospital admissions, particularly for patients with multiple chronic conditions. One payer reported a return on its investment of 250-400 percent in the pilot. However, participants also ran into numerous obstacles. Among them: Many practices were left providing extra services to a large fraction of patients whose employer-sponsored insurance plans declined to pay the enhanced fees necessary to cover the cost of the patient-centered medical home expansion. The experience demonstrates that creating patient-centered medical homes and enabling them to be successful will take strong commitments and collaborative efforts on multiple fronts.

Using information technology to improve adult immunization delivery in an integrated urban health system.

BACKGROUND: Adult immunizations prevent morbidity and mortality yet coverage remains suboptimal, in part due to missed opportunities. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can improve immunization rates when integrated into routine work flow, implemented wherever care is delivered, and used by staff who can act on the recommendation. METHODS: An adult immunization improvement project was undertaken in a large integrated, safety-net health care system. A CDSS was developed to query patient records and identify patients eligible for pneumococcal, influenza, or tetanus immunization and then generate a statement that recommends immunization or indicates a previous refusal. A new agency policy authorized medical assistants and nurses in clinics, and nurses in the hospital, to use the CDSS as a standing order. Immunization delivery work flow was standardized, and staff received feedback on immunization rates. RESULTS: The CDSS identified more patients than a typical paper standing order and can be easily modified to incorporate changes in vaccine indications. The intervention led to a 10% improvement in immunization rates in adults 65 years of age or older and in younger adults with diabetes or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Overall, the improvements were sustained beyond the project period. The CDSS was expanded to encompass additional vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Interdepartmental collaboration was critical to identify needs, challenges, and solutions. Implementing the standing order policy in clinics and the hospital usually allowed immunizations to be taken out of the hands of clinicians. As an on-demand tool, CDSS must be used at each patient encounter to avoid missed opportunities. Staff retraining accompanied by ongoing assessment of immunization rates, work flow, and missed opportunities to immunize patients are critical to sustain and enhance improvements.

State consensus guideline for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care settings.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States and is often attributable to poorly controlled yet modifiable risk factors. All national guidelines strongly recommend performing global CVD risk assessments to inform therapeutic intensity, but only a minority of clinicians regularly quantitate their patient's CVD risk. Not surprisingly, many patients are not at goal with regard to blood pressure, lipids, and the appropriate receipt of antiplatelet therapy. Given this background, the Colorado Clinical Guidelines Committee partnered with the Colorado Prevention Center to craft a simple algorithm for CVD risk reduction that emphasizes risk quantification and aggressive treatment for established CVD. The Colorado Clinical Guidelines Committee assembled a multidisciplinary team of health professionals with the goal of creating a comprehensive primary and secondary prevention framework that targets primary care physicians. We described the rationale, methods, and ultimate deployment of this guideline statewide in Colorado and hope this process may be a resource to other states interested in harmonizing a public health approach to CVD risk reduction.