Measuring the range of services clinicians are responsible for in ambulatory practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: At present, the range of services delivered in a health system is not known. Currently there are no accepted methods for defining the scope of ambulatory care. Therefore we used data from the electronic medical record and billing system of a large non-profit multi-specialty group practice to measure the number of different diagnoses that clinicians managed as well as the number of different medications, laboratory tests, imaging studies, referrals and procedures ordered. METHODS: All patient encounters and clinicians in the group practice in 2008 were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Data were analysed cumulatively for the practice and by specialty. Quantile regression models were used to adjust for differences in full-time equivalents (FTE) among physicians at the practice. RESULTS: In one year for this practice, with 324,229 patients who made 3,193,917 office visits to 578 physicians and 248 other clinicians, patients presented with 5638 primary and 6411 secondary diagnoses. Overall, patient management resulted in unique orders for 9481 medications, 1182 laboratory tests, 613 referrals, 284 imaging studies and 1701 procedures. After adjusting for FTE, physicians managed a median of 249 primary diagnoses and 347 secondary diagnoses. They ordered a median of 278 medications, 128 laboratory tests, 51 referrals, 29 imaging studies and 39 procedures. CONCLUSION: Physicians routinely manage a substantial variety of diagnoses, medications, and other tests and procedures. Quality improvement and health services researchers have generally focused on individual services but also must consider the wide variety and range of services delivered.

Electronic risk alerts to improve primary care management of chest pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary care evaluation of chest pain represents a significant diagnostic challenge. OBJECTIVE: To determine if electronic alerts to physicians can improve the quality and safety of chest pain evaluations. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, controlled trial conducted between November 2008 and January 2010 among 292 primary care clinicians caring for 7,083 adult patients with chest pain and no history of cardiovascular disease. INTERVENTION: Clinicians received alerts within the electronic health record during office visits for chest pain. One alert recommended performance of an electrocardiogram and administration of aspirin for high risk patients (Framingham Risk Score (FRS) ≥ 10%), and a second alert recommended against performance of cardiac stress testing for low risk patients (FRS < 10%). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes included performance of an electrocardiogram and administration of aspirin therapy for high risk patients; and avoidance of cardiac stress testing for low risk patients. KEY RESULTS: The majority (81%) of patients with chest pain were classified as low risk. High risk patients were more likely than low risk patients to be evaluated in the emergency department (11% versus 5%, p < 0.01) and to be hospitalized (7% versus 3%, p < 0.01). Acute myocardial infarction occurred among 26 (0.4%) patients, more commonly among high risk compared to low risk patients (1.1% versus 0.2%, p < 0.01). Among high risk patients, there was no difference between the intervention and control groups in rates of performing electrocardiograms (51% versus 48%, p = 0.33) or administering aspirin (20% versus 18%, p = 0.43). Among low risk patients, there was no difference between intervention and control groups in rates of cardiac stress testing (10% versus 9%, p = 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care management of chest pain is suboptimal for both high and low risk patients. Electronic alerts do not increase risk-appropriate care for these patients.

Cultural competency training and performance reports to improve diabetes care for black patients: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing clinician awareness of racial disparities and improving communication may enhance diabetes care among black patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of cultural competency training and performance feedback for primary care clinicians on diabetes care for black patients. DESIGN: Cluster randomized, controlled trial conducted between June 2007 and May 2008. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00436176) SETTING: 8 ambulatory health centers in eastern Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: 124 primary care clinicians caring for 2699 (36%) black and 4858 (64%) white diabetic patients. INTERVENTION: INTERVENTION clinicians received cultural competency training and monthly race-stratified performance reports that highlighted racial differences in control of hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and blood pressure. MEASUREMENTS: Clinician awareness of racial differences in diabetes care and rates of achieving clinical control targets among black patients at 12 months. RESULTS: White and black patients differed significantly in baseline rates of achieving an HbA(1c) level less than 7% (46% vs. 40%), an LDL cholesterol level less than 2.59 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) (55% vs. 43%), and blood pressure less than 130/80 mm Hg (32% vs. 24%) (all P < 0.050). At study completion, intervention clinicians were significantly more likely than control clinicians to acknowledge the presence of racial disparities in the 8 health centers as a whole (82% vs. 59%; P = 0.003), within their local health center (70% vs. 51%; P = 0.020), and among their own patients (63% vs. 43%; P = 0.037). Black patients of clinicians in the intervention and control groups did not differ at 12 months in rates of controlling HbA(1c) level (48% vs. 45%; P = 0.24), LDL cholesterol level (48% vs. 49%; P = 0.40), or blood pressure (23% vs. 25%; P = 0.47). LIMITATION: 11% of primary care teams did not attend cultural competency training sessions. CONCLUSION: The combination of cultural competency training and race-stratified performance reports increased clinician awareness of racial disparities in diabetes care but did not improve clinical outcomes among black patients.