RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Health disparities are a growing concern. Recently, we conducted a practice-based trial to help primary care physicians improve adherence with 21 quality indicators relevant to the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke. Although the primary concern in that study was whether patients in intervention practices outperformed those in control practices, we were also interested in determining whether minority patients were more, less, or just as likely to benefit from the intervention as non-minorities. METHODS: Baseline (fourth quarter 2000) and follow-up (fourth quarter 2002) data were obtained from 3 intervention practices believed to have at least 10% minority representation. Two practices had a black (non-Hispanic) population sufficient for analysis, while the other had a sufficient Hispanic population. Within each practice, changes in the 21 indicators were compared between the minority patient population and the entire patient population. The proportion of measures in which minority patients exhibited greater improvement was calculated for each practice and for all 3 practices combined, and comparisons were made using non-parametric methods. RESULTS: For all black patients, the observed improvement in 50% of 22 eligible study indicators was better than that observed among all white patients in the same practices. The average changes in the study indicators observed among the black and white patients were not significantly different (p = 0.300) from one another. Likewise for all minority patients in all 3 practices combined, the observed improvement in 14 of 29 (43.3%) eligible study indicators was better than that observed among all white patients. The average changes in the study indicators among all minority patients were not significantly different from the changes observed among the white patients (p = 0.272). CONCLUSIONS: Among 3 intervention practices involved in a quality improvement project, there did not appear to be any significant disparity between minority and non-minority patients in the improvement in study indicators.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Research is needed to validate effective and practical strategies for improving the provision of evidence-based medicine in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multimethod quality improvement intervention was more effective than a less intensive intervention for improving adherence to 21 quality indicators for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke. DESIGN: 2-year randomized, controlled clinical trial with the practice as the unit of randomization. SETTING: 20 community-based family or general internal medicine practices in 14 states. All used the same electronic medical record. PARTICIPANTS: 44 physicians, 17 midlevel providers, and approximately 200 staff members; data from the electronic medical records of 87,291 patients. INTERVENTIONS: All practices received copies of practice guidelines and quarterly performance reports. Intervention practices also hosted quarterly site visits to help them adopt quality improvement approaches and participated in 2 network meetings to share "best practice" approaches. MEASUREMENTS: The percentage of indicators at or above predefined targets and the percentage of patients who had achieved each clinical indicator. RESULTS: Intervention practices improved 22.4 percentage points (from 11.3% to 33.7%) in the percentage of indicators at or above the target; control practices improved 16.4 percentage points (from 6.3% to 22.7%). The 6.0-percentage point absolute difference between the intervention and control group was not statistically significant (P > 0.2). Patients in intervention practices had greater improvements than those in control practices for diagnoses of hypertension (improvement difference, 15.7 percentage points [95% CI, 5.2 to 26.3 percentage points]) and blood pressure control in patients with hypertension (improvement difference, 8.0 percentage points [CI, 0.0 to 16.0 percentage points]). LIMITATIONS: The study involved a small number of practices and lacked a pure control group. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices that use electronic medical records and receive regular performance reports can improve their adherence to clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease and stroke prevention.
