Measuring Primary Care Across 35 OECD Countries.

PURPOSE: To examine the psychometric properties and scores of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) in 28 languages and 35 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. METHODS: Using a paid online sampling service, we requested age- and sex-representative samples of 360 adults in each country. We administered the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure-a previously validated 11-item, patient-reported measure that was developed using what patients and clinicians said is most important about primary care. We also assessed construct validity through associations with demographics, the Patient-Enablement Instrument, number of years the person had been with their primary care physician and practice, whether the patient thought the doctor knowing the results would improve their care, and whether it was hard to complete the survey. We assessed the psychometric properties of the PCPCM in each country and report the summative and item-specific PCPCM scores for each country. RESULTS: The PCPCM exhibited solid psychometric properties across all languages and countries, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.88 to 0.95, and corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.47 to 0.81, with the vast majority of countries ranging from the low 0.50s to the high 0.70s. Multiple analyses showed strong evidence of concurrent validity. With a potential range from a low of 1 to a high of 4, the overall mean score was 2.74, with a standard deviation of 0.19. Mean PCPCM scores ranged from the lowest in Sweden (2.28) to the highest in Turkey (3.08), with Germany ranking second (3.01), and the United States third (2.99). CONCLUSION: The internal consistency and concurrent validity of the PCPCM across multiple countries provides strong evidence of the coherence of the breadth of primary care functions that patients and clinicians say are important. The diversity of total and item-specific scores across countries provokes interesting hypotheses about the influence of each different country's policies, practices, demographics, and culture on primary care, and provides a strong impetus for further ecological and individual data analyses using the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure. Annals "Online First" article.

A New Comprehensive Measure of High-Value Aspects of Primary Care.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a concise measure of primary care that is grounded in the experience of patients, clinicians, and health care payers. METHODS: We asked crowd-sourced samples of 412 patients, 525 primary care clinicians, and 85 health care payers to describe what provides value in primary care, then asked 70 primary care and health services experts in a 2½ day international conference to provide additional insights. A multidisciplinary team conducted a qualitative analysis of the combined data to develop a parsimonious set of patient-reported items. We evaluated items using factor analysis, Rasch modeling, and association analyses among 2 online samples and 4 clinical samples from diverse patient populations. RESULTS: The resulting person-centered primary care measure parsimoniously represents the broad scope of primary care, with 11 domains each represented by a single item: accessibility, advocacy, community context, comprehensiveness, continuity, coordination, family context, goal-oriented care, health promotion, integration, and relationship. Principal axes factor analysis identified a single factor. Factor loadings and corrected item-total correlations were >0.6 in online samples (n = 2,229) and >0.5 in clinical samples (n = 323). Factor scores were fairly normally distributed in online patient samples, and skewed toward higher ratings in point-of-care patient samples. Rasch models showed a broad spread of person and item scores, acceptable item-fit statistics, and little item redundancy. Preliminary concurrent validity analyses supported hypothesized associations. CONCLUSIONS: The person-centered primary care measure reliably, comprehensively, and parsimoniously assesses the aspects of care thought to represent high-value primary care by patients, clinicians, and payers. The measure is ready for further validation and outcome analyses, and for use in focusing attention on what matters about primary care, while reducing measurement burden.

Low-Intensity Intervention Supports Diabetes Registry Implementation: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in the Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN).

BACKGROUND: Previous research demonstrated that registries are effective for improving clinical guideline adherence for the care of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, registry implementation has typically relied on intensive support (such as practice facilitators) for practice change and care improvement. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a remotely delivered, low-intensity organizational change intervention supports implementation and use of diabetes registries in primary care. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness trial of providing limited external support leveraging internal practice resources and problem-solving capacities for driving diabetes registry implementation in 32 practices in Virginia. INTERVENTION: All practices identified local implementation champions who participated in an in-person education session on the value and use of diabetes registries, while intervention practices were also paired with peer mentors and had access to a physician informaticist, who worked remotely to assist practices with implementation. MAIN MEASURES: Practice champions reported progress on registry implementation milestone achievement, and reported practice-level organizational capacity by using a modified version of the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). KEY RESULTS: Intervention practices were significantly more likely to have implemented a registry (44% vs 6%, P = .04) and to have achieved more implementation milestones (5.5 vs 2.6, P < .0001) than control practices. Baseline ACIC scores indicated room for organizational improvement with regard to chronic illness care (overall median, 6.4; range, 3.8 to 10.8) and clinical information systems use (median, 6.0; range, 0 to 11) with no significant differences between intervention and control practices. CONCLUSIONS: Remotely provided guidance paired with limited in-person assistance can support rapid implementation of diabetes registries in typical primary care practices.