Search

PURPOSE We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease. METHODS A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs--appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control ( RESULTS Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P CONCLUSIONS Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months. Key words: practice facilitation; high-leverage change; quality improvement; cardiovascular disease; risk factors; preventive medicine; evidence-based practice; clinical quality measure; Healthy Hearts Northwest study; EvidenceNOW; AHRQ; organizational innovation, INTRODUCTION Primary care practices in the United States are in a period of transition, with considerable pressure from payers and policy makers to improve quality of care and reduce costs. [...]

Community health workers have potential to enhance primary care access and quality, but remain underutilized. To provide guidance on their integration, we characterized roles and functions of community health workers in primary care through a literature review and synthesis. Analysis of 30 studies identified 12 functions (ie, care coordination, health coaching, social support, health assessment, resource linking, case management, medication management, remote care, follow-up, administration, health education, and literacy support) and 3 prominent roles representing clusters of functions: clinical services, community resource connections, and health education and coaching. We discuss implications for community health worker training and clinical support in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research which examines the effort of the Group Health Cooperative to spread a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) redesign to its clinics in the U.S. It determines the degree to which Group Health was able to replicate some of the changes in health care use. It reveals that patients empanelled to the clinics had 5.1% and 6.7% declines in primary care office visits in early and later stabilization years, respectively, following the implementation year.

The article presents a study which examines the openness between patients and clinicians to including a broader range of healing options into primary care. The study analyzed the focus group discussions with primary care patients and clinicians in 2008 using an immersion/crystallization approach. Results reveal that both patients and clinicians were open to including a wider variety of healing options and were concerned that services recommended be covered by insurance.

The article reports on the case study concerning the significance of reassigning patients for the medical home. Patients who are retained by their physician gain preexisting patient-doctor relationships. The reassigned patients are probably like to use the emerge department. Details on the methods, reassignment process, and study population are discussed.

Purpose: We aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors.Methods: Fourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context.Results: The most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context.Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]