Search

Background: Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known. Objective: To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes. Design: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. Participants: A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices. Interventions: Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors). Main measures: Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models. Key Results: Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (− 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (− 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p =.04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p =.03). There were no other differences between conditions. Conclusions: Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order. NIH trial registry number: NCT03590041. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To fill the gap in knowledge on systematic differences between primary care practices (PCP) that do or do not provide intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) for obese Medicare patients. Methods: A mixed modality survey (paper and online) of primary care practices obtained from a random sample of Medicare databases and a convenience sample of practice-based research network practices. Key Results: A total of 287 practices responded to the survey, including 140 (7.4% response rate) from the random sample and 147 (response rate not estimable) from the convenience sample. We found differences between the IBT-using and non-using practices in practice ownership, patient populations, and participation in Accountable Care Organizations. The non-IBT-using practices, though not billing for IBT, did offer some other assistance with obesity for their patients. Among those who had billed for IBT, but stopped billing, the most commonly cited reason was billing difficulties. Many providers experienced denied claims due to billing complexities. Conclusions: Although the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established payment codes for PCPs to deliver IBT for obesity in 2011, very few providers submitted fee-for-service claims for these services after almost 10 years. A survey completed by both a random and convenience sample of practices using and not using IBT for obesity payment codes revealed that billing for these services was problematic, and many providers that began using the codes discontinued using them over the past 7 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity is of epidemic proportion in the USA but most people with obesity do not receive treatment. Objective: To explore the experience of providing obesity management among primary care clinicians and their team members involved with weight loss in primary care practices. The study's focus was on examining the use of the Medicare payment code for intensive behavioral therapy for obesity (IBT), but other obesity management services and payment mechanisms were also studied. Design/Participants: We conducted 85 interviews of clinicians (physician, advanced practice clinicians, registered dietitian, or other) practicing in primary care practices. Interviews gathered information about treatment approach to obesity, barriers, and facilitators to providing obesity care including the handling of billing and reimbursement (especially use of the IBT code), personal beliefs about the appropriateness of primary care providing weight loss services, and recommendations for improving weight management in primary care practice. The analysis was conducted using a grounded theory hermeneutic editing approach and the constant comparative method. Key Results: Seventy-five interviews were included in this analysis. We identified three primary themes: (1) clinicians and staff involved in obesity management in primary care believe that addressing obesity is an essential part of primary care services, (2) because providing obesity care can be challenging, many practices opt out of treatment, and (3) despite the challenges, many clinicians and others find treating obesity feasible, satisfying, and worthwhile. Conclusions: Treating obesity in primary care settings poses several challenges but can also be very satisfying and rewarding. To improve the ability of clinicians and practice members to treat obesity, important changes in payment, education, and work processes are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The real world implementation of chronic care management model varies greatly. One aspect of this variation is the delivery mode. Two contrasting strategies include provider-delivered care management (PDCM) and health plan-delivered care management (HPDCM).Objective: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of PDCM vs. HPDCM on improving clinical outcomes for patients with chronic diseases.Design: We used a quasi-experimental two-group pre-post design using the difference-in-differences method.Patients: Commercially insured patients, with any of the five chronic diseases-congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or asthma, who were outreached to and engaged in either PDCM or HPDCM were included in the study.Main Measures: Outreached patients were those who received an attempted or actual contact for enrollment in care management; and engaged patients were those who had one or more care management sessions/encounters with a care manager. Effectiveness measures included blood pressure, low density lipoprotein (LDL), weight loss, and hemoglobin A1c (for diabetic patients only). Primary endpoints were evaluated in the first year of follow-up.Key Results: A total of 4,000 patients were clustered in 165 practices (31 in PDCM and 134 in HPDCM). The PDCM approach demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the proportion of outreached patients whose LDL was under control: the proportion of patients with LDL < 100 mg/dL increased by 3 % for the PDCM group (95 % CI: 1 % to 6 %) and 1 % for the HPDCM group (95 % CI: -2 % to 5 %). However, the 2 % difference in these improvements was not statistically significant (95 % CI: -2 % to 6 %). The HPDCM approach showed 3 % [95 % CI: 2 % to 6 %] improvement in overall diabetes care among outreached patients and significant reduction in obesity rates compared to PDCM (4 %, 95 % CI: 0.3 % to 8 %).Conclusions: Both care management delivery modes may be viable options for improving care for patients with chronic diseases. In this commercially insured population, neither PDCM nor HPDCM resulted in substantial improvement in patients' clinical indicators in the first year. Different care management strategies within the provider-delivered programs need further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care management and care managers are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care medical practice as a means of improving population health and reducing unnecessary care. Care managers are often involved in chronic disease management and associated transitional care. In this study, we examined the communication regarding chronic disease care within 24 primary care practices in Michigan and Colorado. We sought to answer the following questions: Do care managers play a key role in chronic disease management in the practice? Does the prominence of the care manager's connectivity within the practice's communication network vary by the type of care management structure implemented?Methods: Individual written surveys were given to all practice members in the participating practices. Survey questions assessed demographics as well as practice culture, quality improvement, care management activities, and communication regarding chronic disease care. Using social network analysis and other statistical methods, we analyzed the communication dynamics related to chronic disease care for each practice.Results: The structure of chronic disease communication varies greatly from practice to practice. Care managers who were embedded in the practice or co-located were more likely to be in the core of the communication network than were off-site care managers. These care managers also had higher in-degree centrality, indicating that they acted as a hub for communication with team members in many other roles.Discussion: Social network analysis provided a useful means of examining chronic disease communication in practice, and highlighted the central role of care managers in this communication when their role structure supported such communication. Structuring care managers as embedded team members within the practice has important implications for their role in chronic disease communication within primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Telephone counseling in chronic disease self-management is increasing, but has not been tested in studies that control for quality of medical care.Objective: To test the effectiveness of a six-session outpatient telephone-based counseling intervention to improve secondary prevention (behaviors, medication) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following discharge from hospital, and impact on physical functioning and quality of life at 8 months post-discharge.Design: Patient-level randomized trial of hospital quality improvement (QI-only) versus quality improvement plus brief telephone coaching in three months post-hospitalization (QI-plus).Data: medical record, state vital records, patient surveys (baseline, three and eight months post-hospitalization).Analysis: pooled-time series generalized estimating equations to analyze repeated measures; intention-to-treat analysis.Participants: Seven hundred and nineteen patients admitted to one of five hospitals in two contiguous mid-Michigan communities enrolled; 525 completed baseline surveys.Measurements: We measured secondary prevention behaviors, physical functioning, and quality of life.Results: QI-plus patients showed higher self-reported physical activity (OR = 1.53; p = .01) during the first three months, with decline after active intervention was withdrawn. Smoking cessation and medication use were not different at 3 or 8 months; functional status and quality of life were not different at 8 months.Conclusions: Telephone coaching post-hospitalization for ACS was modestly effective in accomplishing short-term, but not long-term life-style behavior change. Previous positive results shown in primary care did not transfer to free-standing telephone counseling as an adjunct to care following hospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]