Search

Purpose: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance.Methods: Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach.Results: Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76).Conclusions: Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little attention has been paid to quality improvement (QI) capacity within smaller primary care practices which comprise nearly half of all primary care settings. Strategies for external support to build such capacity include practice facilitation (PF), shared learning opportunities, and educational outreach. Although PF has proven effectiveness, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of combining these strategies. Here, we describe the protocol of the "Healthy Hearts Northwest" (H2N) study, a randomized trial designed to address these questions while improving risk factors for cardiovascular disease.Methods/design: The targeted enrollment is 250 smaller primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The study is utilizing a two-by-two factorial design to assess four different combinations of practice support: PF alone, PF with educational outreach, PF with shared learning opportunities, or PF with both. A mixed methods approach is being used for evaluation and will include data from (1) baseline and follow-up practice and staff surveys; (2) baseline and quarterly clinical performance measurement from each practice on four cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, lipid management and smoking cessation support; and (3) a quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey used by external practice facilitators to guide improvement efforts.Discussion: Results from this study will inform future large-scale practice improvement initiatives by providing comparisons of promising external practice support strategies and advance our understanding of how to build QI capacity in primary care.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02839382. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined. Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p ' s < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses. Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions. • Patients with substance use disorder were seen more by providers in primary care. • Patients with substance use disorder received more opioid prescriptions. • Chronic condition outcomes did not differ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Creating useful clinical quality measure (CQM) reports in a busy primary care practice is known to depend on the capability of the electronic health record (EHR). Two other domains may also contribute: supportive leadership to prioritize the work and commit the necessary resources, and individuals with the necessary health information technology (IT) skills to do so. Here we describe the results of an assessment of the above 3 domains and their associations with successful CQM reporting during an initiative to improve smaller primary care practices' cardiovascular disease CQMs., Methods: The study took place within an AHRQ EvidenceNOW initiative of external support for smaller practices across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Practice facilitators who provided this support completed an assessment of the 3 domains previously described for each of their assigned practices. Practices submitted 3 CQMs to the study team: appropriate aspirin prescribing, use of statins when indicated, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation., Results: Practices with advanced EHR reporting capability were more likely to report 2 or more CQMs. Only one-third of practices were "advanced" in this domain, and this domain had the highest proportion of practices (39.1%) assessed as "basic." The presence of advanced leadership or advanced skills did not appreciably increase the proportion of practices that reported 2 or more CQMs., Conclusions: Our findings support previous reports of limited EHR reporting capabilities within smaller practices but extend these findings by demonstrating that practices with advanced capabilities in this domain are more likely to produce CQM reports., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2024 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: An estimated 2.4 million people in the United States live with hepatitis C. Though there are effective treatments for chronic hepatitis C, many infected individuals remain untreated because 40% to 50% of individuals with chronic hepatitis C are unaware of their hepatitis C status. In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that adults born between 1945 and 1965 should be offered one-time hepatitis C screening. The purpose of this study is to describe rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening across primary care practices in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). Methods: Cross-sectional observational study of adult patients born between 1945 and 1965 who also had a primary care visit at 1 of 9 participating health systems (22 primary care clinics) between July 31, 2013 and September 30, 2015. Data extracted from the electronic health record systems at each clinic were used to calculate the proportion of birth cohort eligible patients with evidence of hepatitis C screening as well as proportions of screened patients with positive hepatitis C screening test results. Results: Of the 32 139 eligible patients, only 10.9% had evidence of hepatitis C screening in the electronic health record data (range 1.2%-49.1% across organizations). Among the 4 WPRN sites that were able to report data by race and ethnicity, the rate of hepatitis C screening was higher among African Americans (39.9%) and American Indians/Alaska Natives (23.2%) compared with Caucasians (10.7%; P < .001). Discussion: Rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening are low in primary care practices. Future research to develop and test interventions to increase rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening in primary care settings are needed.

Introduction: The Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring trial (e-BP) demonstrated that team care incorporating a pharmacist to manage hypertension using secure E-mail with patients resulted in almost twice the rate of blood pressure (BP) control compared with usual care. To translate e-BP into community practices, we sought to identify contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation., Methods: Interviews were conducted with medical providers, staff, pharmacists, and patients associated with community-based primary care clinics whose physician leaders had expressed interest in implementing e-BP. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative template analysis, incorporating codes derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)., Results: Barriers included incorporating an unfamiliar pharmacist into the health care team, lack of information technology resources, and provider resistance to using a single BP management protocol. Facilitators included the intervention's perceived potential to improve quality of care, empower patients, and save staff time. Sustainability of the intervention emerged as an overarching theme., Conclusion: A qualitative approach to planning for translation is recommended to gain an understanding of contexts and to collaborate to adapt interventions through iterative, bidirectional information gathering. Interviewees affirmed that web pharmacist care offers small primary care practices a means to expand their workforce and provide patient-centered care. Reproducing e-BP in these practices will be challenging, but our interviewees expressed eagerness to try and were optimistic that a tailored intervention could succeed.

Background: Most physicians report routinely recommending colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but many eligible patients are not screened. To better understand this finding, we explored the relationship between the content of hypothetical patient-physician CRC screening discussions and CRC screening rates in physicians' practices., Methods: Semistructured interviews, including role-playing, with 24 primary care physicians explored their CRC screening approach with average-risk patients. Qualitative analysis examined physician-reported components of the CRC screening discussion, then compared findings between physicians with high (≥60%, n = 16) and low (≤45%, n = 8) CRC screening rates (based on HEDIS criteria). We conducted no statistical tests because of the small sample size and its exploratory aims., Results: High screeners used dramatic language (eg, patient stories) and mentioned risk of death, disability, or surgery from CRC in screening discussion role-plays more often than low screeners. High screeners frequently offered fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy as equally acceptable screening options. High screeners more commonly described solutions for overcoming CRC screening barriers., Conclusions: Encouraging providers to use risk-specific messaging about the consequences of CRC, offering screening option choices, and promoting a problem-solving approach to surmount barriers are potential strategies for increasing CRC screening rates.