Search

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate a primary care practice–based quality improvement (QI) intervention aimed at improving colorectal cancer screening rates. METHODS The Supporting Colorectal Cancer Outcomes through Participatory Enhancements (SCOPE) study was a cluster randomized trial of New Jersey primary care practices. On-site facilitation and learning collaboratives were used to engage multiple stakeholders throughout the change process to identify and implement strategies to enhance colorectal cancer screening. Practices were analyzed using quantitative (medical records, surveys) and qualitative data (observations, interviews, and audio recordings) at baseline and a 12-month follow-up. RESULTS Comparing intervention and control arms of the 23 participating practices did not yield statistically significant improvements in patients’ colorectal cancer screening rates. Qualitative analyses provide insights into practices’ QI implementation, including associations between how well leaders fostered team development and the extent to which team members felt psychologically safe. Successful QI implementation did not always translate into improved screening rates. CONCLUSIONS Although single-target, incremental QI interventions can be effective, practice transformation requires enhanced organizational learning and change capacities. The SCOPE model of QI may not be an optimal strategy if short-term guideline concordant numerical gains are the goal. Advancing the knowledge base of QI interventions requires future reports to address how and why QI interventions work rather than simply measuring whether they work.

Background: The Chronic Care Model (CCM) was developed to improve chronic disease care, but it may also inform delivery of other types of preventive care. Using hierarchical analyses of service delivery to patients, we explored associations of CCM implementation with diabetes care and counseling for diet or weight loss and physical activity in community-based primary care offices. Methods: Secondary analysis focused on baseline data from 25 practices (with an average of 4 physicians per practice) participating in an intervention trial targeting improved colorectal cancer screening rates. This intervention made no reference to the CCM. CCM implementation was measured through staff and clinical management surveys and was associated with patient care indicators (chart audits and patient questionnaires). Results: Overall, practices had low levels of CCM implementation. However, higher levels of CCM implementation were associated with better diabetes assessment and treatment of patients (P = .009 and .015, respectively), particularly among practices open to “innovation.” Physical activity counseling for obese and, particularly, overweight patients was strongly associated with CCM implementation (P = .0017), particularly among practices open to “innovation”; however, this association did not hold for overweight and obese patients with diabetes. Conclusions: Very modest levels of CCM implementation in unsupported primary care practices are associated with improved care for patients with diabetes and higher rates of behavioral counseling. Incremental incorporation of CCM components is an option, especially for community practices with stretched resources and with cultures of “innovativeness.”

The adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) in ambulatory settings has been widely recommended. It is hoped that EMRs will improve care; however, little is known about the effect of EMR use on care quality in this setting. This study compares EMR versus paper medical record documentation of basic health history and preventive service indicators in 47 community-based practices. Differences in practice-level documentation rates between practices that did and did not use an EMR were examined using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test and robust regression, adjusting for practice-level covariates. Frequency of documentation of health history and preventive service indicator items were similar in the 2 groups of practices. Although EMRs provide the capacity for more robust record keeping, the community-based practices here do not use EMRs to their full capacity. EMR usage does not guarantee more systematic record keeping and thus may not lead to improved quality in the community practice setting.

PURPOSE The Using Learning Teams for Reflective Adaptation (ULTRA) study used facilitated reflective adaptive process (RAP) teams to enhance communication and decision making in hopes of improving adherence to multiple clinical guidelines; however, the study failed to show significant clinical improvements. The purpose of this study was to examine qualitative data from 25 intervention practices to understand how they engaged in a team-based collaborative change management strategy and the types of issues they addressed. METHODS We analyzed field notes and interviews from a multimethod practice assessment, as well as field notes and audio-taped recordings from RAP meetings, using an iterative group process and an immersion-crystallization approach. RESULTS Despite a history of not meeting regularly, 18 of 25 practices successfully convened improvement teams. There was evidence of improved practice-wide communication in 12 of these practices. At follow-up, 8 practices continued RAP meetings and found the process valuable in problem solving and decision making. Seven practices failed to engage in RAP primarily because of key leaders dominating the meeting agenda or staff members hesitating to speak up in meetings. Although the number of improvement targets varied considerably, most RAP teams targeted patient care-related issues or practice-level organizational improvement issues. Not a single practice focused on adherence to clinical care guidelines. CONCLUSION Primary care practices can successfully engage in facilitated team meetings; however, leaders must be engaged in the process. Additional strategies are needed to engage practice leaders, particularly physicians, and to target issues related to guideline adherence.

Extremely obese women are less likely than nonobese women to receive breast and cervical cancer screening examinations. Reasons for this disparity are unclear and may stem from patient and/or physician barriers. This sequential mixed-methods study used individual in-depth interviews of 15 family physicians followed by a mail survey of 255 family physicians (53% response rate) to understand the barriers they faced in performing cancer screening examinations in extremely obese women. Barriers fell into three main areas: (i) difficulty doing pelvic and breast exams; (ii) inadequate equipment; and (iii) challenges overcoming patient barriers and refusal. This led some physicians to avoid performing breast and pelvic examinations on extremely obese women. Having more knowledge about specific examination techniques was associated with less difficulty in palpating lumps on breast and pelvic examinations (P < 0.005). Physicians perceived that embarrassment, aversion to undressing, and avoidance of discussions related to their weight were the most frequent barriers extremely obese women had with getting physical examinations. Educating and/or motivating patients and addressing fears were strategies used most frequently when patients refused mammograms or Pap smears. Interventions focusing on physician barriers, such as educating them on specific examination techniques, obtaining adequate equipment and supplies, and providing resources to assist physicians in dealing with patient barriers and refusal, may be fruitful in increasing cancer screening rates in extremely obese patients. Future research studies testing the effectiveness of these strategies are needed to improve cancer outcomes in this high-risk population.