Search

BACKGROUND Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is recommended when making a new hypertension diagnosis. In practice, however, hypertension is primarily diagnosed using clinic BP. The study objective was to understand patient attitudes about accuracy and patient-centeredness regarding hypertension diagnostic methods. METHODS Qualitative study within a randomized controlled diagnostic study conducted between May 2017 and March 2019 comparing the accuracy and acceptability of BP measurement methods among patients in an integrated healthcare delivery system. All participants completed 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), plus either clinic BP, home BP monitoring (HBPM), or kiosk BP diagnostic testing. Qualitative interviewees (aged 31–76 years, n  = 35) were recruited from the main study. RESULTS Participants who completed HBPM found it to be comfortable and low burden, and believed it produced accurate results. Participants in the clinic arm described clinic measurements as inconvenient. Participants in the kiosk arm overall did not favor kiosks due to concerns about accuracy and privacy. Participants described ABPM as the most accurate method due to repeated measurements over the 24-hour period in real-world contexts, but many found it uncomfortable and disruptive. Participants also noted methods that involved repeated measures such as HBPM and ABPM particularly influenced their understanding of whether or not they had hypertension. CONCLUSIONS Hypertension diagnostic methods that include more BP measurements help patients gain a deeper understanding of BP variability and the lower reliability of infrequent measurements in the clinic. These findings warrant implementing strategies to enhance out-of-office BP diagnostic testing in primary care. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION Trial number NCT03130257. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [...]

PurposeWe aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors.MethodsFourteen 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThese 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.

Objectives Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) affects hundreds of thousands of women each year. Many require medications to manage their blood glucose levels. Only insulin is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy. While other medications can be used, their safety remains controversial. Few studies have examined women's lived experience of using insulin for GDM. Our objective in this study was to foreground the voices of women speaking about their treatment experience. Methods We conducted two focus groups including 16 women treated for GDM with medications, primarily insulin. Topics included women's experiences with GDM diagnosis and treatment including concerns about risks and benefits of treatments. Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive coding approach. Results Many women had negative experiences with insulin use, such as feeling that they had no voice in treatment decisions, and received inadequate information about insulin, including about the impact it would have on their daily lives. Many continued to have difficulty managing their blood sugar once on insulin, and they worried about the short term and long term health effects of insulin on themselves and their babies. They wanted more information about non-insulin treatment options as well as more social support. Conclusion In our sample of women with GDM, insulin treatment resulted in negative experiences with emotional and experiential impacts lasting beyond pregnancy. There is a need for more research on other medications for GDM, so that women can have access to more treatment options and better information to guide their choices., Author(s): Marlaine Figueroa Gray [sup.1] , Clarissa Hsu [sup.1] , Linda Kiel [sup.1] , Sascha Dublin [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) Group Health Research Institute, 0000 0004 0463 5476, grid.280243.f, , [...]

Purpose: To assess the impact on health care cost and quality among seniors of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) pilot at Group Health Cooperative, an integrated health care system in Washington State. Design and Methods: A prospective before-and-after evaluation of the experience of seniors receiving primary care services at 1 pilot clinic compared with seniors enrolled at the remaining 19 primary care clinics owned and operated by Group Health. Analyses of secondary data on quality and cost were conducted for 1,947 seniors in the PCMH clinic and 39,396 seniors in the 19 control clinics. Patient experience with care was based on survey data collected from 487 seniors in the PCMH clinic and of 668 in 2 specific control clinics that were selected for their similarities in organization and patient composition to the pilot clinic. Results: After adjusting for baseline, seniors in the PCMH clinic reported higher ratings than controls on 3 of 7 patient experience scales. Seniors in the PCMH clinic had significantly greater quality outcomes over time, but this difference was not significant relative to control. PCMH patients used more e-mail, phone, and specialist visits but fewer emergency services and inpatient admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. At 1 and 2 years, the PCMH and control clinics did not differ significantly in overall costs. Implications: A PCMH redesign can be associated with improvements in patient experience and quality without increasing overall cost.

Objectives: This study aimed to understand the experiences of youth who had been prescribed antipsychotics but did not have psychosis, mania, autism spectrum disorder, or developmental disability. Methods: Twenty-three qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with youth aged 11–18 who had been prescribed an antipsychotic medication but did not have a diagnosis of psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, or developmental disability. Participants were recruited from four U.S. healthcare systems participating in the pragmatic trial Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using template analysis techniques. Results: Prior to initiating an antipsychotic medication, most participants experienced behavioral health crises; many felt that they had no options other than to start the medication. Other core themes included: (1) antipsychotics had both positive psychosocial outcomes, such as improvement of family life, and adverse effects, such as drowsiness or weight gain, (2) antipsychotics were only one part of a broader treatment plan, (3) efforts were made to maximize benefits and minimize side effects through careful titration, (4) feedback from friends and family was important in the decision to continue. Conclusions: The findings provide valuable insights into how to engage youth in conversations around the use of antipsychotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]