Search

Background Previous studies have suggested that highly fragmented ambulatory care increases the risk of subsequent hospitalization, but those studies used claims only and were not able to adjust for many clinical potential confounders. Objective The objective of this study was to determine the association between fragmented ambulatory care and subsequent hospitalization, adjusting for demographics, medical conditions, medications, health behaviors, psychosocial variables, and physiological variables. Design Longitudinal analysis of data (2003-2016) from the nationwide REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, linked to Medicare fee-for-service claims. Subjects A total of 12,693 Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older from the REGARDS study who had at least 4 ambulatory visits in the first year of observation and did not have a hospitalization in the prior year. Measures We defined high fragmentation as a reversed Bice-Boxerman score above the 75th percentile. We used Cox proportional hazards models to determine the association between fragmentation as a time-varying exposure and incident hospitalization in the 3 months following each exposure period. Results The mean age was 70.4 years; 54% were women, and 33% were African American. During the first year of observation, participants with high fragmentation had a median of 8 ambulatory visits with 6 providers, whereas participants with low fragmentation had a median of 7 visits with 3 providers. Over 11.8 years of follow-up, 6947 participants (55%) had a hospitalization. High fragmentation was associated with an increased hazard of hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio=1.18; 95% confidence interval: 1.12, 1.24). Conclusion Highly fragmented ambulatory care is an independent risk factor for hospitalization.

Background More fragmented ambulatory care (ie, care spread across many providers without a dominant provider) has been associated with excess emergency department and inpatient care. We sought to determine whether more fragmented ambulatory care is associated with an increase in the hazard of incident stroke, overall and stratified by health status and by race. Methods and Results We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study (2003–2016), including participants aged ≥65 years who had linked Medicare fee‐for‐service claims and no history of stroke (N=12 510). We measured fragmentation of care with the reversed Bice‐Boxerman index. We used Poisson models to determine the association between fragmentation and adjudicated incident stroke. The average age of participants was 70.5 years; 53% were women, 32% were Black participants, and 16% were participants with fair or poor health. Overall, the adjusted rate of incident stroke was similar for high versus low fragmentation (8.2 versus 8.1 per 1000 person‐years, respectively; P =0.89). Among participants with fair or poor self‐rated health, having high versus low fragmentation was associated with a trend toward a higher adjusted rate of incident strokes (14.8 versus 10.4 per 1000 person‐years, respectively; P =0.067). Among Black participants with fair or poor self‐rated health, having high versus low fragmentation was associated with a higher adjusted rate of strokes (19.3 versus 10.3 per 1000 person‐years, respectively; P =0.02). Conclusions Highly fragmented ambulatory care is independently associated with incident stroke among Black individuals with fair or poor health.

Nearly one-fifth of hospitalized Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries are readmitted within 30 days. Participation in the Meaningful Use initiative among outpatient physicians may reduce readmissions.To evaluate the impact of outpatient physicians' participation in Meaningful Use on readmissions.The study population included 90,774 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from New York State (2010-2012). We compared changes in the adjusted odds of readmission for patients of physicians who participated in Meaningful Use-stage 1, before and after attestation as meaningful users, with concurrent patients of matched control physicians who used paper records or electronic health records without Meaningful Use participation. Three secondary analyses were conducted: (1) limited to patients with 3+ Elixhauser comorbidities; (2) limited to patients with conditions used by Medicare to penalize hospitals with high readmission rates (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia); and (3) using only patients of physicians with electronic health records who were not meaningful users as the controls.Thirty-day readmission.Patients of Meaningful Use physicians had 6% lower odds of readmission compared with patients of physicians who were not meaningful users, but the estimate was not statistically significant (odds ratio: 0.94, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.01). Estimated odds ratios from secondary analyses were broadly consistent with our primary analysis.Physician participation in Meaningful Use was not associated with reduced readmissions. Additional studies are warranted to see if readmissions decline in future stages of Meaningful Use where more emphasis is placed on health information exchange and outcomes.

Few studies have evaluated whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) supports patient activation and none have evaluated whether support for patient activation differs among racial and ethnic groups or by health status. This is critical because activation is lower on average among minority patients and those in poorer health.To assess the association between clinic PCMH characteristics and patient perception of clinic support for patient activation, and whether that association varies by patients' self-reported race/ethnicity or health status.A total of 214 providers/staff and 735 patients in 24 safety net clinics across 5 states.Provider/staff surveys produced a 0-100 score for PCMH characteristics. Patient surveys used the patient activation subscale of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care to produce a 0-100 score for patient perception of clinic support for patient activation.Across all patients, we did not find a statistically significant association between PCMH score and clinic support for patient activation. However, among the subgroup of minority patients in fair or poor health, a 10-point higher PCMH score was associated with a 14.5-point (CI, 4.4, 24.5) higher activation score.In a population of safety net patients, higher-rated PCMH characteristics were not associated with patients' perception of clinic support for activation among the full study population; however, we found a strong association between PCMH characteristics and clinic support for activation among minority patients in poor/fair health status. The PCMH may be promising for reducing disparities in patient activation for ill minority patients.

BACKGROUND Despite the rapid rise in the implementation of electronic health records (EHR), commensurate improvements in health care quality have not been consistently observed. OBJECTIVES To evaluate whether the implementation of EHRs and complementary interventions-including clinical decision support, technical assistance, and financial incentives-improved quality of care. RESEARCH DESIGN The study included 143 practices that implemented EHRs as part of the Primary Care Information Project-a long-standing community-based EHR implementation initiative. A total of 71 practices were randomized to receive financial incentives and quality feedback and 72 were randomized to feedback alone. All practices received technical assistance and had clinical decision support in their EHR. Using data from 2009 to 2011, we estimated measure-level fixed effects models to evaluate the association between exposure to clinical decision support, technical assistance, financial incentives, and quality of care. Associations were estimated separately for 4 cardiovascular measures that were rewarded by the financial incentive program and 4 measures that were not rewarded by incentives. RESULTS Financial incentives for quality were consistently associated with higher performance for the incentivized measures [+10.1 percentage points at 18 mo of exposure (approximately +22%), P

Physician use of clinical information technology (CIT) is important for the management of chronic illness, but has lagged behind expectations. We studied the role of health insurers' financial incentives (including pay-for-performance) and quality improvement initiatives in accelerating adoption of CIT in large physician practices.National survey of all medical groups and independent practice association (IPA) physician organizations with 20 or more physicians in the United States in 2006 to 2007. The response rate was 60.3%. Use of 19 CIT capabilities was measured. Multivariate statistical analysis of financial and organizational factors associated with adoption and use of CIT.Use of information technology varied across physician organizations, including electronic access to laboratory test results (medical groups, 49.3%; IPAs, 19.6%), alerts for potential drug interactions (medical groups, 33.9%; IPAs, 9.5%), electronic drug prescribing (medical groups, 41.9%; IPAs, 25.1%), and physician use of e-mail with patients (medical groups, 34.2%; IPAs, 29.1%). Adoption of CIT was stronger for physician organizations evaluated by external entities for pay-for-performance and public reporting purposes (P = 0.042) and for those participating in quality improvement initiatives (P0.001).External incentives and participation in quality improvement initiatives are associated with greater use of CIT by large physician practices.

The Health Disparities Collaboratives are the largest national quality improvement (QI) initiatives in community health centers. This article identifies the incentives and assistance personnel believe are necessary to sustain QI. In 2004, 1006 survey respondents (response rate 67%) at 165 centers cited lack of resources, time, and staff burnout as common barriers. Release time was the most desired personal incentive. The highest funding priorities were direct patient care services (44% ranked no. 1), data entry (34%), and staff time for QI (26%). Participants also needed help with patient self-management (73%), information systems (77%), and getting providers to follow guidelines (64%).

An analysis of paid malpractice claims may provide insight into the prevalence and seriousness of adverse medical events in the outpatient setting.To report and compare the number, magnitude, and type of paid malpractice claims for events in inpatient and outpatient settings.Retrospective analysis of malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians in outpatient and inpatient settings using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank from 2005 through 2009. We evaluated trends in claims paid by setting, characteristics of paid claims, and factors associated with payment amount.Number of paid claims, mean and median payment amounts, types of errors, and outcomes of errors.In 2009, there were 10,739 malpractice claims paid on behalf of physicians. Of these paid claims, 4910 (47.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 46.6%-48.5%) were for events in the inpatient setting, 4448 (43.1%; 95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) were for events in the outpatient setting, and 966 (9.4%; 95% CI, 8.8%-9.9%) involved events in both settings. The proportion of payments for events in the outpatient setting increased by a small but statistically significant amount, from 41.7% (95% CI, 40.9%-42.6%) in 2005 to 43.1% (95% CI, 42.1%-44.0%) in 2009 (P.001 for trend across years). In the outpatient setting, the most common reason for a paid claim was diagnostic (45.9%; 95% CI, 44.4%-47.4%), whereas in the inpatient setting the most common reason was surgical (34.1%; 95% CI, 32.8%-35.4%). Major injury and death were the 2 most common outcomes in both settings. Mean payment amount for events in the inpatient setting was significantly higher than in the outpatient setting ($362,965; 95% CI, $348,192-$377,738 vs $290,111; 95% CI, $278,289-$301,934; P.001).In 2009, the number of paid malpractice claims reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank for events in the outpatient setting was similar to the number in the inpatient setting.

Background Physicians often do not communicate with patients about out-of-pocket costs, although research indicates that physicians and patients value such discussion. Methods Cross-sectional national random sample mail survey of 1400 cardiologists and general internists to quantify barriers to communication about out-of-pocket costs and strategies used to assist patients in order of likelihood (from 5 [extremely likely] to 1 [not at all likely]). Results Overall, 519 (39.1%) of 1328 eligible physicians responded to the survey. The most common barriers were lack of habit, insufficient time, and concern over patient discomfort. The most common strategies used to assist patients were switching to a generic drug (mean, 4.34; SD, 0.86), using office samples (mean, 4.16; SD, 1.22), and discontinuing nonessential medicines (mean, 4.03; SD, 0.99). There were no statistically significant differences between cardiologists and general internists in barriers or strategies examined (P Conclusions Our findings suggest that patient-physician communication about out-of-pocket costs is a problem affecting specialists and generalists nationwide. Despite barriers, physicians use multiple strategies that may vary in efficacy to assist patients burdened by these costs.