Search

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 (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance., Results: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA., Conclusion: 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., (© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Healthy Hearts Northwest (H2N) is a study of external support strategies to build quality improvement (QI) capacity in primary care with a focus on cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation., Methods: To guide practice facilitator support, experts in practice transformation identified seven domains of QI capacity and mapped items from a previously validated medical home assessment tool to them. A practice facilitator (PF) met with clinicians and staff in each practice to discuss each item on the Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA) resulting in a practice-level response to each item. We examined the association between the QICA total and sub-scale scores, practice characteristics, a measure of prior experience with managing practice change, and performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for the three cardiovascular risk factors., Results: The QICA score was associated with prior experience managing change and moderately associated with two of the three CQMs: aspirin use (r = 0.16, p = 0.049) and blood pressure control (r = 0.18, p = 0.013). Rural practices and those with 2-5 clinicians had lower QICA scores.., Conclusions: The QICA is useful for assessing QI capacity within a practice and may serve as a guide for both facilitators and primary care practices in efforts to build this capacity and improve measures of clinical quality., Trial Registration: This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier# NCT02839382, retrospectively registered on July 21, 2016.

The years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act have seen substantial changes in the organization and delivery of primary care. These changes have emphasized greater team involvement in care and expansion of the roles of each team member including registered nurses (RNs). This study examined the roles of RNs in 30 exemplary primary care practices. We identified the emergence of new roles and activities for RNs characterized by greater involvement in face-to-face patient care and care management, their own daily schedule of patient visits and contacts, and considerable autonomy in the care of their patients.

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.

Background: Despite numerous options for treating back pain and the increasing healthcare resources devoted to this problem, the prevalence and impact of back pain-related disability has not improved. It is now recognized that psychosocial factors, as well as physical factors, are important predictors of poor outcomes for back pain. A promising new approach that matches treatments to the physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery, the STarT Back risk stratification approach, improved patients' physical function while reducing costs of care in the United Kingdom (UK). This trial evaluates implementation of this strategy in a United States (US) healthcare setting., Methods: Six large primary care clinics in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State were block-randomized, three to receive an intensive quality improvement intervention for back pain and three to serve as controls for secular trends. The intervention included 6 one-hour training sessions for physicians, 5 days of training for physical therapists, individualized and group coaching of clinicians, and integration of the STarT Back tool into the electronic health record. This prognostic tool uses 9 questions to categorize patients at low, medium or high risk of persistent disabling pain with recommendations about evidence-based treatment options appropriate for each subgroup. Patients at least 18 years of age, receiving primary care for non-specific low back pain, were invited to provide data 1-3 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 months and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. The primary outcomes are back-related physical function and pain severity. Using an intention to treat approach, intervention effects on patient outcomes will be estimated by comparing mean changes at the 2 and 6 month follow-up between the pre- and post-implementation periods. The inclusion of control clinics permits adjustment for secular trends. Differences in change scores by intervention group and time period will be estimated using linear mixed models with random effects. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization and adherence to clinical guidelines., Discussion: This trial will provide the first randomized trial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of implementing risk stratification with matched treatment options for low back pain in a United States health care delivery system., Trial Registration: NCT02286141. Registered November 5, 2014.

Introduction: Ambulatory practices that actively partner with patients and families in quality improvement (QI) report benefits such as better patient/family interactions with physicians and staff, and patient empowerment. However, creating effective patient/family partnerships for ambulatory care improvement is not yet routine. The objective of this paper is to provide practices with concrete evidence about meaningfully involving patients and families in QI activities., Methods: Review of literature published from 2000-2015 and a focus group conducted in 2014 with practice advisors., Results: Thirty articles discussed 26 studies or examples of patient/family partnerships in ambulatory care QI. Patient and family partnership mechanisms included QI committees and advisory councils. Facilitators included process transparency, mechanisms for acting on patient/family input, and compensation. Challenges for practices included uncertainty about how best to involve patients and families in QI. Several studies found that patient/family partnership was a catalyst for improvement and reported that partnerships resulted in process improvements. Focus group results were concordant., Conclusion: This paper describes emergent mechanisms and processes that ambulatory care practices use to partner with patients and families in QI including outcomes, facilitators, and challenges., Funding: Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

To address concerns about the quality of care, health plans have used varying approaches to support quality improvement (QI). Pay-for-performance (P4P) is the most commonly used and discussed approach. P4P programs have many challenges in design and execution, particularly for Medicaid providers. In order to find an alternative to P4P, CareOregon--a nonprofit health plan serving Medicaid and Medicare enrollees--developed the Care Support and System Innovation (CSSI) Program. An evaluation was conducted to assess the overall affect of the CSSI Program in promoting comprehensive improvements in quality of care and the extent to which it has the potential to offer a viable alternative to P4P. The evaluation found that the CSSI Program successfully addressed many challenges inherent in P4P. The CSSI Program engaged providers, fostered a culture of QI within CareOregon's network, and provided practices with the opportunity to develop sustainable and innovative solutions to address quality concerns. Success of the program was attributed to CareOregon's focus on building relationships while providing technical assistance and responsive funding. While health outcome data were not available to assess impact on CareOregon's members, evaluation findings highlight the importance of collaboration in QI efforts, and suggest that the model has the potential to overcome many of the challenges faced by P4P., (© 2010 National Association for Healthcare Quality.)

This study examines attributes of a high-functioning primary care team by creating a survey measuring staff perceptions of team culture in primary care practices with innovative team-based workforce models. Survey data from a national study of 30 exemplar primary care practices with innovative team-based workforce models was used. Staff and clinicians (n = 943) at the 30 primary care sites completed a 31-item survey online. Survey items came from previous surveys of adaptive reserve and team culture. Factor analysis, reliability and validity were examined for the survey. Case summaries from site visits and survey comments were compared for high and low scoring sites to establish validity. Three core attributes of a high-functioning team were identified: joy in practice (4 items), personal growth (3 items), and leadership and learning (20 items). Four items did not measure any attribute. Using item correlations, the 20 items for leadership and learning were reduced to 7 items. All three attribute subscales had good reliability and validity. The final 14-item survey measuring joy in practice, personal growth and leadership and learning may be useful in clinical practice as a practical tool to gauge progress in developing a high-functioning team. Further research is needed to determine the sensitivity of this instrument to change over time with interventions designed to improve team functioning in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Recognition is growing that to create truly patient‐centred care, health‐care organizations need to partner with patients around care design. More research into the benefits of engaging patients and the most effective ways of partnering with them is needed. Methods: This study assessed the process and impact of a collaborative effort to design a new clinic service that balanced the number of patient and clinical provider/staff codesigners involved and recruited patients to represent diverse perspectives. Data sources included interviews with participants, event observation and participant surveys. Results: Our evaluation found that including patients as equal partners improved the design process by infusing a real‐world, patient perspective. The pre‐event orientation and interactive methods used in the event fostered positive collaboration, as well as personal growth for the patient codesigners. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of including a roughly equal number of patients and clinical providers/staff in design events and ensuring that the patients represent diverse perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trial’s implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model. Design. Our logic model–driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources. Setting. This study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back stratified care approach. This was the first formal test of the strategy in a US setting. Methods. Data collection included observation of implementation activities, staff/provider interviews, and posttraining evaluation questionnaires. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire data. Results. We found that both primary care teams and physical therapists at intervention clinics gave the training high scores on evaluation questionnaires and reported in the interviews that they found the training engaging and useful. However, there was significant variation in the extent to which the risk stratification strategy was incorporated into care. Some primary care providers reported that the intervention changed their conversations with patients and increased their confidence in working with patients with back pain. Providers using the STarT Back tool did not change referral rates for recommended matched treatments. Conclusions. These insights provide guidance for future efforts to adapt and implement the STarT Back strategy and other complex practice change interventions. They emphasize the need for primary care–based interventions to minimize complexity and the need for ongoing monitoring and feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]