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. [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]

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.

Objectives: The authors employ a Whole Systems framework to explore implementation of new guidelines for back and neck pain in Oregon's Medicaid system. Whole Systems research is useful for understanding the relationship between complementary and integrative health care (CIH) and conventional health care systems in real-world clinical and practice settings., Design: Preliminary results are from an observational study designed to evaluate state-wide implementation of CIH and other non-pharmacological treatments for neck and back pain among Oregon Medicaid patients. This natural experiment, even in early stages, provides insight into the challenges of integrating Whole Systems oriented therapies into Medicaid billing and treatment., Methods: Qualitative data are drawn from: (1) semi-structured interviews with representatives of each of the 16 coordinated care organizations (CCOs) responsible for administering the Oregon's Medicaid insurance through the Oregon Health Plan (OHP); and (2) open-ended survey responses from acupuncturists in all 16 CCO areas., Results: Implementation of the new policy guidelines poses logistical and epistemological challenges. Differences in worldview, inadequate reimbursement, and simple lack of awareness of CIH among medical providers are some of the factors that pose barriers to merging CIH therapies into conventional frameworks., Conclusions: In this article, we explore the potential for a Whole Systems perspective to better explain the complexity of integrating CIH and other non-pharmacological services into a state financed health care system. Oregon's expansion of services for back and neck pain presents an opportunity to explore challenges and successes in melding multiple approaches to health and pain management into a managed system such as the OHP.

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.)