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 ( 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. [...]

PURPOSE We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance. METHODS Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76). CONCLUSIONS Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation. Key words: primary health care; cardiovascular disease; quality improvement; chronic illness; prevention; health promotion; quantitative methods; health services; organizational change; practice-based research, INTRODUCTION Past efforts to transform primary care have included practice redesign based on medical home principles and adoption of electronic health records. (1-4) More recently, primary care practices face increasing [...]

Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act triggered 2 successive grant initiatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, allowing for the evolution of health extension models among 20 states, not limited to support for in-clinic primary care practice transformation, but also including a broader concept incorporating technical assistance for practices and their communities to address social determinants of health. Five states stand out in stretching the boundaries of health extension: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. Their stories reveal lessons learned regarding the successes and challenges, including the importance of building sustained relationships with practices and community coalitions; of documenting success in broad terms as well as achieving diverse outcomes of meaning to different stakeholders; of understanding that health extension is a function that can be carried out by an individual or group depending on resources; and of being prepared for political struggles over 'turf' and ownership of extension. All states saw the need for long-term, sustained fundraising beyond grants in an environment expecting a short-term return on investment, and they were challenged operating in a shifting health system landscape where the creativity and personal relationships built with small primary care practices was hindered when these practices were purchased by larger health delivery systems. Key words: health extension; primary care; organizational change; outreach; population health; social determinants of health; practice-based research, INTRODUCTION Health extension is a model being developed and implemented across the country that was adapted from the agricultural Cooperative Extension Service, which traditionally linked land-grant university resources with rural [...]

Context: Little is known about rural clinicians' perspectives regarding early childhood immunization delivery, their adherence to recommended best immunization practices, or the specific barriers they confront. Purpose: To examine immunization practices, beliefs, and barriers among rural primary care clinicians for children in Oregon and compare those who deliver all recommended immunizations in their practices with those who do not. Methods: A mailed questionnaire was sent to all physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants practicing primary care in rural communities throughout Oregon. Findings: While 39% of rural clinicians reported delivering all childhood immunizations in their clinic, 43% of clinicians reported that they refer patients elsewhere for some vaccinations, and 18% provided no immunizations in the clinic whatsoever. Leading reasons for referral include inadequate reimbursement, parental request, and storage and stocking difficulties. Nearly a third of respondents reported that they had some level of concern about the safety of immunizations, and 14% reported that concerns about safety were a specific reason for referring. Clinicians who delivered only some of the recommended immunizations were less likely than nonreferring clinicians to have adopted evidence-based best immunization practices. Conclusions: This study of rural clinicians in Oregon demonstrates the prevalence of barriers to primary care based immunization delivery in rural regions. While some barriers may be difficult to overcome, others may be amenable to educational outreach and support. Thus, efforts to improve population immunization rates should focus on promoting immunization "best practices" and enhancing the capacity of practices to provide immunizations and ensuring that any alternative means of delivering immunizations are effective.

Context: In rural areas of the United States, emergency departments (EDs) are often staffed by primary care physicians, as contrasted to urban and suburban hospitals where ED coverage is usually provided by physicians who are residency-trained in emergency medicine. Purpose: This study examines the reasons and incentives for rural Oregon primary care physicians to cover the ED and their reported measures of confidence and priorities for additional training. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians in rural Oregon who are members of the Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network (ORPRN). The survey was sent to 70 primary care physicians in 27 rural Oregon practices. Findings: Fifty-two of 70 (74%) ORPRN physicians representing 24 practices returned the questionnaire. Nineteen of the 52 responding physicians reported covering the ED. The majority (75%) of physicians covering the ED did so as a requirement for practice employment and/or hospital privileges. Physicians covering the ED reported low confidence in pediatric emergencies and expressed the need for additional training in pediatric emergencies as their top priority. Conclusions: Almost two fifths of surveyed primary care physicians in a rural practice-based research network provide ED coverage. Based on these physicians' low levels of confidence and desire for additional training in pediatric emergencies, effective education models are needed for physicians covering the ED at their rural hospitals.

Purpose: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection contributes to vaccine‐preventable malignancies. Rural populations experience lower HPV vaccination rates despite similar rates of other childhood vaccinations. Individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics likely contribute to this disparity, but little is known about the separate roles of each. We compared clinic‐level HPV vaccination rates among rural versus urban primary care clinics, identified factors associated with HPV vaccination, and separately assessed the impact of individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics on rural disparities in HPV vaccination. Methods: This cross‐sectional study included 537 Oregon primary care clinics participating in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program during 2019. Vaccination status was assessed using Oregon's ALERT Immunization Information System and included HPV vaccine ≥ 1 dose for ages 11 and 12; HPV vaccination up to date (UTD) for ages 13‐17, and coadministration with tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap). Rural versus urban clinic‐level outcomes were assessed using negative binomial regression. Findings: Participating clinics were 24.5% rural and 75.6% urban. Family medicine clinics comprised 71.1%; pediatrics, 16.9%; and mixed, 12.1%. Across clinics, the average proportion of patients qualifying for VFC was 43%, and non‐White patients were 14.1%. The mean rate of HPV vaccine ≥1 dose was lower among rural clinics (46.9% vs 51.1%, P =.039), as was vaccination UTD (40.5% vs 49.9%, P <.001). Adjusting for differences in individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics, rural disparities were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: Both individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics play a role in rural disparities in HPV vaccination, and modifiable clinic‐level differences may be opportune targets to address these disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Academic detailing is an interactive, convenient, and user-friendly approach to delivering non-commercial education to healthcare clinicians. While evidence suggests academic detailing is associated with improvements in prescribing behavior, uncertainty exists about generalizability and scalability in diverse settings. Our study evaluates different models of delivering academic detailing in a rural family medicine setting. Methods We conducted a pilot project to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction with academic detailing delivered face-to-face as compared to a modified approach using distance-learning technology. The recipients were four family medicine clinics within the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN). Two clinics were allocated to receive face-to-face detailing and two received outreach through video conferencing or asynchronous web-based outreach. Surveys at midpoint and completion were used to assess effectiveness and satisfaction. Results Each clinic received four outreach visits over an eight month period. Topics included treatment-resistant depression, management of atypical antipsychotics, drugs for insomnia, and benzodiazepine tapering. Overall, 90% of participating clinicians were satisfied with the program. Respondents who received in person detailing reported a higher likelihood of changing their behavior compared to respondents in the distance detailing group for five of seven content areas. While 90%-100% of respondents indicated they would continue to participate if the program were continued, the likelihood of participation declined if only distance approaches were offered. Conclusions We found strong support and satisfaction for the program among participating clinicians. Participants favored in-person approaches to distance interactions. Future efforts will be directed at quantitative methods for evaluating the economic and clinical effectiveness of detailing in rural family practice settings.