Dataset Information

A novel approach to quality improvement in a safety-net practice: concurrent peer review visits.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Concurrent peer review visits are structured office visits conducted by clinician peers of the primary care clinician that are specifically designed to reduce competing demands, clinical inertia, and bias. We assessed whether a single concurrent peer review visit reduced clinical inertia and improved control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes control among underserved patients.

Methods

We conducted a randomized encouragement trial to evaluate concurrent peer review visits with a community health center. Seven hundred twenty-seven patients with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes who were not at goal for systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and/or glycated hemoglobin (A1c) were randomly assigned to an invitation to participate in a concurrent peer review visit or to usual care. We compared change in these measures using mixed models and rates of therapeutic intensification during concurrent peer review visits with control visits.

Results

One hundred seventy-one patients completed a concurrent peer review visit. SBP improved significantly (p < .01) more among those completing concurrent peer review visits than among those who failed to respond to a concurrent peer review invitation or those randomized to usual care. There were no differences seen for changes in LDL-C or A1c. Concurrent peer review visits were associated with statistically significant greater clinician intensification of blood pressure (p < .001), lipid (p < .001), and diabetes (p < .005) treatment than either for control visits for patients in either the nonresponse group or usual care group.

Conclusions

Concurrent peer review visits represent a promising strategy for improving blood pressure control and improving therapeutic intensification in community health centers.

SUBMITTER: Fiscella K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3123899 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A novel approach to quality improvement in a safety-net practice: concurrent peer review visits.

Fiscella Kevin K Volpe Ellen E Winters Paul P Brown Melissa M Idris Amna A Harren Tricia T

Journal of the National Medical Association 20101201 12

<h4>Objective</h4>Concurrent peer review visits are structured office visits conducted by clinician peers of the primary care clinician that are specifically designed to reduce competing demands, clinical inertia, and bias. We assessed whether a single concurrent peer review visit reduced clinical inertia and improved control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes control among underserved patients.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a randomized encouragement trial to evaluate concurrent peer r ...[more]

PMID: 21287904

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality improvement in healthcare has often been promoted as different from and more valuable than peer review and other professional self-regulation processes. In spite of attempts to harmonize these two approaches, the perception of dichotomous opposition has persisted. A sequence of events in the troubled California prison system fortuitously isolated workforce interventions from more typical quality improvement interventions. Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the relative contributions of professional accountability and quality improvement interventions to an observed decrease in population mortality and (2) explore the organizational dynamics that potentiated positive outcomes.MethodsOur retrospective mixed-methods case study correlated time-series analysis of mortality with the timing of reform interventions. Quantitative and qualitative evidence was drawn from court documents, public use files, internal databases, and other archival documents.ResultsChange point analysis reveals with 98% confidence that a significant improvement in age-adjusted natural mortality occurred in 2007, decreasing from 138.7 per 100,000 in the 1998-2006 period to 106.4 in the 2007-2009 period. The improvement in mortality occurred after implementation of accountability processes, prior to implementation of quality improvement interventions. Archival evidence supports the positive impact of physician competency assessments, robust peer review, and replacement of problem physicians.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that workforce accountability provides a critical quality safeguard, and its neglect in scholarship and practice is unjustified. As with quality improvement, effective professional self-regulation requires systemic implementation of enabling policies, processes, and staff resources. The study adds to evidence that the distribution of physician performance contains a heterogeneous left skew of dyscompetence that is associated with significant harm and suggests that professional self-regulation processes such as peer review can reduce that harm. Beyond their responsibility for direct harm, dyscompetent professionals can have negative impacts on group performance. The optimal integration of professional accountability and quality improvement systems merits further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundConcerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices.ObjectiveTo assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients.DesignWe analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017-2018.ParticipantsA total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians.Main measuresOur key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not.Key resultsFQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001).ConclusionFQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities.

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is more prevalent in patients with hypertension (HTN), and associated morbidities include stroke, heart failure and premature death. In the Internal Medicine Clinic (IMC), over 70% of the patients had a diagnosis of HTN and obesity. We identified a lack of OSA screening in patients with HTN. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) was to increase OSA diagnosis to 5% from the baseline rate of less than 1% in patients with HTN between the ages of 18 and 75 years over 6 months at IMC. We used the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method. The QI team performed root cause analysis to identify materials/methods, provider and patient-related barriers. PDSA cycle included: (1) integration of customised workflow of loud Snoring, Tiredness, Observed apnea, high blood Pressure (STOP)-Body mass index (BMI), Age, Neck circumference, and Gender (BANG) OSA screening tool in the electronic health record (EHR); (2) physician education of OSA and EHR workflow; and (3) completion of STOP survey by patients, which was facilitated by nursing staff. The outcome measure was the percentage of OSA diagnosis in patients with HTN. The process measures included the percentage of patients with HTN screened for OSA and the increase in sleep study referrals in hypertensive patients with STOP-BANG score of ?3. Increase in patient wait time and cost of sleep study were the balance measures. Data analysis was performed using weekly statistical process control chart. The average increase in OSA screening rate using the STOP-BANG tool was 3.88%. The significant variation seen in relation to PDSA cycles was not sustainable. 32% of patients scored ?3 on the STOP-BANG tool, and 10.4% had a confirmed diagnosis of OSA. STOP-BANG tool integration in the EHR and a team approach did not result in a sustainable increase in OSA screening. OSA diagnosis was increased to 3.3% in IMC patient population within the 6-month period. The team identified multiple barriers to screening and diagnosis of OSA in the IMC.

Dataset Information

A novel approach to quality improvement in a safety-net practice: concurrent peer review visits.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A novel approach to quality improvement in a safety-net practice: concurrent peer review visits.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets