Dataset Information

Enrolment in primary care networks: impact on outcomes and processes of care for patients with diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Primary care networks are a newer model of primary care that focuses on improved access to care and the use of multidisciplinary teams for patients with chronic disease. We sought to determine the association between enrolment in primary care networks and the care and outcomes of patients with diabetes.

Methods

We used administrative health care data to study the care and outcomes of patients with incident and prevalent diabetes separately. For patients with prevalent diabetes, we compared those whose care was managed by physicians who were or were not in a primary care network using propensity score matching. For patients with incident diabetes, we studied a cohort before and after primary care networks were established. Each cohort was further divided based on whether or not patients were cared for by physicians enrolled in a network. Our primary outcome was admissions to hospital or visits to emergency departments for ambulatory care sensitive conditions specific to diabetes.

Results

Compared with patients whose prevalent diabetes is managed outside of primary care networks, patients in primary care networks had a lower rate of diabetes-specific ambulatory care sensitive conditions (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 0.87), were more likely to see an ophthalmologist or optometrist (risk ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.21) and had better glycemic control (adjusted mean difference -0.067, 95% CI -0.081 to -0.052).

Interpretation

Patients whose diabetes was managed in primary care networks received better care and had better clinical outcomes than patients whose condition was not managed in a network, although the differences were very small.

SUBMITTER: Manns BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3273535 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enrolment in primary care networks: impact on outcomes and processes of care for patients with diabetes.

Manns Braden J BJ Tonelli Marcello M Zhang Jianguo J Campbell David J T DJ Sargious Peter P Ayyalasomayajula Bharati B Clement Fiona F Johnson Jeffrey A JA Laupacis Andreas A Lewanczuk Richard R McBrien Kerry K Hemmelgarn Brenda R BR

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20111205 2

<h4>Background</h4>Primary care networks are a newer model of primary care that focuses on improved access to care and the use of multidisciplinary teams for patients with chronic disease. We sought to determine the association between enrolment in primary care networks and the care and outcomes of patients with diabetes.<h4>Methods</h4>We used administrative health care data to study the care and outcomes of patients with incident and prevalent diabetes separately. For patients with prevalent d ...[more]

PMID: 22143232

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTeam care improves processes and outcomes of care, especially for patients with complex medical conditions that require coordination of care. This study aimed to compare the processes and outcomes of care provided to older patients with diabetes by primary care teams comprised of only primary care physicians (PCPs) versus team care that included nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs).MethodsWe studied 3,524 primary care practices identified via social network analysis and 306,741 patients ≥66 years old diagnosed with diabetes in or before 2015 in Medicare data. Guideline-recommended diabetes care included eye examination, hemoglobin A1c test, and nephropathy monitoring. High-risk medications were based on recommendations from the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. Preventable hospitalizations were defined as hospitalizations for a potentially preventable condition.ResultsCompared with patients in the PCP only teams, patients in the team care practices with NPs or PAs received more guideline-recommended diabetes care (annual eye exam: adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00-1.08), 1.08 (95% CI: 1.03-1.13), and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05-1.15), and HbA1C test: aOR: 1.11 (95% CI: 1.04-1.18), 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02-1.20), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.06-1.25) for PCP/NP, PCP/NP/PA, and PCP/PA teams). Patients in the PCP/NP and the PCP/PA teams had a slightly higher likelihood of being prescribed high-risk medications (aOR: 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00-1.07), and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.02-1.11), respectively). The likelihood of preventable hospitalizations was similar among patients cared for by various types of practices.ConclusionThe team care practices with NPs or PAs were associated with better adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations for diabetes compared to PCP only practices. Both practices had similar outcomes. Further efforts are needed to explore new and cost-effective team-based care delivery models that improve process, outcomes, and continuity of care, as well as patient care experiences.

Project description:BackgroundMore than 100 million individuals in the USA have been diagnosed with a chronic disease, yet chronic disease care has remained fragmented and of inconsistent quality. Improving chronic disease management has been challenging for primary care and internal medicine practitioners. Practice facilitation provides a comprehensive approach to chronic disease care. The objective is to evaluate the impact of practice facilitation on chronic disease outcomes in the primary care setting.MethodsThis systematic review examined North American studies from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (database inception to August 2017). Investigators independently extracted and assessed the quality of the data on chronic disease process and clinical outcome measures. Studies implemented practice facilitation and reported quantifiable care processes and patient outcomes for chronic disease. Each study and their evidence were assessed for risk of bias and quality according to the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grade Collaboration tool.ResultsThis systematic review included 25 studies: 12 randomized control trials and 13 prospective cohort studies. Across all studies, practices and their clinicians were aware of the implementation of practice facilitation. Improvements were observed in most studies for chronic diseases including asthma, cancer (breast, cervical, and colorectal), cardiovascular disease (cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease), and type 2 diabetes. Mixed results were observed for chronic kidney disease and chronic illness care.DiscussionOverall, the results suggest that practice facilitation may improve chronic disease care measures. Across all studies, practices were aware of practice facilitation. These findings lend support for the potential expansion of practice facilitation in primary care. Future work will need to investigate potential opportunities for practice facilitation to improve chronic disease outcomes in other health care settings (e.g., specialty and multi-specialty practices) with standardized measures.

Project description:BackgroundLack of healthcare access to due to physician shortages is a significant driver of telemedicine expansion in rural areas. Telemedicine is effective for management of chronic conditions such as diabetes but its effectiveness in primary care settings is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate differences in diabetes care before and after implementation of a longitudinal virtual primary care program.DesignPropensity score-matched cohort study utilizing difference-in-differences analysis.ParticipantsPatients with diabetes who received care at VA primary care clinics between January 2018 and December 2019 where the Virtual Integrated Multisite Patient Aligned Care Teams (V-IMPACT) program was implemented.ExposurePatient participation in at least one V-IMPACT visit while usual care patients did not participate in V-IMPACT.Main measuresThe primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) and secondary outcomes included change in the proportion of patients meeting diabetes quality indicators: blood pressure control, statin use, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) use, and annual microalbuminuria testing.Key resultsOur propensity-matched cohort included 9010 patients split evenly between those who participated in V-IMPACT and those who remained in usual in-person care. Among individuals with diabetes who participated in V-IMPACT, the change in mean HbA1C was - 0.055% (95% CI - 0.088 to - 0.022%) while those in usual care had a - 0.047% (95% CI - 0.080 to - 0.014%) change before and after program implementation. We observed a 5.1% (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7%) absolute increase in the proportion prescribed statins in the V-IMPACT group, a 5.3% (95% CI 2.5 to 8.2%) increase prescribed ACE/ARBs, and a 4.6% (95% 1.7 to 7.5%) increase in completed yearly microalbuminuria testing. V-IMPACT was not associated with a significant difference in the proportion with controlled blood pressure at < 140/90 or < 130/90 mmHg thresholds.ConclusionsQuality of diabetes care delivered by a longitudinal virtual primary care model was similar if not better than traditional in-person care.

Project description:Outcomes data on point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in critically ill patients are lacking. This study examines the association between POCUS in the emergency department and outcomes in critically ill patients.DesignRetrospective cohort study of critically ill emergency department patients in two academic emergency departments. All emergency department patients admitted to the intensive care unit or that die in the emergency department were entered prospectively into a registry.SettingTwo academic emergency departments.PatientsAll adult (> 18 years old) non-trauma patients with hemodynamic instability [shock index (heart rate/systolic blood pressure) > 0.6] between November 1, 2013-October 31, 2016, were included.InterventionsCohorts were assigned as follows: no POCUS (cohort 1), POCUS prior to a key intervention (cohort 2), and POCUS after a key intervention (cohort 3). A key intervention was either a fluid bolus or vasoactive drug initiation.Measurements and main resultsMultivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between POCUS use and the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. We conducted several sensitivity analyses including propensity score matching and inverse-probability-weighted regression-adjustment along with multiple imputation to account for non-random assignment of POCUS as well as bias due to missing data. Of the 7,734 eligible patients, 2,293 patients were excluded. The remaining 5,441 patients were included in the analysis: 4165 in Cohort 1, 614 in Cohort 2, and 662 in Cohort 3. Mortality was 22%, 29%, and 26%, respectively (p < 0.001). POCUS prior to an intervention was associated with an adjusted odds ratio for death of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) compared to no POCUS. The sensitivity analyses showed an absolute increased mortality of +0.05 (95% CI, 0.02-0.09) for cohort 2 compared to 1.ConclusionsPOCUS use prior to interventions appears to be associated with care delays and increased in-hospital mortality compared to critically ill patients with no POCUS. Further explorations of the impact of POCUS in the emergency department appear warranted.

Dataset Information

Enrolment in primary care networks: impact on outcomes and processes of care for patients with diabetes.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Enrolment in primary care networks: impact on outcomes and processes of care for patients with diabetes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets