Dataset Information

Clinically relevant quality measures for risk factor control in primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Assessment of the proportion of patients with well controlled cardiovascular risk factors underestimates the proportion of patients receiving high quality of care. Evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control gives a different picture of quality of care. We assessed physician response to control cardiovascular risk factors, as well as markers of potential overtreatment in Switzerland, a country with universal healthcare coverage but without systematic quality monitoring, annual report cards on quality of care or financial incentives to improve quality.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1002 randomly selected patients aged 50-80 years from four university primary care settings in Switzerland. For hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, we first measured proportions in control, then assessed therapy modifications among those in poor control. "Appropriate clinical action" was defined as a therapy modification or return to control without therapy modification within 12 months among patients with baseline poor control. Potential overtreatment of these conditions was defined as intensive treatment among low-risk patients with optimal target values.

Results

20% of patients with hypertension, 41% with dyslipidemia and 36% with diabetes mellitus were in control at baseline. When appropriate clinical action in response to poor control was integrated into measuring quality of care, 52 to 55% had appropriate quality of care. Over 12 months, therapy of 61% of patients with baseline poor control was modified for hypertension, 33% for dyslipidemia, and 85% for diabetes mellitus. Increases in number of drug classes (28-51%) and in drug doses (10-61%) were the most common therapy modifications. Patients with target organ damage and higher baseline values were more likely to have appropriate clinical action. We found low rates of potential overtreatment with 2% for hypertension, 3% for diabetes mellitus and 3-6% for dyslipidemia.

Conclusions

In primary care, evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control, in addition to assessing proportions in control, provide a broader view of the quality of care than relying solely on measures of proportions in control. Such measures could be more clinically relevant and acceptable to physicians than simply reporting levels of control.

SUBMITTER: Weiler S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4105792 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDigital clinical measures collected via various digital sensing technologies such as smartphones, smartwatches, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables are increasingly used by individuals and clinicians to capture health outcomes or behavioral and physiological characteristics of individuals. Although academia is taking an active role in evaluating digital sensing products, academic contributions to advancing the safe, effective, ethical, and equitable use of digital clinical measures are poorly characterized.ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review to characterize the nature of academic research on digital clinical measures and to compare and contrast the types of sensors used and the sources of funding support for specific subareas of this research.MethodsWe conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles reporting US-led academic research on digital clinical measures between January 2019 and February 2021. We screened each publication against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and categorized research studies based on the types of academic research, sensors used, and funding sources. Finally, we compared and contrasted the funding support for these specific subareas of research and sensor types.ResultsThe search retrieved 4240 articles of interest. Following the screening, 295 articles remained for data extraction and categorization. The top five research subareas included operations research (research analysis; n=225, 76%), analytical validation (n=173, 59%), usability and utility (data visualization; n=123, 42%), verification (n=93, 32%), and clinical validation (n=83, 28%). The three most underrepresented areas of research into digital clinical measures were ethics (n=0, 0%), security (n=1, 0.5%), and data rights and governance (n=1, 0.5%). Movement and activity trackers were the most commonly studied sensor type, and physiological (mechanical) sensors were the least frequently studied. We found that government agencies are providing the most funding for research on digital clinical measures (n=192, 65%), followed by independent foundations (n=109, 37%) and industries (n=56, 19%), with the remaining 12% (n=36) of these studies completely unfunded.ConclusionsSpecific subareas of academic research related to digital clinical measures are not keeping pace with the rapid expansion and adoption of digital sensing products. An integrated and coordinated effort is required across academia, academic partners, and academic funders to establish the field of digital clinical measures as an evidence-based field worthy of our trust.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic kidney disease may not be receiving recommended primary renal care.ObjectiveTo use recently established primary care quality indicators for chronic kidney disease to determine the proportion of patients receiving recommended renal care.DesignRetrospective cohort study using administrative data with linked laboratory information.SettingThe study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2012.PatientsPatients over 40 years with chronic kidney disease or abnormal kidney function in primary care were included.MeasurementsIn total, 11 quality indicators were assessed for chronic kidney disease identified through a Delphi panel in areas of screening, monitoring, drug prescribing, and laboratory monitoring after initiating an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).MethodsWe calculated the proportion and cumulative incidence at the end of follow-up of patients meeting each indicator and stratified results by age, sex, cohort entry, and chronic kidney disease stage.ResultsLess than half of patients received follow-up tests after an initial abnormal kidney function result. Most patients with chronic kidney disease received regular monitoring of serum creatinine (91%), but urine albumin-to-creatinine monitoring was lower (70%). A total of 84% of patients age 66 and older did not receive a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescription of at least 2-week duration. Three quarters of patients age 66 and older were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and 96% did not receive an ACE inhibitor and ARB concurrently. Among patients 66 to 80 years of age with chronic kidney disease, 65% were on a statin. One quarter of patients age 66 and older who initiated an ACE inhibitor or ARB had their serum creatinine and potassium monitored within 7 to 30 days.LimitationsThis study was limited to people in Ontario with linked laboratory information.ConclusionsThere was generally strong performance across many of the quality of care indicators. Areas where more attention may be needed are laboratory testing to confirm initial abnormal kidney function test results and monitoring serum creatinine and potassium after initiating a new ACE inhibitor or ARB.

Project description:BackgroundAlternative payment models are common for both primary care providers and pharmacies. These models rely on quality measures to determine reimbursement, and pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute to performance on a similar set of medication-related measures. Therefore, payers need to decide which provider to incentivize for which measures when both are included in alternative payment models.ObjectivesTo explore the relative contribution of pharmacies and primary care group practices to a range of quality measures.MethodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study used Medicare Part A, B, and D claims for a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2014-2016. Eight quality measures were selected from the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and Medicare Part D Stars Ratings. Measures included medication adherence measures, appropriate prescribing measures such as high-risk medication use in the elderly, statin use in persons with diabetes (SUPD), and others. The residual intraclass correlation coefficient (RICC) was used to estimate the contribution of pharmacists and primary care providers to measure variation. To estimate the relative contribution across provider types, the pharmacy RICC was divided by the group practice RICC to yield a RICC ratio.ResultsDue to varying measure eligibility requirements, the number of patients per measure ranged from 179,430 to 2,226,129. Across all measures, the RICC values were low, ranging from 0.013 for SUPD to 0.145 for adult sinusitis. Adherence measures had the highest RICC ratios (1.15-1.44), and the annual influenza vaccination measure had the lowest (0.56).Discussion and conclusionsThe relative contributions of pharmacists and primary care providers vary across quality measures. As payers design payment models with measures to which pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute, the RICC ratio may be useful in aligning incentives to the providers with the greatest relative contributions. Additional research is needed to validate this method and extend it to additional sets of providers.