Dataset Information

Primary care clinicians' perspectives about quality measurements in safety-net clinics and non-safety-net clinics.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality 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.

Methods

Qualitative 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.

Results

Three 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.

Conclusion

Aligning 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.

SUBMITTER: Culhane-Pera KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6222992 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:SignificanceGuidelines urge primary care practices to routinely provide tobacco cessation care (i.e., assess tobacco use, provide brief cessation advice, and refer to cessation support). This study evaluates the impact of a systems-based strategy to provide tobacco cessation care in eight primary care clinics serving low-income patients.MethodsA non-randomized stepped wedge study design was used to implement an intervention consisting of (1) changes to the electronic health record (EHR) referral functionality and (2) expansion of staff roles to provide brief advice to quit; assess readiness to quit; offer a referral to tobacco cessation counseling; and sign the referral order. Outcomes assessed from the EHR include performance of tobacco cessation care tasks, referral contact, and enrollment rates for the quitline (QL) and in-house Freedom from Smoking (FFS) program. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) methods were used to compute odds ratios contrasting the pre-implementation vs. 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month post-implementation periods.ResultsOf the 176,061 visits, 26.1% were by identified tobacco users. All indicators significantly increased at each time period evaluated post-implementation. In comparison with the pre-intervention period, assessing smoking status (26.6% vs. 55.7%; OR = 3.7, CI = 3.6-3.9), providing advice (44.8% vs. 88.7%; OR = 7.8, CI = 6.6-9.1), assessing readiness to quit (15.8% vs. 55.0%; OR = 6.2, CI = 5.4-7.0), and acceptance of a referral to tobacco cessation counseling (0.5% vs. 30.9%; OR = 81.0, CI = 11.4-575.8) remained significantly higher 12 months post-intervention. For the QL and FFS, respectively, there were 1223 and 532 referrals; 324 (31.1%) and 103 (24.7%) were contacted; 241 (74.4%) and 72 (69.6%) enrolled; and 195 (80.9%) and 14 (19.4%) received at least one counseling session.ConclusionsThis system change intervention that includes an EHR-supported role expansion substantially increased the provision of tobacco cessation care and improvements were sustained beyond 1 year. This approach has the potential to greatly increase the number of individuals referred for tobacco cessation counseling.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients within safety-net settings are less likely to access health information on patient portals, despite expressed interest. Family and friends are important resources to assist these patients (ie, Medicaid recipients, older patients, patients with limited English proficiency) in navigating health systems, and provider support of the use of patient portals among these groups may also facilitate caregivers' use of their patients' portal. OBJECTIVE:Because safety net providers work closely with caregivers to care for their patients, we used qualitative methods to explore safety net providers' perspectives on portal use among caregivers for their patients, especially as there is limited literature about caregivers' use of portals in the safety net. METHODS:We conducted 45- to 60-min semistructured telephone interviews with providers from three large California safety-net health systems. The interviews focused on providers' experiences with caregivers, caregiver roles, and how the portal could be leveraged as a tool to support caregivers in their responsibilities. A total of three coders analyzed the interview transcripts using both deductive and inductive approaches and established a consensus regarding major themes. RESULTS:Of the 16 participants interviewed, 4 specialized in geriatrics, and all held a leadership or administrative role. We described themes highlighting providers' recognition of potential benefits associated with caregiver portal use and specific challenges to caregiver engagement. CONCLUSIONS:Providers recognized the potential for portals to improve information delivery and communication by helping caregivers assist socially and medically complex patients in the safety net. Providers in safety net sites also discussed a clear need for better ways to keep in touch with patients and connect with caregivers, yet security and privacy are perhaps of higher importance in these settings and may pose challenges to portal adoption. They noted that caregivers of patients in the safety net likely face similar communication barriers as patients, especially with respect to digital literacy, health literacy, and English proficiency. Further research is needed to assess and support caregivers' interest and ability to access portals across barriers in health and digital literacy, and English proficiency. Portal platforms and health systems must also address specific strategies to uphold patient preferences while maintaining privacy and security.