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:IntroductionPrevention of tuberculosis disease through diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection is critical for achieving tuberculosis elimination in the U.S. Diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in safety-net primary care settings that serve patients at risk for tuberculosis may increase uptake of this prevention effort and accelerate progress toward elimination. Optimizing tuberculosis prevention in these settings requires measuring the latent tuberculosis infection care cascade (testing, diagnosis, and treatment) and identifying gaps to develop solutions to overcome barriers. We used electronic health record data to describe the latent tuberculosis infection care cascade and identify gaps among a network of safety-net primary care clinics.MethodsElectronic health record data for patients seen in the OCHIN Clinical Network, the largest network of safety-net clinics in the U.S., between 2012 and 2019 were extracted. electronic health record data were used to measure the latent tuberculosis infection care cascade: patients who met tuberculosis screening criteria on the basis of current recommendations were tested for tuberculosis infection, diagnosed with latent tuberculosis infection, and prescribed treatment for latent tuberculosis infection. Outcomes were stratified by diagnostic test and treatment regimen.ResultsAmong 1.9 million patients in the analytic cohort, 43.5% met tuberculosis screening criteria, but only 21.4% were tested for latent tuberculosis infection; less than half (40.4%) were tested using an interferon-gamma release assay. Among those with a valid result, 10.5% were diagnosed with latent tuberculosis infection, 29.1% of those were prescribed latent tuberculosis infection treatment, and only 33.6% were prescribed a recommended rifamycin-based regimen.ConclusionsElectronic health record data can be used to measure the latent tuberculosis infection care cascade. A large proportion of patients in this safety-net clinical network are at high risk for tuberculosis infection. Addressing identified gaps in latent tuberculosis infection testing and treatment may have a direct impact on improving tuberculosis prevention in primary care clinics and accelerate progress toward elimination.

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: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.