Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance.

Methods

Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach.

Results

Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76).

Conclusions

Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation.

SUBMITTER: Parchman ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6827661 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

Parchman Michael L ML Anderson Melissa L ML Dorr David A DA Fagnan Lyle J LJ O'Meara Ellen S ES Tuzzio Leah L Penfold Robert B RB Cook Andrea J AJ Hummel Jeffrey J Conway Cullen C Cholan Raja R Baldwin Laura-Mae LM

Annals of family medicine 20190801 Suppl 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance.<h4>Methods</h4>Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and ...[more]

PMID: 31405875

Similar Datasets

Project description:Practice facilitation has been associated with meaningful improvements in disease prevention and quality of patient care. Using practice facilitation, the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project aimed to improve the delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular care in primary care practices across a large health region. Our goal was to evaluate IDOCC's impact on adherence to processes of care delivery.A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting primary care providers in practices located in Eastern Ontario, Canada (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808). Participants were randomly assigned by region to one of three steps. Practice facilitators were intended to visit practices every 3-4 (year 1-intensive) or 6-12 weeks (year 2-sustainability) to support changes in practice behavior. The primary outcome was mean adherence to indicators of evidence-based care measured at the patient level. Adherence was assessed by chart review of a randomly selected cohort of 66 patients per practice in each pre-intervention year, as well as in year 1 and year 2 post-intervention.Eighty-four practices (182 physicians) participated. On average, facilitators had 6.6 (min: 2, max: 11) face-to-face visits with practices in year 1 and 2.5 (min: 0 max: 10) visits in year 2. We collected chart data from 5292 patients. After adjustment for patient and provider characteristics, there was a 1.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): -2.9 to -0.9 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI: -5.7 to -2.6 %) absolute decrease in mean adherence from baseline to intensive and sustainability years, respectively.IDOCC did not improve adherence to best-practice guidelines. Our results showed a small statistically significant decrease in mean adherence of questionable clinical significance. Potential reasons for this result include implementation challenges, competing priorities in practices, a broad focus on multiple chronic disease indicators, and use of an overall index of adherence. These results contrast with findings from previously reported facilitation trials and highlight the complexities and challenges of translating research findings into clinical practice.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to improve primary care diabetes management have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients and practices. However, there is substantial variability in how well practices implement interventions and achieve desired outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine practice contextual features that moderate intervention effectiveness.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial of three approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care.ParticipantsForty small to mid-sized primary care practices participated, with 522 clinician and staff member surveys. Outcomes were assessed for 822 established patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes who had at least one visit to the practice in the 18 months following enrollment.Main measuresThe primary outcome was a composite measure of diabetes process of care, ascertained by chart audit, regarding nine quality measures from the American Diabetes Association Physician Recognition Program: HgA1c, foot exam, blood pressure, dilated eye exam, cholesterol, nephropathy screen, flu shot, nutrition counseling, and self-management support. Data from practices included structural and demographic characteristics and Practice Culture Assessment survey subscales (Change Culture, Work Culture, Chaos).Key resultsAcross the three implementation approaches, demographic/structural characteristics (rural vs. urban + .70(p = .006), +2.44(p < .001), -.75(p = .004)); Medicaid: < 20 % vs. ≥ 20 % (-.20(p = .48), +.75 (p = .08), +.60(p = .02)); practice size: < 4 clinicians vs. ≥ 4 clinicians (+.56(p = .02), +1.96(p < .001), +.02(p = .91)); practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.86(p = .048), +1.71(p = .005), +.34(p = .22)), Work Culture (high vs. low: -.67(p = .18), +2.41(p < .001), +.67(p = .005)) and variability in practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.24(p = .006), -.20(p = .0771), -.44(p = .0019) and Work Culture (high vs. low: +.56(p = .3160), -1.0(p = .008), -.25 (p = .0216) were associated with trajectories of change in diabetes process of care, either directly or differentially by study arm.ConclusionsThis study supports the need for broader use of methodological approaches to better examine contextual effects on implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in primary care settings.

Project description:PurposeTo improve cardiovascular care through supporting primary care practices' adoption of evidence-based guidelines.Study designA cluster randomized trial compared two approaches: (1) standard practice support (practice facilitation, practice assessment with feedback, health information technology assistance, and collaborative learning sessions) and (2) standard support plus patient engagement support.MethodsPrimary outcomes were cardiovascular clinical quality measures (CQMs) collected at baseline, 9 months, and 15 months. Implementation of the first 6 "Building Blocks of High-Performing Primary Care" was assessed by practice facilitators at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months. CQMs from practices not involved in the study served as an external comparison.ResultsA total of 211 practices completed baseline surveys. There were no differences by study arm (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) for aspirin use (1.03 [0.99, 1.06]), blood pressure (0.98 [0.95, 1.01]), cholesterol (0.96 [0.92, 1.00]), and smoking (1.01 [0.96, 1.07]); however, there were significant improvements over time in aspirin use (1.04 [1.01, 1.07]), cholesterol (1.05 [1.03, 1.08]), and smoking (1.03 [1.01, 1.06]), but not blood pressure (1.01 [0.998, 1.03]). Improvement in enrolled practices was greater than external comparison practices across all 4 measures (all P < .05). Implementation improved in both arms for Team-Based Care, Patient-Team Partnership, and Population Management, and improvement was greater in enhanced intervention practices (all P < .05). Leadership and Data-Driven Improvement (P < .05) improved significantly, with no difference by arm. A greater improvement in Building Block implementation was associated with a greater improvement in blood pressure measures (P < .05).ConclusionsPractice transformation support can assist practices with improving quality of care. Patient engagement in practice transformation can further enhance practices' implementation of aspects of new models of care.

Project description:Depressive disorders and symptoms affect more than one-third of primary care patients, many of whom do not receive or do not complete treatment. Internet-based social support from peers could sustain depression treatment engagement and adherence. We do not know whether primary care patients will accept referral to such websites nor do we know which methods of referral would be most effective.We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether (1) a simple generic referral card (control), (2) a patient-oriented brochure that provided examples of online postings and experience (internal motivation), or (3) a physician letter of recommendation (external motivation) would generate the greatest participation in a primary care Internet depression treatment support portal focused around an Internet support group (ISG).We used 3 offline methods to identify potential participants who had not used an ISG in the past 6 months. Eligibility was determined in part by a brief structured psychiatric interview based on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). After consent and enrollment, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups (control, internal motivation, or external motivation). We constructed a portal to connect primary care patients to both fact-based information and an established ISG (Psycho-Babble). The ISG allowed participants to view messages and then decide if they actually wished to register there. Participation in the portal and the ISG was assessed via automated activity tracking.Fifty participants were assigned to the 3 groups: a motivation-neutral control group (n=18), an internal motivation group (n=19), and an external motivation group (n=13). Of these participants, 31 (62%) visited the portal; 27 (54%) visited the ISG itself. The internal motivation group showed significantly greater participation than the control group on several measures. The external motivation group spent significantly less time logged onto the portal than the control group. The internal motivation group showed significantly greater participation than the external motivation group on several measures.Referral of primary care patients with depressive disorders and symptoms to an ISG is feasible even if they have never previously used one. This may best be accomplished by enhancing their internal motivation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The EBMeDS system is the computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) system of EBPNet, a national computerized point-of-care information service in Belgium. There is no clear evidence of more complex CCDS systems to manage chronic diseases in primary care practices (PCPs). The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EBMeDS use in improving diabetes care. METHODS:A cluster-randomized trial with before-and-after measurements was performed in Belgian PCPs over 1 year, from May 2017 to May 2018. We randomly assigned 51 practices to either the intervention group (IG), to receive the EBMeDS system, or to the control group (CG), to receive usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were the 1-year pre- to post-implementation change in HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Composite patient and process scores were calculated. A process evaluation was added to the analysis. Results were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models and logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations were used where appropriate. RESULTS:Of the 51 PCPs that were enrolled and randomly assigned (26 PCPs in the CG and 25 in the IG), 29 practices (3815 patients) were analyzed in the study: 2464 patients in the CG and 1351 patients in the IG. No change differences existed between groups in primary or secondary outcomes. Change difference between CG and IG after 1-year follow-up was -?0.09 (95% CI -?0.18; 0.01, p-value = 0.06) for HbA1c; 1.76 (95% CI -?0.46; 3.98, p-value = 0.12) for LDL cholesterol; and 0.13 (95% CI -?0.91; 1.16, p-value = 0.81) and 0.12 (95% CI -?1.25;1.49, p-value = 0.86) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The odds ratio of the IG versus the CG for the probability of no worsening and improvement was 1.09 (95% CI 0.73; 1.63, p-value = 0.67) for the process composite score and 0.74 (95% CI 0.49; 1.12, p-value = 0.16) for the composite patient score. All but one physician was satisfied with the EBMeDS system. CONCLUSIONS:The CCDS system EBMeDS did not improve diabetes care in Belgian primary care. The lack of improvement was mainly caused by imperfections in the organizational context of Belgian primary care for chronic disease management and shortcomings in the system requirements for the correct use of the EBMeDS system (e.g., complete structured records). These shortcomings probably caused low-use rates of the system. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01830569, Registered 12 April 2013.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets