Dataset Information

A controlled trial of dissemination and implementation of a cardiovascular risk reduction strategy in small primary care practices.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the effect of dissemination and implementation of an intervention consisting of practice facilitation and a risk-stratified, population management dashboard on cardiovascular risk reduction for patients at high risk in small, primary care practices.

Study setting

A total of 219 small primary care practices (≤10 clinicians per site) across North Carolina with primary data collection from electronic health records (EHRs) from the fourth quarter of 2015 through the second quarter of 2018.

Study design

We performed a stepped-wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial of a one-year intervention consisting of practice facilitation utilizing quality improvement techniques coupled with a cardiovascular dashboard that included lists of risk-stratified adults, aged 40-79 years and their unmet treatment opportunities. The primary outcome was change in 10-Year ASCVD Risk score among all patients with a baseline score ≥10 percent from baseline to 3 months postintervention.

Data collection/ extraction methods

Data extracts were securely transferred from practices on a nightly basis from their EHR to the research team registry.

Principle findings

ASCVD risk scores were assessed on 437 556 patients and 146 826 had a calculated 10-year risk ≥10 percent. The mean baseline risk was 23.4 percent (SD ± 12.6 percent). Postintervention, the absolute risk reduction was 6.3 percent (95% CI 6.3, 6.4). Models considering calendar time and stepped-wedge controls revealed most of the improvement (4.0 of 6.3 percent) was attributable to the intervention and not secular trends. In multivariate analysis, male gender, age >65 years, low-income (<$40 000), and Black race (P < .001 for all variables) were each associated with greater risk reductions.

Conclusion

A risk-stratified, population management dashboard combined with practice facilitation led to substantial reductions of 10-year ASCVD risk for patients at high risk. Similar approaches could lead to effective dissemination and implementation of other new evidence, especially in rural and other under-resourced practices. Registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov 15-0479.

SUBMITTER: Cykert S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7704467 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrecision implementation science requires methods to evaluate and select implementation strategies. This study developed and evaluated a novel measure of concordance between current and preferred dissemination channels (DC) and implementation strategies (IS) to guide efforts to improve the adoption of evidence-based management strategies for chronic pain.MethodsWe conducted a one-time electronic survey of Pennsylvania primary care practitioners (PCPs) about current vs. preferred chronic pain management DC and IS use. Survey items were selected based on preliminary data, the Model for Dissemination of Research, and the Evidence-Based Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy of implementation strategies. We used Cohen's kappa (κ) to assess the agreement between participant-level current and preferred DC/IS. We calculated % preferred minus % experienced for each DC/IS and assessed the equality of proportions to determine whether this difference significantly departed from zero. We categorized DC and IS based on the degree of use and preference, to evaluate alignment.ResultsThe current sample included 101 Pennsylvania PCPs primarily in urban (94.06%), non-academic (90.10%) settings who self-identified as mostly female (66.34%) and white (85.15%). The greatest difference between preferred and experienced DCs, or "need," was identified by participants as workshops, clinical experts, seminars, and researchers. Similarly, participants reported the greatest IS gaps as multidisciplinary chronic pain workgroups, targeted support for clinicians, and a chronic pain clinical champion. Participating PCPs had moderate DC concordance (kappa = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.38-0.52) and low IS concordance (kappa = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.13-0.23). DC and IS concordance were both greater than that expected by chance. We further identified well-aligned DC and IS, including professional organizations, briefs, and guidelines.ConclusionWe identified a novel implementer-reported outcome of dissemination channel and implementation strategy concordance that allows implementation scientists to quantify the magnitude of the gap between the current and preferred experience of implementers. This quantitative measure can help with the selection and evaluation of dissemination channels and implementation strategies. Future research should leverage this measure to understand the degree to which preference concordance influences clinical outcomes and performance.

Project description:BackgroundThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched the EvidenceNOW Initiative to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care in smaller primary care practices. AHRQ funded eight grantees (seven regional Cooperatives and one independent national evaluation) to participate in EvidenceNOW. The national evaluation examines quality improvement efforts and outcomes for more than 1500 small primary care practices (restricted to those with fewer than ten physicians per clinic). Examples of external support include practice facilitation, expert consultation, performance feedback, and educational materials and activities. This paper describes the study protocol for the EvidenceNOW national evaluation, which is called Evaluating System Change to Advance Learning and Take Evidence to Scale (ESCALATES).MethodsThis prospective observational study will examine the portfolio of EvidenceNOW Cooperatives using both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data include: online implementation diaries, observation and interviews at Cooperatives and practices, and systematic assessment of context from the perspective of Cooperative team members. Quantitative data include: practice-level performance on clinical quality measures (aspirin prescribing, blood pressure and cholesterol control, and smoking cessation; ABCS) collected by Cooperatives from electronic health records (EHRs); practice and practice member surveys to assess practice capacity and other organizational and structural characteristics; and systematic tracking of intervention delivery. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses will be conducted to examine how Cooperatives organize to provide external support to practices, to compare effectiveness of the dissemination and implementation approaches they implement, and to examine how regional variations and other organization and contextual factors influence implementation and effectiveness.DiscussionESCALATES is a national evaluation of an ambitious large-scale dissemination and implementation effort focused on transforming smaller primary care practices. Insights will help to inform the design of national health care practice extension systems aimed at supporting practice transformation efforts in the USA.Clinical trial registrationNCT02560428 (09/21/15).

Project description:There is a need to find innovative approaches for translating best practices for chronic disease care into daily primary care practice routines. Primary care plays a crucial role in the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease. There is, however, a substantive care gap, and many challenges exist in implementing evidence-based care. The Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project is a pragmatic trial designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care practices using practice outreach facilitation.The IDOCC project is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial in which Practice Outreach Facilitators work with primary care practices to improve cardiovascular disease prevention and management for patients at highest risk. Primary care practices in a large health region in Eastern Ontario, Canada, were eligible to participate. The intervention consists of regular monthly meetings with the Practice Outreach Facilitator over a one- to two-year period. Starting with audit and feedback, consensus building, and goal setting, the practices are supported in changing practice behavior by incorporating chronic care model elements. These elements include (a) evidence-based decision support for providers, (b) delivery system redesign for practices, (c) enhanced self-management support tools provided to practices to help them engage patients, and (d) increased community resource linkages for practices to enhance referral of patients. The primary outcome is a composite score measured at the level of the patient to represent each practice's adherence to evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular care. Qualitative analysis of the Practice Outreach Facilitators' written narratives of their ongoing practice interactions will be done. These textual analyses will add further insight into understanding critical factors impacting project implementation.This pragmatic, stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial with both quantitative and process evaluations demonstrates innovative methods of implementing large-scale quality improvement and evidence-based approaches to care delivery. This is the first Canadian study to examine the impact of a large-scale multifaceted cardiovascular quality-improvement program in primary care. It is anticipated that through the evaluation of IDOCC, we will demonstrate an effective, practical, and sustainable means of improving the cardiovascular health of patients across Canada.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808.

Project description:Background:The Six Building Blocks for improving opioid management (6BBs) is a program for improving the management of patients in primary care practices who are on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. The 6BBs include building leadership and consensus; aligning policies, patient agreements, and workflows; tracking and monitoring patient care; conducting planned, patient-centered visits; tailoring care for complex patients; and measuring success. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the development of a 6BBs implementation guide: a step-by-step approach for independently implementing the 6BBs in a practice. This mixed-method study seeks to assess practices' use of the implementation guide to implement the 6BBs and the effectiveness of 6BBs implementation on opioid management processes of care among practices using the implementation guide. Methods:Data collection is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Proctor's taxonomy of implementation outcomes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. A diverse group of health care organizations with primary care clinics across the USA will participate in the study over 15?months. Qualitative data collection will include semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at each organization at two time points, notes from routine check-in calls, and document review. These data will be used to understand practices' motivation for participation, history with opioid management efforts, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and implementation progress. Quantitative data collection will consist of a provider and staff survey, an implementation milestones assessment, and quarterly opioid prescribing quality measures. These data will supplement our understanding of implementation progress and will allow us to assess changes over time in providers' opioid prescribing practices, prescribing self-efficacy, challenges to providing guideline-driven care, and practices' opioid prescribing quality measures. Qualitative data will be coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and clustered multivariate regression. Discussion:This study contributes to the knowledge of the implementation and effectiveness of a team-based approach to opioid management in primary care practices. Information gleaned from this study can be used to inform efforts to curtail opioid prescribing and assist primary care practices considering implementing the 6BBs.

Project description:BackgroundSmall-sized primary care practices, defined as practices with fewer than 10 clinicians, delivered the majority of outpatient visits in the USA. Statin therapy in high-risk individuals reduces atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events, but prescribing patterns in small primary care practices are not well known. This study describes statin treatment patterns in small-sized primary care practices and examines patient- and practice-level factors associated with lack of statin treatment.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of statin-eligible patients from practices that participated in Healthy Hearts in the Heartland (H3), a quality improvement initiative aimed at improving cardiovascular care measures in small primary care practices. All statin-eligible adults who received care in one of 53 H3 practices from 2013 to 2016. Statin-eligible adults include those aged at least 21 with (1) clinical ASCVD, (2) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 190 mg/dL, or (3) diabetes aged 40-75 and with LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL. Eligible patients with no record of moderate- to high-intensity statin prescription are defined by ACC/AHA guidelines.ResultsAmong the 13,330 statin-eligible adults, the mean age was 58 years and 52% were women. Overall, there was no record of moderate- to high-intensity statin prescription among 5,780 (43%) patients. Younger age, female sex, and lower LDL-C were independently associated with a lack of appropriate intensity statin therapy. Higher proportions of patients insured by Medicaid and having only family medicine trained physicians (versus having at least one internal medicine trained physician) at the practice were also associated with lower appropriate intensity statin use. Lack of appropriate intensity statin therapy was higher in independent practices than in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) (50% vs. 40%, p value < 0.01).ConclusionsThere is an opportunity for improved ASCVD risk reduction in small primary care practices. Statin treatment patterns and factors influencing lack of treatment vary by practice setting, highlighting the importance of tailored approaches to each setting.