Dataset Information

Reducing Imaging Utilization in Primary Care Through Implementation of a Peer Comparison Dashboard.

ABSTRACT:

Background

High clinical variation has been linked to decreased quality of care, increased costs, and decreased patient satisfaction. We present the implementation and analysis of a peer comparison intervention to reduce clinical variation within a large primary care network.

Objective

Evaluate existing variation in radiology ordering within a primary care network and determine whether peer comparison feedback reduces variation or changes practice patterns.

Design

Radiology ordering data was analyzed to evaluate baseline variation in imaging rates. A utilization dashboard was shared monthly with providers for a year, and imaging rates pre- and post-intervention were retrospectively analyzed.

Participants

Providers within the primary care network spanning 1,358,644 outpatient encounters and 159 providers over a 3-year period.

Interventions

The inclusion of radiology utilization data as part of a provider's monthly quality and productivity dashboards. This information allows providers to compare their practice patterns with those of their colleagues.

Main measures

We measured provider imaging rates, stratified by modality, as well as order variation over time.

Key results

We observed significant variation in imaging rates among providers in the network, with the top decile ordering an average of 4.2 times more than the lowest decile in the two years prior to intervention. Provider experience and training were not significantly associated with imaging utilization. In the first year after sharing utilization data with providers, we saw a 17.3% decrease in median imaging rate (p < 0.001) and a 21.4% reduction in provider variation between top and bottom deciles. Median ordering rate for more costly cross-sectional imaging, including CT, MRI, and nuclear medicine studies, decreased by 30.4% (p < 0.001), 20.2% (p = 0.008), and 41.8% (p = 0.002), respectively.

Conclusions

Peer comparison feedback can shape provider imaging behavior even in the absence of targets or financial incentives. Peer comparison is a low-touch, low-cost intervention for influencing provider ordering and may have applicability in other clinical areas.

SUBMITTER: Halpern DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7859117 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe vast majority of older adults desire to age in their communities, and it is not clear what helps them be successful at aging in place.ObjectiveTo investigate the comparative effectiveness of community-designed and community-implemented peer-to-peer (P2P) support programs vs standard community services (SCS) to promote health and wellness in at-risk older adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study involved a longitudinal cohort of adults aged 65 years and older conducted between 2015 and 2017. The setting was 3 communities in which community-based organizations delivered P2P services to older adults in California, Florida, and New York. Participants in the P2P group and in the SCS group were matched at enrollment into the study according to age, sex, and race/ethnicity at each site. Data analysis was performed from October 2018 to May 2020.ExposuresP2P support was provided by trained older adult volunteers in the same community. They provided support targeted at the needs of the older adult they served, including transportation assistance, check-in calls, social activities, help with shopping, and trips to medical appointments.Main outcomes and measuresRates of hospitalization, urgent care (UC) and emergency department (ED) use, and a composite measure of health care utilization were collected over 12 months of follow-up.ResultsA total of 503 participants were screened, 456 participants were enrolled and had baseline data (234 in the SCS group and 222 in the P2P group), and 8 participants had no follow-up data, leaving 448 participants for the main analysis (231 in the SCS group and 217 in the P2P group; 363 women [81%]; mean [SD] age, 80 [9] years). Participants in the P2P group more often lived alone, had lower incomes, and were more physically and mentally frail at baseline compared with the SCS group. After adjusting for propensity scores to account for baseline differences between the 2 groups, there was a statistically significant higher rate of hospitalization in the P2P group than in the SCS group (0.68 hospitalization per year vs 0.44 hospitalization per year; risk ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.14-2.07; P = .005) during the 12 months of observation. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the rates of ED or UC visits or composite health care utilization over the 12 months of the study.Conclusions and relevanceP2P support was associated with higher rates of hospitalization but was not associated with other measures of health care utilization. Given that this is not a randomized clinical trial, it is not clear from these findings whether peer support will help older adults age in place, and the topic deserves further study.

Project description:BackgroundOver 1100 veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs)-those with formal training who support other veterans with similar diagnoses. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from their usual placement in mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PSs in PACTs, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in new settings.MethodsThis study was a cluster-randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial to test the impact of minimal implementation support vs. facilitated implementation on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT over 2 years. Twenty-five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) were recruited to reassign mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 7, 10, 8) over 6-month blocks were matched and randomized to each study condition. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert worked with site stakeholders through a site visit and regular calls, and provided performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Minimal implementation sites received a webinar and access to the VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions were compared on PS workload data and veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews collected information on perceived usefulness of the PS services.ResultsIn the first year, sites that received facilitation had higher numbers of unique veterans served and a higher number of PS visits, although the groups did not differ after the second year. Also, sites receiving external facilitation started delivering PS services more quickly than minimal support sites. All sites in the external facilitation condition continued in the pilot into the second year, whereas two of the sites in the minimal assistance condition dropped out after the first year. There were no differences between groups on veterans' outcomes-activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Most veterans were very positive about the help they received as evidenced in the qualitative interviews.DiscussionThese findings demonstrate that external facilitation can be effective in supporting the implementation of PSs in primary care settings. The lack of significant differences across conditions after the second year highlights the positive outcomes associated with active facilitation, while also raising the important question of whether longer-term success may require some level of ongoing facilitation and implementation support.Trial registrationThis project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).