Dataset Information

A practice facilitation-guided intervention in primary care settings to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cost analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of practice facilitation (PF) for adoption of guidelines for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors. This study estimated the associated cost of PF for guideline adoption in small, private primary care practices.

Methods

The cost analysis included categories for start-up costs, intervention costs, and practice staff costs for the implemented PF-guided intervention. We estimated the total 1-year costs to operate the program and calculated the mean and range of the cost-per-practice by quarter of the intervention. We estimated the lower and upper bounds for all salary expenses, rounding to the nearest $100.

Results

Total 1-year intervention costs for all 261 practices ranged from $7,900,000 to $10,200,000, with program and practice salaries comprising $6,600,000-$8,400,000 of the total. Start-up costs were a small proportion (3%) of the total 1-year costs. Excluding start-up costs, quarter 1 cost-per-practice was the most expensive at $20,400-$26,700, and quarter 4 was the least expensive at about $10,000. Practice staff time (compared with program staff time) was the majority of the staffing costs at 75-84%.

Conclusions

The PF strategy costs approximately $10,000 per practice per quarter for program and practice costs, once implemented and running at highest efficiency. Whether this program is "worth it" to the decision-maker depends on the relative costs and effectiveness of their other options for improving cardiovascular risk reduction.

Trial registration

This study is retrospectively registered on January 5, 2016, at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02646488 .

SUBMITTER: Gold HT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7868016 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A practice facilitation-guided intervention in primary care settings to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cost analysis.

Gold Heather T HT Siman Nina N Cuthel Allison M AM Nguyen Ann M AM Pham-Singer Hang H Berry Carolyn A CA Shelley Donna R DR

Implementation science communications 20210206 1

<h4>Background</h4>A stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of practice facilitation (PF) for adoption of guidelines for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors. This study estimated the associated cost of PF for guideline adoption in small, private primary care practices.<h4>Methods</h4>The cost analysis included categories for start-up costs, intervention costs, and practice staff costs for the implemented PF-guided intervention. W ...[more]

PMID: 33549152

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Obesity is one of the largest drivers of health care spending but nearly half of the population with obesity demonstrate suboptimal readiness for weight loss treatment. Black women are disproportionately likely to have both obesity and limited weight loss readiness. However, they have been shown to be receptive to strategies that prevent weight gain. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of a digital weight gain prevention intervention (Shape) for black women. Shape consisted of adaptive telephone-based coaching by health system personnel, a tailored skills training curriculum, and patient self-monitoring delivered via a fully automated interactive voice response system. METHODS:A cost and cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized clinical trial of the Shape intervention was conducted from the payer perspective. Costs included those of delivering the program to 91 intervention participants in the trial and were summarized by program elements: self-monitoring, skills training, coaching, and administration. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the incremental cost per QALY of Shape relative to usual care. RESULTS:Shape cost an average of US $758 per participant. The base-case model in which quality of life benefits decay linearly to zero 5 years post intervention cessation, generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US $55,264 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest an ICER below US $50,000 per QALY and US $100,000 per QALY in 39% and 98% of simulations, respectively. Results are highly sensitive to durability of benefits, rising to US $165,730 if benefits end 6 months post intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that the Shape intervention is cost-effective based on established benchmarks, indicating that it can be a part of a successful strategy to address the nation's growing obesity epidemic in low-income at-risk communities.

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:BackgroundMore than 100 million individuals in the USA have been diagnosed with a chronic disease, yet chronic disease care has remained fragmented and of inconsistent quality. Improving chronic disease management has been challenging for primary care and internal medicine practitioners. Practice facilitation provides a comprehensive approach to chronic disease care. The objective is to evaluate the impact of practice facilitation on chronic disease outcomes in the primary care setting.MethodsThis systematic review examined North American studies from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (database inception to August 2017). Investigators independently extracted and assessed the quality of the data on chronic disease process and clinical outcome measures. Studies implemented practice facilitation and reported quantifiable care processes and patient outcomes for chronic disease. Each study and their evidence were assessed for risk of bias and quality according to the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grade Collaboration tool.ResultsThis systematic review included 25 studies: 12 randomized control trials and 13 prospective cohort studies. Across all studies, practices and their clinicians were aware of the implementation of practice facilitation. Improvements were observed in most studies for chronic diseases including asthma, cancer (breast, cervical, and colorectal), cardiovascular disease (cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease), and type 2 diabetes. Mixed results were observed for chronic kidney disease and chronic illness care.DiscussionOverall, the results suggest that practice facilitation may improve chronic disease care measures. Across all studies, practices were aware of practice facilitation. These findings lend support for the potential expansion of practice facilitation in primary care. Future work will need to investigate potential opportunities for practice facilitation to improve chronic disease outcomes in other health care settings (e.g., specialty and multi-specialty practices) with standardized measures.

Project description:ImportanceUnhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is the fourth most preventable cause of death in the US. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians routinely screen all adults 18 years and older for UAU; however, this preventive service is poorly implemented.ObjectiveTo determine if practice facilitation improved delivery of the recommended care for UAU compared to usual care.Design, setting, and participantsThis practice-level cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted across diverse and representative primary care practices throughout Virginia. A total of 76 primary care practices enrolled between October 2019 and January 2023.InterventionPractices received immediate (intervention) or 6-month delayed (control) practice facilitation, which included tailored educational sessions, workflow management, and tools for addressing UAU.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included the increase in recommended screening for UAU, brief interventions, referral for counseling, and medication treatment. Data were collected via medical record review (structured and free text data) and transcripts of practice facilitator sessions and exits interviews.ResultsOf the 76 primary care practices enrolled, 32 were randomized to intervention and 35 to control; 11 789 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [16.3] years; 61.1% women) were randomly selected for analysis, with patient demographics similar to Virginia at large. From baseline to 6 months after intervention, screening with a validated instrument increased from 2.1% (95% CI, 0.5%-8.4%) to 35.5% (95% CI, 11.5%-69.9%) in the intervention group compared to 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.8%) to 1.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.8%) in the control group (P < .001). Brief office-based interventions for the intervention group increased from 26.2% (95% CI, 14.2%-45.8%) to 62.6% (95% CI, 43.6%-78.3%) vs 45.5% (95% CI, 28.0%-64.1%) to 55.1% (95% CI, 36.5%-72.3%) in the control group (P = .008). Identification of UAU, referral for counseling, and medication treatment had similar changes for both groups. Qualitative analyses of transcripts revealed that few clinicians understood the preventive service prior to practice facilitation, but at the end most felt much more competent and confident with screening and brief intervention for UAU.Conclusions and relevanceThis cluster randomized clinical trial demonstrated that practice facilitation can help primary care practices to better implement screening and counseling for UAU into their routine workflow. Effective primary care practice implementation interventions such as this can have a profound effect on the health of communities. Given the number of people that the participating practices care for, this intervention resulted in an additional 114 604 patients being screened annually for UAU who would not have been otherwise.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized.ObjectiveTo characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic health record (EHR).Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide, cross-sectional study used EHR data from physicians and APPs (ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at all US institutions that used Epic Systems' EHR between January and May 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to April 2023.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment scheduling patterns, percentage of new and established and level of evaluation and management (E/M) visits, and EHR use metrics per day and week.ResultsThe sample consisted of 217 924 clinicians across 389 organizations, including 174 939 physicians and 42 985 APPs. Although primary care physicians were more likely than APPs to have more than 3 days per week with appointments (50 921 physicians [79.5%] vs 17 095 APPs [77.9%]), this trend was reversed for medical (38 645 physicians [64.8%] vs 8124 APPs [74.0%]) and surgical (24 155 physicians [47.1%] vs 5198 APPs [51.7%]) specialties. Medical and surgical specialty physicians saw 6.7 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively, more new patient visits than did their APP counterparts, whereas primary care physicians saw 2.8 percentage points fewer new patient visits than did APPs. Physicians saw a greater percentage of level 4 or 5 visits across all specialties. Medical and surgical physicians spent 34.3 and 45.8 fewer minutes per day, respectively, using the EHR than did APPs in their specialties, whereas primary care physicians spent 17.7 minutes per day more. These differences translated to primary care physicians spending 96.3 minutes more per week using the EHR than APPs, whereas medical and surgical physicians spent 149.9 and 140.7 fewer minutes, respectively, than did their APP counterparts.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional, national study of clinicians found significant differences in visit and EHR patterns for physicians compared with APPs across specialty types. By underscoring the different current usage of physicians vs APPs across specialty types, this study helps place into context the work and visit patterns of physicians compared with APPs and serves as a foundation for evaluations of clinical outcomes and quality.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of complex, multi-morbid patients is challenging for solo primary care providers (PCPs) with limited access to resources. The primary objective of the intervention was to reduce the overall rate of Emergency Department (ED) visits among patients in participating practices.Methods and findingsAn interrupted time series design and qualitative interviews were used to evaluate a multifaceted intervention, SCOPE (Seamless Care Optimizing the Patient Experience), offered to solo PCPs whose patients were frequent users of the ED. The intervention featured a navigation hub (nurse, homecare coordinator) to link PCPs with hospital and community resources, a general internist on-call to provide phone advice or urgent assessments, and access to patient results on-line. Continuous quality improvement (QI) strategies were employed to optimize each component of the intervention. The primary outcome was the relative pre-post intervention change in ED visit rate for patients of participating practices compared with that for a propensity-matched control group of physicians over the contemporaneous period. Themes were identified from semi-structured interviews on PCP's experiences and influential factors in their engagement. Twenty-nine physicians agreed to participate and were provided access to the intervention over an 18-month time period. There were a total of 1,525 intervention contacts over the 18-months (average: 50.6±60.8 per PCP). Both intervention and control groups experienced a trend towards lower rates of ED use by their patients over the study time period. The pre-post difference in trend for the intervention group compared to the controls was not significant at 1.4% per year (RR = 1.014; p = 0.59). Several themes were identified from qualitative interviews including: PCPs felt better supported in the care of their patients; they experienced a greater sense of community, and; they were better able to provide shared primary-specialty care.ConclusionsThis multifaceted intervention to support solo PCPs in the management of their complex patients did not result in a reduced rate of ED visits compared to controls, likely related to variable uptake among PCPs. It did however result in more comprehensive and coordinated care for their patients. Future directions will focus on increasing uptake by improving ease of use, increasing the range of services offered and expanding to a larger number of PCPs.

Dataset Information

A practice facilitation-guided intervention in primary care settings to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cost analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

A practice facilitation-guided intervention in primary care settings to reduce cardiovascular disease risk: a cost analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets