Dataset Information

Measuring and Improving Evidence-Based Patient Care Using a Web-Based Gamified Approach in Primary Care (QualityIQ): Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Unwarranted variability in clinical practice is a challenging problem in practice today, leading to poor outcomes for patients and low-value care for providers, payers, and patients.

Objective

In this study, we introduced a novel tool, QualityIQ, and determined the extent to which it helps primary care physicians to align care decisions with the latest best practices included in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

Methods

We developed the fully automated QualityIQ patient simulation platform with real-time evidence-based feedback and gamified peer benchmarking. Each case included workup, diagnosis, and management questions with explicit evidence-based scoring criteria. We recruited practicing primary care physicians across the United States into the study via the web and conducted a cross-sectional study of clinical decisions among a national sample of primary care physicians, randomized to continuing medical education (CME) and non-CME study arms. Physicians "cared" for 8 weekly cases that covered typical primary care scenarios. We measured participation rates, changes in quality scores (including MIPS scores), self-reported practice change, and physician satisfaction with the tool. The primary outcomes for this study were evidence-based care scores within each case, adherence to MIPS measures, and variation in clinical decision-making among the primary care providers caring for the same patient.

Results

We found strong, scalable engagement with the tool, with 75% of participants (61 non-CME and 59 CME) completing at least 6 of 8 total cases. We saw significant improvement in evidence-based clinical decisions across multiple conditions, such as diabetes (+8.3%, P<.001) and osteoarthritis (+7.6%, P=.003) and with MIPS-related quality measures, such as diabetes eye examinations (+22%, P<.001), depression screening (+11%, P<.001), and asthma medications (+33%, P<.001). Although the CME availability did not increase enrollment in the study, participants who were offered CME credits were more likely to complete at least 6 of the 8 cases.

Conclusions

Although CME availability did not prove to be important, the short, clinically detailed case simulations with real-time feedback and gamified peer benchmarking did lead to significant improvements in evidence-based care decisions among all practicing physicians.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800901.

SUBMITTER: Burgon T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8738991 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare systems and their primary care practices are redesigning to achieve goals identified in Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) models such as Veterans Affairs (VA)'s Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). Implementation of these models, however, requires major transformation. Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) is a multi-level approach for supporting organizational change and innovation spread.ObjectiveTo describe EBQI as an approach for promoting VA's PACT and to assess initial implementation of planned EBQI elements.DesignDescriptive.ParticipantsRegional and local interdisciplinary clinical leaders, patient representatives, Quality Council Coordinators, practicing primary care clinicians and staff, and researchers from six demonstration site practices in three local healthcare systems in one VA region.InterventionEBQI promotes bottom-up local innovation and spread within top-down organizational priorities. EBQI innovations are supported by a research-clinical partnership, use continuous quality improvement methods, and are developed in regional demonstration sites.ApproachWe developed a logic model for EBQI for PACT (EBQI-PACT) with inputs, outputs, and expected outcomes. We describe implementation of logic model outputs over 18 months, using qualitative data from 84 key stakeholders (104 interviews from two waves) and review of study documents.ResultsNearly all implementation elements of the EBQI-PACT logic model were fully or partially implemented. Elements not fully achieved included patient engagement in Quality Councils (4/6) and consistent local primary care practice interdisciplinary leadership (4/6). Fourteen of 15 regionally approved innovation projects have been completed, three have undergone initial spread, five are prepared to spread, and two have completed toolkits that have been pretested in two to three sites and are now ready for external spread.DiscussionEBQI-PACT has been feasible to implement in three participating healthcare systems in one VA region. Further development of methods for engaging patients in care design and for promoting interdisciplinary leadership is needed.

Project description:Background/AimsPatient-centered communication (PCC) is a critical element of patient-centered care, which the Institute of Medicine (2001) promulgates as essential to improving healthcare delivery. The National Cancer Institute?s Strategic Plan for Leading the Nation (2008) calls for assessing the delivery of PCC in cancer care. However, no comprehensive measure of PCC exists, and stakeholders have different conceptualizations and assumptions about how to measure it. The purpose of our study was to develop a set of self-administered patient survey items for comprehensive PCC assessment.MethodsOur approach was grounded in the PCC conceptual framework, as presented in the NCI monograph, Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care (2007), which defines six functions of PCC:First, we developed a comprehensive inventory of measurement domains and subdomains, aligned with the PCC functions, by reviewing relevant literature, consulting experts, and conducting a small qualitative study involving patient interviews. Next, we inventoried over 100 survey and other measurement instruments, identifying over 1,300 possible items. We evaluated items using a systematic question appraisal system, adapted existing measures as appropriate, and developed new questions to fill identified gaps. Finally, we tested more than 200 survey questions with cancer patients (n=46) using cognitive interviews.ResultsOverall, the findings from the cognitive interviews suggest that the survey questions function well. Patients were generally able to understand the questions and apply them to their own experiences. Many participants reported that the questions reflected important aspects of their interaction with providers.ConclusionsThe draft PCC survey items can now be used for population surveillance, quality assessment, and intervention research in the context of cancer care. Although the survey items focus on PCC with respect to cancer care, many are relevant to all patients as patient-centered care is a goal for health care generally. We discuss challenges of PCC assessment, including measuring communication experiences across different care settings, types of clinicians, and stages in the cancer care continuum. Measuring PCC longitudinally over the course of care and balancing parsimony and comprehensiveness are important considerations.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this article is to illustrate the application of an evidence-based, structured performance measurement methodology to identify, prioritize, and (when appropriate) generate new measures of health care quality, using primary care as a case example. Primary health care is central to the health care system and health of the American public; thus, ensuring high quality is essential. Due to its complexity, ensuring high-quality primary care requires measurement frameworks that can assess the quality of the infrastructure, workforce configurations, and processes available. This paper describes the use of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) to compile a targeted set of such measures, prioritized according to their contribution and value to primary care.MethodsWe adapted ProMES to select and rank existing primary care measures according to value to the primary care clinic. Nine subject matter experts (SMEs) consisting of clinicians, hospital leaders and national policymakers participated in facilitated expert elicitation sessions to identify objectives of performance, corresponding measures, and priority rankings.ResultsThe SMEs identified three fundamental objectives: access, patient-health care team partnerships, and technical quality. The SMEs also selected sixteen performance indicators from the 44 pre-vetted, currently existing measures from three different data sources for primary care. One indicator, Team 2-Day Post Discharge Contact Ratio, was selected as an indicator of both team partnerships and technical quality. Indicators were prioritized according to value using the contingency functions developed by the SMEs.ConclusionOur article provides an actionable guide to applying ProMES, which can be adapted to the needs of various industries, including measure selection and modification from existing data sources, and proposing new measures. Future work should address both logistical considerations (e.g., data capture, common data/programming language) and lingering measurement challenges, such as operationalizating measures to be meaningful and interpretable across health care settings.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate imaging and low-value care for low back pain (LBP) are common. A new patient-education booklet was created to overcome identified barriers to the delivery of recommended care, including the use of inappropriate imaging. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of this booklet as part of primary care for LBP patients in comparison to usual care.MethodsA cluster-randomized trial was performed. The intervention involved providing practitioners with the new patient-education booklet and a 30-min training session on its use. The booklet was provided during the clinical consult to all consenting LBP patients in the intervention group. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients presenting with LBP who underwent imaging examinations during the first three months of follow-up and PROMIS PF-20 (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, 20-item physical functioning short form) change between baseline and three-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes, including sick leave and imaging examinations at 12 months, were investigated. Logistic regression using GEE-estimation was used for dichotomous outcomes, Poisson regression using GEE-estimation for count outcomes, and linear mixed models for continuous outcomes.ResultsUsing the patient education booklet appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of LBP patients who underwent an imaging examination at three months, but the result was not statistically significant (OR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.27 to 1.22). At 12 months, the effect was slightly larger and statistically significant (OR 0.50, 95%Cl 0.30 to 0.83, p = 0.008). No difference was observed in the PROMIS PF-20 T-score change between baseline and 3 months or 12 months (p = 0.365 and p = 0.923, respectively). The number of sick leave days in the intervention group was less than that in the control group at 3 months (RR 0.47, 95%Cl 0.26 to 0.83, p = 0.010) and at 12 months (RR 0.36, 95%Cl 0.18 to 0.72, p = 0.004).ConclusionsThe booklet appeared to be effective in reducing the proportion of LBP patients who underwent imaging examinations over 12 months. The intervention had no discernible effect on the PROMIS PF20 T-score change. The number of sick leave days was substantially lower in the intervention group.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN14389368 , Registered 4 April 2019-Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundAn aging population and increasing multimorbidity challenge health care systems worldwide. Patient segmentation aims to recognize groups of patients with similar needs, offer targeted services to these groups, and reduce the burden of health care. In this study, the unique Finnish innovation Navigator, a web-based service for patient segmentation, is presented. Both patients and health care professionals complete the electronic questionnaire concerning patients' coping in everyday life and health state. Thus, it considers the patient perspective on self-care. One of four customership-strategy (CS) groups (self-acting, community, cooperating, and network) is then proposed in response to the answers given. This resulting strategy helps both professionals to coordinate patient health care and patients to utilize appropriate health services.ObjectiveThis study aims to determine the feasibility, validity, and reliability of the Navigator service in the segmentation of patients with diabetes into four CS groups in a primary care setting. Patient characteristics concerning demographic status, chronic conditions, disabilities, health-related quality of life, and well-being in different CS groups will be described. We hypothesize that patients in the network group will be older, have more illnesses, chronic conditions or disabilities, and require more health care services than patients in the self-acting group.MethodsIn this mixed methods study, data collection was based on questionnaires (user experience of Navigator, demographic and health status, World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, EuroQol 5D, Wellbeing Questionnaire 12, and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) issued to 300 patients with diabetes and on user-experience questionnaires for and semistructured focus-group interviews with 12 nurses. Navigator-database reports and diabetes-care values (blood pressure, BMI, HbA1c, low-density lipoprotein, albumin-creatinine, smoking status) were collected. Qualitative and descriptive analyses were used to study the feasibility, content, concurrent, and face validity of Navigator. While criterion and concurrent validity were examined with correlations, reliability was examined by calculating Cohen kappa and Cronbach alpha. Construct validity is studied by performing exploratory-factor analysis on Navigator data reports and by hypothesis testing. The values, demographics, and health status of patients in different groups were described, and differences between groups were studied by comparing means. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess which variables affect CS group variation.ResultsData collection was completed in September 2019, and the first feasibility results are expected by the end of 2020. Further results and publications are expected in 2021 and 2022.ConclusionsThis is the first scientific study concerning Navigator's psychometric properties. The study will examine the segregation of patients with diabetes into four CS groups in a primary care setting and the differences between patients in groups. This study will assist in Navigator's further development as a patient segmentation method considering patients' perspectives on self-care. This study will not prove the effectiveness or efficacy of Navigator; therefore, it is essential to study these outcomes of separate care pathways.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/20570.