Dataset Information

Quality and safety training in primary care: making an impact.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Preparing residents for future practice, knowledge, and skills in quality improvement and safety (QI/S) is a requisite element of graduate medical education. Despite many challenges, residency programs must consider new curricular innovations to meet the requirements. We report the effectiveness of a primary care QI/S curriculum and the role of the chief resident in quality and patient safety in facilitating it. METHOD: Through the Veterans Administration Graduate Medical Education Enhancement Program, we added a position for a chief resident in quality and patient safety, and 4 full-time equivalent internal medicine residents, to develop the Primary Care Interprofessional Patient-Centered Quality Care Training Curriculum. The curriculum includes a first-or second-year, 1-month block rotation that serves as a foundational experience in QI/S and interprofessional care. The responsibilities of the chief resident in quality and patient safety included organizing and teaching the QI/S curriculum and mentoring resident projects. Evaluation included prerotation and postrotation surveys of self-assessed QI/S knowledge, abilities, skills, beliefs, and commitment (KASBC); an end-of-the-year KASBC; prerotation and postrotation knowledge test; and postrotation and faculty surveys. RESULTS: Comparisons of prerotation and postrotation KASBC indicated significant self-assessed improvements in 4 of 5 KASBC domains: knowledge (P < .001), ability (P < .001), skills (P < .001), and belief (P < .03), which were sustained on the end-of-the-year survey. The knowledge test demonstrated increased QI/S knowledge (P = .002). Results of the postrotation survey indicate strong satisfaction with the curriculum, with 76% (25 of 33) and 70% (23 of 33) of the residents rating the quality and safety curricula as always or usually educational. Most faculty members acknowledged that the chief resident in quality and patient safety enhanced both faculty and resident QI/S interest and participation in projects. CONCLUSIONS: Our primary care QI/S curriculum was associated with improved and persistent resident self-perceived knowledge, abilities, and skills and increased knowledge-based scores of QI/S. The chief resident in quality and patient safety played an important role in overseeing the curriculum, teaching, and providing leadership.

SUBMITTER: Byrne JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3546584 | biostudies-other | 2012 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLack of healthcare access to due to physician shortages is a significant driver of telemedicine expansion in rural areas. Telemedicine is effective for management of chronic conditions such as diabetes but its effectiveness in primary care settings is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate differences in diabetes care before and after implementation of a longitudinal virtual primary care program.DesignPropensity score-matched cohort study utilizing difference-in-differences analysis.ParticipantsPatients with diabetes who received care at VA primary care clinics between January 2018 and December 2019 where the Virtual Integrated Multisite Patient Aligned Care Teams (V-IMPACT) program was implemented.ExposurePatient participation in at least one V-IMPACT visit while usual care patients did not participate in V-IMPACT.Main measuresThe primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) and secondary outcomes included change in the proportion of patients meeting diabetes quality indicators: blood pressure control, statin use, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) use, and annual microalbuminuria testing.Key resultsOur propensity-matched cohort included 9010 patients split evenly between those who participated in V-IMPACT and those who remained in usual in-person care. Among individuals with diabetes who participated in V-IMPACT, the change in mean HbA1C was - 0.055% (95% CI - 0.088 to - 0.022%) while those in usual care had a - 0.047% (95% CI - 0.080 to - 0.014%) change before and after program implementation. We observed a 5.1% (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7%) absolute increase in the proportion prescribed statins in the V-IMPACT group, a 5.3% (95% CI 2.5 to 8.2%) increase prescribed ACE/ARBs, and a 4.6% (95% 1.7 to 7.5%) increase in completed yearly microalbuminuria testing. V-IMPACT was not associated with a significant difference in the proportion with controlled blood pressure at < 140/90 or < 130/90 mmHg thresholds.ConclusionsQuality of diabetes care delivered by a longitudinal virtual primary care model was similar if not better than traditional in-person care.

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:BackgroundThe science of effective teams is well documented; far less is known, however, about how specific team configurations may impact primary care team effectiveness. Further, teams experiencing frequent personnel changes (perhaps as a consequence of poor implementation) may have difficulty delivering effective, continuous, well-coordinated care. This study aims to examine the extent to which primary care clinics in the Veterans Health Administration have implemented team configurations consistent with recommendations based on the Patient-Centered Medical Home model and the extent to which adherence to said recommendations, team stability, and role stability impact healthcare quality. Specifically, we expect to find better clinical outcomes in teams that adhere to recommended team configurations, teams whose membership and configuration are more stable over time, and teams whose clinical manager role is more stable over time.Methods/designWe will employ a combination of social network analysis and multilevel modeling to conduct a database review of variables extracted from the Veterans Health Administration's Team Assignments Report (TAR) (one of the largest, most diverse existing national samples of primary care teams (nteams > 7000)), as well as other employee and clinical data sources. To ensure the examination of appropriate clinical outcomes, we will enlist a team of subject matter experts to select a concise set of clear, prioritized primary care performance metrics. We will accomplish this using the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System, an evidence-based methodology for developing and implementing performance measurement.DiscussionWe are unaware of other studies of healthcare teams that consider team size, composition, and configuration longitudinally or with sample sizes of this magnitude. Results from this study can inform primary care team implementation policy and practice in both private- and public-sector clinics, such that teams are configured optimally, with adequate staffing, and the right mix of roles within the team.Trial registrationNot applicable-this study does not involve interventions on human participants.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to deliver healthcare at a distance and to support patient self-management through remote monitoring and personalised feedback. It is timely to scrutinise the evidence regarding the benefits, risks and costs of telehealthcare.Methods and findingsTwo reviewers searched for relevant systematic reviews published from January 1997 to November 2011 in: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and PakMed. Reviewers undertook independent quality assessment of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for systematic reviews. 1,782 review articles were identified, from which 80 systematic reviews were selected for inclusion. These covered a range of telehealthcare models involving both synchronous (live) and asynchronous (store-and-forward) interactions between provider and patients. Many studies showed no differences in outcomes between telehealthcare and usual care. Several reviews highlighted the large number of short-term (<12 months) feasibility studies with under 20 participants. Effects of telehealthcare on health service indicators were reported in several reviews, particularly reduced hospitalisations. The reported clinical effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for patients with long-term conditions appeared to be greatest in those with more severe disease at high-risk of hospitalisation and death. The failure of many studies to adequately describe the intervention makes it difficult to disentangle the contributions of technological and human/organisational factors on the outcomes reported. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare remains sparse. Patient safety considerations were absent from the evaluative telehealthcare literature.ConclusionsPolicymakers and planners need to be aware that investment in telehealthcare will not inevitably yield clinical or economic benefits. It is likely that the greatest gains will be achieved for patients at highest risk of serious outcomes. There is a need for longer-term studies in order to determine whether the benefits demonstrated in time limited trials are sustained.

Dataset Information

Quality and safety training in primary care: making an impact.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets