Sharing Resources: Opportunities for Smaller Primary Care Practices to Increase Their Capacity for Patient Care

Outlines findings linking shared resources with use of health information technology, care coordination, self-management, and quality monitoring, and strategies to increase resources among small and midsize practices by expanding shared resource models

Organizing for Higher Performance: Case Studies of Organized Delivery Systems

Offers lessons learned from healthcare delivery systems promoting the attributes of an ideal model as defined by the Fund: information continuity, care coordination and transitions, system accountability, teamwork, continuous innovation, and easy access

Promoting Adherence to Influenza Vaccination Recommendations in Pediatric Practice.

OBJECTIVES: In the United States, nonadherence to seasonal influenza vaccination guidelines for children and adolescents is common and results in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. We conducted a quality improvement project to improve vaccination rates and test effects of 2 interventions on vaccination guidelines adherence. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized control trial with 11 primary care practices (PRACTICE) that provided care for 11 293 individual children and adolescents in a children\u27s health care system from September 2015 through April 2016. Practice sites (with their clinicians) were randomly assigned to 4 arms (no intervention [Control], computerized clinical decision support system [CCDSS], web-based training [WBT], or CCDSS and WBT [BOTH]). RESULTS: During the study, 55.8% of children and adolescents received influenza vaccination, which improved modestly during the study period compared with the prior influenza season ( P = .009). Actual adherence to recommendations, including dosing, timeliness, and avoidance of missed opportunities, was 46.4% of patients cared for by the PRACTICE. The WBT was most effective in promoting adherence with vaccination recommendations with an estimated average odds ratio = 1.26, P \u3c .05, to compare between preintervention and intervention periods. Over the influenza season, there was a significantly increasing trend in odds ratio in the WBT arm ( P \u3c .05). Encouraging process improvements and providing longitudinal feedback on monthly rate of vaccination sparked some practice changes but limited impact on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based training at the start of influenza season with monthly reports of adherence can improve correct dose and timing of influenza vaccination with modest impact on overall vaccination rate

Protocol for the 'e-Nudge trial' : a randomised controlled trial of electronic feedback to reduce the cardiovascular risk of individuals in general practice [ISRCTN64828380]

Background: Cardiovascular disease (including coronary heart disease and stroke) is a major cause of death and disability in the United Kingdom, and is to a large extent preventable, by lifestyle modification and drug therapy. The recent standardisation of electronic codes for cardiovascular risk variables through the United Kingdom's new General Practice contract provides an opportunity for the application of risk algorithms to identify high risk individuals. This randomised controlled trial will test the benefits of an automated system of alert messages and practice searches to identify those at highest risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care databases. Design: Patients over 50 years old in practice databases will be randomised to the intervention group that will receive the alert messages and searches, and a control group who will continue to receive usual care. In addition to those at high estimated risk, potentially high risk patients will be identified who have insufficient data to allow a risk estimate to be made. Further groups identified will be those with possible undiagnosed diabetes, based either on elevated past recorded blood glucose measurements, or an absence of recent blood glucose measurement in those with established cardiovascular disease. Outcome measures: The intervention will be applied for two years, and outcome data will be collected for a further year. The primary outcome measure will be the annual rate of cardiovascular events in the intervention and control arms of the study. Secondary measures include the proportion of patients at high estimated cardiovascular risk, the proportion of patients with missing data for a risk estimate, and the proportion with undefined diabetes status at the end of the trial

Computerised Clinical Reminders Use in an Integrated Healthcare System

Objective: To examine levels of routine computerised clinical reminder use in a nationwide sample of primary care physicians and to identify factors influencing reminder use. Design: Cross-sectional using a self-administered questionnaire. Setting: The United States Veterans Health Administration. Methods: Survey responses from 461 VHA primary care physicians sampled from across the Veterans Health Administration were sampled and analysed. We asked physicians how many computerised clinical reminders they use per patient per visit and when they typically use computerised clinical reminders in their clinics. Measured physician characteristics included age, gender, year of medical degree, number of days in clinic per week, and attitudes towards computerised clinical reminders (measured on Likert-like scales). We used multivariable linear regression to determine factors associated with greater use of computerised clinical reminders per patient per visit. Results: Average computerised clinical reminder use per patient visit was 4.2 (SD = 2.5). Eightysix percent of physicians resolve reminders during the visit. In a multivariable regression model, a higher score on the team factors scale is associated with use of more reminders (increase of 0.24 reminders for each unit increase on the team factors scale, or one extra reminder for each four unit increase in the team factor scale). Working more days in clinic is associated with use of more reminders per patient visit (increase of 0.13 reminders for each extra half-day of clinic per week, or about one additional reminder for physicians working ten half-days per week versus physicians working two half-days per week). Academic facility affiliation is associated with one less reminder used per patient visit as compared with no affiliation. Conclusions: Most United States Veterans Health Administration primary care physicians use computerised clinical reminders, typically during the patient visit. Strategies to increase reminder use should focus on improving physicians’ understanding of their role in completing reminder-related tasks and improving usability for users such as physicians who work in clinic less frequently

ACC/AHA Special Report: Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation Strategies: A Summary of Systematic Reviews by the NHLBI Implementation Science Work Group: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND: In 2008, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened an Implementation Science Work Group to assess evidence-based strategies for effectively implementing clinical practice guidelines. This was part of a larger effort to update existing clinical practice guidelines on cholesterol, blood pressure, and overweight/obesity. OBJECTIVES: Review evidence from the published implementation science literature and identify effective or promising strategies to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted on 4 critical questions, each focusing on the adoption and effectiveness of 4 intervention strategies: (1) reminders, (2) educational outreach visits, (3) audit and feedback, and (4) provider incentives. A scoping review of the Rx for Change database of systematic reviews was used to identify promising guideline implementation interventions aimed at providers. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed a priori for each question, and the published literature was initially searched up to 2012, and then updated with a supplemental search to 2015. Two independent reviewers screened the returned citations to identify relevant reviews and rated the quality of each included review. RESULTS: Audit and feedback and educational outreach visits were generally effective in improving both process of care (15 of 21 reviews and 12 of 13 reviews, respectively) and clinical outcomes (7 of 12 reviews and 3 of 5 reviews, respectively). Provider incentives showed mixed effectiveness for improving both process of care (3 of 4 reviews) and clinical outcomes (3 reviews equally distributed between generally effective, mixed, and generally ineffective). Reminders showed mixed effectiveness for improving process of care outcomes (27 reviews with 11 mixed and 3 generally ineffective results) and were generally ineffective for clinical outcomes (18 reviews with 6 mixed and 9 generally ineffective results). Educational outreach visits (2 of 2 reviews), reminders (3 of 4 reviews), and provider incentives (1 of 1 review) were generally effective for cost reduction. Educational outreach visits (1 of 1 review) and provider incentives (1 of 1 review) were also generally effective for cost-effectiveness outcomes. Barriers to clinician adoption or adherence to guidelines included time constraints (8 reviews/overviews); limited staffing resources (2 overviews); timing (5 reviews/overviews); clinician skepticism (5 reviews/overviews); clinician knowledge of guidelines (4 reviews/overviews); and higher age of the clinician (1 overview). Facilitating factors included guideline characteristics such as format, resources, and end-user involvement (6 reviews/overviews); involving stakeholders (5 reviews/overviews); leadership support (5 reviews/overviews); scope of implementation (5 reviews/overviews); organizational culture such as multidisciplinary teams and low-baseline adherence (9 reviews/overviews); and electronic guidelines systems (3 reviews). CONCLUSION: The strategies of audit and feedback and educational outreach visits were generally effective in improving both process of care and clinical outcomes. Reminders and provider incentives showed mixed effectiveness, or were generally ineffective. No general conclusion could be reached about cost effectiveness, because of limitations in the evidence. Important gaps exist in the evidence on effectiveness of implementation interventions, especially regarding clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness and contextual issues affecting successful implementation

The Use of Routinely Collected Data in Clinical Trial Research

RCTs are the gold standard for assessing the effects of medical interventions, but they also pose many challenges, including the often-high costs in conducting them and a potential lack of generalizability of their findings. The recent increase in the availability of so called routinely collected data (RCD) sources has led to great interest in their application to support RCTs in an effort to increase the efficiency of conducting clinical trials. We define all RCTs augmented by RCD in any form as RCD-RCTs. A major subset of RCD-RCTs are performed at the point of care using electronic health records (EHRs) and are referred to as point-of-care research (POC-R). RCD-RCTs offer several advantages over traditional trials regarding patient recruitment and data collection, and beyond. Using highly standardized EHR and registry data allows to assess patient characteristics for trial eligibility and to examine treatment effects through routinely collected endpoints or by linkage to other data sources like mortality registries. Thus, RCD can be used to augment traditional RCTs by providing a sampling framework for patient recruitment and by directly measuring patient relevant outcomes. The result of these efforts is the generation of real-world evidence (RWE). Nevertheless, the utilization of RCD in clinical research brings novel methodological challenges, and issues related to data quality are frequently discussed, which need to be considered for RCD-RCTs. Some of the limitations surrounding RCD use in RCTs relate to data quality, data availability, ethical and informed consent challenges, and lack of endpoint adjudication which may all lead to uncertainties in the validity of their results. The purpose of this thesis is to help fill the aforementioned research gaps in RCD-RCTs, encompassing tasks such as assessing their current application in clinical research and evaluating the methodological and technical challenges in performing them. Furthermore, it aims to assess the reporting quality of published reports on RCD-RCTs

Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review. To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component. Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. We identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention. There is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions

Organizing the U.S. Health Care Delivery System for High Performance

Analyzes the fragmentation of the healthcare delivery system and makes policy recommendations -- including payment reform, regulatory changes, and infrastructure -- for creating mechanisms to coordinate care across providers and settings