Physician assessments of medication adherence and decisions to intensify medications for patients with uncontrolled blood pressure: still no better than a coin toss

Abstract Background Many patients have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) because they are not taking medications as prescribed. Providers may have difficulty accurately assessing adherence. Providers need to assess medication adherence to decide whether to address uncontrolled BP by improving adherence to the current prescribed regimen or by intensifying the BP treatment regimen by increasing doses or adding more medications. Methods We examined how provider assessments of adherence with antihypertensive medications compared with refill records, and how providers’ assessments were associated with decisions to intensify medications for uncontrolled BP. We studied a cross-sectional cohort of 1169 veterans with diabetes presenting with BP ≥140/90 to 92 primary care providers at 9 Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities from February 2005 to March 2006. Using VA pharmacy records, we utilized a continuous multiple-interval measure of medication gaps (CMG) to assess the proportion of time in prior year that patient did not possess the prescribed medications; CMG ≥20% is considered clinically significant non-adherence. Providers answered post-visit Likert-scale questions regarding their assessment of patient adherence to BP medications. The BP regimen was considered intensified if medication was added or increased without stopping or decreasing another medication. Results 1064 patients were receiving antihypertensive medication regularly from the VA; the mean CMG was 11.3%. Adherence assessments by providers correlated poorly with refill history. 211 (20%) patients did not have BP medication available for ≥ 20% of days; providers characterized 79 (37%) of these 211 patients as having significant non-adherence, and intensified medications for 97 (46%). Providers intensified BP medications for 451 (42%) patients, similarly whether assessed by provider as having significant non-adherence (44%) or not (43%). Conclusions Providers recognized non-adherence for less than half of patients whose pharmacy records indicated significant refill gaps, and often intensified BP medications even when suspected serious non-adherence. Making an objective measure of adherence such as the CMG available during visits may help providers recognize non-adherence to inform prescribing decisions.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112850/1/12913_2012_Article_2450.pd

Study protocol: The Adherence and Intensification of Medications (AIM) study - a cluster randomized controlled effectiveness study

Abstract Background Many patients with diabetes have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Pharmacological therapy is the cornerstone of effective BP treatment, yet there are high rates both of poor medication adherence and failure to intensify medications. Successful medication management requires an effective partnership between providers who initiate and increase doses of effective medications and patients who adhere to the regimen. Methods In this cluster-randomized controlled effectiveness study, primary care teams within sites were randomized to a program led by a clinical pharmacist trained in motivational interviewing-based behavioral counseling approaches and authorized to make BP medication changes or to usual care. This study involved the collection of data during a 14-month intervention period in three Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and two Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. The clinical pharmacist was supported by clinical information systems that enabled proactive identification of, and outreach to, eligible patients identified on the basis of poor BP control and either medication refill gaps or lack of recent medication intensification. The primary outcome is the relative change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements over time. Secondary outcomes are changes in Hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), medication adherence determined from pharmacy refill data, and medication intensification rates. Discussion Integration of the three intervention elements - proactive identification, adherence counseling and medication intensification - is essential to achieve optimal levels of control for high-risk patients. Testing the effectiveness of this intervention at the team level allows us to study the program as it would typically be implemented within a clinic setting, including how it integrates with other elements of care. Trial Registration The ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is NCT00495794.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/1/1745-6215-11-95.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/2/1745-6215-11-95.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78258/3/1745-6215-11-95-S1.DOCPeer Reviewe

Outcome Measures for Interventions to Reduce Inappropriate Chronic Drugs: A Narrative Review

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163374/3/jgs16697-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163374/2/jgs16697_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163374/1/jgs16697.pd

Under Pressure: Financial Effect of the Hospital‐Acquired Conditions Initiative–A Statewide Analysis of Pressure Ulcer Development and Payment

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112254/1/jgs13475.pd

Effects of Guideline and Formulary Changes on Statin Prescribing in the Veterans Affairs

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139955/1/hesr12788-sup-0001-AppendixSA1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139955/2/hesr12788_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139955/3/hesr12788.pd

Area socioeconomic status and mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the role of hospital volume

Background Individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) have reduced access to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). It is unknown if low-SES CABG patients have reduced access to hospitals with better outcomes. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of the California CABG Mortality Reporting Program, consisting of individuals with zip code information who underwent CABG at participating hospitals in 1999-2000 (n = 18 961). Primary outcome measures were inhospital mortality after CABG; primary independent variables of interest were area-level SES, clinical risk factors, and hospital volume. We used 2-level hierarchical random-effects logit models to estimate the relationship between explanatory variables and inhospital mortality. Results Within high-volume hospitals, patients of low-SES areas had greater mortality than those of mid- and high-SES areas (2.5% vs 1.5% vs 1.8%, P = .024). However, there was no relationship between SES and mortality in lower-volume hospitals. Contrary to expectations, individuals of high-SES areas (42%) underwent surgery at low-volume hospitals more often than patients of low-SES areas (28%, P < .001), although mortality at low-volume hospitals was greater than that at high-volume facilities (P < .001). Discrepancies were not explained by distance traveled. Conclusions Mortality after CABG is modified by both SES and hospital volume. Within high-volume hospitals, patients of low-SES areas fared worse than patients of higher-SES areas. Patients of high SES tended to have CABG surgery at low-volume hospitals where mortality was greater and therefore had higher mortality than expected.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/57782/1/Area Socioeconomic status and mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery The role of hospital volume.pd

Sins of Omission

Little is known about the relative incidence of serious errors of omission versus errors of commission. Objective : To identify the most common substantive medical errors identified by medical record review. Design : Retrospective cohort study. Setting : Twelve Veterans Affairs health care systems in 2 regions. Participants : Stratified random sample of 621 patients receiving care over a 2-year period. Main Outcome Measure : Classification of reported quality problems. Methods : Trained physicians reviewed the full inpatient and outpatient record and described quality problems, which were then classified as errors of omission versus commission. Results : Eighty-two percent of patients had at least 1 error reported over a 13-month period. The average number of errors reported per case was 4.7 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 4.4, 5.0). Overall, 95.7% (95% CI: 94.9%, 96.4%) of errors were identified as being problems with underuse. Inadequate care for people with chronic illnesses was particularly common. Among errors of omission, obtaining insufficient information from histories and physicals (25.3%), inadequacies in diagnostic testing (33.9%), and patients not receiving needed medications (20.7%) were all common. Out of the 2,917 errors identified, only 27 were rated as being highly serious, and 26 (96%) of these were errors of omission. Conclusions : While preventing iatrogenic injury resulting from medical errors is a critically important part of quality improvement, we found that the overwhelming majority of substantive medical errors identifiable from the medical record were related to people getting too little medical care, especially for those with chronic medical conditions.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74567/1/j.1525-1497.2005.0152.x.pd

Profiling quality of care: Is there a role for peer review?

BACKGROUND: We sought to develop a more reliable structured implicit chart review instrument for use in assessing the quality of care for chronic disease and to examine if ratings are more reliable for conditions in which the evidence base for practice is more developed. METHODS: We conducted a reliability study in a cohort with patient records including both outpatient and inpatient care as the objects of measurement. We developed a structured implicit review instrument to assess the quality of care over one year of treatment. 12 reviewers conducted a total of 496 reviews of 70 patient records selected from 26 VA clinical sites in two regions of the country. Each patient had between one and four conditions specified as having a highly developed evidence base (diabetes and hypertension) or a less developed evidence base (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or a collection of acute conditions). Multilevel analysis that accounts for the nested and cross-classified structure of the data was used to estimate the signal and noise components of the measurement of quality and the reliability of implicit review. RESULTS: For COPD and a collection of acute conditions the reliability of a single physician review was quite low (intra-class correlation = 0.16–0.26) but comparable to most previously published estimates for the use of this method in inpatient settings. However, for diabetes and hypertension the reliability is significantly higher at 0.46. The higher reliability is a result of the reviewers collectively being able to distinguish more differences in the quality of care between patients (p < 0.007) and not due to less random noise or individual reviewer bias in the measurement. For these conditions the level of true quality (i.e. the rating of quality of care that would result from the full population of physician reviewers reviewing a record) varied from poor to good across patients. CONCLUSIONS: For conditions with a well-developed quality of care evidence base, such as hypertension and diabetes, a single structured implicit review to assess the quality of care over a period of time is moderately reliable. This method could be a reasonable complement or alternative to explicit indicator approaches for assessing and comparing quality of care. Structured implicit review, like explicit quality measures, must be used more cautiously for illnesses for which the evidence base is less well developed, such as COPD and acute, short-course illnesses