Opportunities to encourage mail order pharmacy delivery service use for diabetes prescriptions: a qualitative study.

BackgroundMedication non-adherence is a major contributor to poor outcomes in diabetes. Previous research has shown an association between use of mail order pharmacy delivery and better medication adherence, but little is known about the barriers and facilitators to mail order pharmacy use in diabetes patients. This qualitative study examined factors related to mail order pharmacy use versus traditional "brick and mortar" pharmacies to refill prescriptions.MethodsWe conducted four 90-min focus groups in 2016 among 28 diabetes patients in the Hawaii and Northern California regions of Kaiser Permanente, a large integrated health care delivery system. We queried participants on their preferred mode for refilling prescriptions and perceived barriers and facilitators of mail order pharmacy use. One researcher independently coded each focus group transcript, with two of these transcripts double-coded by a second researcher to promote reliability. We employed thematic analysis guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) framework using NVivo 11 software.ResultsA total of 28 diabetes patients participated. Participants' average age was 64.1 years; 57% were female; and racial/ethnic backgrounds included Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (36%), Black/African-American (21%) Hispanic/Latino (7%), and non-Hispanic White (36%). Analysis uncovered 26 themes related to the decision to use mail order pharmacy, with each theme representing a barrier or facilitator mapped to the COM-B framework. Most themes (20/26) fell into the COM-B category of 'Opportunity.' Opportunity barriers to mail order pharmacy use included unpredictability of medication delivery date, concerns about mail security, and difficulty coordinating refill orders for multiple prescriptions. In contrast, facilitators included greater access and convenience (e.g., no need to wait in line or arrange transportation) compared to traditional pharmacies. Motivational facilitators to mail order pharmacy use included receiving a pharmacy benefit plan incentive of a free one-month supply of prescriptions.ConclusionsThis study found that while patients with diabetes may benefit from mail order pharmacy use, they perceive numerous barriers to using the service. These findings will inform the design of interventions and quality improvement initiatives to increase mail order pharmacy use, which in turn may improve medication adherence and outcomes in diabetes patients, across health care systems

The health disparities cancer collaborative: a case study of practice registry measurement in a quality improvement collaborative

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice registry measurement provides a foundation for quality improvement, but experiences in practice are not widely reported. One setting where practice registry measurement has been implemented is the Health Resources and Services Administration's Health Disparities Cancer Collaborative (HDCC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using practice registry data from 16 community health centers participating in the HDCC, we determined the completeness of data for screening, follow-up, and treatment measures. We determined the size of the change in cancer care processes that an aggregation of practices has adequate power to detect. We modeled different ways of presenting before/after changes in cancer screening, including count and proportion data at both the individual health center and aggregate collaborative level.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All participating health centers reported data for cancer screening, but less than a third reported data regarding timely follow-up. For individual cancers, the aggregate HDCC had adequate power to detect a 2 to 3% change in cancer screening, but only had the power to detect a change of 40% or more in the initiation of treatment. Almost every health center (98%) improved cancer screening based upon count data, while fewer (77%) improved cancer screening based upon proportion data. The aggregate collaborative appeared to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates by 12%, 15%, and 4%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all before/after comparisons). In subgroup analyses, significant changes were detectable among individual health centers less than one-half of the time because of small numbers of events.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The aggregate HDCC registries had both adequate reporting rates and power to detect significant changes in cancer screening, but not follow-up care. Different measures provided different answers about improvements in cancer screening; more definitive evaluation would require validation of the registries. Limits to the implementation and interpretation of practice registry measurement in the HDCC highlight challenges and opportunities for local and aggregate quality improvement activities.</p

Structured chronic primary care and health-related quality of life in chronic heart failure

Background: Structured care is proposed as a lever for improving care for patients with chronic conditions. The purpose of this study was to explore the associations of structured care characteristics, derived from the Chronic Care Model, with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and optimal clinical management in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients in primary care, as well as the association between optimal management and HRQOL. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study using multi-level random-coefficient analyses of a representative sample of 357 patients diagnosed with CHF from 42 primary care practices in the Netherlands. We combined individual medical record data with patient and physician questionnaires. Results: There was large variation in the levels and presence of structured care elements. A 91% of physicians indicated that next appointments for CHF patients were made immediately after visits, while 11% indicated that reminders on CHF management were periodically received in their practice. Few associations were found between the organizational characteristics and optimal treatment or HRQOL. Optimal pharmacological treatment related to better quality of life (β = -11.5, P < .0001). Also, more lifestyle advice was given in practices with an appointment system allowing contact with more than one professional during the encounter (β = 1.0, P = .04). Conclusion: HRQOL and treatment quality in CHF patients were not consistently associated with characteristics of structured care in primary care practices

Educational outreach in an integrated clinical management tool for nurse-led non-communicable chronic disease management in primary care in South Africa: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: In many low-income countries, care for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health conditions is provided by nurses. The benefits of nurse substitution and supplementation in NCD care in high income settings are well recognised, but evidence from low- and middle-income countries is limited. Primary Care 101 (PC101) is a programme designed to support and expand nurses’ role in NCD care, comprising a clinical management tool with enhanced prescribing provisions for nurses, and educational outreach. We evaluated the effectiveness of the programme on primary care nurses’ capacity to manage NCDs (ISRCTN20283604). Methods and findings: In a cluster randomised controlled trial design, 38 public sector primary care clinics in the Western Cape province, South Africa, were randomised. Nurses in the intervention clinics were trained to use the PC101 management tool during educational outreach sessions delivered by health department trainers and authorised to prescribe an expanded range of drugs for several NCDs. Control clinics continued use of the Practical Approach to Lung Health and HIV /AIDS in South Africa (PALSA PLUS) management tool and usual training. Patients attending these clinics with one or more of hypertension (3227), diabetes (1842), chronic respiratory disease (1157) or screened positive for depression (2466), totalling 4393 patients, were enrolled between March 2011 and October 2011. Primary outcomes were treatment intensification for hypertension, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease cohorts, defined as the proportion of patients in whom treatment was escalated during follow-up over 14 months, and case detection in the depression cohort. Primary outcome data were analysed for 2110 (97%) intervention and 2170 (97%) control group patients. Treatment intensification rates in intervention clinics were not superior to those in the control group clinics [hypertension: 44% in the intervention group versus 40% in the controls, risk ratio (RR) 1.08 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.24; p=0.252); diabetes: 57% v 50%, RR 1.10 (0.97 to 1.24;p=0.126); chronic respiratory disease: 14% v 12%, RR 1.08 (0.75 to 1.55; p=0.674); and case detection of depression: 18% v 24%, RR 0.76 (0.53 to 1.10; p=0.142)]. No adverse effects of the nurses’ expanded scope of practice were observed. Limitations of the study include dependence on self-reported diagnoses for inclusion in the patient cohorts, limited data on uptake of PC101 by users, reliance on process outcomes, and insufficient resources to measure important health outcomes, such as HbA1c, at follow-up. Conclusions: Educational outreach to primary care nurses through use of a management tool involving an expanded role in managing NCDs, is feasible and safe but was not associated with treatment intensification or case detection for index diseases. This notwithstanding, the intervention, with adjustments to improve its effectiveness, has been adopted for implementation in primary care clinics throughout South Africa