Associations between structural capabilities of primary care practices and performance on selected quality measures.

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 10/2009; 151(7):456-63. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent proposals to reform primary care have encouraged physician practices to adopt such structural capabilities as performance feedback and electronic health records. Whether practices with these capabilities have higher performance on measures of primary care quality is unknown.
To measure associations between structural capabilities of primary care practices and performance on commonly used quality measures.
Cross-sectional analysis.
412 primary care practices.
During 2007, 1 physician from each participating primary care practice (median size, 4 physicians) was surveyed about structural capabilities of the practice (responses representing 308 practices were obtained). Data on practice structural capabilities were linked to multipayer performance data on 13 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) process measures in 4 clinical areas: screening, diabetes, depression, and overuse.
Frequently used multifunctional electronic health records were associated with higher performance on 5 HEDIS measures (3 in screening and 2 in diabetes), with statistically significant differences in performance ranging from 3.1 to 7.6 percentage points. Frequent meetings to discuss quality were associated with higher performance on 3 measures of diabetes care (differences ranging from 2.3 to 3.1 percentage points). Physician awareness of patient experience ratings was associated with higher performance on screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer (1.9 and 2.2 percentage points, respectively). No other structural capabilities were associated with performance on more than 1 measure. No capabilities were associated with performance on depression care or overuse.
Structural capabilities of primary care practices were assessed by physician survey.
Among the investigated structural capabilities of primary care practices, electronic health records were associated with higher performance across multiple HEDIS measures. Overall, the modest magnitude and limited number of associations between structural capabilities and clinical performance suggest the importance of continuing to measure the processes and outcomes of care for patients.
The Commonwealth Fund.

Download full-text


Available from: Eric Carl Schneider, Jul 03, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicare established the Physicians Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI, recently renamed the Physicians Quality Reporting System) to increase reporting of quality metrics and promote healthcare quality. To identify characteristics of PQRI participants and examine their beliefs about its impact. National survey of 4934 U.S. physicians, conducted June through October 2009. All practice settings. Randomly selected physicians categorized as primary care, medical specialists, surgeons, other specialists. Beliefs about impact of PQRI reporting on quality. The response rate was 49.8%. There were no significant differences between respondents and non-respondents by age, gender, specialty, and region. Thirty-eight percent participated in the PQRI, and were more likely than non-participants to be practice owners (69.0% vs. 57.1%, p<.0001) and to receive performance bonuses through their employer or practice (50.4% vs. 37.0%, p<.0001). Half of PQRI participants believed it had no impact on quality. Medical specialists (57.0%) and surgeons (55.1%) were more likely than primary care (40.4%) and other physicians (45.7%) to say that PQRI has no impact on quality (p=.004). Most PQRI participants believed it had little if any impact on quality. Medicare should identify the reasons behind physicians' negative views while it works to expand the Physicians Quality Reporting System.
    Health Policy 05/2011; 102(2-3):229-34. DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2011.05.003 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In February 2009, the US Congress passed the Health Information Technology for Economic and Consumer Health (HITECH) Act in order to stimulate the “meaningful use” of health information technology within medical practice. Economists have noted that other sectors in the economy have demonstrated substantive productivity improvements from investments in information technology but that the health sector lags behind. The “meaningful use” stipulation of the HITECH Act focuses systems redesign within the health sector on user’s behavior, a provision that opens a window of contribution from specialists in behavioral medicine. There are several ways for behavioral medicine to become involved in the redesign. One is to help craft a health services environment that optimizes communication between providers and patients, between primary care and specialist care providers, and between patients and their caregivers. Another is to help practitioners and policy-makers create new “decisional architectures” for “nudging” behavior in positive ways through better incentives, understandable instructions, healthy defaults, instructive feedback, back-ups for error, and structured decision-making. New funding opportunities in research, implementation, and training may facilitate the involvement of behavioral medicine—an involvement that is crucial for ensuring the success of reform efforts in the long run. KeywordsMeaningful use–Informatics–Electronic health record–Sociotechnical
    01/2011; 1(1):175-181. DOI:10.1007/s13142-010-0001-3
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE The medical home has gained national attention as a model to reorganize primary care to improve health outcomes. Pennsylvania has undertaken one of the largest state-based, multipayer medical home pilot projects. We used a positive deviance approach to identify and compare factors driving the care models of practices showing the greatest and least improvement in diabetes care in a sample of 25 primary care practices in southeast Pennsylvania. METHODS We ranked practices into improvement quintiles on the basis of the average absolute percentage point improvement from baseline to 18 months in 3 registry-based measures of performance related to diabetes care: glycated hemoglobin concentration, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. We then conducted surveys and key informant interviews with leaders and staff in the 5 most and least improved practices, and compared their responses. RESULTS The most improved/higher-performing practices tended to have greater structural capabilities (eg, electronic health records) than the least improved/lower-performing practices at baseline. Interviews revealed striking differences between the groups in terms of leadership styles and shared vision; sense, use, and development of teams; processes for monitoring progress and obtaining feedback; and presence of technologic and financial distractions. CONCLUSIONS Positive deviance analysis suggests that primary care practices' baseline structural capabilities and abilities to buffer the stresses of change may be key facilitators of performance improvement in medical home transformations. Attention to the practices' structural capabilities and factors shaping successful change, especially early in the process, will be necessary to improve the likelihood of successful medical home transformation and better care.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 05/2013; 11 Suppl 1:S99-S107. DOI:10.1370/afm.1473 · 4.57 Impact Factor