Allison Low

Implementation Processes and Pay for Performance in Healthcare: A Systematic Review

Over the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight. Among 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence. There is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input.BackgroundOver the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P.MethodsWe searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight.ResultsAmong 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence.DiscussionThere is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input.

Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion Procedures to Reduce the Risk of Stroke: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Background—Atrial fibrillation is an important cause of cardioembolic stroke. Oral anticoagulants (OAC) reduce stroke risk but increase the risk of serious bleeding. Left atrial appendage (LAA) procedures have been developed to isolate the LAA from circulating blood flow, as an alternative to OAC. We conducted a systematic review of the benefits and harms of surgical and percutaneous LAA exclusion procedures. Methods and Results—We searched multiple data sources, including Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase, through January 7, 2015. Of 2567 citations, 20 primary studies met prespecified inclusion criteria. We abstracted data on patient characteristics, stroke, mortality, and adverse effects. We assessed study quality and graded the strength of evidence using published criteria. Trials found low-strength evidence that percutaneous LAA exclusion confers similar risks of stroke and mortality as continued OAC, but this evidence was limited to the Watchman device in patients eligible for long-term OAC. Observational studies found moderate-strength evidence of serious harms with a variety of percutaneous LAA procedures. There is low-strength evidence that surgical LAA exclusion does not add significant harm during heart surgery for another indication, but evidence on stroke reduction is insufficient. Conclusions—There is limited evidence that the Watchman device may be noninferior to long-term OAC in selected patients. Data on effectiveness of LAA exclusion devices is lacking in patients ineligible for long-term OAC. Percutaneous LAA devices are associated with high rates of procedure-related harms. Although surgical LAA exclusion during heart surgery does not seem to add incremental harm, there is insufficient evidence of benefit.

Suicide Risk Assessment and Prevention: A Systematic Review Focusing on Veterans

OBJECTIVE Suicide rates in veteran and military populations in the United States are high. This article reviews studies of the accuracy of methods to identify individuals at increased risk of suicide and the effectiveness and adverse effects of health care interventions relevant to U.S. veteran and military populations in reducing suicide and suicide attempts. METHODS Trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews relevant to U.S. veterans and military personnel were identified in searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and Cochrane databases (January 1, 2008, to September 11, 2015), on Web sites, and in reference lists. Investigators extracted and confirmed data and dual-rated risk of bias for included studies. RESULTS Nineteen studies evaluated accuracy of risk assessment methods, including models using retrospective electronic records data and clinician- or patient-rated instruments. Most methods demonstrated sensitivity ≥80% or area-under-the-curve values ≥.70 in single studies, including two studies based on electronic records of veterans and military personnel, but specificity varied. Suicide rates were reduced in six of eight observational studies of population-level interventions. Only two of ten trials of individual-level psychotherapy reported statistically significant differences between treatment and usual care. CONCLUSIONS Risk assessment methods have been shown to be sensitive predictors of suicide and suicide attempts, but the frequency of false positives limits their clinical utility. Research to refine these methods and examine clinical applications is needed. Studies of suicide prevention interventions are inconclusive; trials of population-level interventions and promising therapies are required to support their clinical use.

Health Disparities in Veterans: A Map of the Evidence

Background: Goals for improving the quality of care for all Veterans and eliminating health disparities are outlined in the Veterans Health Administration Blueprint for Excellence, but the degree to which disparities in utilization, health outcomes, and quality of care affect Veterans is not well understood. Objectives: To characterize the research on health care disparities in the Veterans Health Administration by means of a map of the evidence. Research Design: We conducted a systematic search for research studies published from 2006 to February 2016 in MEDLINE and other data sources. We included studies of Veteran populations that examined disparities in 3 outcome categories: utilization, quality of health care, and patient health. Measures: We abstracted data on study design, setting, population, clinical area, outcomes, mediators, and presence of disparity for each outcome category. We grouped the data by population characteristics including race, disability status, mental illness, demographics (age, era of service, rural location, and distance from care), sex identity, socioeconomic status, and homelessness, and created maps illustrating the evidence. Results: We reviewed 4249 citations and abstracted data from 351 studies which met inclusion criteria. Studies examining disparities by race/ethnicity comprised by far the vast majority of the literature, followed by studies examining disparities by sex, and mental health condition. Very few studies examined disparities related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity or homelessness. Disparities findings vary widely by population and outcome. Conclusions: Our evidence maps provide a “lay of the land” and identify important gaps in knowledge about health disparities experienced by different Veteran populations.

Pay-for-Performance and Veteran Care in the VHA and the Community: a Systematic Review

BackgroundAlthough pay-for-performance (P4P) strategies have been used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for over a decade, the long-term benefits of P4P are unclear. The use of P4P is further complicated by the increased use of non-VHA healthcare providers as part of the Veterans Choice Program. We conducted a systematic review and key informant interviews to better understand the effectiveness and potential unintended consequences of P4P, as well as the implementation factors and design features important in both VHA and non-VHA/community settings.MethodsWe searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through March 2017 and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P targeting Veteran health. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed VHA stakeholders to gain further insight.ResultsThe literature search yielded 1031 titles and abstracts, of which 30 studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Twenty-five examined P4P in VHA settings and 5 in community settings. There was no strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of P4P in VHA settings. Interviews with 17 key informants were consistent with studies that identified the potential for overtreatment associated with performance metrics in the VHA. Key informants’ views on P4P in community settings included the need to develop relationships with providers and health systems with records of strong performance, to improve coordination by targeting documentation and data sharing processes, and to troubleshoot the limited impact of P4P among practices where Veterans make up a small fraction of the patient population.DiscussionThe evidence to support the effectiveness of P4P on Veteran health is limited. Key informants recognize the potential for unintended consequences, such as overtreatment in VHA settings, and suggest that implementation of P4P in the community focus on relationship building and target areas such as documentation and coordination of care.

Interventions to Improve Pharmacological Adherence Among Adults With Psychotic Spectrum Disorders and Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND It is unclear as to which interventions are effective at improving medication adherence in individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. The goal of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence examining the effectiveness, harms, and costs of interventions to improve medication adherence in patients with psychotic spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder. METHODS We conducted a systematic search of several electronic databases through January 2015 using a structured search strategy. Studies were included if they involved adult patients in general mental health settings, reported both measures of medication adherence and clinical outcomes, and were of sufficient methodological rigor. Studies were quality assessed and synthesized using established methods. RESULTS We identified 24 studies that met inclusion criteria. Overall, 20 studies addressed interventions in patients with psychotic spectrum disorders. These interventions varied widely, with generally mixed findings contributing to low or insufficient strength of evidence; studies involving family members and technology interventions were the most consistently associated with a positive effect; however, the strength of the evidence was low because of intervention heterogeneity. The evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of interventions in patients with bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS In individuals with psychotic spectrum disorders, interventions with family members or technology had the most consistent positive effect on adherence, although replication with objective adherence measures along with evaluation of harms and costs is needed. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about interventions in individuals with bipolar disorder.