Erin Fries Taylor

Enhancing the Primary Care Team to Provide Redesigned Care: The Roles of Practice Facilitators and Care Managers

ABSTRACT Efforts to redesign primary care require multiple supports. Two potential members of the primary care team—practice facilitator and care manager—can play important but distinct roles in redesigning and improving care delivery. Facilitators, also known as quality improvement coaches, assist practices with coordinating their quality improvement activities and help build capacity for those activities—reflecting a systems-level approach to improving quality, safety, and implementation of evidence-based practices. Care managers provide direct patient care by coordinating care and helping patients navigate the system, improving access for patients, and communicating across the care team. These complementary roles aim to help primary care practices deliver coordinated, accessible, comprehensive, and patient-centered care.

Two-Year Costs and Quality in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative

BACKGROUND The 4-year, multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative was started in October 2012 to determine whether several forms of support would produce changes in care delivery that would improve the quality and reduce the costs of care at 497 primary care practices in seven regions across the United States. Support included the provision of care-management fees, the opportunity to earn shared savings, and the provision of data feedback and learning support. METHODS We tracked changes in the delivery of care by practices participating in the initiative and used difference-in-differences regressions to compare changes over the first 2 years of the initiative in Medicare expenditures, health care utilization, claims-based measures of quality, and patient experience for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices and a group of matched comparison practices. RESULTS During the first 2 years, initiative practices received a median of

Moving research into practice: lessons from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's IDSRN program

115,000 per clinician in care-management fees. The practices reported improvements in approaches to the delivery of primary care in areas such as management of the care of high-risk patients and enhanced access to care. Changes in average monthly Medicare expenditures per beneficiary did not differ significantly between initiative and comparison practices when care-management fees were not taken into account (-

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation

11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -

Translating Research to Action Improving Physician Access in Public Insurance

23 to

Donated care programs: a stopgap measure or a long-run alternative to health insurance?

1; P=0.07; negative values indicate less growth in spending at initiative practices) or when these fees were taken into account (

Strengthening Multipayer Collaboration: Lessons From the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative

7; 95% CI, -

Comparing Predicted Risk Reports and Health Risk Assessments in Medicaid

5 to

The Struggle To Provide Community-Based Care To Low-Income People With Serious Mental Illnesses

19; P=0.27). The only significant differences in other measures were a 3% reduction in primary care visits for initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P<0.001) and changes in two of the six domains of patient experience--discussion of decisions regarding medication with patients and the provision of support for patients taking care of their own health--both of which showed a small improvement in initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P=0.006 and P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Midway through this 4-year intervention, practices participating in the initiative have reported progress in transforming the delivery of primary care. However, at this point these practices have not yet shown savings in expenditures for Medicare Parts A and B after accounting for care-management fees, nor have they shown an appreciable improvement in the quality of care or patient experience. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.).

Coordinating Care in the Medical Neighborhood Critical Components and Available Mechanisms

BackgroundThe U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualitys (AHRQ) Integrated Delivery Systems Research Network (IDSRN) program was established to foster public-private collaboration between health services researchers and health care delivery systems. Its broad goal was to link researchers and delivery systems to encourage implementation of research into practice. We evaluated the program to address two primary questions: 1) How successful was IDSRN in generating research findings that could be applied in practice? and 2) What factors facilitate or impede such success?MethodsWe conducted in-person and telephone interviews with AHRQ staff and nine IDSRN partner organizations and their collaborators, reviewed program documents, analyzed projects funded through the program, and developed case studies of four IDSRN projects judged promising in supporting research implementation.ResultsParticipants reported that the IDSRN structure was valuable in creating closer ties between researchers and participating health systems. Of the 50 completed projects studied, 30 had an operational effect or use. Some kinds of projects were more successful than others in influencing operations. If certain conditions were met, a variety of partnership models successfully supported implementation. An internal champion was necessary for partnerships involving researchers based outside the delivery system. Case studies identified several factors important to success: responsiveness of project work to delivery system needs, ongoing funding to support multiple project phases, and development of applied products or tools that helped users see their operational relevance. Factors limiting success included limited project funding, competing demands on potential research users, and failure to reach the appropriate audience.ConclusionForging stronger partnerships between researchers and delivery systems has the potential to make research more relevant to users, but these benefits require clear goals and appropriate targeting of resources. Trade-offs are inevitable. The health services research community can best consider such trade-offs and set priorities if there is more dialogue to identify areas and approaches where such partnerships may have the most promise. Though it has unique features, the IDSRN experience is relevant to research implementation in diverse settings.