Jacqueline R. Halladay

Context Matters: The Experience of 14 Research Teams in Systematically Reporting Contextual Factors Important for Practice Change

PURPOSE We aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors. METHODS Fourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context. RESULTS The most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context. CONCLUSIONS These findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research.

Cost to Primary Care Practices of Responding to Payer Requests for Quality and Performance Data

PURPOSE We wanted to determine how much it costs primary care practices to participate in programs that require them to gather and report data on care quality indicators. METHODS Using mixed quantitative-qualitative methods, we gathered data from 8 practices in North Carolina that were selected purposively to be diverse by size, ownership, type, location, and medical records. Formal practice visits occurred between January 2008 and May 2008. Four quality-reporting programs were studied: Medicare’s Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI), Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC), Bridges to Excellence (BTE), and Improving Performance in Practice (IPIP). We estimated direct costs to the practice and on-site costs to the quality organization for implementation and maintenance phases of program participation. RESULTS Major expenses included personnel time for planning, training, registry maintenance, visit coding, data gathering and entry, and modification of electronic systems. Costs per full-time equivalent clinician ranged from less than

Achieving Health Equity: Closing The Gaps In Health Care Disparities, Interventions, And Research

1,000 to

Barriers to Adherence to Screening Mammography Among Women With Disabilities

11,100 during program implementation phases and ranged from less than

Facilitators of Transforming Primary Care: A Look Under the Hood at Practice Leadership

100 to

More extensive implementation of the chronic care model is associated with better lipid control in diabetes

4,300 annually during maintenance phases. Main sources of variation included program characteristics, amount of on-site assistance provided, experience and expertise of practice personnel, and the extent of data system problems encountered. CONCLUSIONS The costs of a quality-reporting program vary greatly by program and are important to anticipate and understand when undertaking quality improvement work. Incentives that would likely improve practice participation include financial payment, quality improvement skills training, and technical assistance with electronic system troubleshooting.

Positive predictive value of mammography: Comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists

In the United States, racial/ethnic minority, rural, and low-income populations continue to experience suboptimal access to and quality of health care despite decades of recognition of health disparities and policy mandates to eliminate them. Many health care interventions that were designed to achieve health equity fall short because of gaps in knowledge and translation. We discuss these gaps and highlight innovative interventions that help address them, focusing on cardiovascular disease and cancer. We also provide recommendations for advancing the field of health equity and informing the implementation and evaluation of policies that target health disparities through improved access to care and quality of care.

Patient and Practice Perspectives on Strategies for Controlling Blood Pressure, North Carolina, 2010–2012

OBJECTIVES Given the lack of screening mammography studies specific to women with disabilities, we compared reasons offered by women with and without disabilities for not scheduling routine screening visits. METHODS We surveyed women in the Carolina Mammography Registry aged 40 to 79 years (n = 2970), who had been screened from 2001 through 2003 and did not return for at least 3 years, to determine reasons for noncompliance. In addition to women without disabilities, women with visual, hearing, physical, and multiple (any combination of visual, hearing, and physical) limitations were included in our analyses. RESULTS The most common reasons cited by women both with and without disabilities for not returning for screening were lack of a breast problem, pain and expense associated with a mammogram, and lack of a physician recommendation. Women with disabilities were less likely to receive a physician recommendation. CONCLUSIONS Women with disabilities are less likely than those without disabilities to receive a physician recommendation for screening mammography, and this is particularly the case among older women and those with multiple disabilities. There is a need for equitable preventive health care in this population.

Associations between subjective social status and physical and mental health functioning among patients with hypertension

PURPOSE This study examined how characteristics of practice leadership affect the change process in a statewide initiative to improve the quality of diabetes and asthma care. METHODS We used a mixed methods approach, involving analyses of existing quality improvement data on 76 practices with at least 1 year of participation and focus groups with clinicians and staff in a 12-practice subsample. Existing data included monthly diabetes or asthma measures (clinical measures) and monthly practice implementation, leadership, and practice engagement scores rated by an external practice coach. RESULTS Of the 76 practices, 51 focused on diabetes and 25 on asthma. In aggregate, 50% to 78% made improvements within in each clinical measure in the first year. The odds of making practice changes were greater for practices with higher leadership scores (odds ratios = 2.41–4.20). Among practices focused on diabetes, those with higher leadership scores had higher odds of performing nephropathy screening (odds ratio = 1.37, 95% CI, 1.08–1.74); no significant associations were seen for the intermediate outcome measures of hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Focus groups revealed the importance of a leader, typically a physician, who believed in the transformation work (ie, a visionary leader) and promoted practice engagement through education and cross-training. Practices with greater change implementation also mentioned the importance of a midlevel operational leader who helped to create and sustain practice changes. This person communicated and interacted well with, and was respected by both clinicians and staff. CONCLUSIONS In the presence of a vision for transformation, operational leaders within practices can facilitate practice changes that are associated with clinical improvement.

The Cost to Successfully Apply for Level 3 Medical Home Recognition

Objective: Chronic disease collaboratives help practices redesign care delivery. The North Carolina Improving Performance in Practice program provides coaches to guide implementation of 4 key practice changes: registries, planned care templates, protocols, and self-management support. Coaches rate progress using the Key Drivers Implementation Scales (KDIS). This study examines whether higher KDIS scores are associated with improved diabetes outcomes. Methods: We analyzed clinical and KDIS data from 42 practices. We modeled whether higher implementation scores at year 1 of participation were associated with improved diabetes measures during year 2. Improvement was defined as an increase in the proportion of patients with hemoglobin A1C values <9%, blood pressure values <130/80 mmHg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels <100 mg/dL. Results: Statistically significant improvements in the proportion of patients who met the LDL threshold were noted with higher “registry” and “protocol” KDIS scores. For hemoglobin A1C and blood pressure values, none of the odds ratios were statistically significant. Conclusions: Practices that implement key changes may achieve improved patient outcomes in LDL control among their patients with diabetes. Our data confirm the importance of registry implementation and protocol use as key elements of improving patient care. The KDIS tool is a pragmatic option for measuring practice changes that are rooted in the Chronic Care Model.