Liisa Hiatt

Quality of care for hypertension in the United States

BackgroundDespite heavy recent emphasis on blood pressure (BP) control, many patients fail to meet widely accepted goals. While access and adherence to therapy certainly play a role, another potential explanation is poor quality of essential care processes (QC). Yet little is known about the relationship between QC and BP control.MethodsWe assessed QC in 12 U.S. communities by reviewing the medical records of a randomly selected group of patients for the two years preceding our study. We included patients with either a diagnosis of hypertension or two visits with BPs of ≥140/90 in their medical records. We used 28 process indicators based on explicit evidence to assess QC. The indicators covered a broad spectrum of care and were developed through a modified Delphi method. We considered patients who received all indicated care to have optimal QC. We defined control of hypertension as BP < 140/90 in the most recent reading.ResultsOf 1,953 hypertensive patients, only 57% received optimal care and 42% had controlled hypertension. Patients who had received optimal care were more likely to have their BP under control at the end of the study (45% vs. 35%, p = .0006). Patients were more likely to receive optimal care if they were over age 50 (76% vs. 63%, p < .0001), had diabetes (77% vs. 71%, p = .0038), coronary artery disease (87% vs. 69%, p < .0001), or hyperlipidemia (80% vs. 68%, p < .0001), and did not smoke (73% vs. 66%, p = .0005).ConclusionsHigher QC for hypertensive patients is associated with better BP control. Younger patients without cardiac risk factors are at greatest risk for poor care. Quality measurement systems like the one presented in this study can guide future quality improvement efforts.

A Review of Quality Measures Used by State and Federal Prisons

In response to deficiencies in the delivery of health care in prisons, a number of state correctional systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have established quality of care monitoring systems. In 2009, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the federal receiver overseeing the system asked the RAND Corporation to identify existing indicators of quality performance and to recommend a set of indicators applicable to the prison population. An environmental scan of quality measures being used by other state correctional systems and the BOP found substantial variation in the number and type of measures being used and the underlying data systems used to construct measures. Explicit quality measures were being used, as were measures of disease prevalence and standards.

Selecting Performance Indicators for Prison Health Care

Improving prison health care requires a robust measurement dashboard that addresses multiple domains of care. We sought to identify tested indicators of clinical quality and access that prison health managers could use to ascertain gaps in performance and guide quality improvement. We used the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi method to select the best indicators for correctional health. An expert panel rated 111 indicators on validity and feasibility. They voted to retain 79 indicators in areas such as access, cardiac conditions, geriatrics, infectious diseases, medication monitoring, metabolic diseases, obstetrics/gynecology, screening/prevention, psychiatric disorders/substance abuse, pulmonary conditions, and urgent conditions. Prison health institutions, like all other large health institutions, need robust measurement systems. The indicators presented here provide a basic library for prison health managers developing such systems.

The national response for preventing healthcare-associated infections: research and adoption of prevention practices.

Background:Healthcare–associated infections (HAIs) have long been the subject of research and prevention practice. When findings show potential to significantly impact outcomes, clinicians, policymakers, safety experts, and stakeholders seek to bridge the gap between research and practice by identifying mechanisms and assigning responsibility for translating research to practice. Objectives:This paper describes progress and challenges in HAI research and prevention practices, as explained through an examination of Health and Human Services (HHS) Action Plan’s goals, inputs, and implementation in each area. Research Design:We used the Context-Input-Process-Product evaluation model, together with an HAI prevention system framework, to assess the transformative processes associated with HAI research and adoption of prevention practices. Results:Since the introduction of the Action Plan, HHS has made substantial progress in prioritizing research projects, translating findings from those projects into practice, and designing and implementing research projects in multisite practice settings. Research has emphasized the basic science and epidemiology of HAIs, the identification of gaps in research, and implementation science. The basic, epidemiological, and implementation science communities have joined forces to better define mechanisms and responsibilities for translating HAI research into practice. Challenges include the ongoing need for better evidence about intervention effectiveness, the growing implementation burden on healthcare providers and organizations, and challenges implementing certain practices. Conclusions:Although these HAI research and prevention practice activities are complex spanning multiple system functions and properties, HHS is making progress so that the right methods for addressing complex HAI problems at the interface of patient safety and clinical practice can emerge.

Implementation of Medical Homes in Federally Qualified Health Centers

BACKGROUND From 2011 through 2014, the Federally Qualified Health Center Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration provided care management fees and technical assistance to a nationwide sample of 503 federally qualified health centers to help them achieve the highest (level 3) medical‐home recognition by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a designation that requires the implementation of processes to improve access, continuity, and coordination. METHODS We examined the achievement of medical‐home recognition and used Medicare claims and beneficiary surveys to measure utilization of services, quality of care, patients’ experiences, and Medicare expenditures in demonstration sites versus comparison sites. Using difference‐in‐differences analyses, we compared changes in outcomes in the two groups of sites during a 3‐year period. RESULTS Level 3 medical‐home recognition was awarded to 70% of demonstration sites and to 11% of comparison sites. Although the number of visits to federally qualified health centers decreased in the two groups, smaller reductions among demonstration sites than among comparison sites led to a relative increase of 83 visits per 1000 beneficiaries per year at demonstration sites (P<0.001). Similar trends explained the higher performance of demonstration sites with respect to annual eye examinations and nephropathy tests (P<0.001 for both comparisons); there were no significant differences with respect to three other process measures. Demonstration sites had larger increases than comparison sites in emergency department visits (30.3 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P<0.001), inpatient admissions (5.7 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P=0.02), and Medicare Part B expenditures (

Evaluation of CMS' FQHC APCP Demonstration: Final First Annual Report

37 more per beneficiary per year, P=0.02). Demonstration‐site participation was not associated with relative improvements in most measures of patients’ experiences. CONCLUSIONS Demonstration sites had higher rates of medical‐home recognition and smaller decreases in the number of patients’ visits to federally qualified health centers than did comparison sites, findings that may reflect better access to primary care relative to comparison sites. Demonstration sites had larger increases in emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and Medicare Part B expenditures. (Funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)

The Current State of Quality of Care Measurement in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

The statements contained in the report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The RAND Corporation assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the report. This document may not be cited, quoted, reproduced or transmitted without the permission of the RAND Corporation. RANDs publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. RAND® is a registered trademark.

Evaluation of CMS's Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Advanced Primary Care Practice (APCP) Demonstration: Final Report

The quality of health care in prisons is lacking in many states. In particular, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is in the midst of an extreme legal remedy to address problems related to access to and quality of care; it now operates under the direction of a federally appointed receiver for medical care. To understand the current state of access and quality measurement and to assess strengths and weaknesses of current activities, the RAND Corporation conducted a series of interviews and site visits in the CDCR and related offices as well as document reviews (December 2008 to February 2009). Findings supported RAND’s larger project goals to identify measures for use in a sustainable quality measurement system.

Screening for chlamydia in adolescents and young women.

The statements contained in the report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The RAND Corporation assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the report. This document may not be cited, quoted, reproduced or transmitted without the permission of the RAND Corporation. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. RAND® is a registered trademark.