Robert A. Davis

Increasing capacity for quality improvement in underresourced primary care settings.

While hospitals have widely adopted quality improvement (QI) initiatives, primary care practices continue to face unique challenges to QI implementation. The purpose of this article is to outline a strategy for promoting QI in primary care practices by introducing specially trained nurses. Two case examples are described, one with a QI nurse external to the practice and one with a nurse internal to the practice. Lessons learned and barriers and facilitators to QI in primary care are presented. Barriers and facilitators are identified in the following categories: practice infrastructure, practice leadership, and practice organizational culture. Implications for primary care practitioners and avenues for future work are discussed.

Cholesterol Control Among Uninsured Adults Did Not Improve From 2001‐2004 to 2009‐2012 as Disparities With Both Publicly and Privately Insured Adults Doubled

Background Low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) control is higher among insured than uninsured adults, but data on time trends and contributing factors are incomplete and important for improving health equity. Methods and Results Awareness, treatment, and control of elevated LDL‐C were compared among insured versus uninsured and publicly versus privately insured adults, aged 21 to 64 years, in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2001 to 2004, 2005 to 2008, and 2009 to 2012 using Adult Treatment Panel‐3 criteria. Compared with insured adults, uninsured adults were younger; were more often minority; reported lower incomes, less education, and fewer healthcare encounters; and had lower awareness and treatment of elevated LDL‐C (P<0.0001). LDL‐C control was higher among insured than uninsured adults in 2001 to 2004 (mean±SEM, 21.4±1.6% versus 10.5±2.6%; P<0.01), and the gap widened by 2009 to 2012 (35.1±1.9% versus 11.3±2.2%; P<0.0001). Despite more minorities (P<0.01), greater poverty, and less education (P<0.001), publicly insured adults had more healthcare visits/year than privately insured adults (P<0.001) and similar awareness, treatment, and control of LDL‐C from 2001 to 2012. In multivariable logistic regression, significant positive predictors of cholesterol awareness, treatment, and control included more frequent health care (strongest), increasing age, private healthcare insurance versus uninsured, and hypertension. Public insurance (versus uninsured) was a significant positive predictor of LDL‐C control, whereas income <200% versus ≥200% of federal poverty was a significant negative predictor. Conclusions LDL‐C control improved similarly over time in publicly and privately insured adults but was stagnant among the uninsured. Healthcare insurance largely addresses socioeconomic barriers to effective LDL‐C management, yet poverty retains an independent adverse effect.

Machine Learning: Multi-site Evidence-Based Best Practice Discovery

This study establishes interoperability among electronic medical records from 737 healthcare sites and performs machine learning for best practice discovery. A mapping algorithm is designed to disambiguate free text entries and to provide a unique and unified way to link content to structured medical concepts despite the extreme variations that can occur during clinical diagnosis documentation. Redundancy is reduced through concept mapping. A SNOMED-CT graph database is created to allow for rapid data access and queries. These integrated data can be accessed through a secured web-based portal. A classification model (DAMIP) is then designed to uncover discriminatory characteristics that can predict the quality of treatment outcome. We demonstrate system usability by analyzing Type II diabetic patients. DAMIP establishes a classification rule on a training set which results in greater than 80% blind predictive accuracy on an independent set of patients. By including features obtained from structured concept mapping, the predictive accuracy is improved to over 88%. The results facilitate evidence-based treatment and optimization of site performance through best practice dissemination and knowledge transfer.

Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients (MAP) improves hypertension control in medically underserved patients: Care Coordination Institute and American Medical Association Hypertension Control Project Pilot Study results

Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients (MAP) is an evidence‐based protocol implemented to improve hypertension control in a clinic for underserved patients (49.9% Medicaid and 50.2% black). Patients with hypertension seen during the year before intervention and with at least one visit during the 6‐month intervention (N = 714) were included. If initial attended blood pressure (BP; standard aneroid manometer) was ≥140/≥90 mm Hg, unattended automated office BP was measured in triplicate and averaged (Measure Accurately) using an Omron HEM‐907XL. When automated office BP was ≥140/≥90 mm Hg, Act Rapidly included intensification of antihypertensive medications, assessed by therapeutic inertia. Partner With Patients included BP self‐monitoring, reducing pill burden, and minimizing medication costs, which was assessed by systolic BP change per therapeutic intensification. Between baseline and the last study visit, BP control to <140/<90 mm Hg increased from 61.2% to 89.9% (P < .0001). MAP rapidly and significantly improved hypertension control in medically underserved patients, largely as a result of measuring BP accurately and partnering with patients.

Impact of Implementing the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines on Vascular Events in a Statewide Community-Based Practice Registry.

Electronic health record data were analyzed to estimate the number of statin‐eligible adults with the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines not taking statin therapy and the impact of recommended statin therapy on 10‐year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD10) events. Adults aged 21 to 80 years in an outpatient network with ≥1 clinic visit(s) from January 2011 to June 2014 with data to calculate ASCVD10 were eligible. Moderate‐intensity statin therapy was assumed to lower low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 30% and high‐intensity therapy was assumed to reduce low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 50%. ASCVD events were assumed to decline 22% for each 39 mg/dL decline in low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. Among 411,768 adults, 260,434 (63.2%) were not taking statins and 103,478 (39.7%) were eligible for a statin, including 79,069 (76.4%) patients with hypertension. Estimated ASCVD10 events were 18,781 without and 13,328 with statin therapy, a 29.0% relative and 5.3% absolute risk reduction with a number needed to treat of 19. The 2013 cholesterol guidelines are a relatively efficient approach to reducing ASCVD in untreated, statin‐eligible adults who often have concomitant hypertension.

Differences in primary cardiovascular disease prevention between the 2013 and 2016 cholesterol guidelines and impact of the 2017 hypertension guideline in the United States

The US Preventive Services Task Force cholesterol guideline recommended statins for fewer adults than the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline by setting a higher 10‐year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease threshold (≥10.0% vs ≥7.5%) and requiring concomitant diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or cigarette smoking. The 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline lowered the hypertension threshold, increasing 2016 guideline statin‐eligible adults. Cross‐sectional data on US adults aged 40 to 75 years enabled estimated numbers for the 2013 guideline and 2016 guideline with hypertension thresholds of ≥140/≥90 mm Hg and ≥130/80 mm Hg, respectively, on: (1) untreated, statin‐eligible adults for primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention (25.40, 14.72, 15.35 million); (2) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events prevented annually (124 000, 70 852, 73 199); (3) number needed to treat (21, 21, 21); and (4) number needed to harm (38, 143, 143) per 1000 patient‐years for incident diabetes mellitus (42 800, 6700, 7100 cases per year). Despite the lower hypertension threshold, the 2013 cholesterol guideline qualifies approximately 10 million more adults for statins and prevents approximately 50 600 more primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events but induces approximately 35 700 more diabetes mellitus cases annually than the 2016 guideline.

Nicotine replacement therapy sampling via primary care: Methods from a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND Primary care is the most important point of healthcare contact for smokers. Brief physician advice to quit, based on the 5As/AAR model, offers some efficacy but is inconsistently administered and has limited population impact. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) sampling, defined as provision of a brief NRT starter kit, when added to the 5As/AAR, is well-suited to primary care because it is simple, brief, and can be provided to all smokers. This article describes the design and methods of an ongoing comparative effectiveness trial testing standard care vs. standard care + NRT sampling within primary care. METHODS Smokers were recruited directly from primary care practices between July 2014 and December 2017 within an established network of South Carolina clinics. Interventions were delivered randomly by clinic personnel, and phone-based follow-ups were centrally coordinated by research staff to track outcomes through six months post-intervention. Primary study aims are to examine the impact of NRT sampling on smoking, inclusive of cessation, quit attempts, and uptake of evidence-based treatment. RESULTS Twenty-two clinics were recruited. Across clinics, patient census ranged from 985 to 10,957 and number of providers ranged from 1 to 63. Average patient age across clinics was 52.9 years and smoking prevalence across ranged from 10.6% to 28.5%. CONCLUSION Improving the effectiveness and reach of brief interventions within primary care could have a considerable impact on population quit rates. We consider the advantages and disadvantages of key methodological decisions relevant to the design of future primary care-based cessation trials.