Thomas D. Sequist

Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality, but effective screening tests remain underused. Systematic reminders to patients and physicians could increase screening rates METHODS We conducted a randomized controlled trial of patient and physician reminders in 11 ambulatory health care centers. Participants included 21 860 patients aged 50 to 80 years who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening and 110 primary care physicians. Patients were randomly assigned to receive mailings containing an educational pamphlet, fecal occult blood test kit, and instructions for direct scheduling of flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive electronic reminders during office visits with patients overdue for screening. The primary outcome was receipt of fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy over 15 months, and the secondary outcome was detection of colorectal adenomas. RESULTS Screening rates were higher for patients who received mailings compared with those who did not (44.0% vs 38.1%; P < .001). The effect increased with age: +3.7% for ages 50 to 59 years; +7.3% for ages 60 to 69 years; and +10.1% for ages 70 to 80 years (P = .01 for trend). Screening rates were similar among patients of physicians receiving electronic reminders and the control group (41.9% vs 40.2%; P = .47). However, electronic reminders tended to increase screening rates among patients with 3 or more primary care visits (59.5% vs 52.7%; P = .07). Detection of adenomas tended to increase with patient mailings (5.7% vs 5.2%; P = .10) and physician reminders (6.0% vs 4.9%; P = .09). CONCLUSIONS Mailed reminders to patients are an effective tool to promote colorectal cancer screening, and electronic reminders to physicians may increase screening among adults who have more frequent primary care visits.

Quality Monitoring of Physicians: Linking Patients’ Experiences of Care to Clinical Quality and Outcomes

BackgroundPhysicians are increasingly asked to improve the delivery of clinical services and patient experiences of care.ObjectiveWe evaluated the association between clinical performance and patient experiences in a statewide sample of physician practice sites and a sample of physicians within a large physician group.Design, Setting, ParticipantsWe separately identified 373 practice sites and 119 individual primary care physicians in Massachusetts.MeasurementsUsing Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set data, we produced two composites addressing processes of care (prevention, disease management) and one composite addressing outcomes. Using Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey data, we produced seven composite measures summarizing the quality of clinical interactions and organizational features of care. For each sample (practice site and individual physician), we calculated adjusted Spearman correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between the composites summarizing patient experiences of care and those summarizing clinical performance.ResultsAmong 42 possible correlations (21 correlations involving practice sites and 21 involving individual physicians), the majority were positive in site level (71%) and physician level (67%) analyses. For the 28 possible correlations involving patient experiences and clinical process composites, 8 (29%) were significant and positive, and only 2 (7%) were significant and negative. The magnitude of the significant positive correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.19 at the site level and from 0.28 to 0.51 at the physician level. There were no significant correlations between patient experiences and the clinical outcome composite.ConclusionsThe modest correlations suggest that clinical quality and patient experience are distinct, but related domains that may require separate measurement and improvement initiatives.

Cultural Competency Training and Performance Reports to Improve Diabetes Care for Black Patients: A Cluster Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Increasing clinician awareness of racial disparities and improving communication may enhance diabetes care among black patients. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of cultural competency training and performance feedback for primary care clinicians on diabetes care for black patients. DESIGN Cluster randomized, controlled trial conducted between June 2007 and May 2008. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00436176) SETTING: 8 ambulatory health centers in eastern Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS 124 primary care clinicians caring for 2699 (36%) black and 4858 (64%) white diabetic patients. INTERVENTION INTERVENTION clinicians received cultural competency training and monthly race-stratified performance reports that highlighted racial differences in control of hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and blood pressure. MEASUREMENTS Clinician awareness of racial differences in diabetes care and rates of achieving clinical control targets among black patients at 12 months. RESULTS White and black patients differed significantly in baseline rates of achieving an HbA(1c) level less than 7% (46% vs. 40%), an LDL cholesterol level less than 2.59 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) (55% vs. 43%), and blood pressure less than 130/80 mm Hg (32% vs. 24%) (all P < 0.050). At study completion, intervention clinicians were significantly more likely than control clinicians to acknowledge the presence of racial disparities in the 8 health centers as a whole (82% vs. 59%; P = 0.003), within their local health center (70% vs. 51%; P = 0.020), and among their own patients (63% vs. 43%; P = 0.037). Black patients of clinicians in the intervention and control groups did not differ at 12 months in rates of controlling HbA(1c) level (48% vs. 45%; P = 0.24), LDL cholesterol level (48% vs. 49%; P = 0.40), or blood pressure (23% vs. 25%; P = 0.47). LIMITATION 11% of primary care teams did not attend cultural competency training sessions. CONCLUSION The combination of cultural competency training and race-stratified performance reports increased clinician awareness of racial disparities in diabetes care but did not improve clinical outcomes among black patients.

Indigenous people in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States are less likely to receive renal transplantation

In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States indigenous people have high rates of chronic kidney disease but poor access to effective therapies. To more fully define these issues, we compared the demographics of renal transplantation of indigenous patients in these 4 countries. Data encompassing 312,507 indigenous and white patients (18-64 years of age) who initiated dialysis within an 11-year period ending in 2005 were obtained from each countrys end-stage kidney disease registry. By the studys end, 88,173 patients had received a renal transplant and 130,261 had died without receiving such. Compared with white patients, the adjusted likelihood of receiving a transplant for indigenous patients was significantly lower in Australia (hazard ratio (HR) 0.23), Canada (HR 0.34), New Zealand (HR 0.23), and the United States (HR 0.44). In all four countries, indigenous patients had significantly longer overall median waiting times compared to white patients. Our study shows that despite marked differences in health care delivery systems, indigenous patients are less likely than white patients to receive a renal transplant in these countries. Understanding and addressing barriers to renal transplantation of indigenous patients remains an important concern.

Choosing Wisely: Prevalence and Correlates of Low-Value Health Care Services in the United States

BackgroundSpecialty societies in the United States identified low-value tests and procedures that contribute to waste and poor health care quality via implementation of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s Choosing Wisely initiative.ObjectiveTo develop claims-based algorithms, to use them to estimate the prevalence of select Choosing Wisely services and to examine the demographic, health and health care system correlates of low-value care at a regional level.DesignUsing Medicare data from 2006 to 2011, we created claims-based algorithms to measure the prevalence of 11 Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined geographic variation across hospital referral regions (HRRs). We created a composite low-value care score for each HRR and used linear regression to identify regional characteristics associated with more intense use of low-value services.PatientsFee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries over age 65.Main MeasuresPrevalence of selected Choosing Wisely low-value services.Key ResultsThe national average annual prevalence of the selected Choosing Wisely low-value services ranged from 1.2% (upper urinary tract imaging in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia) to 46.5% (preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk, non-cardiac procedures). Prevalence across HRRs varied significantly. Regional characteristics associated with higher use of low-value services included greater overall per capita spending, a higher specialist to primary care ratio and higher proportion of minority beneficiaries.ConclusionsIdentifying and measuring low-value health services is a prerequisite for improving quality and eliminating waste. Our findings suggest that the delivery of wasteful and potentially harmful services may be a fruitful area for further research and policy intervention for HRRs with higher per-capita spending. These findings should inform action by physicians, health systems, policymakers, payers and consumer educators to improve the value of health care by targeting services and areas with greater use of potentially inappropriate care.

Implementation and Use of an Electronic Health Record within the Indian Health Service

OBJECTIVES There are limited data regarding implementing electronic health records (EHR) in underserved settings. We evaluated the implementation of an EHR within the Indian Health Service (IHS), a federally funded health system for Native Americans. DESIGN We surveyed 223 primary care clinicians practicing at 26 IHS health centers that implemented an EHR between 2003 and 2005. METHODS The survey instrument assessed clinician attitudes regarding EHR implementation, current utilization of individual EHR functions, and attitudes regarding the use of information technology to improve quality of care in underserved settings. We fit a multivariable logistic regression model to identify correlates of increased utilization of the EHR. RESULTS The overall response rate was 56%. Of responding clinicians, 66% felt that the EHR implementation process was positive. One-third (35%) believed that the EHR improved overall quality of care, with many (39%) feeling that it decreased the quality of the patient-doctor interaction. One-third of clinicians (34%) reported consistent use of electronic reminders, and self-report that EHRs improve quality was strongly associated with increased utilization of the EHR (odds ratio 3.03, 95% confidence interval 1.05-8.8). The majority (87%) of clinicians felt that information technology could potentially improve quality of care in rural and underserved settings through the use of tools such as online information sources, telemedicine programs, and electronic health records. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians support the use of information technology to improve quality in underserved settings, but many felt that it was not currently fulfilling its potential in the IHS, potentially due to limited use of key functions within the EHR.

Effect of Financial Incentives to Physicians, Patients, or Both on Lipid Levels: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Financial incentives to physicians or patients are increasingly used, but their effectiveness is not well established. OBJECTIVE To determine whether physician financial incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician and patient incentives are more effective than control in reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among patients with high cardiovascular risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Four-group, multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial with a 12-month intervention conducted from 2011 to 2014 in 3 primary care practices in the northeastern United States. Three hundred forty eligible primary care physicians (PCPs) were enrolled from a pool of 421. Of 25,627 potentially eligible patients of those PCPs, 1503 enrolled. Patients aged 18 to 80 years were eligible if they had a 10-year Framingham Risk Score (FRS) of 20% or greater, had coronary artery disease equivalents with LDL-C levels of 120 mg/dL or greater, or had an FRS of 10% to 20% with LDL-C levels of 140 mg/dL or greater. Investigators were blinded to study group, but participants were not. INTERVENTIONS Primary care physicians were randomly assigned to control, physician incentives, patient incentives, or shared physician-patient incentives. Physicians in the physician incentives group were eligible to receive up to

A framework for engaging physicians in quality and safety

1024 per enrolled patient meeting LDL-C goals. Patients in the patient incentives group were eligible for the same amount, distributed through daily lotteries tied to medication adherence. Physicians and patients in the shared incentives group shared these incentives. Physicians and patients in the control group received no incentives tied to outcomes, but all patient participants received up to

Indian Health Service Innovations Have Helped Reduce Health Disparities Affecting American Indian And Alaska Native People

355 each for trial participation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Change in LDL-C level at 12 months. RESULTS Patients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved a mean reduction in LDL-C of 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 30.1-37.1; baseline, 160.1 mg/dL; 12 months, 126.4 mg/dL); those in physician incentives achieved a mean reduction of 27.9 mg/dL (95% CI, 24.9-31.0; baseline, 159.9 mg/dL; 12 months, 132.0 mg/dL); those in patient incentives achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.6-28.5; baseline, 160.6 mg/dL; 12 months, 135.5 mg/dL); and those in the control group achieved a mean reduction of 25.1 mg/dL (95% CI, 21.7-28.5; baseline, 161.5 mg/dL; 12 months, 136.4 mg/dL; P < .001 for comparison of all 4 groups). Only patients in the shared physician-patient incentives group achieved reductions in LDL-C levels statistically different from those in the control group (8.5 mg/dL; 95% CI, 3.8-13.3; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In primary care practices, shared financial incentives for physicians and patients, but not incentives to physicians or patients alone, resulted in a statistically significant difference in reduction of LDL-C levels at 12 months. This reduction was modest, however, and further information is needed to understand whether this approach represents good value. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01346189.

A Randomized Trial of Electronic Clinical Reminders to Improve Medication Laboratory Monitoring

Background Physicians should be engaged in quality-improvement activities to make the systems in which they work safer and more reliable. However, many physicians are still unable to contribute to patient safety initiatives that lead to safer, high-quality care for their patients. Objective To survey 10 high-performing hospitals in the USA to determine how they engage their physicians in quality and safety. Design Qualitative study that used site visits and a semistructured 20-question interview. Setting Ten high-performing US hospitals were chosen from the 2010 US News and World Report Best Hospitals and the Leapfrog Group on Patient Safety. Participants Forty two interviews were conducted with forty-six quality leaders including CEOs, Chief Medical Officers, Vice Presidents for Quality and Safety and physicians. Measurements Site visits and in-person interviews were conducted during 2010–2011. The interviews were transcribed and coded using the constant comparative method for further analysis by the team. Results The authors developed a six-point framework for physician engagement in quality and safety as a constellation of the best strategies being used across the country. The framework consists of engaged leadership, a physician compact, appropriate compensation, realignment of financial incentives, data plus enablers and promotion. Limitation The qualitative design and the small number of hospitals surveyed mean that the results may not be generalisable. Conclusion There remain many ongoing barriers to physician engagement in quality and safety. Some high-performing hospitals in the USA have made significant improvements in engaging their physicians in quality and safety. The proposed framework can assist organisations in the development of strategies to engage physicians in quality-and-safety activities.