Dataset Information

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable versions of the quality improvement program: Full Support (with support from quality improvement expert) and Self-Guided (using only online materials). Outcomes were clinic-level BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) and other BP-related process metrics calculated using electronic health record data. Difference-in-differences were used to compare changes in outcomes from baseline to 6 months, between intervention arms, and to a nonrandomized Usual Care arm composed of 18 health systems. A total of 24 safety-net clinics in 9 different health systems underwent randomization and then simultaneous implementation. BP control increased from 56.7% to 59.1% in the Full Support arm, and 62.0% to 63.1% in the Self-Guided arm, whereas BP control dropped slightly from 61.3% to 60.9% in the Usual Care arm. The between-group differences-in-differences were not statistically significant (Full Support versus Self-Guided=+1.2% [95% CI, -3.2% to 5.6%], P=0.59; Full Support versus Usual Care=+3.2% [-0.5% to 6.9%], P=0.09; Self-Guided versus Usual Care=+2.0% [-0.4% to 4.5%], P=0.10). Conclusions In this randomized trial, 2 methods of implementing a quality improvement intervention in 24 safety net clinics led to modest improvements in BP control that were not statistically significant. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03818659.

SUBMITTER: Fontil V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9973613 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Fontil Valy V Modrow Madelaine Faulkner MF Cooper-DeHoff Rhonda M RM Wozniak Gregory G Rakotz Michael M Todd Jonathan J Azar Kristen K Murakami Linda L Sanders Margaret M Chamberlain Alanna M AM O'Brien Emily E Lee April A Carton Thomas T Pletcher Mark J MJ

Journal of the American Heart Association 20230125 3

Background Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) remains a leading cause of death in the United States. The American Medical Association developed a quality improvement program to improve BP control, but it is unclear how to efficiently implement this program at scale across multiple health systems. Methods and Results We conducted BP MAP (Blood Pressure Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner With Patients), a comparative effectiveness trial with clinic-level randomization to compare 2 scalable ...[more]

PMID: 36695297

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research.STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC.Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools.Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundShortening time between office visits for patients with uncontrolled hypertension represents a potential strategy for improving blood pressure (BP).ObjectiveWe evaluated the impact of multimodal strategies on time between visits and on improvement in systolic BP (SBP) among patients with uncontrolled hypertension.DesignWe used a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial with three wedges involving 12 federally qualified health centers with three study periods: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention.ParticipantsAdult patients with diagnosed hypertension and two BPs ≥ 140/90 pre-randomization and at least one visit during post-randomization control period (N = 4277).InterventionThe core intervention included three, clinician hypertension group-based trainings, monthly clinician feedback reports, and monthly meetings with practice champions to facilitate implementation.Main measuresThe main measures were change in time between visits when BP was not controlled and change in SBP. A secondary planned outcome was changed in BP control among all hypertension patients in the practices.Key resultsMedian follow-up times were 34, 32, and 32 days and the mean SBPs were 142.0, 139.5, and 139.8 mmHg, respectively. In adjusted analyses, the intervention did not improve time to the next visit compared with control periods, HR = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.04). SBP was reduced by 1.13 mmHg (95% CI: -2.10, -0.16), but was not maintained during follow-up. Hypertension control (< 140/90) in the practices improved by 5% during intervention (95% CI: 2.6%, 7.3%) and was sustained post-intervention 5.4% (95% CI: 2.6%, 8.2%).ConclusionsThe intervention failed to shorten follow-up time for patients with uncontrolled BP and showed very small, statistically significant improvements in SBP that were not sustained. However, the intervention showed statistically and clinically relevant improvement in hypertension control suggesting that the intervention affected clinician decision-making regarding BP control apart from visit frequency. Future practice initiatives should consider hypertension control as a primary outcome.Clinical trialwww.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02164331.

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:Adolescent girls and young women account for a disproportionate fraction of new HIV infections in Africa and are a priority population for HIV prevention, including provision of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Anchoring PrEP delivery to care settings like family planning (FP) services that women already access routinely may offer an efficient platform to reach HIV at-risk women. However, context-specific implementation science evaluation is needed. The Family Planning Plus Project is a prospective, pragmatic implementation evaluation, designed as a stepped wedge, cluster randomized trial, at 12 clinics in Kenya. In collaboration with the Kenya Ministry of Health and Kisumu County Department of Health, we will introduce integration of HIV risk screening and PrEP delivery in public health FP clinics. The core multifaceted implementation strategies to integrate PrEP in FP clinics will include: (1) PrEP delivery by existing FP clinic staff, (2) health provider training, (3) PrEP technical assistance to coach and mentor providers, (4) joint supervision with Kisumu County health officials, and (5) stakeholder engagement. All core components of PrEP delivery-including screening for HIV risk, HIV testing, dispensing, adherence and risk reduction counseling, assessment of side effects, and provision of refills, or safety assessment-will be conducted by existing FP clinic staff as part of a standard care service package. The goal is to catalyze sustainable scale-up within existing infrastructures beyond the project. We will rigorously evaluate implementation outcomes and impact, using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, and we will use Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science Research (CFIR) to assess readiness to implement and contextual enablers and barriers of implementation, including how clinics innovate efficient delivery systems. Anchoring PrEP delivery to existing FP systems and staffing has tremendous potential to address barriers that women face in accessing HIV prevention and PrEP care, including lack of time, cost, and stigma of visiting a facility solely for HIV prevention. The FP Plus Project will initiate preparation for full-scale and sustainable model of integration of comprehensive HIV prevention services, including PrEP implementation, in public health FP clinics in low-income settings. Trial registration Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on December 14, 2020: NCT04666792.

Project description:BackgroundExisting tools to measure patient-centered medical home (PCMH) adoption are not designed for research evaluation in safety-net clinics.ObjectiveDevelop a scale to measure PCMH adoption in safety-net clinics.Research designCross-sectional survey.SubjectsSixty-five clinics in five states.Main measuresFifty-two-item Safety Net Medical Home Scale (SNMHS). The total score ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) and is an average of multiple subscales (0-100): Access and Communication, Patient Tracking and Registry, Care Management, Test and Referral Tracking, Quality Improvement, and External Coordination. The scale was tested for internal consistency reliability and tested for convergent validity using The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and the Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment (PCMH-A). The scale was applied to centers in the sample. In addition, linear regression models were used to measure the association between clinic characteristics and medical home adoption.ResultsThe SNMHS had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84). The SNMHS score correlated moderately with the ACIC score (r = 0.64, p < 0.0001) and the PCMH-A (r = 0.56, p < 0.001). The mean SNMHS score was 61 ± SD 13. Among the subscales, External Coordination (66 ± 16) and Access and Communication (65 ± 14) had the highest mean scores, while Quality Improvement (55 ± 17) and Care Management (55 ± 16) had lower mean scores. Clinic characteristics positively associated with total SNMHS score were having more providers (β 15.8 95% CI 8.1-23.4 >8 provider FTEs compared to <4 FTEs) and participation in financial incentive programs (β 8.4 95% 1.6-15.3).ConclusionThe SNMHS demonstrated reliability and convergent validity for measuring PCMH adoption in safety-net clinics. Some clinics have significant PCMH adoption. However, room for improvement exists in most domains, especially for clinics with fewer providers.

Dataset Information

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Publications

Improvement in Blood Pressure Control in Safety Net Clinics Receiving 2 Versions of a Scalable Quality Improvement Intervention: BP MAP A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets