Assessment of Chronic Illness Care with the German version of the ACIC in different primary care settings in Switzerland.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In Switzerland the extent to which patients with chronic illnesses receive care congruent with the Chronic Care Model (CCM) is unknown. METHODS: According to guidelines we translated the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) into German (G-ACIC). We tested the instrument in different primary care settings and compared subscales with the original testing. RESULTS: Difficulties encountered during the translation process consisted in the difference of health care settings in Switzerland and USA. However initial testing showed the G-ACIC to be a suitable instrument. The average ACIC subscale scores in Swiss managed care (MC)-, group (GP)- and single handed practices (SP) were higher for MC practices than for group- and single handed practices: Organization of the healthcare delivery system: MC mean (m) = 6.80 (SD 1.55), GP m = 5.42 (SD 0.99), SP m = 4.60 (SD 2.07); community linkages: MC m = 4.19 (SD 1.47), GP m = 4.83 (SD 1.81), SP m = 3.10 (SD 2.12); self-management support: MC m = 4.96 (SD 1.13), GP m = 4.73 (SD 1.40), SP m = 4.43 (SD 1.34); decision support: MC m = 4.75 (SD 1.06); GP m = 4.20 (SD 0.87), SP m = 3.25 (SD 1.59); delivery system design: MC m = 5.98 (SD 1.61), GP m = 5.05 (SD 2.05), SP m = 3.86 (SD 1.51) and clinical information systems: MC m = 4.34 (SD = 2.49), GP m = 2.06 (SD 1.35), SP m = 3.20 (SD 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: The G-ACIC is applicable and useful for comparing different health care settings in German speaking countries. Managed care organizations seem to implement the different components of the CCM in a greater extend than group and single handed practices. However, much room exists for further improvement.
Project description:Practice facilitation (PF) is an implementation strategy now commonly used in primary care settings for improvement initiatives. PF occurs when a trained external facilitator engages and supports the practice in its change efforts. The purpose of this group-randomized trial is to assess PF as an intervention to improve the delivery of chronic illness care in primary care.A randomized trial of 40 small primary care practices who were randomized to an initial or a delayed intervention (control) group. Trained practice facilitators worked with each practice for one year to implement tailored changes to improve delivery of diabetes care within the Chronic Care Model framework. The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey was administered at baseline and at one-year intervals to clinicians and staff in both groups of practices. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to assess the main effects (mean differences between groups) and the within-group change over time.There was significant improvement in ACIC scores (p < 0.05) within initial intervention practices, from 5.58 (SD 1.89) to 6.33 (SD 1.50), compared to the delayed intervention (control) practices where there was a small decline, from 5.56 (SD 1.54) to 5.27 (SD 1.62). The increase in ACIC scores was sustained one year after withdrawal of the PF intervention in the initial intervention group, from 6.33 (SD 1.50) to 6.60 (SD 1.94), and improved in the delayed intervention (control) practices during their one year of PF intervention, from 5.27 (SD 1.62) to 5.99 (SD 1.75).Practice facilitation resulted in a significant and sustained improvement in delivery of care consistent with the CCM as reported by those involved in direct patient care in small primary care practices. The impact of the observed change on clinical outcomes remains uncertain.This protocol followed the CONSORT guidelines and is registered per ICMJE guidelines:NCT00482768.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Little is known as to whether primary care teams' perceptions of how well they have implemented the Chronic Care Model (CCM) corresponds with their patients' own experience of chronic illness care. We examined the extent to which practice members' perceptions of how well they organized to deliver care consistent with the CCM were associated with their patients' perceptions of the chronic illness care they have received. METHODS:Analysis of baseline measures from a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a practice facilitation intervention to implement the CCM in small, community-based primary care practices. All practice "members" (i.e., physician providers, non-physician providers, and staff) completed the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey and adult patients with 1 or more chronic illnesses completed the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire. RESULTS:Two sets of hierarchical linear regression models accounting for nesting of practice members (N = 283) and patients (N = 1,769) within 39 practices assessed the association between practice member perspectives of CCM implementation (ACIC scores) and patients' perspectives of CCM (PACIC). ACIC summary score was not significantly associated with PACIC summary score or most of PACIC subscale scores, but four of the ACIC subscales [Self-management Support (p < 0.05); Community Linkages (p < 0.02), Delivery System Design (p < 0.02), and Organizational Support (p < 0.02)] were consistently associated with PACIC summary score and the majority of PACIC subscale scores after controlling for patient characteristics. The magnitude of the coefficients, however, indicates that the level of association is weak. CONCLUSIONS:The ACIC and PACIC scales appear to provide complementary and relatively unique assessments of how well clinical services are aligned with the CCM. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing both patient and practice member perspectives when evaluating quality of chronic illness care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT00482768.
Project description:Recent research from a complexity theory perspective suggests that implementation of complex models of care, such as the Chronic Care Model (CCM), requires strong relationships and learning capacities among primary care teams.Our primary aim was to assess the extent to which practice member perceptions of relational coordination and reciprocal learning were associated with the presence of CCM elements in community-based primary care practices.We used baseline measures from a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a practice facilitation intervention to implement the CCM and improve risk factor control for patients with Type 2 diabetes in small primary care practices. Practice members (i.e., physicians, nonphysician providers, and staff) completed baseline assessments, which included the Relational Coordination Scale, Reciprocal Learning Scale, and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey, along with items assessing individual and clinic characteristics. To assess the association between Relational Coordination, Reciprocal Learning, and ACIC, we used a series of hierarchical linear regression models accounting for clustering of individual practice members within clinics and controlling for individual- and practice-level characteristics and tested for mediation effects.A total of 283 practice members from 39 clinics completed baseline measures. Relational Coordination scores were significantly and positively associated with ACIC scores (Model 1). When Reciprocal Learning was added, Relational Coordination remained a significant yet notably attenuated predictor of ACIC (Model 2). The mediation effect was significant (z = 9.3, p < .01); 24% of the association between Relational Coordination and ACIC scores was explained by Reciprocal Learning. Of the individual- and practice-level covariates included in Model 3, only the presence of an electronic medical record was significant; Relational Coordination and Reciprocal Learning remained significant independent predictors of ACIC.Efforts to implement complex models of care should incorporate strategies to strengthen relational coordination and reciprocal learning among team members.
Project description:BACKGROUND: The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an evidence based, population based approach to improve care for people with chronic conditions. The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) instrument is widely used to measure to what extent within a healthcare system the CCM is implemented. The aim of this study was to translate and culturally adapt the ACIC Instrument for the German healthcare system. METHODS: For translating the ACIC instrument, principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process by the ISPOR Task Force were followed. Focus groups were additionally conducted with general practitioners to adapt the items culturally. RESULTS: The ACIC instrument can not be used in the German healthcare system easily due to a multifaceted understanding of words, different levels of knowledge of the CCM and fundamental differences between health systems. CONCLUSIONS: As following the CCM leads to benefits for patients with chronic illnesses, measuring to which extent it is implemented is of major interest. A new questionnaire using the CCM as its theoretical basis, sensitive to the healthcare systems of the host country has to be created. Knowledge transfer between countries by using an instrument from a different healthcare system can lead to a completely new questionnaire.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication therapy management (MTM) program evaluations have revealed mixed outcomes, with some studies finding favorable outcomes and others finding no differences between patients who received MTM versus those who did not. One possible reason for outcomes variability is differences in delivery of MTM programs. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) provides a framework for how health care organizations can improve care for the chronically ill through 6 elements: organization of health care, delivery system design, clinical information systems, decision support, self-management, and linkages to community resources. OBJECTIVE:To apply the CCM to understand variation in MTM delivery and formulate policy recommendations. METHODS:This study used a mixed-methods descriptive analysis of MTM delivery. Investigators conducted visits to a purposeful sample of MTM practices to observe MTM and interview participants. The pharmacists and staff of these practices completed a modified Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Pairs of investigators analyzed interview transcripts to identify themes. Demographics and ACIC scores were summarized using descriptive statistics. After analysis, investigators discussed overarching themes and policy implications organized by CCM elements. RESULTS:Seven practices participated, and 87 participants were interviewed. Based on ACIC scores, MTM patient volume, and payer mix, practices were categorized as Early Maturity Level or Later Maturity Level. From the model, organization of health care themes included whether MTM was the practice's core competence, belief/confidence in the MTM process, lack of formal rewards, and the influence of organizational goals and external environment. Delivery system design themes pertained to the extent that MTM processes were formalized. Clinical information systems themes were the extent to which systems were influenced by payers, efficiency strategies, and the accuracy and availability of information. In considering clinical decision support themes, alert design limitations and variation in user approaches to alerts based on experience were noted. We observed strong support for patient self-management; when present, barriers were attributed to the patient, MTM provider, or payer. Referral to community resources was minimal. Numerous policy implications were identified. CONCLUSIONS:Our research identified numerous ways by which MTM delivery varies, particularly by MTM practice maturity level. These findings provide evidence for several policy changes that could be considered to optimize MTM delivery, encourage alignment with the CCM, and promote practice maturation. DISCLOSURES:This research and a portion of Snyder's salary were supported by grant number K08HS022119 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Snyder reports consulting fees from Westat for an evaluation of the CMS Enhanced MTM program. The other authors have nothing to disclose. Portions of this research have been presented as abstracts at the following conferences: (a) 2017 Academy Health Annual Research Meeting; June 25-27, 2017; New Orleans, LA; (b) 2015 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Clinical Midyear Meeting; December 4-8, 2015; New Orleans, LA; and
Project description:BACKGROUND: The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an evidence-based approach to improving the structure of care for chronically ill patients with multimorbidity. The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC), an instrument commonly used in international research, includes all aspects of the CCM, but cannot be easily extended to the German context. A new instrument called the "Questionnaire of Chronic Illness Care in Primary Care" (QCPC) was developed for use in Germany for this reason. Here, we present the results of the psychometric properties and test-retest reliability of QCPC. METHODS: A total of 109 family doctors from different German states participated in the validation study. Participating physicians completed the QCPC, which includes items concerning the CCM and practice structure, at baseline (T0) and 3 weeks later (T1). Internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability were evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's r, respectively. RESULTS: The QCPC contains five elements of the CCM (decision support, delivery system design, self-management support, clinical information systems, and community linkages). All subscales demonstrated moderate internal consistency and moderate test-retest reliability over a three-week interval. CONCLUSIONS: The QCPC is an appropriate instrument to assess the structure of chronic illness care. Unlike the ACIC, the QCPC can be used by health care providers without CCM training. The QCPC can detect the actual state of care as well as areas for improvement of care according to the CCM.
Project description:A recent systematic review suggests that practice facilitation (PF) is a robust intervention for implementing evidence-based preventive care guidelines in primary care, but the ability of PF to improve chronic illness care remains unclear.To examine the specific activities and Chronic Care model (CCM) components that primary care practices implemented and sustained in response to a 12-month PF intervention.The ABC trial tested the effectiveness of PF to improve care for diabetes in 40 small community-based primary care practices that were randomized to "initial" or "delayed" intervention arms. A trained facilitator met with each practice over 12-months. Facilitators used interactive consensus building to help practices implement one or more of quality improvement activities based on the CCM. Facilitators prospectively recorded implementation activities reported by practice teams during monthly meetings and confirmed which of these were sustained at the end of the intervention.37 practices implemented and sustained a total of 43 unique activities [range 1-15, average 6.5 (SD=2.9)]. The number (%) of practices that implemented 1 or more key activities in each CCM component varied: Patient Self-Management Support: 37 (100%); Clinical Information Systems: 24 (64.9%), Delivery System Design: 14 (37.8%), Decision Support: 13 (35.1%), Community Linkages: 2 (5.4%); Healthcare System Support: 2 (2.7%). The majority of practices (59%) only implemented activities from 1 or 2 CCM components. The number of sustained activities was associated with the number of PF visits, but not with practice characteristics.In spite of the PF intervention, it was difficult for these small practices to implement comprehensive CCM changes. Although practices implemented and sustained a remarkable number and variety of key activities, the majority of these focused on patient self-management support, as opposed to other components of the CCM, such as clinical information systems, decision support, delivery system redesign, and community linkages.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Increasing chronic conditions and multimorbidity is placing growing service pressures on health care, especially primary care services. This comes at a time when GP workforce shortages are starting to be felt across Switzerland, placing a threat on the sustainability of good access to primary care. By establishing multiprofessional teams in primary care, service capacity is increased and the pressures on the GP workforce can be alleviated. The roles of non-medical health professions in primary care are not established so far in Switzerland and the personnel composition of primary care group practices is not known. Therefore this study aims to provide insights into the current composition, educational background and autonomy of the these new professional roles in primary care. METHODS:For this descriptive exploratory study a web-based online survey methodology was used. Group practices were defined as being a medical practice with any specialisation where at least three physicians work together in a team. Based on this restriction 240 eligible group practices were identified in Switzerland. The following four tertiary-level health professions were included in the study: nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and dietitians. Additionally medical practice assistants with couselling competencies were included. RESULTS:A total of 102 practices answered the questionnaire which is equivalent to an answer rate of 43%. The sample included data from 17 cantons. 46.1% of the practices employed non-physician health professionals. Among the tertiary-level health professions, physiotherapists were the most frequent profession with a total of 78 physiotherapists over all group practices, followed by nurses (43), dietitians (34) and occupational therapists (3). In practices which employ those professionals their average number per practice was 3.4. 25.5% of the practices had health professionals employed with advanced roles and competencies. CONCLUSION:The results from this study demonstrate that while nearly 50% of groups practices have established non-physician professionals, only 25% of practices integrate these professionals with advanced roles. Compared with other countries, there would appear to be significant scope to extent and broaden the uptake of non-physician professionals in primary care in Switzerland. Clear policy direction along with supporting regulation and financing arrangements are required.
Project description:Most research publications on Chronic Care Model (CCM) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system. Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce. In 2003, the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian healthcare setting, a setting where the organisational framework for chronic care is mainly hospital-centered.Process evaluation of an action research project (2003-2007) guided by the CCM in a well-defined geographical area with 76,826 inhabitants and an estimated number of 2,300 type 2 diabetes patients. In consultation with the region a program for type 2 diabetes patients was developed. The degree of implementation of the CCM in the region was assessed using the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care survey (ACIC). A multimethod approach was used to evaluate the implementation process. The resulting data were triangulated in order to identify the main facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation process.The overall ACIC score improved from 1.45 (limited support) at the start of the study to 5.5 (basic support) at the end of the study. The establishment of a local steering group and the appointment of a program manager were crucial steps in strengthening primary care. The willingness of a group of well-trained and motivated care providers to invest in quality improvement was an important facilitator. Important barriers were the complexity of the intervention, the lack of quality data, inadequate information technology support, the lack of commitment procedures and the uncertainty about sustainable funding.Guided by the CCM, this study highlights the opportunities and the bottlenecks for adapting chronic care delivery in a primary care system with limited structure. The study succeeded in achieving a considerable improvement of the overall support for diabetes patients but further improvement requires a shift towards system thinking among policy makers. Currently primary care providers lack the opportunities to take up full responsibility for chronic care.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824499.
Project description:Support for ongoing care management and coordination between office visits for patients with multiple chronic conditions has been inadequate. In January 2015, Medicare introduced the Chronic Care Management (CCM) payment policy, which reimburses providers for CCM activities for Medicare beneficiaries occurring outside of office visits.To explore the experiences, facilitators, and challenges of practices providing CCM services, and their implications going forward.Semi-structured telephone interviews from January to April 2016 with 71 respondents.Sixty billing and non-billing providers and practice staff knowledgeable about their practices' CCM services, and 11 professional society representatives.Practice respondents noted that most patients expressed positive views of CCM services. Practice respondents also perceived several patient benefits, including improved adherence to treatment, access to care team members, satisfaction, care continuity, and care coordination. Facilitators of CCM provision included having an in-practice care manager, patient-centered medical home recognition, experience developing care plans, patient trust in their provider, and supplemental insurance to cover CCM copayments. Most billing practices reported few problems obtaining patients' consent for CCM, though providers felt that CMS could better facilitate consent by marketing CCM's goals to beneficiaries. Barriers reported by professional society representatives and by billing and non-billing providers included inadequacy of CCM payments to cover upfront investments for staffing, workflow modification, and time needed to manage complex patients. Other barriers included inadequate infrastructure for health information exchange with other providers and limited electronic health record capabilities for documenting and updating care plans. Practices owned by hospital systems and large medical groups faced greater bureaucracy in implementing CCM than did smaller, independent practices.Improving providers' experiences with and uptake of CCM will require addressing several challenges, including the upfront investment for CCM set-up and the time required to provide CCM to more complex patients.