scholarly journals Measuring and Improving Evidence-Based Patient Care Using a Web-Based Gamified Approach in Primary Care (QualityIQ): Randomized Controlled Trial

10.2196/31042 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. e31042
Author(s):  
Trever Burgon ◽  
Linda Casebeer ◽  
Holly Aasen ◽  
Czarlota Valdenor ◽  
Diana Tamondong-Lachica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Decisions ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Evidence Based Care

Background Unwarranted variability in clinical practice is a challenging problem in practice today, leading to poor outcomes for patients and low-value care for providers, payers, and patients. Objective In this study, we introduced a novel tool, QualityIQ, and determined the extent to which it helps primary care physicians to align care decisions with the latest best practices included in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Methods We developed the fully automated QualityIQ patient simulation platform with real-time evidence-based feedback and gamified peer benchmarking. Each case included workup, diagnosis, and management questions with explicit evidence-based scoring criteria. We recruited practicing primary care physicians across the United States into the study via the web and conducted a cross-sectional study of clinical decisions among a national sample of primary care physicians, randomized to continuing medical education (CME) and non-CME study arms. Physicians “cared” for 8 weekly cases that covered typical primary care scenarios. We measured participation rates, changes in quality scores (including MIPS scores), self-reported practice change, and physician satisfaction with the tool. The primary outcomes for this study were evidence-based care scores within each case, adherence to MIPS measures, and variation in clinical decision-making among the primary care providers caring for the same patient. Results We found strong, scalable engagement with the tool, with 75% of participants (61 non-CME and 59 CME) completing at least 6 of 8 total cases. We saw significant improvement in evidence-based clinical decisions across multiple conditions, such as diabetes (+8.3%, P<.001) and osteoarthritis (+7.6%, P=.003) and with MIPS-related quality measures, such as diabetes eye examinations (+22%, P<.001), depression screening (+11%, P<.001), and asthma medications (+33%, P<.001). Although the CME availability did not increase enrollment in the study, participants who were offered CME credits were more likely to complete at least 6 of the 8 cases. Conclusions Although CME availability did not prove to be important, the short, clinically detailed case simulations with real-time feedback and gamified peer benchmarking did lead to significant improvements in evidence-based care decisions among all practicing physicians. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800901

scholarly journals Measuring and Improving Evidence-Based Patient Care Using a Web-Based Gamified Approach in Primary Care (QualityIQ): Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trever Burgon ◽  
Linda Casebeer ◽  
Holly Aasen ◽  
Czarlota Valdenor ◽  
Diana Tamondong-Lachica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Decisions ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Evidence Based Care

BACKGROUND Unwarranted variability in clinical practice is a challenging problem in practice today, leading to poor outcomes for patients and low-value care for providers, payers, and patients. OBJECTIVE In this study, we introduced a novel tool, QualityIQ, and determined the extent to which it helps primary care physicians to align care decisions with the latest best practices included in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). METHODS We developed the fully automated QualityIQ patient simulation platform with real-time evidence-based feedback and gamified peer benchmarking. Each case included workup, diagnosis, and management questions with explicit evidence-based scoring criteria. We recruited practicing primary care physicians across the United States into the study via the web and conducted a cross-sectional study of clinical decisions among a national sample of primary care physicians, randomized to continuing medical education (CME) and non-CME study arms. Physicians “cared” for 8 weekly cases that covered typical primary care scenarios. We measured participation rates, changes in quality scores (including MIPS scores), self-reported practice change, and physician satisfaction with the tool. The primary outcomes for this study were evidence-based care scores within each case, adherence to MIPS measures, and variation in clinical decision-making among the primary care providers caring for the same patient. RESULTS We found strong, scalable engagement with the tool, with 75% of participants (61 non-CME and 59 CME) completing at least 6 of 8 total cases. We saw significant improvement in evidence-based clinical decisions across multiple conditions, such as diabetes (+8.3%, <i>P</i>&lt;.001) and osteoarthritis (+7.6%, <i>P</i>=.003) and with MIPS-related quality measures, such as diabetes eye examinations (+22%, <i>P</i>&lt;.001), depression screening (+11%, <i>P</i>&lt;.001), and asthma medications (+33%, <i>P</i>&lt;.001). Although the CME availability did not increase enrollment in the study, participants who were offered CME credits were more likely to complete at least 6 of the 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS Although CME availability did not prove to be important, the short, clinically detailed case simulations with real-time feedback and gamified peer benchmarking did lead to significant improvements in evidence-based care decisions among all practicing physicians. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800901

scholarly journals Variation in Diabetes Management: A National Assessment of Primary Care Providers

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-76
Author(s):  
John W. Peabody ◽  
Enrico de Belen ◽  
Jeffrey R. Dahlen ◽  
Maria Czarina Acelajado ◽  
Mary T. Tran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Glycemic Variability ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Poor Glycemic Control ◽  
Simulated Patients ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Care Providers

Background:Glucose control is monitored primarily through ordering HbA1c levels, which is problematic in patients with glycemic variability. Herein, we report on the management of these patients by board-certified primary care providers (PCPs) in the United States.Methods:We measured provider practice in a representative sample of 156 PCPs. All providers cared for simulated patients with diabetes presenting with symptoms of glycemic variability. Provider responses were reviewed by trained clinicians against evidence-based care standards and accepted standard of care protocols.Results:Care varied widely—overall quality of care averaged 51.3%±10.6%—with providers performing just over half the evidence-based practices necessary for their cases. More worryingly, provider identified the underlying etiology of the poor glycemic control only 36.3% of the time. HbA1c was routinely ordered in 91.3% of all cases but often (59.5%) inappropriately. Ordering other tests of glycemic control (done in 15% of cases) led to significant increases in identifying the etiology of the hyperglycemia. Correctly modifying their patient’s treatment was more likely to occur if doctors first identified the underlying etiology (65.9% vs 49.0%, P<0.001). We conservatively estimated a US $65/patient/visit in unnecessary testing and US $389 annually in additional care costs when the etiology was missed, translating potentially into millions of dollars of wasteful spending.Conclusion:Despite established evidence that HbA1c misses short-term changes in diabetes, we found PCPs consistently ordered HbA1c, rarely using other available blood tests. However, if the factors leading to poor glycemic control were recognized, PCPs were more likely to correctly alter their patient’s hypoglycemic therapy.

Reduction in Schedule II opioid prescribing by primary care providers, orthopedic and general surgeons, and pain management specialists following the implementation of a State House Bill and an Institutional Controlled Substance Task Force

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-167
Author(s):  
Lisa B. E. Shields, MD ◽  
Timothy A. Johnson, BS ◽  
Michael W. Daniels, MS ◽  
Alisha Bell, MSN, RN, CPN ◽  
Diane M. Siemens, PharmD ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prescription Opioid ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
General Surgeons

Objective: Prescription opioid misuse represents a social and economic challenge in the United States. We evaluated Schedule II opioid prescribing practices by primary care providers (PCPs), orthopedic and general surgeons, and pain management specialists.Design: Prospective evaluation of prescribing practices of PCPs, orthopedic and general surgeons, and pain management specialists over 5 years (October 1, 2014-September 30, 2019) in an outpatient setting.Methods: An analysis of Schedule II opioid prescribing following the implementation of federal and state guidelines and evidence-based standards at our institution. Results: There were significantly more PCPs, orthopedic and general surgeons, and pain management specialists with a significantly increased number who prescribed Schedule II opioids, whereas there was a simultaneous significant decline in the average number of Schedule II opioid prescriptions per provider, Schedule II opioid pills prescribed per provider, and Schedule II opioid pills prescribed per patient by providers. The average number of Schedule II opioid prescriptions with a quantity 90 and Opana/Oxycontin prescriptions per PCP, orthopedic surgeon, and pain management specialist significantly decreased. The total morphine milligram equivalent (MME)/day of Schedule II opioids ordered by PCPs, orthopedic and general surgeons, and pain management specialists significantly declined. The ages of the providers remained consistent throughout the study. Conclusions: This study reports the implementation of federal and state regulations and institutional evidence-based guidelines into primary care and medical specialty practices to reduce the number of Schedule II opioids prescribed. Further research is warranted to determine alternative therapies to Schedule II opioids that may alleviate a patient’s pain without initiating or exacerbating a potentially lethal opioid addiction.

The National Residency Exchange: A Proposal to Restore Primary Care in an Age of Microspecialization

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Loan Repayment ◽  
Patient Protection

Healthcare deficiencies in the United States have long been perpetuated by a shortage of primary care providers. A core purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is to provide health insurance for America's approximately fifty million uninsured. Implementation of universal health insurance, however, does not mean sufficient healthcare access for all, since the supply of physicians does not and will not meet demand. For reasons reviewed in this Article, the current physician shortage mainly impacts primary care providers. This shortage is particularly troubling because increased provision of primary care relative to specialty care has been associated with improvement in health outcomes, disease prevention, cost effectiveness, and coordination of care. This Article highlights provisions in the PPACA that impact primary care physicians. Finally, this Article proposes the creation of a universal primary care loan repayment program and a national residency exchange designed to alleviate the U.S. primary care crisis by facilitating optimal distribution of resident physicians in each medical specialty based on community need.

Decline in primary care providers’ prescribing of Schedule II opioids following the implementation of federal and state guidelines

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa B. E. Shields, MD ◽  
Timothy A. Johnson, BS ◽  
James P. Murphy, MD ◽  
Douglas J. Lorenz, PhD ◽  
Alisha Bell, MSN, RN, CPN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prescription Opioid ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Prescription Opioid Misuse ◽  
Morphine Equivalent

Objective: Prescription opioid misuse represents a social and economic dilemma in the United States. The authors evaluated primary care providers’ (PCPs) prescribing of Schedule II opioids at our institution in Kentucky.Design: Prospective evaluation of PCPs’ prescribing practices over a 3-year period (October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2017) in an outpatient setting.Methods: An analysis of Schedule II opioid prescribing following the implementation of federal and state guidelines and evidence-based standards. Special attention focused on Schedule II opioid prescriptions with a quantity 90, Opana/ Oxycontin, and morphine equivalent daily dosage.Results: A statistically significant increase in the total number of PCPs and PCPs who prescribed Schedule II opioids was observed, while there was a concurrent significant decrease in the average number of Schedule II opioid pills prescribed per PCP, Schedule II opioid prescriptions per PCP, Schedule II opioid pills prescribed per patient by PCPs, Schedule II opioid prescriptions with a quantity 90 per PCP, and Opana/Oxycontin prescriptions per PCP. A statistically significant decline in the average morphine equivalent daily dosage of Schedule II opioids per PCP was noted.Conclusions: This study reports the benefit of incorporating federal and state regulations and institutional evidence-based guidelines into primary care practice to decrease the number of Schedule II opioids prescribed. Further preventive measures include selecting alternative treatments to opioids and reducing the rates of opioid nonmedical use and overdose while maintaining access to prescription opioids when indicated.

scholarly journals Inspiring Medical Students to Choose Primary Care Through Lifestyle Medicine Education

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 602-605
Author(s):  
David I. Bermejo ◽  
Regan A. Stiegmann
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Nutrition Education ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Lifestyle Medicine ◽  
Medicine Education

Despite a growing interest in lifestyle medicine, students at most medical schools in the United States are not receiving enough nutrition education and training in the principles of lifestyle modification to be effective at applying this knowledge to real-world clinical practice. Moreover, the rising prevalence of chronic lifestyle-related diseases and the increasing deficit of primary care providers is overwhelming the US health care system. The need for primary care physicians is being circumvented by medical students’ diminishing interest in primary care partly due to concerns about salary, prestige, and being too broad in focus. Students may also recognize that the pharmaceutically based management of chronic conditions and supplemental lifestyle recommendations are often fraught with nonadherence, resulting in the progression of disease states. However, some medical schools have incorporated the concepts and practice of lifestyle medicine into their curriculums. This integration has the potential to inspire medical students to choose a primary care specialty, because students become more adept at addressing and treating the root causes of chronic disease. Lifestyle medicine education can empower students interested in primary care to fulfill their initial desires to treat and heal that may have inspired them to want to become doctors in the first place.

scholarly journals 1317. Online Simulation-Based Education to Improve Primary Care Providers’ Knowledge About Best Practices in HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S402-S403
Author(s):  
Allison Gardner ◽  
David Evans ◽  
Alan McCord ◽  
Douglas Krakower
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Educational Intervention ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Clinical Decisions ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Online Simulation ◽  
Educational Grant ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Primary care providers’ (PCPs’) lack of knowledge about and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) represent important barriers to its effective implementation on a national scale. To address these barriers, a collaboration of infectious diseases clinicians, patient advocates, and continuing medical education (CME) specialists developed and tested an educational intervention for PCPs to increase their knowledge about best practices for providing PrEP-related care. Methods An interactive, online CME-accredited simulation prompted PCPs to make clinical decisions about a hypothetical case of a 44-year-old African-American man seeking treatment for rectal gonorrhea who thus had indications for PrEP. The intervention included real-time educational feedback on clinical decisions and an opportunity to revisit suboptimal care decisions after feedback. PCPs were recruited via email and links on CME/patient advocacy websites and public health listservs. Outcomes included proportions of learners selecting correct answers prior to and after receiving feedback on their decisions. Results During October 2017–April 2018, 234 PCPs (88% physicians, 7% NP, 5% PA) completed the simulation for a total of 4,701 unique clinical decisions. Less than half (45%) of PCPs elicited a comprehensive sexual health history to begin the visit, which improved to 83% after feedback. Two-thirds (67%) of PCPs sought permission before asking about sexual behaviors, which increased to 82% after feedback. Nearly one-quarter of PCPs (24%) needed corrective action to nonjudgmentally ask about condom use. Almost all PCPs (91%) identified that PrEP was appropriate for the case patient on their first attempt. However, only 54% of PCPs initially selected all recommended baseline laboratory tests for PrEP; 75% did so after feedback. Of providers recommending PrEP, 29% selected regimens not FDA approved for this indication. Conclusion Many PCPs participating in an online simulation enacted clinical decisions that were inconsistent with best practices for providing PrEP-related care, but hypothetical care decisions improved after real-time educational feedback. Future studies to test the impact of this educational intervention on clinical practices are warranted. Disclosures D. Evans, Project Inform: Employee, Educational grant. A. McCord, Project Inform: Employee, Educational grant. D. Krakower, Gilead Sciences: Grant Investigator, Research grant.

Effects of the mental health parity and addictions equality act on depression treatment choice in primary care facilities

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Goldberg ◽  
Hsien-Chang Lin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Depression Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Parity ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Multinomial Regression ◽  
Care Facilities

Objective The Mental Health Parity and Addictions Equality Act (MHPAEA) of 2010 in the United States sought to expand mental health insurance benefits on par with medical benefits. As primary care facilities are often the first step in identifying mental health concerns, it is essential to examine the association of this policy with primary care physicians’ choice on depression treatment. Method A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the 2007–2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, including a weighted total of 162,699,930 depression patients. Using the Heckman two-step selection procedure, a logistic and a multinomial regression were conducted to examine the association of the MHPAEA with physicians’ two-step process of deciding whether and which type of treatment was prescribed. Sociological factors were controlled. Results Treatment was significantly more likely to be provided after the MHPAEA. Psychotherapy was used for treatment for 10.0% of the sample while medication was used for 75.0% of the sample. Patient race/ethnicity, practice setting, physician specialty, and primary source of payment were associated with diverging likelihood of being prescribed depression treatment. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to be provided treatment than non-Hispanic Black patients. Patients were less likely to be prescribed only medication than only psychotherapy after the MHPAEA enactment. Conclusions The MHPAEA was associated with primary care providers’ decision and choice on depression treatment. Educational and policy interventions aimed at improving physician’s understanding of their own treatment tendencies and decreasing barriers to depression treatment may impact the disparities in underserved, minority, and older populations.

scholarly journals 145. Monthly Antibiotic Prescribing Peer Comparison Combined with In-person Education Decreases Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Infections

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S83-S83
Author(s):  
Shelby J Kolo ◽  
David J Taber ◽  
Ronald G Washburn ◽  
Katherine A Pleasants
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Respiratory Infections ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Delivery Mode ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Acute Respiratory Infections ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Intervention Period ◽  
Provider Education

Abstract Background Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is an important modifiable risk factor for antibiotic resistance. Approximately half of all antibiotics prescribed for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in the United States may be inappropriate or unnecessary. The purpose of this quality improvement (QI) project was to evaluate the effect of three consecutive interventions on improving antibiotic prescribing for ARIs (i.e., pharyngitis, rhinosinusitis, bronchitis, common cold). Methods This was a pre-post analysis of an antimicrobial stewardship QI initiative to improve antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in six Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Three distinct intervention phases occurred. Educational interventions included training on appropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs. During the first intervention period (8/2017-1/2019), education was presented virtually to primary care providers on a single occasion. In the second intervention period (2/2019-10/2019), in-person education with peer comparison was presented on a single occasion. In the third intervention period (11/2019-4/2020), education and prescribing feedback with peer comparison was presented once in-person followed by monthly emails of prescribing feedback with peer comparison. January 2016-July 2017 was used as a pre-intervention baseline period. The primary outcome was the antibiotic prescribing rate for all classifications of ARIs. Secondary outcomes included adherence to antibiotic prescribing guidance for pharyngitis and rhinosinusitis. Descriptive statistics and interrupted time series segmented regression were used to analyze the outcomes. Results Monthly antibiotic prescribing peer comparison emails in combination with in-person education was associated with a statistically significant 12.5% reduction in the rate of antibiotic prescribing for ARIs (p=0.0019). When provider education alone was used, the reduction in antibiotic prescribing was nonsignificant. Conclusion Education alone does not significantly reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs, regardless of the delivery mode. In contrast, education followed by monthly prescribing feedback with peer comparison was associated with a statistically significant reduction in ARI antibiotic prescribing rates. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Engaging primary care providers in managing pediatric eating disorders: a mixed methods study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Lebow ◽  
Cassandra Narr ◽  
Angela Mattke ◽  
Janna R. Gewirtz O’Brien ◽  
Marcie Billings ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Eating Disorders ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Evidence Based Treatment

Abstract Background The primary care setting offers an attractive opportunity for, not only the identification of pediatric eating disorders, but also the delivery of evidence-based treatment. However, constraints of this setting pose barriers for implementing treatment. For interventions to be successful, they need to take into consideration the perspectives of stakeholders. As such, the purpose of this study was to examine in-depth primary care providers’ perspective of challenges to identifying and managing eating disorders in the primary care setting. Methods This mixed methods study surveyed 60 Pediatric and Family Medicine providers across 6 primary care practices. Sixteen of these providers were further interviewed using a qualitative, semi-structured interview. Results Providers (n = 60, response rate of 45%) acknowledged the potential of primary care as a point of contact for early identification and treatment of pediatric eating disorders. They also expressed that this was an area of need in their practices. They identified numerous barriers to successful implementation of evidence-based treatment in this setting including scarcity of time, knowledge, and resources. Conclusions Investigations seeking to build capacities in primary care settings to address eating disorders must address these barriers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document