Technical Assistance for Primary Care Practice Transformation: Free Help to Perform Unpaid Labor?

Developing a model for primary care quality improvement success: a comparative case study in rural, urban and Kaupapa Māori organisations

Introduction Primary care is under pressure to achieve accessible, equitable, quality health care, while being increasingly under resourced. There is a need to understand factors that influence quality improvement (QI) to support a high-performing primary care system. Literature highlights the impact of context on QI but there is little primary care research on this topic. Aim This qualitative case study research seeks to discover the contextual factors influencing QI in primary care, and how the relationships between contextual factors, the QI initiative, and the implementation process influence outcomes. Methods The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to frame this qualitative study exploring primary care experiences in depth. Six sites were selected to provide a sample of rural, urban and Kaupapa Māori settings. Qualitative data was collected via semi-structured interviews and compared and contrasted with the organisational documents and data provided by participants. Results Cases reported success in achieving improved outcomes for patients, practices, and staff. Strong internal cultures of 'Clan' and 'Adhocracy' typologies supported teamwork, distributed leadership, and a learning climate to facilitate iterative sensemaking activities. To varying degrees, external network relationships provided resources, knowledge, and support. Discussion Organisations were motivated by a combination of patient/community need and organisational culture. Network relationships assisted to varying degrees depending on need. Engaged and distributed leadership based on teamwork was observed, where leadership was shared and emerged at different levels and times as the need arose. A learning climate was supported to enable iterative sensemaking activities to achieve success.

Declining Participation in Primary Care Quality Improvement Research: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

There are numerous supportive quality improvement (QI) projects to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices in primary care, but recruiting physician practices to join these projects is challenging, costly, and time consuming. We aimed to identify factors leading primary care practices to decline participation in QI projects, and strategies to improve the feasibility and attractiveness of QI projects in the future.

METHODS

For this qualitative study, we contacted 109 representatives of practices that had declined participation in 1 of 4 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded EvidenceNOW projects. The representatives were invited to participate in a 15-minute interview or complete a 5-question questionnaire. Thematic analysis was used to organize and characterize findings.

RESULTS

Representatives from 31 practices (28.4% of those contacted) responded. Overwhelmingly, respondents indicated that staff turnover, staffing shortages, and general time constraints, exacerbated by the pandemic, prevented participation in the QI projects. Challenges with electronic health records, an expectation of greater financial compensation for participation, and confidence in the practices' current care practices were secondary reasons for declining participation. Tying participation to value-based programs and offering greater compensation were identified as strategies to facilitate recruitment. None of the respondents' recommendations, however, addressed the primary issues of staffing challenges and time constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Staffing challenges and general time constraints, exacerbated by the pandemic, are compromising primary care practices' ability to engage in QI research projects. To encourage participation, policy makers should consider direct supports for primary care, which may also help to alleviate burnout.

Optimizing health IT to improve health system performance: A work in progress

BACKGROUND

Despite significant investments in health information technology (IT), the technology has not yielded the intended performance effects or transformational change. We describe activities that health systems are pursuing to better leverage health IT to improve performance.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with C-suite executives from 24 U.S. health systems in four states during 2017-2019 and analyzed the data using a qualitative thematic approach.

RESULTS

Health systems reported two broad categories of activities: laying the foundation to improve performance with IT and using IT to improve performance. Within these categories, health systems were engaged in similar activities but varied greatly in their progress. The most substantial effort was devoted to the first category, which enabled rather than directly improved performance, and included consolidating to a single electronic health record (EHR) platform and common data across the health system, standardizing data elements, and standardizing care processes before using the EHR to implement them. Only after accomplishing such foundational activities were health systems able to focus on using the technology to improve performance through activities such as using data and analytics to monitor and provide feedback, improving uptake of evidence-based medicine, addressing variation and overuse, improving system-wide prevention and population health management, and making care more convenient.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Leveraging IT to improve performance requires significant and sustained effort by health systems, in addition to significant investments in hardware and software. To accelerate change, better mechanisms for creating and disseminating best practices and providing advanced technical assistance are needed.

An observational study of a clinical guideline implementation project in primary care

Explorations of workflow development within primary care allow us to understand initial steps in the pace of knowledge and practice acclimatization within clinics. This study describes use of practice facilitation as an implementation strategy to communicate shared project goals and monitor and support refinement of practice behavior. This study engaged eight health care organizations, including 55 primary care practices, ≈380 clinicians, and ≈620 nursing and support staff in a guideline implementation project regarding United States Preventive Services Task Force use of aspirin recommendations for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

Key Collaborative Factors When Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations Work With Primary Care Clinics to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening: Relationships, Data, and Quality Improvement Infrastructure

Purpose

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are implementing interventions to achieve triple-aim objectives of improved quality and experience of care while maintaining costs. Partnering across organizational boundaries is perceived as critical to ACO success.

Methods

We conducted a comparative case study of 14 Medicaid ACOs in Oregon and their contracted primary care clinics using public performance data, key informant interviews, and consultation field notes. We focused on how ACOs work with clinics to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening — one incentivized performance metric.

Results

ACOs implemented a broad spectrum of multi-component interventions designed to increase CRC screening. The most common interventions focused on reducing structural barriers (n = 12 ACOs), delivering provider assessment and feedback (n = 11), and providing patient reminders (n = 7). ACOs developed their processes and infrastructure for working with clinics over time. Facilitators of successful collaboration included a history of and commitment to collaboration (partnership); the ability to provide accurate data to prioritize action and monitor improvement (performance data), and supporting clinics’ reflective learning through facilitation, learning collaboratives; and support of ACO as well as clinic-based staffing (quality improvement infrastructure). Two unintended consequences of ACO–clinic partnership emerged: potential exclusion of smaller clinics and metric focus and fatigue.

Conclusion

Our findings identified partnership, performance data, and quality improvement infrastructure as critical dimensions when Medicaid ACOs work with primary care to improve CRC screening. Findings may extend to other metric targets.