Organizational integration, practice capabilities, and outcomes in clinically complex medicare beneficiaries

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between clinical integration and financial integration, quality-focused care delivery processes, and beneficiary utilization and outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Multiphysician practices in the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 47%) and 2017 Medicare claims data.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries attributed to physician practices, focusing on two domains of integration: clinical (coordination of patient services, use of protocols, individual clinician measures, access to information) and financial (financial management and planning across operating units). We examined the association between integration domains, the adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, beneficiary utilization and health-related outcomes, and price-adjusted spending using linear regression adjusting for practice and beneficiary characteristics, weighting to account for sampling and nonresponse.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

1 604 580 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 or older attributed to 2113 practices. Of these, 414 209 beneficiaries were considered clinically complex (frailty or 2 + chronic conditions).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Financial integration and clinical integration were weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.19). Clinical integration was associated with significantly greater adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, while financial integration was associated with lower adoption of these processes. Integration was not generally associated with reduced utilization or better beneficiary-level health-related outcomes, but both clinical integration and financial integration were associated with lower spending in both the complex and noncomplex cohorts: (clinical complex cohort: -$2518, [95% CI: -3324, -1712]; clinical noncomplex cohort: -$255 [95% CI: -413, -97]; financial complex cohort: -$997 [95% CI: -$1320, -$679]; and financial noncomplex cohort: -$143 [95% CI: -210, -$76]).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher levels of financial integration were not associated with improved care delivery or with better health-related beneficiary outcomes. Nonfinancial forms of integration deserve greater attention, as practices scoring high in clinical integration are more likely to adopt quality-focused care delivery processes and have greater associated reductions in spending in complex patients.

Use of Internal Performance Measurement to Guide Improvement Within Medical Groups

BACKGROUND

Public reporting of provider performance currently encompasses a range of measures of quality, cost, and patient experience of care. However, little is known about how medical groups use measures for performance improvement. This information could help medical groups undertake internal measurement while helping payers, policy makers, and measurement experts develop more useful publicly reported measures and quality improvement strategies.

METHODS

An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted of ambulatory care medical groups across the United States that currently gather their own performance data.

RESULTS

Eighty-three interviews were conducted with 91 individuals representing 37 medical groups. Findings were distilled into three major themes: (1) measures used internally, (2) strategies for using internal measurement for performance improvement, and (3) other uses of internal measurement. Medical groups used both clinical and business process measures, including measures from external measure sets and internally derived measures. Strategies for using internal measurement for quality improvement included taking a gradual, iterative approach and setting clear goals with high priority, finding workable approaches to data sharing, and fostering engagement by focusing on actionable measures. Measurement was also used to check accuracy of external performance reports, clarify and manage conflicting external measurement requirements, and prepare for anticipated external measurement requirements. Respondents in most groups did not report a need to assess costs of internal measurement or the capacity to do so.

CONCLUSION

Despite challenges and barriers, respondents found great value in conducting internal measurement. Their experiences may provide valuable lessons and knowledge for medical group leaders in earlier stages of establishing internal measurement programs.

Electronic clinical reminder and quality of primary diabetes care

AIMS

To study the association of EMR's clinical reminder use on a comprehensive set of diabetes quality metrics in U.S. office-based physicians and within solo- versus multi-physician practices. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on visits made by adults with diabetes identified from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2012-2014).

METHODS

Multiple logistic regression is used to test for associations between clinical reminder use and recommended services by the American Diabetes Association.

RESULTS

Of 5508 visits, nationally representing 112,978,791 visits, 31% received HbA1c tests, 13% received urinalysis test, and <10% received retinal or foot exams. Main effects of practice size and clinical reminder use were found for HbA1c, urinalysis, and foot exams. We find no statistically significant relationship to suggest that clinical reminder use improve diabetes process guidelines for solo practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Resource efforts, beyond clinical reminders, are needed to reduce gaps in primary diabetes care between solo and non-solo practices.

Experiential knowledge of risk and support factors for physician performance in Canada: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To identify, understand and explain potential risk and protective factors that may influence individual and physician group performance, by accessing the experiential knowledge of physician-assessors at three medical regulatory authorities (MRAs) in Canada.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis of physician-assessors' interview transcripts. Telephone or in-person interviews were audio-recorded on consent, and transcribed verbatim. Interview questions related to four topics: Definition/discussion of what makes a 'high-quality physician;' factors for individual physician performance; factors for group physician performance; and recommendations on how to support high-quality medical practice. A grounded-theory approach was used to analyse the data.

SETTING

Three provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario) in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-three (11 female, 12 male) physician-assessors from three MRAs in Canada (the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario).

RESULTS

Participants outlined various protective factors for individual physician performance, including: being engaged in continuous quality improvement; having a support network of colleagues; working in a defined scope of practice; maintaining engagement in medicine; receiving regular feedback; and maintaining work-life balance. Individual risk factors included being money-oriented; having a high-volume practice; and practising in isolation. Group protective factors incorporated having regular communication among the group; effective collaboration; a shared philosophy of care; a diversity of physician perspectives; and appropriate practice management procedures. Group risk factors included: a lack of or ineffective communication/collaboration among the group; a group that doesn't empower change; or having one disruptive or 'risky' physician in the group.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first qualitative inquiry to explore the experiential knowledge of physician-assessors related to physician performance. By understanding the risk and support factors for both individual physicians and groups, MRAs will be better-equipped to tailor physician assessments and limited resources to support competence and enhance physician performance.

A New Multisource Feedback Tool for Evaluating the Performance of Specialty-Specific Physician Groups: Validity of the Group Monitor Instrument

INTRODUCTION

Since clinical practice is a group-oriented process, it is crucial to evaluate performance on the group level. The Group Monitor (GM) is a multisource feedback tool that evaluates the performance of specialty-specific physician groups in hospital settings, as perceived by four different rater classes. In this study, we explored the validity of this tool.

METHODS

We explored three sources of validity evidence: (1) content, (2) response process, and (3) internal structure. Participants were 254 physicians, 407 staff, 621 peers, and 282 managers of 57 physician groups (in total 479 physicians) from 11 hospitals.

RESULTS

Content was supported by the fact that the items were based on a review of an existing instrument. Pilot rounds resulted in reformulation and reduction of items. Four subscales were identified for all rater classes: Medical practice, Organizational involvement, Professionalism, and Coordination. Physicians and staff had an extra subscale, Communication. However, the results of the generalizability analyses showed that variance in GM scores could mainly be explained by the specific hospital context and the physician group specialty. Optimization studies showed that for reliable GM scores, 3 to 15 evaluations were needed, depending on rater class, hospital context, and specialty.

DISCUSSION

The GM provides valid and reliable feedback on the performance of specialty-specific physician groups. When interpreting feedback, physician groups should be aware that rater classes' perceptions of their group performance are colored by the hospitals' professional culture and/or the specialty.

Incentive Implementation in Physician Practices: A Qualitative Study of Practice Executive Perspectives on Pay for Performance

Pay-for-performance (P4P) programs offer health care providers financial incentives to achieve predefined quality targets. Practice executives sit at a key nexus point for determining how P4P programs are implemented in physician practices. Using a qualitative interview design, this article examines the role practice executives play in the implementation of P4P programs and how their perspectives and decisions can influence the success of these programs. The authors identified five key findings related to practice executives’ views on P4P: quality incentives are better than utilization incentives, quality incentives are bonus rewards, quality incentives are agents for change, providers do not feel they have control over attaining quality targets, and the ways in which quality is measured are problematic. The authors discuss five different ways in which practice executives distribute rewards to physicians. These findings may help payers more effectively design and implement financial rewards for quality.

Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups

PURPOSE

In the turbulent US health care environment, many primary care physicians seek hospital employment. Large physician-owned primary care groups are an alternative, but few physicians or policy makers realize that such groups exist. We wanted to describe these groups, their advantages, and their challenges.

METHODS

We identified 21 groups and studied 5 that varied in size and location. We conducted interviews with group leaders, surveyed randomly selected group physicians, and interviewed external observers-leaders of a health plan, hospital, and specialty medical group that shared patients with the group. We triangulated responses from group leaders, group physicians, and external observers to identify key themes.

RESULTS

The groups' physicians work in small practices, with the group providing economies of scale necessary to develop laboratory and imaging services, health information technology, and quality improvement infrastructure. The groups differ in their size and the extent to which they engage in value-based contracting, though all are moving to increase the amount of financial risk they take for their quality and cost performance. Unlike hospital-employed and multispecialty groups, independent primary care groups can aim to reduce health care costs without conflicting incentives to fill hospital beds and keep specialist incomes high. Each group was positively regarded by external observers. The groups are under pressure, however, to sell to organizations that can provide capital for additional infrastructure to engage in value-based contracting, as well as provide substantial income to physicians from the sale.

CONCLUSIONS

Large, independent primary care groups have the potential to make primary care attractive to physicians and to improve patient care by combining human scale advantages of physician autonomy and the small practice setting with resources that are important to succeed in value-based contracting.

Best practices: an electronic drug alert program to improve safety in an accountable care environment

BACKGROUND

The accountable care organization (ACO), one of the most promising and talked about new models of care, focuses on improving communication and care transitions by tying potential shared savings to specific clinical and financial benchmarks. An important factor in meeting these benchmarks is an ACO's ability to manage medications in an environment where medical and pharmacy care has been integrated. The program described in this article highlights the critical components of Marshfield Clinic's Drug Safety Alert Program (DSAP), which focuses on prioritizing and communicating safety issues related to medications with the goal of reducing potential adverse drug events.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Once the medication safety concern is identified, it is reviewed to evaluate whether an alert warrants sending prescribers a communication that identifies individual patients or a general communication to all physicians describing the safety concern. Instead of basing its decisions regarding clinician notification about drug alerts on subjective criteria, the Marshfield Clinic's DSAP uses an internally developed scoring system. The scoring system includes criteria developed from previous drug alerts, such as level of evidence, size of population affected, severity of adverse event identified or targeted, litigation risk, available alternatives, and potential for duration of medication use. Each of the 6 criteria is assigned a weight and is scored based upon the content and severity of the alert received. 

OBSERVATIONS

In its first 12 months, the program targeted 6 medication safety concerns involving the following medications: topiramate, glyburide, simvastatin, citalopram, pioglitazone, and lovastatin. Baseline and follow-up prescribing data were gathered on the targeted medications. Follow-up review of prescribing data demonstrated that the DSAP provided quality up-to-date safety information that led to changes in drug therapy and to decreases in potential adverse drug events. In aggregate, nearly 10,000 total potential adverse drug events were identified with baseline data from the DSAP initiatives, and nearly 8,000 were resolved by changes in prescribing. 

IMPLICATIONS

Implications and additional thoughts from The Working Group on Optimizing Medication Therapy in Value-Based Healthcare were provided for the following categories: leveraging electronic health records, importance of data collection and reassessment, preventing alert fatigue utilizing various techniques, relevance to ACO quality measurement, and limitations of a retrospective system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While health information technologies have been recognized as a cornerstone for an ACO's success, additional research is needed on comparing these types of technological innovations. Future research should focus on reviewing comparable scoring criteria and alert systems utilized in a variety of ACOs. In addition, an examination of different data mining procedures used within different electronic health record platforms would prove useful to ACOs looking to improve the care of not only the subpopulations with specific metrics associated with them, but their patient population as a whole. The authors also highlight the need for additional research on health information exchanges, including the cost and resource requirements needed to successfully participate in these types of networks.

An Architecture for Continuous Data Quality Monitoring in Medical Centers

In the medical domain, data quality is very important. Since requirements and data change frequently, continuous and sustainable monitoring and improvement of data quality is necessary. Working together with managers of medical centers, we developed an architecture for a data quality monitoring system. The architecture enables domain experts to adapt the system during runtime to match their specifications using a built-in rule system. It also allows arbitrarily complex analyses to be integrated into the monitoring cycle. We evaluate our architecture by matching its components to the well-known data quality methodology TDQM.

Case studies in clinical transformation

Keys to success in undertaking clinical transformation initiatives include: Payer alignment. Robust technology (e.g., tools that can migrate patient data into disease registries). Commitment to making the investments and process changes needed to support population health management. Partnerships with local employers. Small steps toward greater value.

The PGP demonstrations: were they sufficient to justify accountable care organizations?

The Physician Group Practice (PGP) Demonstration Project was designed to try to establish whether high-quality healthcare can be delivered to Medicare patients, while simultaneously lowering overall Medicare costs. In this project, participating healthcare organizations were provided a portion of any savings achieved, provided that certain quality goals were also achieved. The results of this project were used to provide evidence as to the feasibility of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), a healthcare delivery approach, which is rapidly becoming more prevalent. While the quality measures achieved by the vast majority of participants in the PGP Demonstration Project were widespread, the financial performance of these organizations was quite mixed. Many participating organizations received no shared savings whatsoever, while one received more "shared savings" payment that the others combined. Problems with the evidence supporting PGPs' cost savings are discussed, and, based on these concerns, the future success of ACOs is questioned.

Group versus single handed primary care: a performance evaluation of the care delivered to chronic patients by Italian GPs

OBJECTIVES

In family medicine contrasting evidence exists on the effectiveness of team practice compared with solo practice on chronic disease management. In Italy, several experiences of team practice have been introduced since the late 1990s but few studies detail their impact on the quality of care. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impact of team practice in family medicine in six Italian regions using chronic disease management process indicators as a measure of outcome.

METHODS

Cross-sectional studies were performed to assess impact on quality of care for diabetes, congestive heart failure and ischaemic heart disease. The impact of team vs. solo practice was approximated through performance comparison of general practitioners (GPs) adhering to a team with respect to GPs working in a solo practice. Among the 2082 practitioners working in the 6 regions those assisting 300+ patients were selected. Quality of care towards 164,267 patients having at least one of three chronic conditions was estimated for the year 2008 using administrative databases. Quality indicators (% of patients receiving appropriate care) were selected (4 for diabetes, 4 for congestive heart failure, 3 for ischaemic heart disease) and a total score was computed for each patient. For each disease the response variable associated to each physician was the average score of the patients on his/her list. A multilevel model was estimated assessing the impact of team vs. solo practice.

RESULTS

No impact was found for diabetes and heart failure. For ischaemic heart disease a slightly significant impact was observed (0.040; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.065).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was found between team practice and solo practice on chronic disease management in six Italian regions.

Variations in patients' assessment of chronic illness care across organizational models of primary health care: a multilevel cohort analysis

PURPOSE

To measure patients' assessment of chronic illness care and its variation across primary healthcare (PHC) models.

METHODS

We recruited 776 patients with diabetes, heart failure, arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from 33 PHC clinics. Face-to-face interviews, followed by a telephone interview at 12 months, were conducted using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Multilevel regression was used in the analysis.

RESULTS

The mean PACIC score was low at 2.5 on a scale of 1 to 5. PACIC scores were highest among patients affiliated with family medicine groups (mean, 2.78) and lowest for contact models (mean, 2.35). Patients with arthritis and older persons generally reported a lower assessment of chronic care.

CONCLUSION

Family medicine groups represent an integrated model of PHC associated with higher levels of achievement in chronic care. Variations across PHC organizations suggest that some models are more appropriate for improving management of chronic illness.

Use of quality indicators in patient care: a senior primary care physician trying to take good care of his patients

Dr A is a senior primary care physician who recently moved from a small private practice to a larger group-model practice. He believes he was able to provide higher-quality and more individualized care for his patients in his small practice. As Dr A has discovered, quality measurement and improvement activities in primary care have evolved from a focus on an individual patient in an examination room to a systems approach that incorporates population management. Although many frustrations remain with physicians' ability to measure and influence the quality of care received by populations of patients, quality measures and monitoring have improved and should continue to improve. However, the perspective of patients and experienced physicians like Dr A also should be incorporated into quality measurement and management systems. Dr A clearly has the welfare of his patients at heart, and his experience and perspective could help improve his organization's systems of care and identify resources to deliver the best care.

Public reporting helped drive quality improvement in outpatient diabetes care among Wisconsin physician groups

Public reporting on the quality of ambulatory health care is growing, but knowledge of how physician groups respond to such reporting has not kept pace. We examined responses to public reporting on the quality of diabetes care in 409 primary care clinics within seventeen large, multispecialty physician groups. We determined that a focus on publicly reported metrics, along with participation in large or externally sponsored projects, increased a clinic's implementation of diabetes improvement interventions. Clinics were also more likely to implement interventions in more recent years. Public reporting helped drive both early implementation of a single intervention and ongoing implementation of multiple simultaneous interventions. To fully engage physician groups, accountability metrics should be structured to capture incremental improvements in quality, thereby rewarding both early and ongoing improvement activities.

Physician groups' use of data from patient experience surveys

BACKGROUND

In Massachusetts, physician groups' performance on validated surveys of patient experience has been publicly reported since 2006. Groups also receive detailed reports of their own performance, but little is known about how physician groups have responded to these reports.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether and how physician groups are using patient experience data to improve patient care.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

During 2008, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the leaders of 72 participating physician groups (out of 117 groups receiving patient experience reports). Based on leaders' responses, we identified three levels of engagement with patient experience reporting: no efforts to improve (level 1), efforts to improve only the performance of low-scoring physicians or practice sites (level 2), and efforts to improve group-wide performance (level 3).

MAIN MEASURES

Groups' level of engagement and specific efforts to improve patient care.

KEY RESULTS

Forty-four group leaders (61%) reported group-wide improvement efforts (level 3), 16 (22%) reported efforts to improve only the performance of low-scoring physicians or practice sites (level 2), and 12 (17%) reported no performance improvement efforts (level 1). Level 3 groups were more likely than others to have an integrated medical group organizational model (84% vs. 31% at level 2 and 33% at level 1; P < 0.005) and to employ the majority of their physicians (69% vs. 25% and 20%; P < 0.05). Among level 3 groups, the most common targets for improvement were access, communication with patients, and customer service. The most commonly reported improvement initiatives were changing office workflow, providing additional training for nonclinical staff, and adopting or enhancing an electronic health record.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite statewide public reporting, physician groups' use of patient experience data varied widely. Integrated organizational models were associated with greater engagement, and efforts to enhance clinicians' interpersonal skills were uncommon, with groups predominantly focusing on office workflow and support staff.

Patients' perceptions of the quality of care after primary care reform: Family medicine groups in Quebec

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how a primary care reform, which aimed to promote interprofessional and interorganizational collaborative practices, affected patients' experiences of the core dimensions of primary care.

DESIGN

Before-and-after comparison of patients' perceptions of care at the beginning of family medicine group (FMG) implementation (15 to 20 months after accreditation) and 18 months later.

SETTING

Five FMGs in the province of Quebec from various settings and types of practice.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sample of patients was selected in each FMG; a total of 1046 participants completed both the baseline and follow-up questionnaires.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patients' perceptions of relational and informational continuity, organizational and first-contact accessibility, attitude and efficiency of the clinic's personnel and waiting times (service responsiveness), physician-nurse and primary care physician-specialist coordination, and intra-FMG collaboration were assessed over the telephone, mostly using a modified version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool. Additional items covered patients' opinions about consulting nurses, patients' use of emergency services, and patients' recall of health promotion and preventive care received.

RESULTS

A total of 1275 patients were interviewed at the study baseline, and 82% also completed the follow-up interviews after 18 months (n = 1046). Overall, perceptions of relational and informational continuity increased significantly (P < .05), whereas organizational and first-contact accessibility and service responsiveness did not change significantly. Perception of physician-nurse coordination remained unchanged, but perception of primary care physician-specialist coordination decreased significantly (P < .05). The proportion of participants reporting visits with nurses and reporting use of FMGs' emergency services increased significantly from baseline to follow-up (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

This reorganization of primary care services resulted in considerable changes in care practices, which led to improvements in patients' experiences of the continuity of care but not to improvements in their experiences of the accessibility of care.

Reducing disparities and improving quality: understanding the needs of small primary care practices

OBJECTIVES

Small practices provide a significant proportion of care in the United States and should be an essential focus of efforts to reduce racial/ethnic disparities and improve the quality of care for minority patients. This project sought to identify the resources and tools small practices need to conduct quality improvement activities to reduce disparities.

DESIGN

We surveyed small practices about their capabilities for conducting quality improvement activities for minority and limited English proficiency patients. A subset of practices also completed a brief chart review.

SETTINGS

Grantees of the National Committee for Quality Assurance Program were independent practices required to have five or fewer physicians with little or no experience with quality improvement (mean number of physicians = 1.4). At least one-quarter of the patients served by the practice were required to be minorities.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two practices from California and New Jersey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surveys assessed clinician preparedness, use of systematic processes, and availability of information technology to improve care for minority patients. The chart review exercise elicited information on challenges and enabling factors in recent encounters with racial/ethnic minority patients.

RESULTS

Small practices face considerable challenges in caring for minority patients. They have limited staff and fewer resources than larger group practices, increasing the difficulty of making improvements on their own. The main challenges identified were patient adherence to treatment recommendations, staffing, language barriers and lack of information systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Small practices will require substantial support from external organizations in order to contribute to national reductions in racial/ethnic disparities in health care.

Do physicians within the same practice setting manage osteoporosis patients similarly? Implications for implementation research

Using data from long-term glucocorticoid users and long-term care residents, we evaluated osteoporosis prescribing patterns related to physician behavior and common practice settings. We found no significant clustering effect for common practice setting, suggesting that osteoporosis quality improvement (QI) efforts may be able to ignore this factor in designing QI interventions.

INTRODUCTION

Patients' receipt of prescription therapies are significantly influenced by their physician's prescribing patterns. If physicians in the same practice setting influence one another's prescribing, evidence implementation interventions must consider targeting the practice as well as individual physicians to achieve maximal success.

METHODS

We examined receipt of osteoporosis treatment (OP Rx) from two prior evidence implementation studies: long-term glucocorticoid (GC) users and nursing home (NH) residents with prior fracture or osteoporosis. Common practice setting was defined as doctors practicing at the same address or in the same nursing home. Alternating logistic regression evaluated the relationship between OP Rx, common practice setting, and individual physician treatment patterns.

RESULTS

Among 6,281 GC users in 1,296 practices, the proportion receiving OP Rx in each practice was 6-100%. Among 779 NH residents in 66 nursing homes, the proportion in each NH receiving OP Rx was 0-100%. In both, there was no significant relationship between receipt of OP Rx and common practice setting after accounting for treatment pattern of individual physicians.

CONCLUSION

Physicians practicing together were not more alike in prescribing osteoporosis medications than those in different practices. Osteoporosis quality improvement may be able to ignore common practice settings and maximize statistical power by targeting individual physicians.

Prescription errors and outcomes related to inconsistent information transmitted through computerized order entry: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Although several types of computerized provider order entry (CPOE)-related errors may occur, errors related to inconsistent information within the same prescription (ie, mismatch between the structured template and the associated free-text field) have not been described, to our knowledge. We determined the nature and frequency of such errors and identified their potential predictive variables.

METHODS

In this prospective study, we enrolled pharmacists to report prescriptions containing inconsistent communication over a 4-month period at a tertiary care facility. We also electronically retrieved all prescriptions written during the study period containing any comments in the free-text field and then randomly selected 500 for manual review to determine inconsistencies between free-text and structured fields. Of these, prescriptions without inconsistencies were categorized as controls. Data on potentially predictive variables from reported and unreported errors and controls were collected. For all inconsistencies, we determined their nature (eg, drug dosage or administration schedule) and potential harm and used multivariate logistic regression models to identify factors associated with errors and harm.

RESULTS

Of 55 992 new prescriptions, 532 (0.95%) were reported to contain inconsistent communication, a rate comparable to that obtained from the unreported group. Drug dosage was the most common inconsistent element among both groups. Certain medications were more likely associated with errors, as was the inpatient setting (odds ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.18-5.00) and surgical subspecialty (odds ratio, 2.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-3.82). About 20% of errors could have resulted in moderate to severe harm, for which significant independent predictors were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite standardization of data entry, inconsistent communication in CPOE poses a significant risk to safety. Improving the usability of the CPOE interface and integrating it with workflow may reduce this risk.

Agreement between patient-reported symptoms and their documentation in the medical record

OBJECTIVES

To determine the agreement between patient-reported symptoms of chest pain, dyspnea, and cough and the documentation of these symptoms by physicians in the electronic medical record.

METHODS

Symptoms reported on patient-provided information forms between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006, were compared with those identified by natural language processing of the text of clinical notes from care providers. Terms that represent the 3 symptoms were used to search clinical notes electronically with subsequent manual identification of the context (eg, affirmative, negated, family history) in which they occurred. Results were reported using positive and negative agreement, and kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Symptoms reported by 1119 patients age 18 years or older were compared with the nonnegated terms identified in their clinical notes. Positive agreement was 74, 70, and 63 for chest pain, dyspnea, and cough, while negative agreement was 78, 76, and 75, respectively. Kappa statistics were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44, 0.60) for chest pain, 0.46 (95% CI = 0.37, 0.54) for dyspnea, and 0.38 (95% CI = 0.28, 0.48) for cough. Positive agreement was higher for older men (P >.05), and negative agreement was higher for younger women (P >.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found discordance between patient self-report and documentation of symptoms in the medical record. This discordance has important implications for research studies that rely on symptom information for patient identification and may have clinical implications that must be evaluated for potential impact on quality of care, patient safety, and outcomes.

Reinventing CME: the role of the care pilot in the medical group practice

This article recommends that the content of traditional continuing medical education be changed significantly to include the concepts and skills necessary to enable practice teams to feedback information into the practice, which would result in the creation of a learning organization with the ability to plan for and anticipate future activities. The primary role in this new organization would be called a care pilot who would have as a primary responsibility, the successful navigation and improvement of the 6 aims as spelled out in the Institute of Medicine report Crossing the Quality Chasm.

Physician-focused option shows savings

CMS' first pay-for-performance initiative for physicians shows two groups earned performance payments for quality and cost efficiency of $7.3 million as part of their share of the $9.5 million savings in the first year.