Variation in clinical preventive services.

CONTEXT: Preventive services are not delivered at optimal rates in primary care settings, and the literature suggests that a systems approach is key to improvement. Studying variation among clinics could help us to understand the extent of system use in practice. PRACTICE PATTERN EXAMINED: The proportion of patients who are up-to-date for preventive services in 44 primary care practices in the Midwest. PREVENTIVE SERVICES EXAMINED: Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, cholesterol testing, mammography, clinical breast examination, blood pressure measurement, influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations, and advice on tobacco use. DATA SOURCE: 6830 patients surveyed after their clinic visit (response rate, 85%). RESULTS: The proportion of patients up-to-date for preventive services varied widely among clinics. For example, up-to-date rates for Pap smear testing ranged from 70% to 93% and 45% to 88% for cholesterol screening. There was little correlation between a clinic's performance on one preventive service (relative to the other 43 clinics) and its performance on others. When correlations between pairs of up-to-date rates within clinics were examined, only 4 of 28 service pairs were positive and statistically significant and only 1 had a correlation coefficient that exceeded 0.5 (for mammography and clinical breast examination). CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in the rates at which various preventive services are performed, both between and within clinics. This variation, which is probably due to a lack of organized prevention systems that cover multiple services, provides a clear target for improvement efforts.

Lessons from experienced guideline implementers: attend to many factors and use multiple strategies.

BACKGROUND: Studies of clinical guideline implementation have focused almost entirely on changing individual clinician behavior with single intervention strategies and without much attention to the situational context. The goal of this project was to learn from clinic leaders, seasoned in the guideline implementation process, what contextual variables they viewed as important and whether implementation success could be expected if only a single implementation strategy was used. METHODS: In 1998, 12 people with extensive experience in leading clinical guideline implementation were identified who were thought to have particularly keen insight into the process. They were interviewed to generate variables they considered important, as well as strategies they considered effective when used appropriately. A modified nominal group/Delphi process was then used for rating these variables and strategies, and the reactions of international experts were obtained to add perspective to this information. RESULTS: Eighty-seven variables and 25 strategies were identified, clustering in 6 categories (ranked in order of importance by the panel): organizational capabilities for change, infrastructure for implementation, implementation strategies, medical group characteristics, guideline characteristics, and external environment. All six categories were considered to be important, key, or essential by the experienced implementers, although variables within a medical group that directly affect its ability to undertake planned change were rated as much more important than either guideline characteristics or the external environment. DISCUSSION: Although the opinions of those experienced in the process of guideline implementation are primarily of value for generating hypotheses, panel members believe that implementation efforts focusing on the individual physician with a single strategy are unlikely to be successful. Rather, implementation efforts must use multiple strategies that take account of multiple characteristics of the guideline, practice organization, and external environment.

Clinician satisfaction with a preventive services implementation trial. The IMPROVE project.

OBJECT: To discover how attempts to increase the delivery of preventive services affect clinician satisfaction. METHODS: The IMPROVE project was a randomized clinical trial conducted in 44 clinics in and around Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. Personnel were trained in continuous quality improvement techniques to organize preventive services delivery systems. Satisfaction with delivery of these services and with the sponsoring organizations was measured before the intervention (Time 1), at the end of the intervention (Time 2), and 1 year post-intervention (Time 3). RESULTS: At no time was the intervention associated with a change in the respondents satisfaction with their places of work or with their job roles. Satisfaction with preventive services delivery increased from Time 1 to Time 3 among intervention-clinic respondents. Satisfaction with the IMPROVE project and the efforts of the two managed care organizations to help the clinics deliver preventive services peaked at Time 2 and declined toward baseline at Time 3. Satisfaction with preventive services delivery tended to increase more in the 13 intervention clinics that implemented a preventive services delivery system than in the nine intervention clinics that did not implement a preventive services delivery system (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Planned organizational change to create systems for preventive services delivery can be associated with increased clinician satisfaction with the way these services are delivered. However, increased satisfaction with preventive services does not necessarily indicate that service delivery rates have increased.

Failure of a continuous quality improvement intervention to increase the delivery of preventive services. A randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Although there has been enormous interest in continuous quality improvement (CQI) as a measure to improve health care, this enthusiasm is based largely on its apparent success in business rather than formal evaluations in health care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a managed care organization can increase delivery of eight clinical preventive services by using CQI. DESIGN: Primary care clinics were randomly assigned to improve delivery of preventive services with CQI (intervention group) or to provide usual care (control group). INTERVENTION: Through leadership support, training, consulting, and networking, each intervention clinic was assisted to use CQI multidisciplinary teams to develop and implement systems for delivery of preventive services. SETTING: 44 primary care clinics in greater Minneapolis-St. Paul. PATIENTS: Patients 19 years of age and older completed surveys at baseline (n = 6830) and at follow-up (n = 6431). Medical chart audits were completed on 4777 patients at baseline and 4546 patients at follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of patients who were up-to-date (according to chart audit) and the proportion of patients who were offered a service if not up-to-date (according to patient report) for 8 preventive services. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, based on the proportion of patients who were up-to-date, use of only one preventive service--pneumococcal vaccine--increased significantly in the intervention group (17.2% absolute increase from baseline to follow-up compared with a 0.3% absolute increase in the control group, P = 0.003). Similarly, based on patient report of being offered a service if not up-to-date, delivery of only one preventive service--cholesterol testing--significantly increased in the intervention group compared with the control group (4.6% increase vs. 0.4% absolute decrease in the control group; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this trial, CQI methods did not result in clinically important increases in preventive service delivery rates.

Will primary care clinics organize themselves to improve the delivery of preventive services? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that the most effective way to improve delivery of preventive services in primary care is to establish organized preventive service systems. This study tests the hypothesis that a managed care organization (MCO) can help its contracted private primary care clinics to develop such systems. METHODS: Forty-four primary care clinics contracting with two large MCOs were randomized to a comparison (C) or an intervention (I) group. Group (I) clinic team leaders received training plus ongoing consultation and networking. Personnel at all 44 clinics completed surveys prior to and at the end of the intervention to measure adoption of the improvement process and the prevention system. RESULTS: All 22 (I) clinics identified teams that appeared to follow the seven-step improvement process. The mean numbers of system processes were identical at baseline, 11.2 (I) vs 12.1 (C), while after the intervention this had changed to 25.8 in (I) clinics vs 11.3 in (C) (P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: With training and assistance, interested primary care clinic teams will establish functioning CQI teams that will produce a substantial increase in the presence of functional prevention system processes. Whether this change is sufficient to increase the rates of preventive services remains to be documented.

Continuous quality improvement in primary care: what's happening?

OBJECTIVES: Despite much health care interest in quality and Continuous Quality Improvement, there is little quantitative information about it. The purpose of this study was to measure the attitudes, activities, and organizational cultures concerning Continuous Quality Improvement in a group of Midwestern primary care clinics. METHODS: Three surveys of the clinicians, nurses, and other staff in 44 primary care clinics in the metropolitan area of Minneapolis and St. Paul were conducted. These surveys assessed: (1) attitudes about quality improvement, (2) previous efforts in these clinics to use process improvement teams, and (3) the extent to which the clinics' organizational cultures were perceived as supporting quality. The Provider Attitude Survey was completed by clinicians and nurses; the Process Improvement Progress was completed by members of the best Continuous Quality Improvement teams, if any; and the Quality Systems Inventory was completed by all personnel. RESULTS: Most of the clinical personnel reported support for various Continuous Quality Improvement concepts, but their understanding and experience were limited. Only 20 (45%) clinics had had at least one Continuous Quality Improvement team in the past, only five of the 12 teams with adequate information had completed an improvement cycle, and only seven reported improving a process with it. The mean clinic scores for quality culture were no better than those in other types of organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite relatively favorable attitudes and some Continuous Quality Improvement activities, there appears to be a need to help clinics build skill and experience for the required care improvements.

The case of the missing clinical preventive services systems.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence and comprehensiveness of organized processes and systems in a sample of primary care clinics shown to have high variation in rates of providing preventive services. DESIGN: Survey study. SETTING: 44 primary care clinics recruited for a scientific trial of a quality improvement intervention to improve preventive services. PARTICIPANTS: 647 clinicians and nurses. MEASUREMENTS: The presence of 10 organized prevention processes for eight adult preventive services as reported by those clinicians and nurses on a detailed written survey. RESULTS: In more than 50% of clinics, 7 of the 10 prevention processes were reported to be absent for all eight services. Only the follow-up process was commonly present; this was also the only process that was usually present for most applicable services. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of recognizable organized processes to support the systematic delivery of adult preventive services in clinics with highly varying rates of providing these services supports the idea that lack of systems may be an important source of the variability and low rates. Most of the existing processes are fragmented and do not function across multiple preventive services.

Will patient satisfaction set the preventive services implementation agenda?

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction has become a measure of the quality of health care, and in highly competitive markets like the Twin Cities metropolitan area of Minnesota, it has become a health plan marketing tool. The purpose of this analysis is to examine whether the known association between preventive services and patient satisfaction might spontaneously lead clinicians to recommend preventive services at greater rates. DESIGN: We conducted a mail survey of a stratified random sample (n = 6,830) of adult patients who had recently visited a physician in one of 44 clinics in and around Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The main outcome measures are patient-reported rates of being advised to have eight preventive services, patient satisfaction with preventive services, patient satisfaction with overall health care, and correlations among these variables. RESULTS: Self-reports of being advised to have a preventive service when due were correlated with higher levels of satisfaction with that specific service only at levels of r = 0.16 to r = 0.35. They were correlated at levels of r = 0.01 to r = 0.27 with the Group Health Association of America satisfaction index. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a positive association between being advised to have a preventive service on the one hand and reporting satisfaction with care on the other, this association appears too weak to spontaneously stimulate physicians to recommend preventive services to their patients. This suggests that, if preventive services are to be delivered at higher rates, they must become an explicit component of quality evaluations.

Delivering clinical preventive services is a systems problem.

A steadily increasing number of research trials and prevention advocates are identifying the practice environment as the main source of both problems and solutions to the improved delivery of clinical preventive services. Although these sources are correctly focusing on office systems as solutions, there is a tendency to focus on only parts of a system and to relate this to just one or a few related preventive services. However, the effort required to set up and maintain an office system makes it difficult to justify doing so for a single clinical activity. The process and system thinking of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) theory suggests that there may be both efficiency and effectiveness advantages to the concept of all clinical preventive services being served by a single system with many interrelated component processes. Such a system should be usable for all age groups. This system and its literature base are described. The feasibility of applying this concept is being tested in a randomized controlled trial in 44 primary care clinics in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Delivery rates for preventive services in 44 midwestern clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates at which private primary-care clinics are recommending blood pressure and cholesterol measurement, smoking cessation, clinical breast examination, screening mammography, Papanicolaou testing, and influenza and pneumococcus immunizations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a mail survey of 7,997 randomly selected patients from 44 primary-care clinics in and around Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, of whom 6,830 (85.4%) completed the questionnaire on preventive services delivery rates. The responses were analyzed statistically, including stratification by reason for the clinic visit. RESULTS: On the average, about two-thirds of the patients in each clinic reported being up-to-date on preventive services before their clinic visit; an exception was pneumococcus immunization (mean rate, 33%). Except for blood pressure and smoking cessation advice, less than 30% of patients who were not up-to-date on a preventive service were offered it if the clinic visit was for a reason other than a checkup or physical examination. For patients who said that they saw their physician for a checkup or physical examination, the rate was more than 50% only for Papanicolaou smear. In contrast, nearly all responding practitioners agreed that each of the eight preventive services was very important or important. CONCLUSION: Preventive services consensus goals are not being met, even for patients who report that their clinic visit was for a checkup or physical examination. This finding suggests that it may be necessary to develop clinical systems that support and enable the delivery of preventive services.

How important are clinician and nurse attitudes to the delivery of clinical preventive services?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the relation between primary care clinic physician and nurse attitudes toward preventive services and the rates at which their clinics provide these services to their adult patients. METHODS: Forty-four private primary care clinics contracting with the sponsoring health maintenance organizations were recruited for a randomized controlled trial of an intervention consisting of training and consultation in continuous quality improvement and office prevention systems. Before the intervention began, 647 clinic physicians, midlevel practitioners, and nurses in the 44 participating clinics completed a questionnaire addressing their attitudes toward prevention, and 6830 patients visiting those clinics completed a questionnaire about their own up-to-date preventive care status as well as clinic actions to provide eight important preventive services during the visit. Scales were developed from significantly intercorrelated sets of attitude questions. Correlations were calculated by clinic for the relation between mean provider scores on those scales and specific service rates. RESULTS: The questionnaire provided three scales with high internal consistency reliabilities that appear to measure generally favorable attitudes toward preventive services and toward improving them in an organized way. There was little association between these attitudes and rates of providing preventive services. CONCLUSIONS: While favorable attitudes may be helpful, they are clearly insufficient to affect the actual delivery of preventive services. There is reason to believe that preventive services rates could be improved more effectively by targeting factors related to the provision of preventive services, particularly those that shape the clinical environment in which clinicians work.

Are physicians less likely to recommend preventive services to low-SES patients?

BACKGROUND: Do low-SES adult patients visiting private primary care clinics differ from higher SES adult patients in their need for eight preventive services or in receiving either a recommendation for or the needed services? METHODS: Randomly identified adult patients were surveyed within 2 weeks of a visit to 22 clinics in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Questions assessed patient recollection of the latest receipt of eight services and whether needed services had been recommended during the visit or received then soon after. RESULTS: Of those surveyed, 4,245 patients (1,650 low SES) responded (84.3%), showing that low SES patients were less likely to be up to date for cholesterol measurement, Pap smear, mammography, breast exam, and flu or pneumonia shots (P < 0.004), but not for blood pressure measurement. Low-SES patients needing services received recommendations to have them and actually received them at the same rate as higher SES patients. CONCLUSIONS: The 22 primary care clinics studied appear to be recommending and providing needed preventive services to visiting patients at the same rate regardless of income or insurance status. The reasons for differences in prevention status by SES are complex but the low proportion of all patients receiving recommendations for needed services suggests the need to take advantage of all visits for updating prevention needs.

Using continuous quality improvement to increase preventive services in clinical practice--going beyond guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Even the most uniformly accepted prevention guidelines do not by themselves lead to implementation or to adequate rates of preventive services in medical practice. Although much has been learned about the office systems that seem to be needed for major change in a busy clinical practice, there are still no examples of a model for developing, implementing, and sustaining those office systems in a nonacademic practice. METHODS: IMPROVE, the first large randomized controlled trial of CQI (continuous quality improvement) in any industry, is providing a scientific test of the hypothesis that HMO sponsorship of a CQI-based intervention can lead to sustained organizational change, implementation and maintenance of office systems, and improved rates of adult preventive services in contracted private primary care clinics. The 22 clinics assigned to the intervention arm of the study are receiving training, consultation, networking, and reinforcement for internal multidisciplinary teams as they work through a structured process to understand and improve their clinic's process for providing preventive services. Rates and quality of eight preventive services in these clinics are being compared over time with those in 22 matched comparison clinics. RESULTS: The 44 clinics needed for the trial have been recruited and randomized, and baseline comparisons show no significant differences between the two groups. Nine months into the trial, 21 of 22 intervention clinics have completed training and are pursuing a systematic improvement process for preventive services. CONCLUSIONS: With external training and consultation, many private primary care clinics will voluntarily engage in a lengthy multidisciplinary team effort to use CQI techniques to study and systematically improve their entire process for providing preventive services.

Health plans helping smokers.

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable mortality in the United States. Therefore, health care organizations have an important role to play in the control of tobacco use both among their plan members and in the communities that they serve. To be effective, they need to adopt a policy that all tobacco users will be identified and provided with advice to quit smoking (or chewing) at each contact with a health care professional. This same policy ought to be adopted for parents of pediatric patients. The policy can be implemented by defining tobacco use as a "vital sign" and periodically assessing implementation rates with a chart review. Patients who express an interest in quitting should be supported through individual or group follow-up. To make clinical interventions more effective, to counteract tobacco promotion that is directed at youth, and to protect the health of non-smokers, HMOs will want to support local and regional tobacco control coalitions that are taking action against tobacco promotion and are promoting smoke-free public areas.

The Eating Pattern Assessment Tool: a simple instrument for assessing dietary fat and cholesterol intake.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development of the self-administered Eating Pattern Assessment Tool (EPAT), which is designed to assess dietary fat and cholesterol intake and aid patients and health professionals in achieving control of blood cholesterol levels. DESIGN: Test-retest reliability of the instrument over five visits and concurrent validity testing compared with 4-day food records. SETTING AND SAMPLE: The instrument was tested at multiple sites of a large manufacturing corporation using 436 adult volunteers with approximately equal proportions of men and women from three socioeconomic levels. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Development of the EPAT centered on creating an instrument that was simple and easy to use in a primary-care setting, that would provide a reliable assessment of intake of dietary fat and cholesterol among adults, and that would measure frequency of consumption of foods from high-fat and low-fat categories. ANALYSES: Test-retest reliability for repeated use was estimated by between-visit Pearson product-moment correlations of EPAT section scores. Concurrent validity was assessed by using product-moment correlation between EPAT section scores and mean daily B-scores obtained from 4-day food records. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability estimates were 0.91 between all adjacent pairs of visits and 0.83 between visits 1 and 5 (4 months). Validity was 0.56. APPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: The EPAT is a simple, quick, self-administered tool using an easy scoring method for accurately assessing fat and cholesterol intake. It is a reliable and valid substitute for more time-consuming food records. EPAT also provides an efficient way to monitor eating patterns of patients over time and is arranged to provide an educational message that reinforces the consumption of recommended types and numbers of servings of low-fat foods.

Making "time" for preventive services.

Although the implementation of clinical preventive services is a high priority on the national agenda and physicians acknowledge the importance of these services, implementation rates remain far below the target years after the recommendations have been released. Physicians repeatedly report that the reason for not providing preventive services is that they do not have "time." In this article, we identify attributes of the health-services system that create this phenomenon. We present evidence that formal delivery systems for preventive services must be developed if the "time" problem is to be solved, and we review why preventive-services systems need to be integrated into the current health-services system. Finally, we list the attributes that we believe a preventive-services system must have if it is to be successful. The success of clinical trials of such systems indicates that our goals of preventive services can be achieved if all persons who have an investment in clinical preventive services commit themselves to developing and supporting these systems.

A controlled trial to integrate smoking cessation advice into primary care practice: Doctors Helping Smokers, Round III.

BACKGROUND: Although most physicians believe that smoking cessation assistance is important for their patients, the majority of smokers report that they have not received smoking cessation advice from a physician. We therefore tested whether on-site recruitment, training, and organizational assistance in incorporating a smoking intervention system of documented efficacy into nonvolunteer primary care practices would result in higher rates of smoking cessation advice to patients. METHODS: This was a nonrandomized trial comparing all 10 primary care clinics in an intervention area to all 8 primary care clinics from a geographically separate control area. The evaluation was based on the smoking intervention activities of each of the clinics as reported on preintervention and postintervention mail surveys of cohorts of regular smokers seen in the clinics. RESULTS: Preintervention, 22.9% +/- 11.2% of the intervention clinic cohort and 21.9% +/- 9.6% (P = .84) of the control clinic cohort reported that they had been asked about tobacco during a clinic visit in the prior 6 months. Postintervention, the intervention clinic cohort was significantly more likely to report that someone had asked them if they smoked (39.8% +/- 12.3% vs 26.0% +/- 12.2%; P less than .05), that their physician asked them to quit if they were currently smoking (40.5% +/- 12.1% vs 26.4% +/- 14.6%; P less than .05), and that someone had commended them if they had recently quit smoking (28.2% +/- 19.8 vs 11.3% +/- 11.8%; P less than .05). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention significantly increased the rates at which a population of primary care clinics identified their patients who smoked, advised them to quit smoking, and commended those who had recently quit smoking.

Appropriate days for measuring intake of dietary fat and cholesterol.

Seven consecutive day food records were assessed in 224 free-living adult volunteers to (1) identify the smallest number of days, and which days of the week, would provide most of the information about dietary fat and cholesterol intake (assessed by B score) and (2) whether a complex mathematical formula for weighting certain days was required to achieve reasonable validity. A factor analytic approach was used to identify 3- and 4-day sets. The correlations with the 7-day average B score ranged from 0.95 for the best 4-day (Saturday through Tuesday) average B score to 0.91 for the best 3-day (Sunday through Tuesday) average B score. Simple averaging (no weighting) was found to be adequate to achieve this level of validity.

Initiation and maintenance of patient behavioral change: what is the role of the physician?

If the physician is to help a patient adopt and maintain "preventive behaviors," the processes that influence and shape both patient and physician behaviors must be understood, the physician's role in the behavioral change process must be acceptable to both the patient and the physician, and an environment that both permits the physician to act and reinforces the physician for acting appropriately must be designed for the physician. A physician's role that is acceptable to both the patient and the physician can be seen as six obligations. The physician must 1) evaluate the medical literature on prevention to determine which services are indicated for which types of patients, 2) when seeing an individual patient, identify the services and behaviors needed by that patient, and 3) advise the patient of the need for action. As the patient responds positively to the physician's advice, the physician must 4) enable and assist the patient to have the indicated tests or procedures and accomplish the suggested behavioral changes, and 5) reinforce the patient's new and ongoing preventive behaviors. The sixth obligation of the physician is to establish, support, and maintain a system to facilitate tasks 2 through 5.