Patients' and Caregivers' Experiences with the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model aims to improve primary health care using a patient-centered approach. Little qualitative research has investigated how the PCMH model affects patient experience with care. OBJECTIVE: To understand Medicaid and Medicare patient and caregiver experiences with PCMHs participating in the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) Demonstration. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare, Medicaid, and dually eligible patients who were patients in primary care practices participating in the MAPCP Demonstration and caregivers of such patients (N = 490). APPROACH: From July through November 2014, a trained facilitator conducted 81 focus groups in the eight states participating in the MAPCP Demonstration. Separate groups were held for Medicare high-risk, Medicare low-risk, Medicaid, and dually eligible beneficiaries, their caregivers, and caregivers of Medicaid children (or, in Vermont, with patients participating in the Support and Services at Home program), in two different geographical areas in each state. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: Participants' experiences with care were generally consistent with the expectations of a PCMH, although some exceptions were noted. Medicaid only and dually eligible beneficiaries generally had less-positive experiences than Medicare beneficiaries. Most participants said their practices had not solicited feedback from them about their experiences with care. Few participants knew what the term "medical home" meant or were aware that their practices were working to become PCMHs, but many had noticed changes in recent years, primarily related to the conversion to electronic health records. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants had positive experiences with their care. Opportunities exist, however, to improve care for Medicaid and dually eligible beneficiaries, and enhance patient awareness of and involvement in PCMH practice transformation.

Impact of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Safety Program for Perinatal Care.

BACKGROUND: The Safety Program for Perinatal Care (SPPC) seeks to improve safety on labor and delivery (L&D) units through three mutually reinforcing components: (1) fostering a culture of teamwork and communication, (2) applying safety science principles to care processes; and (3) in situ simulation. The objective of this study was to describe the SPPC implementation experience and evaluate the short-term impact on unit patient safety culture, processes, and adverse events. METHODS: We supported SPPC implementation by L&D units with a program toolkit, trainings, and technical assistance. We evaluated the program using a pre-post, mixed-methods design. Implementing units reported uptake of program components, submitted hospital discharge data on maternal and neonatal adverse events, and participated in semi-structured interviews. We measured changes in safety and quality using the Modified Adverse Outcome Index (MAOI) and other perinatal care indicators. RESULTS: Forty-three L&D units submitted data representing 97,740 deliveries over 10 months of follow-up. Twenty-six units implemented all three program components. L&D staff reported improvements in teamwork, communication, and unit safety culture that facilitated applying safety science principles to clinical care. The MAOI decreased from 5.03% to 4.65% (absolute change -0.38% [95% CI, -0.88% to 0.12%]). Statistically significant decreases in indicators for obstetric trauma without instruments and primary cesarean delivery were observed. A statistically significant increase in neonatal birth trauma was observed, but the overall rate of unexpected newborn complications was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: The SPPC had a favorable impact on unit patient safety culture and processes, but short-term impact on maternal and neonatal adverse events was mixed.

Developing checklists to prevent diagnostic error in Emergency Room settings.

BACKGROUND: Checklists have been shown to improve performance of complex, error-prone processes. To develop a checklist with potential to reduce the likelihood of diagnostic error for patients presenting to the Emergency Room (ER) with undiagnosed conditions. METHODS: Participants included 15 staff ER physicians working in two large academic centers. A rapid cycle design and evaluation process was used to develop a general checklist for high-risk situations vulnerable to diagnostic error. Physicians used the general checklists and a set of symptom-specific checklists for a period of 2 months. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation that included interviews regarding user perceptions and quantitative assessment of resource utilization before and after checklist use. RESULTS: A general checklist was developed iteratively by obtaining feedback from users and subject matter experts, and was trialed along with a set of specific checklists in the ER. Both the general and the symptom-specific checklists were judged to be helpful, with a slight preference for using symptom-specific lists. Checklist use commonly prompted consideration of additional diagnostic possibilities, changed the working diagnosis in approximately 10% of cases, and anecdotally was thought to be helpful in avoiding diagnostic errors. Checklist use was prompted by a variety of different factors, not just diagnostic uncertainty. None of the physicians used the checklists in collaboration with the patient, despite being encouraged to do so. Checklist use did not prompt large changes in test ordering or consultation. CONCLUSIONS: In the ER setting, checklists for diagnosis are helpful in considering additional diagnostic possibilities, thus having potential to prevent diagnostic errors. Inconsistent usage and using the checklists privately, instead of with the patient, are factors that may detract from obtaining maximum benefit. Further research is needed to optimize checklists for use in the ER, determine how to increase usage, to evaluate the impact of checklist utilization on error rates and patient outcomes, to determine how checklist usage affects test ordering and consultation, and to compare checklists generally with other approaches to reduce diagnostic error.

Accelerating what works: using qualitative research methods in developing a change package for a learning collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Learning (quality improvement) collaboratives are effective vehicles for driving coordinated organizational improvements. A central element of a learning collaborative is the change package-a catalogue of strategies, change concepts, and action steps that guide participants in their improvement efforts. Despite a vast literature describing learning collaboratives, little to no information is available on how the guiding strategies, change concepts, and action items are identified and developed to a replicable and actionable format that can be used to make measurable improvements within participating organizations. METHODS: The process for developing the change package for the Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) Patient Safety and Clinical Pharmacy Services Collaborative entailed environmental scan and identification of leading practices, case studies, interim debriefing meetings, data synthesis, and a technical expert panel meeting. Data synthesis involved end-of-day debriefings, systematic qualitative analyses, and the use of grounded theory and inductive data analysis techniques. This approach allowed systematic identification of innovative patient safety and clinical pharmacy practices that could be adopted in diverse environments. A case study approach enabled the research team to study practices in their natural environments. Use of grounded theory and inductive data analysis techniques enabled identification of strategies, change concepts, and actionable items that might not have been captured using different approaches. DISCUSSION: Use of systematic processes and qualitative methods in identification and translation of innovative practices can greatly accelerate the diffusion of innovations and practice improvements. This approach is effective whether or not an individual organization is part of a learning collaborative.

System-related interventions to reduce diagnostic errors: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors (missed, delayed or wrong diagnosis) have recently gained attention and are associated with significant preventable morbidity and mortality. The authors reviewed the recent literature and identified interventions that address system-related factors that contribute directly to diagnostic errors. METHODS: The authors conducted a comprehensive search using multiple search strategies. First, they performed a PubMed search to identify articles exclusively related to diagnostic error or delay published in English between 2000 and 2009. They then sought papers from references in the initial dataset, searches of additional databases, and subject matter experts. Articles were included if they formally evaluated an intervention to prevent or reduce diagnostic error; however, papers were also included if interventions were suggested and not tested to inform the state of the science on the subject. Interventions were characterised according to the step in the diagnostic process they targeted: patient-provider encounter; performance and interpretation of diagnostic tests; follow-up and tracking of diagnostic information; subspecialty and referral-related issues; and patient-specific care-seeking and adherence processes. RESULTS: 43 articles were identified for full review, of which six reported tested interventions and 37 contained suggestions for possible interventions. Empirical studies, although somewhat positive, were non-experimental or quasi-experimental and included a small number of clinicians or healthcare sites. Outcome measures in general were underdeveloped and varied markedly among studies, depending on the setting or step in the diagnostic process. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a number of suggested interventions in the literature, few empirical studies in the past decade have tested interventions to reduce diagnostic errors. Advancing the science of diagnostic error prevention will require more robust study designs and rigorous definitions of diagnostic processes and outcomes to measure intervention effects.

Strategies for safe medication use in ambulatory care settings in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify strategies for safe medication use practices in ambulatory care settings, with a special focus on clinical pharmacy services. METHODS: We conducted case studies on 34 organizations, more than half of which were safety net providers. Data included discussions with 186 key informants, 3 interim debriefings, and a technical expert panel. We analyzed qualitative data using inductive analysis techniques and grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Ambulatory care organizations practice a broad range of safe medication use strategies. The inclusion of clinical pharmacy services is a culture change that supports efforts to improve patient safety and patient-centered care. Organizations integrated clinical pharmacy services when they introduced such services in a purposefully paced and gradual manner. Organizations sustained such services when they collected and reported data demonstrating improvements in patient outcomes and cost savings. Clinical pharmacy services were generally accompanied by strategies that helped organizations to provide patient-centered care; collect and measure process, safety, and clinical outcomes; promote leadership commitment; and integrate care delivery processes. These strategies interacted within organizations in synergistic rather than hierarchical or linear way. Organizational ability to provide safe, patient-centered, and efficient care that is supported by measurable data largely depends on leadership commitment and ability to integrate care processes. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory care organizations use multiple strategies for safe medication use systems. Understanding processes that promote such strategies will provide a helpful road map for other organizations in implementation and sustainability of safe medication use systems.