Search

Rationale: National quality improvement initiatives emphasize building partnerships between patients and providers by promoting patient engagement through communication, shared decision-making, and self-care skills. Efforts to promote patient engagement are especially important for people with asthma. To cultivate effective partnerships in asthma care, patients and providers may benefit from understanding each other's values and perceptions regarding treatment goals, shared decision-making, as well as barriers to optimal care and outcomes.Objectives: We conducted a survey study to assess and compare asthma patient and provider perceptions of factors that are associated with effective partnerships and patient engagement.Methods: Surveys were administered to adult patients with poorly controlled asthma (n = 328) and their physicians (n = 40) before they participated in collaborative learning sessions held in 40 allergy and immunology practices across the United States. The surveys included items for both groups to report their asthma-related treatment goals and perceptions about information needs and knowledge, shared decision-making, and barriers to medication adherence.Results: Providers rated their knowledge about different aspects of their patients' health status (on a scale from 1 = poor knowledge to 5 = excellent knowledge). The lowest percentages of ratings 4 and 5 were for knowledge about patients' financial status (29%), adherence (42%), lifestyle (46%), and workplace situation (46%). The highest percentages of ratings 4 and 5 were for knowledge about patients' exacerbation history (75%), smoking status (76%), hospitalization history (79%), and comorbidities (79%). The percentages of patients and providers, respectively, who indicated the following treatment goals as important differed significantly: preventing exacerbations (62% and 83%; P = 0.01), preventing emergency department visits (44% and 76%; P < 0.01), and improving ability to perform daily activities (69% and 48%; P < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in percentages of provider-reported goals and goals that providers estimated their patients would indicate as important. Disconnects were also observed for perceived barriers to asthma medication adherence.Conclusions: The observed disconnects in patient and provider perceptions may inform strategies for cultivating effective partnerships and patient engagement to improve care quality and outcomes for people with asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at views of patients and healthcare providers on chronic disease engagement and care. Topics discussed include the study being performed on 80 primary care practices in U.S. states with the most liver disease cases among Hispanics and 215 patients, common barriers to hepatitis C treatment experienced by patients and 3 most common chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment goals: symptom management, exacerbation prevention and hospitalization prevention.

The article presents a study conducted by the authors related to the use of chart audits for evaluating effect of quality improvement (QI)-based continuing medical education (CME) on adherence to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) quality measures by rheumatologists. Topics discussed include an increase in adherence rate in posteducation group, baseline rates and posteducation not different for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy prescription and positive patient outcome with adherence.

The article discusses the development of quality improvement (QI) program to assess influence of continuing education on gastroenterologists' adherence to quality measures and practice guidelines to treat patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Topics discussed include the program's 4 phases including physician recruitment and chart selection, baseline chart audit and educational intervention and the need for continuing education to support gastroenterologists to improve quality measures for UC.

Purpose/objectives: Despite increased emphases on reducing racial disparities in the U.S. health care system, interprofessional care teams may inadvertently perpetuate health disparities through lack of awareness or experience in supporting individualized, patient-centered goals of care. Racial disparities can lead to health inequity. Persistent health disparity gaps exist among Black patients with multiple myeloma (MM) when compared with non-Black patients. Black patients experience a two-fold increase in MM risk and earlier age of onset compared with non-Black patients. Black patients are also less likely to receive timely access to some therapies, undergo autologous stem cell transplant, or enroll in clinical trials. This article describes a large-scale, equity-focused implementation science initiative aimed at identifying and overcoming racial disparities and health inequity among patients with MM through quality improvement goals identified by each of the interprofessional cancer care teams., Primary Practice Settings: Interprofessional cancer care teams in two large oncology systems as well as four community clinics were engaged in this study along with their patients with MM. Geographic areas included the following: Chicago, IL; Washington, DC; Charlotte, NC; Columbus, OH; Denver, CO; and Indianapolis, IN. Interprofessional teams included hematologists/oncologists, primary care physicians, nurse practitioners/physician assistants, and case managers/nurse navigators. Teams collectively examined and compared their own beliefs and attitudes about their patients' goals for MM treatment and management versus those of their patients to uncover and address discordances. Medical records from the clinics were audited to evaluate disparities in treatment and practice at the point of care. Live, team-based audit-feedback sessions were implemented among teams to examine data sets, as well as utilize the data to address interprofessional factors that could enhance more equitable care., Findings/conclusions: Data from comparative surveys between patients and interprofessional team members revealed significant discordances that enabled health care teams to recognize gaps and identify ways to improve patient-centered care, such as shared decision-making. Through audit-feedback sessions, interprofessional teams were able to collaboratively meet and discuss methods to improve access to care coordination services and other strategies aimed at alleviating disparities. Baseline chart audits revealed and confirmed disparities of care including patient/disease characteristics, treatment history, clinical practice metrics, and patient-centered measures. Follow-up chart audits conducted 6 months later measured changes in documented practice behavior. Action plans developed by the interprofessional teams as a result of this study intend to address sustainable reductions in health disparities among patients with MM to improve health equity and overall care., Implications for Case Management Practice: This implementation science initiative and data results have several implications for case managers caring for diverse patients with MM in both large health systems and smaller community practices. Results punctuate the importance of identifying and supporting diverse patients' individualized goals and preferences in their care journey to mitigate health inequity and maximize health outcomes. The value of working collaboratively as an interprofessional team is evident in the study results, as is the role of the case manager in appropriate resource allocation to mitigate health disparities. Lessons learned from this initiative may also be applied to other case management settings where complex care delivery and interprofessional teams are at work., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND: Multiple barriers exist for appropriate use of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 enzyme inhibitors (PCSK9i) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with inadequately controlled hypercholesterolemia despite standard therapies. Among these barriers, high payer rejection rates and inadequate prior authorization (PA) documentation by providers hinder optimal use of PCSK9i. OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify and discuss provider and payer discordances on barriers to authorization and use of PCSK9i based on clinical and real-world evidence and (b) align understanding and application of clinical, cost, safety, and efficacy data of PCSK9i. METHODS: Local groups of 3 payers and 3 providers met in 6 separate locations across the United States through a collaborative project of AMCP and PRIME Education. Responses to selected pre- and postmeeting survey questions measured changes in attitudes and beliefs regarding treatment barriers, lipid thresholds for considering PCSK9i therapy, and tactics for improving PA processes. Statistical analysis of inter- and intragroup changes in attitudes were performed by Cox proportional hazards test and Fisher's exact test for < 5 variables. RESULTS: The majority of providers and payers (67%-78%) agreed that high patient copayments and inadequate PA documentation were significant barriers to PCSK9i usage. However, payers and providers differed on beliefs that current evidence does not support PCSK9i cost-effectiveness (6% providers, 56% payers; P = 0.003) and that PA presents excessive administrative burden (72% providers, 44% payers; P = 0.09) Average increases pre- to postmeeting were noted in provider beliefs that properly documented PA forms expedite access to PCSK9i (22%-50% increase) and current authorization criteria accurately distinguish patients who benefit most from PCSK9i (6%-22%). Payers decreased in their belief that current authorization criteria accurately distinguish benefiting patients (72%-50%). Providers and payers increased in their belief that PCSK9i are cost-effective (44%-61% and 28%-50%, respectively) and were more willing to consider PCSK9i at the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol threshold of > 70 mg/dL for patients with ASCVD (78%-83% and 44%-67%, respectively) or FH (22%-39% and 22%-33%). Payers were more agreeable to less stringent PA requirements for patients with FH (33%-72%, P = 0.019) and need for standardized PA requirements (50%-83%, P = 0.034); these considerations remained high (89%) among providers after the meeting. Most participants supported educational programs for patient treatment adherence (83%) and physician/staff PA processes (83%-94%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider and payer representatives in 6 distinct geographic locations provided recommendations to improve quality of care in patients eligible for PCSK9i. Participants also provided tactical recommendations for streamlining PA documentation processes and improving awareness of PCSK9i cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy. The majority of participants supported development of universal, standardized patient eligibility criteria and PA forms. DISCLOSURES: The study reported in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant awarded by Sanofi US and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals to PRIME Education. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. AMCP received grant funding from PRIME to assist in the study, as well as in writing the manuscript. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad were involved as participants in the study. Bhatt discloses the following relationships: Advisory board: Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences; Board of directors: Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, TobeSoft; Chair: American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; Data monitoring committees: Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo), Population Health Research Institute; Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Vice chair , ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology ), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today's Intervention ), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Research funding: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Synaptic, The Medicines Company; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease ); Site co-investigator: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Svelte; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded research: FlowCo, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Takeda. Bays' research site has received research grants from 89Bio, Acasti, Akcea, Allergan, Alon Medtech/Epitomee, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Axsome, Boehringer Ingelheim, Civi, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Evidera, Gan and Lee, Home Access, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Lexicon, Matinas, Merck, Metavant, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Selecta, TIMI, and Urovant. Bays has served as a consultant/advisor for 89Bio, Amarin, Esperion, Matinas, and Gelesis, and speaker for Esperion. McCormick, Caldwell, Guerin, Ahmad, Singh, Moreo, Carter, Heggen, and Sapir have nothing to disclose.

In the U.S., suboptimal care quality for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is reflected by high rates of emergency department visits and hospital readmissions, as well as excessive costs. Moreover, a substantial proportion of COPD patients do not receive guideline-directed therapies. In quality improvement (QI) programs, these types of health care problems are commonly addressed through interventions that primarily or exclusively support physicians in aligning their practices with guidelines and clinical quality measures. However, the root causes of many deficits in health care quality are not necessarily "physician centric." Instead, they often involve suboptimal collaboration among members of interprofessional health care teams and gaps in coproductive relationships among patients and providers. We conducted a QI project to identify interprofessional and coproductive correlates of COPD care quality in the context of a continuing education program designed to advance knowledge and skill among patients, providers, and the interprofessional COPD team regarding coproductive COPD care. Participants in the program included providers in 30 primary care practices across the U.S. who, along with their own COPD patients and a separate cohort of patients from COPD advocacy groups, completed a patient-provider survey study designed to identify alignments and mismatches in coproductive perceptions and behaviors, a private survey feedback session for each practice's team, and online/mobile educational activities on COPD. In addition, more than 1,000 additional providers and 200 patients participated in just the online/mobile education. From the patient perspective, baseline measures indicated a high rate of dissatisfaction with COPD treatment plans and suboptimal coproductive interaction with members of the interprofessional health care team. Across providers, there were gaps and variation in provision of patient education, attitudes and practices regarding shared decision-making, and care coordination with pulmonary specialists. In addition, relatively low proportions of providers reported high levels of skill in various coproductive processes. The project outcomes indicated mismatches between COPD patients and providers in perceived ability to recognize COPD exacerbations, shared treatment goals, barriers to medication adherence, perceived impact of COPD on quality of life, and other aspects of COPD care. Providers demonstrated improvements in knowledge and attitudes regarding coproductive and coordinated COPD care.

In the U.S., where the prevalence of type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions, many patients with this disease are treated by primary care physicians in community-based systems, including accountable care organisations (ACOs). To address gaps in the quality of diabetes care, national quality measures have been established, including patient-centered measures adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for its Shared Savings Program for ACOs. From a patient-centered perspective, high-quality diabetes care depends on effective communication between clinicians and patients, along with patient education and counseling about medications and lifestyle. We designed and implemented a quality improvement (QI) program for 30 primary care physicians treating patients with type 2 diabetes in three structurally similar but geographically diverse ACOs. Retrospective chart audits were conducted before (n = 300) and after (n = 300) each physician participated in accredited continuing medical education (CME) courses that focused on QI strategies. Randomly selected charts were audited to measurably assess essential interventions for improved outcomes in type 2 diabetes including the physicians' documentation of patient counseling and assessment of side effects, and patients' medication adherence status and changes in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) and body mass index (BMI). Paced educational interventions included a private performance improvement Internet live course conducted for each physician, small-group Internet live courses involving peer discussion, and a set of enduring materials, which were also multi-accredited for all clinicians in the physician's practice. Continual improvement cycles were guided by analysis of the baseline chart audits, quantitative survey data, and qualitative feedback offered by participants. To extend the benefit of the education, the enduring materials were offered to the interprofessional team of clinicians throughout the U.S. who did not participate in the QI program. For brevity, this article presents outcomes of the 30 primary care physicians. Baseline to post-education improvements were observed for percentages of charts with documented assessment of medication side effects (+11%) and counseling about medication risks/benefits (+28%), medication adherence (+13%), and lifestyle modifications (+8%). Improvements were also observed for documented adherence to diabetes medications (+24%) and first-to-last visit changes in A1C (-0.16%) and BMI (-2.1). The findings indicate a positive influence of QI education on primary care physicians' performance of patient-centered quality measures and patient outcomes.

Studies on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have reported suboptimal approaches to patient care. In the United States, the findings have motivated leading gastroenterology organizations to call for initiatives that support clinicians in aligning their practices with quality measures for IBD and priorities of the National Quality Strategy (NQS). We designed and implemented a quality improvement (QI) education program on ulcerative colitis in which patient charts were audited for 30 gastroenterologists before (n = 300 charts) and after (n = 290 charts) they participated in QI-focused educational activities. Charts were audited for nine measures, selected for their alignment with four NQS priorities: making care safer, ensuring patient engagement, promoting communication, and promoting effective treatment practices. Four of the measures, including guideline-directed vaccinations and assessments of disease type and activity, were part of the CMS Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). The other five measures involved counseling patients on various topics in ulcerative colitis management, documentation of side effects, assessment of adherence status, and simplification of dosing. The gastroenterologists also completed baseline and post-education surveys designed to assess qualitative outcomes. One of the educational interventions was a private audit feedback session conducted for each gastroenterologist. The sessions were designed to support participants in identifying measures reflecting suboptimal care quality and developing action plans for improvement. In continuous improvement cycles, follow-up interventions included QI tools and educational monographs. Across the nine chart variables, post-education improvements ranged from 0% to 48%, with a mean improvement of 15.9%. Survey findings revealed improvements in self-reported understanding of quality measures and intentions to apply them to practice, and lower rates of perceived significant barriers to high-quality care. The findings indicate the potential for QI education to support gastroenterologists in improving their performance on key measures of care quality for patients with ulcerative colitis.

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system that is classified as an immune-mediated inflammatory disease. In managed care, patients with MS can be managed through care coordination that engages an interprofessional approach to a comprehensive spectrum of preventive, medical, rehabilitative, cognitive, and long-term health care services. In addition, the management paradigm for MS is currently in a stage of rapid evolution, with a number of new agents, including more oral drugs, expected to become available in the near future. Pharmacy and therapeutic committees may soon be faced with evaluating a hierarchy of new scientific data to differentiate the safety and efficacy of these new agents. Decisions will need to be made regarding the utility of these potential new agents among existing therapies with longer-term safety and efficacy data available in the scientific literature. For those MS patients managed under Medicaid, formulary and medication management decisions may be further impacted by psychosocial, cultural, educational, attitudinal, and/or economic factors that may be unique to the Medicaid population. The need to maximize immediate and long-term resource utilization is usually an important consideration when managing a Medicaid population. There is also an increasing focus on quality measures and quality outcomes by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Many managed care professionals can be involved in establishing quality measures and quality improvement processes to effectively appropriate and manage the resources required for Medicaid patients with MS. As a result, medication and medical management of this special population can involve a comprehensive approach by managed care professionals. For purposes of this article, the term "special populations" applies to patients with MS who are managed under Medicaid plans., Objectives: To review (a) particular challenges managed care organizations (MCOs) encounter when managing special populations of Medicaid patients with MS, (b) recent efficacy and safety data for oral therapies for relapsing forms of MS, (c) costs of current MS therapies, and (d) potential strategies for managed care to improve care of their MS patient population and optimize clinical and economic outcomes., Methods: Review of recent published literature, abstracts related to MS presented at major medical conferences, and recommendations from key organizations including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society., Summary: The health economics of MS are a central issue for MCOs managing Medicaid patient populations. Additional challenges include the anticipated expansion of the marketplace to include several new oral agents and the lack of consensus guidelines for management of patients with MS. The benefit-risk profile of new agents will need to be considered in the context of established first-line parenteral drugs. Management of patients with MS should include an individualized approach for each patient as part of a shared decision-making process. In the overall management of special patient populations, case management and collaborative practice models in managed care may help to ensure that critical benchmarks are achieved.