Search

Background: A team approach is one of the most effective ways to lower blood pressure (BP) in uncontrolled hypertension, but different models for organizing team-based care have not been compared directly. Methods: A pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial compared 2 interventions in adult patients with moderately severe hypertension (BP≥150/95 mm Hg): (1) clinic-based care using best practices and face-to-face visits with physicians and medical assistants; and (2) telehealth care using best practices and adding home BP telemonitoring with home-based care coordinated by a clinical pharmacist or nurse practitioner. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in patient-reported outcomes over 6 months. Results: Participants (N=3071 in 21 primary care clinics) were on average 60 years old, 47% male, and 19% Black. Protocol-specified follow-up within 6 weeks was 32% in clinic-based care and 27% in telehealth care. BP decreased significantly during 12 months of follow-up in both groups, from 157/92 to 139/82 mm Hg in clinic-based care patients (adjusted mean difference −18/−10 mm Hg) and 157/91 to 139/81 mm Hg in telehealth care patients (adjusted mean difference −19/−10 mm Hg), with no significant difference in systolic BP change between groups (−0.8 mm Hg [95% CI, −2.84 to 1.32]). Telehealth care patients were significantly more likely than clinic-based care patients to report frequent home BP measurement, rate their BP care highly, and report that BP care visits were convenient. Conclusions: Telehealth care that includes extended team care is an effective and safe alternative to clinic-based care for improving patient-centered care for hypertension. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02996565.

Background Hypertension control has been decreasing recently. We compared the experience and attitudes toward care between patients with uncontrolled hypertension who are more and less satisfied with that care to identify ways to improve their care. Methods Baseline survey of 3072 patients with diagnosed hypertension and repeated blood pressure measurements at or above 150/95 mmHg during clinic appointments at 21 primary care clinics of a large Midwestern multi-specialty medical group. Survey questions were about previous hypertension care satisfaction, the degree to which that care was patient-centered, their feelings of self-confidence and treatment burden in managing hypertension, and medication side effects. Results A total of 1697 patients completed surveys (response rate = 55%). Of the 1697 patients, the 24% who were most dissatisfied (scored 0 to 5 on a 0 to 10 scale of satisfaction) significantly differed from those most satisfied (scored 9 to 10) on all demographic and clinical characteristics as well as on every measure of care experience and health status. After adjusting for those characteristics, reports of patient-centered care, self-confidence, stopping the medication because of side effects, and the burdensomeness of treatment were all significantly worse (P Conclusions Many patients with uncontrolled hypertension are dissatisfied with their care, but that is associated with different problems for different people. Identifying and attending to these problems may provide opportunities to help them achieve better control.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), increasingly used for research and quality measurement, are lauded for their potential to improve patient-centered care, both through aggregate reporting and when integrated into clinical practice. However, there are few published studies of the resultant use of PROMs in clinical practice. This case study describes the implementation and use of PROMS in a Midwestern multispecialty medical group orthopedic practice among patients undergoing total knee and hip surgery. Specifically, rates of PROMs use by care teams are tracked over time once made available in the electronic health record. During this time, the orthopedics department achieved a patient PROMS survey response rate of 68% at baseline, 58% 3 months post-surgery, and 55% 12 months post-surgery. However, these data were only accessed by the care teams for fewer than 1% of associated clinical encounters. This suggests that making PROMs available for care team review in the electronic health record, even when coupled with relatively high response rates from patients and departmental leadership support is not enough to encourage integration of PROMs into clinical care for patients. Additional effort is required to identify barriers to PROMs use in clinical care and to test methods to enhance use.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders? METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization’s PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process. RESULTS: Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians’ inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Background Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care. Questions/purposes (1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively? Methods In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively. Results There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (β = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (β = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p Conclusion The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA. Level of evidence Level II, therapeutic study.

Introduction: Patient ratings of their experience of care are part of the “Triple Aim”. Improvements are highly valued by health care organizations, but are hard to achieve. Hypothesis: We tested the effect of a telehealth intervention on satisfaction with hypertension care. Methods: Hyperlink 3 is an ongoing pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in 3072 patients with uncontrolled hypertension in 21 primary care clinics in HealthPartners, an integrated health system in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Clinics were randomized to Clinic-based Care (CC, 9 clinics, 1648 patients) or Telehealth Care (TC, 12 clinics, 1424 patients). CC patients received guideline-based hypertension care in face-to-face visits. TC patients were additionally offered home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with pharmacist care management. Patients were surveyed at baseline and after 6 months of study enrollment and asked to rate their hypertension care in the previous 6 months on a scale of 0-10. We compared change in the proportion of patients rating their care at the highest level (9 or 10). Results: In the TC group, about 37% of patients attended an intake pharmacist visit and 434 (30%) participated in home BP telemonitoring. Baseline surveys were completed by 1719 (56%) of patients at baseline (goal 50% completion) and 1301 (76%) of those completing the baseline survey completed the 6 month survey (goal 75% completion). Baseline survey respondents’ mean age was 62 y (non-respondents 58 y), 46% were men (non-respondents 48%), 19% were black (non-respondents 20%), and mean BP was 164/93 mm Hg (non-respondents 164/95 mm Hg.) Nearly all patients (over 90%) took antihypertensive medications (median 2). Hypertension care ratings of 9 or 10 were 27.9% at baseline and 30.2% at 6 months in CC, compared with 29.0% at baseline and 39.5% at 6 months in TC. The odds ratio (OR) for change over time in 9 or 10 ratings was 1.11 (95% CI 0.87 - 1.42) in CC, and 1.61 (95% CI 1.26 - 2.07) in TC. The OR for change in 9 or 10 ratings over time in TC vs CC was 1.45 (95% CI 1.03 - 2.06). Conclusions: Home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist care management increased the proportion of patients who highly rated their experience of hypertension care, even though only a minority of the TC patients received the intervention.

Introduction: Telehealth and remote monitoring have become critical to patient access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We measured the effect of a telehealth care intervention on frequency, sharing methods, and clinical usage of home blood pressure (BP) measurements. Methods: Hyperlink 3 is an ongoing pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in 3072 patients with uncontrolled hypertension in 21 primary care clinics in an integrated health system. Clinics were randomized to Clinic-based Care (CC, 9 clinics, 1648 patients) or Telehealth Care (TC, 12 clinics, 1424 patients). TC patients were offered home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist care management. Patients were surveyed at baseline (Nov 2017 - Apr 2019) and after 6 mo of study enrollment. Results: In the TC group, about 37% of patients attended an intake pharmacist visit and 434 (30%) participated in home BP telemonitoring. Baseline surveys were completed by 1719 (56%) of patients at baseline (goal 50%) and 1301 (76%) of those completing the baseline survey completed the 6 mo survey (goal 75%). Baseline survey respondents' mean age was 62, 46% were men, 19% were black, and mean BP was 164/93 mm Hg. Nearly all patients (>90%) took antihypertensive medications (median 2). The odds ratio (OR) for change in measuring BP > 2 times/week vs. less often was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87 - 1.42) in CC, and 2.01 (95% CI 1.56 - 2.59) in TC. The OR for change in frequent measurement in TC vs CC was 2.08 (95% CI 1.45 - 2.97). Conclusions: A telehealth care intervention markedly increased the frequency of home BP self- monitoring, electronic data sharing, and data-driven BP medication changes, even though only a minority of TC patients received the intervention.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical care, but there have been few studies of what patients identify as the most important outcomes. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, spinal discectomy/laminotomy, or a spinal fusion. Interviews focused on outcomes patients identified as important, perceived usefulness of standardized PROMs measures, and contextual situations important to their care. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Results: Patients identified desired outcomes that were unique and important to them. Their preferred outcomes focused in the areas of freedom from pain, getting back to their normal life, and returning to an active lifestyle. Patients cared more about their individual preferred outcomes, which had more meaning for them, than a standardized PROM score. Patients also identified particular contextual situations that their care team was assumed to know about but that may not have been known. Conclusions: Patients identify specific preferred outcomes from these surgical procedures that are important and meaningful to them and that frame whether they see their surgery as a success. They also identified personal factors that they assume their surgeons know about, which affect their care and recovery. These findings underscore the importance of engaging patients in discussions about their preferences and contextual factors both prior to and after surgery.

PURPOSE: Since collecting outcome measure data from patients can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject to memory and nonresponse bias, we sought to learn whether outcomes important to patients can be obtained from data in the electronic health record (EHR) or health insurance claims. METHODS: We previously identified 21 outcomes rated important by patients who had advanced imaging tests for back or abdominal pain. Telephone surveys about experiencing those outcomes 1 year after their test from 321 people consenting to use of their medical record and claims data were compared with audits of the participants’ EHR progress notes over the time period between the imaging test and survey completion. We also compared survey data with algorithmically extracted data from claims files for outcomes for which data might be available from that source. RESULTS: Of the 16 outcomes for which patients’ survey responses were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes for back pain and 3 for abdominal pain had kappa scores above a very modest level of ≥ 0.2 for chart audit of EHR data and none for algorithmically obtained EHR/claims data. Of the other 5 outcomes for which claims data were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes from patient surveys and 3 outcomes from chart audits had kappa scores ≥ 0.2. CONCLUSIONS: For the types of outcomes studied here, medical record or claims data do not provide an adequate source of information except for a few outcomes where patient reports may be less accurate.

Background Uncontrolled hypertension is the largest single contributor to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the U.S. population. Nurse- and pharmacist-led team-based care and telehealth care interventions have been shown to result in large and lasting improvements in blood pressure (BP); however, it is unclear how successfully these can be implemented at scale in real-world settings. It is also uncertain how telehealth interventions impact patient experience compared to traditional clinic-based care. Aims/objectives To compare the effects of two evidence-based blood pressure care strategies in the primary care setting: (1) best-practice clinic-based care and (2) telehealth care with home BP telemonitoring and management by a clinical pharmacist. To evaluate implementation using mixed-methods supported by the RE-AIM framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Methods The design is a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness pragmatic trial in 21 primary care clinics (9 clinic-based care, 12 telehealth care). Adult patients (age 18–85) with hypertension are enrolled via automated electronic health record (EHR) tools during primary care encounters if BP is elevated to ≥150/95 mmHg at two consecutive visits. The primary outcome is change in systolic BP over 12 months as extracted from the EHR. Secondary outcomes are change in key patient-reported outcomes over 6 months as measured by surveys. Qualitative data are collected at various time points to investigate implementation barriers and help explain intervention effects. Conclusion This pragmatic trial aims to inform health systems about the benefits, strengths, and limitations of implementing home BP telemonitoring with pharmacist management for uncontrolled hypertension in real-world primary care settings.

The 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guideline strongly recommends systematic follow-up and monitoring of treatment using team-based care and telehealth, based on Level A evidence. However, different models for organizing team-based care and telehealth have not been compared. We describe the design of a PCORI-funded pragmatic trial with the following objectives: Aim 1) compare the effects on BP and patient-reported outcomes of two models of team-based care for uncontrolled hypertension, and Aim 2) study how the two models are carried out in the real-world setting of a large health system. The study is a 5-year cluster-randomized trial in 2000 patients age 18-85 with uncontrolled hypertension cared for in 21 primary care clinics at HealthPartners, a large integrated healthcare system in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota and western Wisconsin. Clinic-based care uses recommended best practices and face-to-face visits primarily with physicians, nurses and medical assistants. The telehealth care approach adapts a research-tested model with systematic use of home BP telemonitoring and home-based telehealth care coordinated by a clinical pharmacist or nurse practitioner. Patients in both groups are recruited directly from primary care clinics using electronic health record (EHR) prompts. Exclusions are few: pregnancy, advanced kidney disease, hospice care, and nursing home residence. The primary outcomes for Aim 1 are:1) change in BP over 12 months, and 2) change in patient-reported outcomes over six months, including treatment side effects, experiences with hypertension care, self-monitoring rates, and confidence in self-care. Secondary outcomes include other heart- and stroke-related risk factors and safety. Patients contributed extensively to the selection of the outcomes. Outcomes are collected over 24 months without reliance on research visits: patient-reported outcomes are measured by surveys and BP and other clinical outcomes are measured using routinely collected data documented in the EHR. We also use EHR data supplemented by qualitative data to assess how the two care models are carried out in practice. The results of this comparative effectiveness trial will assess pragmatic methods for implementing hypertension guideline recommendations.

Objective: To determine how frequently patients with advanced imaging for back or abdominal pain achieve outcomes that are identified by patients as important and whether those achieving those outcomes are more satisfied. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of survey responses from patients of an 800-physician multi-specialty group in Minnesota in 2013. A total of 201 patients with abdominal pain and 167 patients with back pain 1 year earlier that was serious enough for a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan (67% of those contacted). The main outcomes were the frequency of occurrence of 19 outcomes previously identified by patients as important, plus satisfaction with the results of care. Results: The majority of patients surveyed had achieved most of the desired outcomes. For abdominal pain, 17 of 19 of the desired outcomes were achieved by >50% of patients, while 11 of 19 desired outcomes were achieved by >50% of patients with back pain. Seven of the desired outcomes were significantly associated with satisfaction. Conclusion: Achieving outcomes important to patients is associated with greater patient satisfaction. Such measures are potentially valuable measures of quality.