2 Center for Healthcare Studies 3 Center for Health Information Partnerships 4 Emergency Medicine 5 Preventive Medicine 6 Institute for Public Health and Medicine Background 117 million people in the US suffered from a chronic disease in 2012 ID: 584116
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "1 Center for Education in Health Science..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
1Center for Education in Health Sciences, 2Center for Healthcare Studies, 3Center for Health Information Partnerships, 4Emergency Medicine, 5Preventive Medicine, 6Institute for Public Health and Medicine
Background
117 million people in the US suffered from a chronic disease in 2012 Practice facilitation adopted to address the Chronic Care Model and improve chronic disease outcomes.Practice facilitators have prior clinical experiences and are involved with the practice on a long term basis.Practice facilitation involves individuals or a team working with a primary care practice to implement process changes in administrative and clinical areas.They evaluate practice performance, collect data on chronic disease outcome measures, formulate internal quality improvement, and improve process flows.
Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Practice Facilitation in Primary Care Settings to Improve Chronic Disease OutcomesAndrew Wang1,2,3,4, Megan Colleen McHugh1,2,4,6, Neil Jordan1,2,5,6, Abel N Kho3,4,5,6
Objectives
Methods: Education, process changes - checklists, flowsheets, electronic medical records, national guidelines, and Chronic Care Model.
Cancer Prevention: Screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal increased.
Cardiovascular Prevention and Treatment: Screening for blood pressure, cholesterol, height, weight, diets, smoking, and nutrition increased while adherence to cardiovascular care decreased; control of hypertension, cholesterol, and prescriptions for cardiovascular management improved.
Diabetes Prevention and Treatment: Screening for diet, HbA1c, blood pressure, cholesterol, and foot/eye exams increased; control of Hba1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol improved.
Asthma Treatment: Adoption of asthma action plans, adherence to medications, and asthma severity improved.
Chronic Kidney Disease Treatment: Measurement of chronic kidney disease, anemia diagnosis, GFR mean, and aspirin use increased; blood pressure, cholesterol, and HbA1c outcomes improved. Chronic Illness Treatment: Patient-reported outcomes decreased.
Results
Practice facilitation led to effective improvement of prevention outcomes of cancer; treatment outcomes of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.
Practice facilitation led to ineffective improvement of prevention outcomes of cardiovascular disease and diabetes; treatment outcomes of chronic kidney disease and chronic illness outcomes.Limitations: Self-awareness, financial incentive, sample sizes, demographics differences, varying time commitments, exclusion of a meta-analysis.
Discussion
Figure 3.
Risk
of Bias Assessment
Figure I. Conceptual Framework –
Donabedian Model
Data
Sources
Study designs: Cohort and prospective studies, randomized controlled trials, and retrospective studies.Databases: Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science
Examine practice facilitation in the primary care setting and chronic diseases outcomes addressed.Evaluate the effect of practice facilitation on chronic disease outcomes and study qualities.
Methods
Systematic review with a framework from PRISMA and the National Academy’s Standard for Systematic Reviews.
Studies from North America (US and Canada), in the English language during1964 to 2016.Key Words: Improvement, practice coach, enhancement assistant, practice facilitator.Quality Assessment Tools: Cochrane’s Handbook for Systematic Reviews and GRADE Tool
Acknowledgements: This project was supported in part while the primary author was a National Research Service Award pre-doctoral fellow at the Center for Education in Health Sciences under an institutional award from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, T-32 HS 000078 T32HS000084 (PI: Jane L
Holl
, MD, MPH). Assistance provided by Northwestern Librarians Corinne Miller and
Jonna Peterson.
Figure
2. Flow Diagram of Search
Quality assessment
Quality
№ of studies
Study design
Risk of bias
InconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionOther considerationsCancer - Prevention: RCT 9 randomized trials serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE Cancer - Prevention 1 observational studies very serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW Cardiovascular Disease - Prevention: RCT 7 randomized trials very serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁◯◯LOW Cardiovascular Disease Prevention 1 observational studies serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW Diabetes - Prevention: RCT 4 randomized trials very serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁◯◯LOW Diabetes – Prevention 1 observational studies very serious not serious not serious not serious Confounding -spurious effect, no effect⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW Asthma - Treatment: RCT 1 randomized trials serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁⨁◯MODERATE Asthma - Treatment 3 observational studies very serious not serious not serious not serious Confounding -spurious effect, no effect⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW Cardiovascular Disease - Treatment: RCT 3 randomized trials not serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁⨁⨁HIGH Cardiovascular Disease - Treatment 3 observational studies very serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW Chronic Kidney Disease - Treatment 2 observational studies serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW Diabetes - Treatment: RCT 2 randomized trials serious not serious not serious not serious none ⨁⨁⨁◯MODERATE Diabetes - Treatment 5 observational studies very serious not serious not serious not serious Confounding -spurious effect, no effect⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW Chronic Illness 1 randomized trials very serious not serious not serious not serious publication bias strongly suspected ⨁◯◯◯VERY LOW
Ward, B.W., Schiller, J.S., & Goodman, R.A. (2014). Multiple chronic conditions among US adults: a 2012 update. Preventing Chronic Disease, 11, 130389.
Wagner, E.H. (1998). Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Effective Clinical Practice, 1(1):2-4. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2013). Practice Facilitation Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/prevention-chronic-care/improve/system/pfhandbook/index.html.Donabedian, A. (1982). The Criteria and Standards of Quality. Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press.
References
Table 2. Quality Assessment of Studies