Using Complexity Theory to Build Interventions that Improve Health Care Delivery in Primary Care

Previous observational research confirms abundant variation in primary care practice. While variation is sometimes viewed as problematic, its presence may also be highly informative in uncovering ways to enhance health care delivery when it represents unique adaptations to the values and needs of people within the practice and interactions with the local community and health care system. We describe a theoretical perspective for use in developing interventions to improve care that acknowledges the uniqueness of primary care practices and encourages flexibility in the form of intervention implementation, while maintaining fidelity to its essential functions.     

Benchmarking quality of care using patient reported outcome measure data for patients presenting with musculoskeletal conditions in primary care GP practices

Background

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) evaluate health status from a patient perspective. They can be used to support care at a patient level but also collectively to review quality of care across care providers. Vast amounts of patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions present to General Practice (GP) primary care practitioners each year. Variation in patient outcomes in this setting however has not been reported.

Objective

To identify variation in patient outcomes measured using the musculoskeletal health questionnaire (MSK-HQ) PROM for adults presenting to 20 GP practices in the UK with MSK conditions.

Methods

A secondary analysis of the STarT MSK cluster randomised controlled trial dataset. A standardised case-mix adjustment model, adjusting for condition complexity co-variates, was used to calculate predicted 6-month follow-up MSK-HQ scores, and used to compare adjusted and un-adjusted health gain (n = 868). Patient MSK-HQ change outcomes were aggregated to practice level and boxplots used to display outlier GP practices for un-adjusted and adjusted outcomes.

Results

Substantial variation in patient outcomes was seen across the 20 practices, even after case-mix adjustment, with mean change in MSK-HQ scores ranging from 6 to 12 points. Boxplots displaying un-adjusted outcomes showed one negative GP practice outlier and two positive outliers. However, the boxplots displaying case-mix adjusted outcomes showed no negative outliers, with two practices remaining as positive outliers, and one practice additionally becoming a positive outlier.

Conclusion

This study showed a two-fold GP practice variation in patient outcomes measured using the MSK-HQ PROM. To our knowledge it is the first study to demonstrate that (a) a standardised case-mix adjustment method can be used to fairly compare patient health outcome variation in GP care, and (b) that case-mix adjustment changes benchmarking findings with regards to provider performance and outlier identification. This has important implications for identifying best practice exemplars and thereby helping to improve the quality of MSK primary care in the future.     

Variations in care of diabetes in primary care centres in Tunis

The aim of this study was to investigate the care of diabetes in primary care in the public sector in Greater Tunis and in particular, to assess variations in care across centres with the intention of seeking explanations for any differences identified. We undertook a retrospective medical review of patients with diabetes from four primary care health centres. Data were collected concerning patient characteristics, process of care criteria, outcome of care criteria, attendance rates, treatment and health centre characteristics. The total sample size was 235 patients. Outcome of care criteria were found to be similar across each of the centres. Process of care criteria were found to be significantly varied between the centres for all measurements used. Variations were also found in treatment and attendance rates across the health centres. In conclusion, there is a significant variation in the management of diabetes in primary care across centres within Greater Tunis, despite the use of standardised, national guidelines. A number of factors related to the centres may have given rise to these variations.     

Primary care: the next renaissance

Three decades ago, a renaissance helped create the foundations of primary care as we know it today. In recent years, however, new challenges have confronted primary care. We believe that the current challenges can be overcome and may, in fact, present an opportunity for a new renaissance of primary care to address the needs of our population. In this paper, we suggest seven core principles and a set of actions that will support a renaissance in, and a positive future for, primary care. The seven principles are 1) Health care must be organized to serve the needs of patients; 2) the goal of primary care systems should be the delivery of the highest-quality care as documented by measurable outcomes; 3) information and information systems are the backbone of the primary care process; 4) current health care systems must be reconstructed; 5) the health care financing system must support excellent primary care practice; 6) primary care education must be revitalized, with an emphasis on new delivery models and training in sites that deliver excellent primary care; and 7) the value of primary care practice must be continually improved, documented, and communicated. At the start of the 21st century, a vital, patient-centered primary care system has much to offer a rapidly changing population with increasingly diverse needs and expectations. If we keep the needs of persons and patients clearly in sight and design systems to meet those needs, primary care will thrive and our patients will be well served.     

Retainer medicine: an ethically legitimate form of practice that can improve primary care

Retainer medicine has become an important yet controversial form of primary care practice in the United States, coming under attack for its purported failure to measure up to professional ethics. Critics opine that retainer medicine obstructs professional commitments to health care access and social justice. Some ethicists urge that society should restrict or ban retainer medicine; professional organizations have yet to take a stand. The authors believe that retainer medicine is compatible with professional ethics and will more likely aid in solving the difficulties facing primary care rather than add to them. Although professional ethics should evolve to address new conditions, a condemnation of retainer medicine is warranted neither by traditional ethical precepts nor by contemporary developments in medical ethics. Any move to sanction retainer medicine under the banner of professionalism or professional ethics will be counterproductive. The primary care shortage will only get worse if physicians in retainer practice leave primary care altogether, a likely outcome of legal or professional condemnation of retainer practice.     

Primary care medicine in crisis: toward reconstruction and renewal

Primary care is in crisis. Despite its proud history and theoretical advantages, the field has failed to hold its own among medical specialties. While the rest of medicine promises technology and sophistication, the basic model of primary care has changed little over the past half-century. Why has the transition from general practice to today's primary care been so difficult? Many of the causes of this struggle may lie within primary care itself, ranging from failure to articulate to the public (and insurers and policymakers) what value it, and it alone, can offer, to taking on an ever-broadening set of roles and responsibilities while all too often falling short of its promises. Perhaps most important, in the emerging health care system, the lack of a discrete definition of primary care has allowed managed care organizations and payers, among others, to define the role of primary care to suit their own interests. In response to a changing marketplace, political uncertainty, and shifting consumer expectations, primary care will need to reconstruct itself. The reconstruction will not be easy. Nevertheless, a process should begin that moves the field in the right direction. Building on its unique abilities, primary care can emerge as a redefined product that is attractive to patients, payers, and primary care practitioners alike.     

Inequalities in health and health services delivery: a multilevel study of primary care and hypertension control

Delivery of health services is an important determinant of health. Restricted availability and access may result in health inequalities. To determine the extent of geographic variation in the delivery of health services and its effect on the health of community residents in terms of under-diagnosis and under-treatment of hypertension, we carried out a multilevel study of participants in the 1995 Nova Scotia Heart Health Survey (n = 3,094). We used individual level survey data and health status measurements linked to geographical level information to examine the importance of adequate delivery of health services to the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in the universal health care setting of the province of Nova Scotia. The delivery of primary care services across Nova Scotia varied moderately with physician visit rates ranging from 3.3 to 5.5 visits per resident per year. There were neither substantial nor statistically significant differences in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension among residents of communities varying in the delivery of health services. We concluded that a geographic variation in the delivery of primary care services is a public health concern that is not consistent with the objectives of universal coverage of health services; however, it was not confirmed to result in health inequalities.     

Managed care, access to mental health specialists, and outcomes among primary care patients with depressive symptoms

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether managed care is associated with reduced access to mental health specialists and worse outcomes among primary care patients with depressive symptoms. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Offices of 261 primary physicians in private practice in Seattle. PATIENTS: Patients (N = 17,187) were screened in waiting rooms, enrolling 1,336 adults with depressive symptoms. Patients (n = 942) completed follow-up surveys at 1, 3, and 6 months. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: For each patient, the intensity of managed care was measured by the managedness of the patient's health plan, plan benefit indexes, presence or absence of a mental health carve-out, intensity of managed care in the patient's primary care office, physician financial incentives, and whether the physician read or used depression guidelines. Access measures were referral and actually seeing a mental health specialist. Outcomes were the Symptom Checklist for Depression, restricted activity days, and patient rating of care from primary physician. Approximately 23% of patients were referred to mental health specialists, and 38% saw a mental health specialist with or without referral. Managed care generally was not associated with a reduced likelihood of referral or seeing a mental health specialist. Patients in more-managed plans were less likely to be referred to a psychiatrist. Among low-income patients, a physician financial withhold for referral was associated with fewer mental health referrals. A physician productivity bonus was associated with greater access to mental health specialists. Depressive symptom and restricted activity day outcomes in more-managed health plans and offices were similar to or better than less-managed settings. Patients in more-managed offices had lower ratings of care from their primary physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of managed care was generally not associated with access to mental health specialists. The small number of managed care strategies associated with reduced access were offset by other strategies associated with increased access. Consequently, no adverse health outcomes were detected, but lower patient ratings of care provided by their primary physicians were found.     

The essential role of generalists in health care systems

Viewing primary care as merely one of the many niches in individual patient care fosters a narrow perspective that neither accounts for the full value of primary care nor offers proper guidance for reforming it. Instead, a systems view better articulates primary care's essential role in increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of other health care services. Primary care improves health care system functioning through such services as managing and triaging undifferentiated symptoms, matching patient needs to health care resources, and enhancing the system's ability to adapt to new circumstances. By acting as an appropriate filter for high-technology care, primary care helps ensure that it is appropriately applied, a major determinant of outcomes. Furthermore, because primary care is the most financially and geographically accessible arm of the health care system, it reduces socioeconomic and geographic disparities across the population. Even in the de facto health system that exists in the United States, these functions are necessary for the efficient, equitable, and sustainable delivery of health care and the adaptability and resilience of the system as a whole. As primary care reforms proceed, it will be important to explicitly consider how to support and strengthen its system-level benefits. Needed reforms include enabling universal access to primary care and providing the leadership, training, and infrastructure support to improve its performance as a central hub in the network of patients, clinicians, and communities. It is important that health systems realize the essential integrative function of primary care.     

Guided care for multimorbid older adults

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of a new model of health care designed to improve the quality of life and the efficiency of resource use for older adults with multimorbidity. DESIGN AND METHODS: Guided Care enhances primary care by infusing the operative principles of seven chronic care innovations: disease management, self-management, case management, lifestyle modification, transitional care, caregiver education and support, and geriatric evaluation and management. To practice Guided Care, a registered nurse completes an educational program and uses a customized electronic health record in working with two to five primary care physicians to meet the health care needs of 50 to 60 older patients with multimorbidity. For each patient, the nurse performs a standardized comprehensive home assessment and then collaborates with the physician, the patient, and the caregiver to create two comprehensive, evidence-based management plans: a Care Guide for health care professionals, and an Action Plan for the patient and caregiver. Based in the primary care office, the nurse then regularly monitors the patient's chronic conditions, coaches the patient in self-management, coordinates the efforts of all involved health care professionals, smoothes the patient's transitions between sites of care, provides education and support for family caregivers, and facilitates access to community resources. RESULTS: A 1-year pilot test in a community-based primary care practice suggested that Guided Care is feasible and acceptable to physicians, patients, and caregivers. IMPLICATIONS: If successful in a controlled trial, Guided Care could improve the quality of life and efficiency of health care for older adults with multimorbidity.     

Managed care,physician job satisfaction,and the quality of primary care

OBJECTIVE: To determine the associations between managed care, physician job satisfaction, and the quality of primary care, and to determine whether physician job satisfaction is associated with health outcomes among primary care patients with pain and depressive symptoms. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Offices of 261 primary physicians in private practice in Seattle. PATIENTS: We screened 17,187 patients in waiting rooms, yielding a sample of 1,514 patients with pain only, 575 patients with depressive symptoms only, and 761 patients with pain and depressive symptoms; 2,004 patients completed a 6-month follow-up survey. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: For each patient, managed care was measured by the intensity of managed care controls in the patient's primary care office, physician financial incentives, and whether the physician read or used back pain and depression guidelines. Physician job satisfaction at baseline was measured through a 6-item scale. Quality of primary care at follow-up was measured by patient rating of care provided by the primary physician, patient trust and confidence in primary physician, quality-of-care index, and continuity of primary physician. Outcomes were pain interference and bothersomeness, Symptom Checklist for Depression, and restricted activity days. Pain and depression patients of physicians with greater job satisfaction had greater trust and confidence in their primary physicians. Pain patients of more satisfied physicians also were less likely to change physicians in the follow-up period. Depression patients of more satisfied physicians had higher ratings of the care provided by their physicians. These associations remained after controlling statistically for managed care. Physician job satisfaction was not associated with health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For primary care patients with pain or depressive symptoms, primary physician job satisfaction is associated with some measures of patient-rated quality of care but not health outcomes.     

Intention to discontinue care among primary care patients

BACKGROUND: Specific elements of health care process and physician behavior have been shown to influence disenrollment decisions in HMOs, but not in outpatient settings caring for patients with diverse types of insurance coverage. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether physician behavior and process of care affect patients' intention to return to their usual health care practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient survey and medical record review. SETTING: Eleven academically affiliated primary care medicine practices in the Boston area. PATIENTS: 2,782 patients with at least one visit in the preceding year. MEASUREMENT: Unwillingness to return to the usual health care practice. RESULTS: Of the 2,782 patients interviewed, 160 (5.8%) indicated they would not be willing to return. Two variables correlated significantly with unwillingness to return after adjustment for demographics, health status, health care utilization, satisfaction with physician's technical skill, site of care, and clustering of patients by provider: dissatisfaction with visit duration (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 7.4) and patient reports that the physician did not listen to what the patient had to say (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 2.5 to 30.7). In subgroup analysis, patients who were prescribed medications at their last visit but who did not receive an explanation of the purpose of the medication were more likely to be unwilling to return (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 13.3). CONCLUSION: Failure of physicians to acknowledge patient concerns, provide explanations of care, and spend sufficient time with patients may contribute to patients' decisions to discontinue care at their usual site of care.     

Coordinating care across diseases, settings, and clinicians: a key role for the generalist in practice

Coordinated care is a defining principle of primary care, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide as the health care delivery system in the United States becomes more complex. To guide recommendations for research and practice, the evidence about implementation of coordinated care and its benefits must be considered. On the basis of review of the published literature this article makes recommendations concerning needs for a better-developed evidence base to substantiate the value of care coordination, generalist practices to be the hub of care coordination for most patients, improved communication among clinicians, a team approach to achieve coordination, integration of patients and families as partners, and incorporation of medical informatics. Although coordination of care is central to generalist practice, it requires far more effort than physicians alone can deliver. To make policy recommendations, further work is needed to identify essential elements of care coordination and prove its effectiveness at improving health outcomes.     

Borderline personality disorder in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and chronic psychiatric disorder characterized by marked impulsivity, instability of affect and interpersonal relationships, and suicidal behavior that can complicate medical care. Few data are available on its prevalence or clinical presentation outside of specialty mental health care settings. METHODS: We examined data from a survey conducted on a systematic sample (N = 218) from an urban primary care practice to study the prevalence, clinical features, comorbidity, associated impairment, and rate of treatment of BPD. Psychiatric assessments were conducted by mental health professionals using structured clinical interviews. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence of BPD was 6.4% (14/218 patients). The BPD group had a high rate of current suicidal ideation (3 patients [21.4%]), bipolar disorder (3 [21.4%]), and major depressive (5 [35.7%]) and anxiety (8 [57.1%]) disorders. Half of the BPD patients reported not receiving mental health treatment in the past year and nearly as many (6 [42.9%]) were not recognized by their primary care physicians as having an ongoing emotional or mental health problem. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of BPD in primary care is high, about 4-fold higher than that found in general community studies. Despite availability of various pharmacological and psychological interventions that are helpful in treating symptoms of BPD, and despite the association of this disorder with suicidal ideation, comorbid psychiatric disorders, and functional impairment, BPD is largely unrecognized and untreated. These findings are also important for the primary care physician, because unrecognized BPD may underlie difficult patient-physician relationships and complicate medical treatment.     

Who recommends long-term care matters

PURPOSE: Making good consumer decisions requires having good information. This study compared long-term-care recommendations among various types of health professionals. DESIGN AND METHODS: We gave randomly varied scenarios to a convenience national sample of 211 professionals from varying disciplines and work locations. For each scenario, we asked the professional to recommend the appropriate forms of long-term care. RESULTS: Although the professional respondents used the full spectrum of options offered to them, some professionals tended to favor the sector they worked in. Advanced practice nurses recommended day care and homemaking more and adult foster care less. Gerontologists used skilled nursing-facility placement more actively and rehabilitation, homemaking, and home health care less actively. Geriatricians and primary care physicians both favored rehabilitation and skilled nursing-facility care and were both less enthusiastic about assisted living, homemaking, and informal care, but the geriatricians favored day care more than did the primary care physicians. Registered nurses were highly supportive of assisted living, adult foster care, homemaking, and home health care, and they opposed skilled nursing-facility care. Social workers were less likely than other participants to endorse rehabilitation and adult foster care. IMPLICATIONS: Because consumer preference should be a major factor in making long-term-care decisions, many consumers need information about what options may best fit their situation. In the absence of empirical data on which types of long-term care work best for whom, consumers have to rely on expert judgment-but that judgment varies. Clients should be aware that an expert's background (as defined by discipline and work situation) may affect his or her recommendations. Each discipline appears to have its own set of experiences and beliefs that may influence recommendations.     

Primary care physician office visits for depression by older Americans

BACKGROUND: Older patients mostly receive depression care from primary care physicians, but it is not known whether depression treatment is primarily received from family/general practice physicians or internal medicine physicians and whether the type of depression treatment offered varies between these types of primary care physicians. OBJECTIVE: To assess what proportion of visits for depression are to family/general practice physicians or to internal medicine physicians and whether the type of depression treatment offered varies by primary care physician specialty. DESIGN: Data from the 2000 and 2001 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, a nationally representative survey of visits to office-based practices using clustered sampling, were used. PARTICIPANTS: Office-based physician practices in the United States. RESULTS: There were an estimated 9.8 million visits made to office-based providers by older patients for depression in 2001 to 2002, of which 64% were to primary care physicians. Visits to primary care providers were evenly split between Internists and family/general practice physicians. There was no significant difference in the rate of antidepressant prescribing between visits to Internists versus family/general practice (55.9% vs 48.0%; P = .42). Mental health counseling or psychotherapy was offered more often during visits to family/general practice physicians than to Internists (39.4% vs 14.0%; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Visits for depression by elderly patients continue to take place in primary care settings to both family/general practice physicians and Internists. Interventions aimed at improving depression care in primary care should focus on both types of primary care physicians and emphasize improving rates of diagnosis and referral for counseling or psychotherapy as a viable treatment option.     

The generalist health care workforce

The generalist health care workforce in the United States is best characterized as those practitioners who deliver primary care services. These include most family physicians, general internists, general pediatricians, nurse practitioners, osteopathic family physicians, and physician assistants. Based on a variety of factors, including health care needs, managed care/HMO hiring practices, international comparisons, and health care costs, the case for increasing the amount and proportion of generalist providers is compelling. Projections strongly suggest a worsening shortfall of generalists if no change is made. Changing the career choices of medical students to promote generalism, even significantly, will take 20 years or more to have a meaningful impact. Therefore, retraining specialist physicians in oversupply to practice as generalists is an important option to consider. To best meet the nation’s health care needs, three issues need to be addressed in the context of health care reform: the creation of a “system” of generalist care that integrates into a coherent and collaborative framework the scopes of practice of the various generalist disciplines; the pursuit of a workable short-term model to convert specialist physicians into generalist physicians, led jointly by family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics; and a significant change in the medical education process to produce an ample supply of well-trained generalists.     

Luxury primary care,academic medical centers,and the erosion of science and professional ethics

Medical schools and teaching hospitals have been hit particularly hard by the financial crisis affecting health care in the United States. To compete financially, many academic medical centers have recruited wealthy foreign patients and established luxury primary care clinics. At these clinics, patients are offered tests supported by little evidence of their clinical and/or cost effectiveness, which erodes the scientific underpinnings of medical practice. Given widespread disparities in health, wealth, and access to care, as well as growing cynicism and dissatisfaction with medicine among trainees, the promotion by these institutions of an overt, two-tiered system of care, which exacerbates inequities and injustice, erodes professional ethics. Academic medical centers should divert their intellectual and financial resources away from luxury primary care and toward more equitable and just programs designed to promote individual, community, and global health. The public and its legislators should, in turn, provide adequate funds to enable this. Ways for academic medicine to facilitate this largesse are discussed.     

Systems for the management of respiratory disease in primary care - an international series: Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Australia has a complex health system with policy and funding responsibilities divided across federal and state/territory boundaries and service provision split between public and private providers. General practice is largely funded through the federal government. Other primary health care services are provided by state/territory public entities and private allied health practitioners. Indigenous health services are specifically funded by the federal government through a series of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations. NATIONAL POLICY AND MODELS: The dominant primary health care model is federally-funded private "small business" general practices. Medicare reimbursement items have incrementally changed over the last decade to include increasing support for chronic disease care with both generic and disease specific items as incentives. Asthma has received a large amount of national policy attention. Other respiratory diseases have not had similar policy emphasis. EPIDEMIOLOGY: Australia has a high prevalence of asthma. Respiratory-related encounters in general practice, including acute and chronic respiratory illness and influenza immunisations, account for 20.6% of general practice activity. Lung cancer is a rare disease in general practice. Tuberculosis is uncommon and most often found in people born outside of Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have higher rates of asthma, smoking and tuberculosis. ACCESS TO CARE: Access to care is positively influenced by substantial public funding underpinning both the private and public sectors through Medicare. Access to general practice care is negatively influenced by workforce shortages, the ongoing demands of acute care, and the incremental way in which system redesign is occurring in general practice. FACILITIES AVAILABLE: Most general practice operates from privately-owned rooms. The Australian Government requires general practice facilities to be accredited against certain standards in order for the practice to receive income from a number of government programs. These standards require GPs to have ready access to spirometry, but do not require every practice to have a spirometer. FUTURE: The initial assessment and management of acute respiratory illnesses currently seen in primary health care settings will continue, but for this to occur the sector may have to adapt traditional workforce roles because of workforce shortages. In the longer term, climate change and migration patterns may result in changes in the epidemiology of regions and populations. The health system will continue to reform incrementally in order to deliver improved chronic disease care, including care of people with asthma and COPD. The incoming Labor Government's National Primary Health Care Strategy provides the high level policy opportunity to drive reform. CONCLUSIONS: Australia's complex primary health care system is incrementally changing from one of exclusive acute- and episodic-care orientation in both the public and private sectors to a system that delivers effective anticipatory chronic disease care as well. From a national policy perspective, asthma has received most attention. COPD and possibly other respiratory diseases may now receive focus.     

Primary medical care in Seychelles.

This paper describes some of the current health problems faced by a tropical country whose standard of living and lifestyle is approaching that of many countries in Western Europe. Long-term health problems such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes have become at least as important as infectious diseases. A change in approach to a more proactive style of primary care is needed to allow the contribution of community doctors to be effective. The system of primary care in the Republic of Seychelles is based on the UK model of general practice where recent improvements in education and organization are raising standards. How some of these improvements might be transferred elsewhere is discussed.