Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon: a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges

Rachel Gold, Arwen Bunce, Stuart Cowburn, James V. Davis, Celine Hollombe, Christine A. Nelson, Jon Puro, John Muench, Christian Hill, Victoria Jaworski, Mary Beth Mercer, Colleen Howard, Nancy Perrin, Jennifer Devoe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. Methods: We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. Results: Recommended prescribing occurred at 13-16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. Conclusions: Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. Clinical trials registration: This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number253
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 5 2017

Fingerprint

Community Health Centers
Guidelines
Point-of-Care Systems
Quality of Health Care
Kidney Diseases
Ambulatory Care
Quality Improvement
Prescriptions
Primary Health Care
Logistic Models
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Clinical Trials
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Diabetes
  • Electronic health records
  • Health services research
  • Implementation research
  • Physician decision support
  • Qualitative research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon : a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges. / Gold, Rachel; Bunce, Arwen; Cowburn, Stuart; Davis, James V.; Hollombe, Celine; Nelson, Christine A.; Puro, Jon; Muench, John; Hill, Christian; Jaworski, Victoria; Mercer, Mary Beth; Howard, Colleen; Perrin, Nancy; Devoe, Jennifer.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, 253, 05.04.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gold, R, Bunce, A, Cowburn, S, Davis, JV, Hollombe, C, Nelson, CA, Puro, J, Muench, J, Hill, C, Jaworski, V, Mercer, MB, Howard, C, Perrin, N & Devoe, J 2017, 'Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon: a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges', BMC Health Services Research, vol. 17, no. 1, 253. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2194-3
Gold, Rachel ; Bunce, Arwen ; Cowburn, Stuart ; Davis, James V. ; Hollombe, Celine ; Nelson, Christine A. ; Puro, Jon ; Muench, John ; Hill, Christian ; Jaworski, Victoria ; Mercer, Mary Beth ; Howard, Colleen ; Perrin, Nancy ; Devoe, Jennifer. / Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon : a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges. In: BMC Health Services Research. 2017 ; Vol. 17, No. 1.
@article{16bc9f470bfd45f4a582e7a975b5182d,
title = "Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon: a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges",
abstract = "Background: Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. Methods: We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. Results: Recommended prescribing occurred at 13-16{\%} of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. Conclusions: Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. Clinical trials registration: This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.",
keywords = "Diabetes, Electronic health records, Health services research, Implementation research, Physician decision support, Qualitative research",
author = "Rachel Gold and Arwen Bunce and Stuart Cowburn and Davis, {James V.} and Celine Hollombe and Nelson, {Christine A.} and Jon Puro and John Muench and Christian Hill and Victoria Jaworski and Mercer, {Mary Beth} and Colleen Howard and Nancy Perrin and Jennifer Devoe",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1186/s12913-017-2194-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon

T2 - a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges

AU - Gold, Rachel

AU - Bunce, Arwen

AU - Cowburn, Stuart

AU - Davis, James V.

AU - Hollombe, Celine

AU - Nelson, Christine A.

AU - Puro, Jon

AU - Muench, John

AU - Hill, Christian

AU - Jaworski, Victoria

AU - Mercer, Mary Beth

AU - Howard, Colleen

AU - Perrin, Nancy

AU - Devoe, Jennifer

PY - 2017/4/5

Y1 - 2017/4/5

N2 - Background: Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. Methods: We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. Results: Recommended prescribing occurred at 13-16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. Conclusions: Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. Clinical trials registration: This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.

AB - Background: Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. Methods: We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. Results: Recommended prescribing occurred at 13-16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. Conclusions: Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. Clinical trials registration: This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.

KW - Diabetes

KW - Electronic health records

KW - Health services research

KW - Implementation research

KW - Physician decision support

KW - Qualitative research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017103425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017103425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-017-2194-3

DO - 10.1186/s12913-017-2194-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 28381249

AN - SCOPUS:85017103425

VL - 17

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 253

ER -