Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach

View ORCID ProfileS.J. Hysong, View ORCID ProfileK. Arredondo, View ORCID ProfileA.M. Hughes, View ORCID ProfileH.F. Lester, View ORCID ProfileF.L. Oswald, View ORCID ProfileL.A. Petersen, View ORCID ProfileL. Woodard, View ORCID ProfileE. Post, S. DePeralta, D.R. Murphy, View ORCID ProfileJ. McKnight, View ORCID ProfileK. Nelson, View ORCID ProfileP. Haidet
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262970
S.J. Hysong
1Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for S.J. Hysong
  • For correspondence: sylvia.hysong@va.gov hysong@bcm.tmc.edu
K. Arredondo
1Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for K. Arredondo
A.M. Hughes
2University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for A.M. Hughes
H.F. Lester
1Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for H.F. Lester
F.L. Oswald
3Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for F.L. Oswald
L.A. Petersen
1Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for L.A. Petersen
L. Woodard
4University of Houston College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for L. Woodard
E. Post
5VA HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for E. Post
S. DePeralta
6Greater Los Angeles VA Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D.R. Murphy
1Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. McKnight
7Texas A&M Health Science Center, Bryan, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J. McKnight
K. Nelson
8VHA Primary Care Analytics Team, VA Puget Sound Healthcare System, Seattle, WA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for K. Nelson
P. Haidet
9Penn State Health West Campus Health and Wellness Center, Hershey, PA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for P. Haidet
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Executive Summary

Introduction Primary health care has a central role in the workings of the health care system and health of the American public. Thus, a high-performing, high-quality primary care system is essential. As a result, measurement frameworks are needed to assess the quality of the infrastructure, workforce configurations, and processes available in primary care practices due to the complexity of primary care. As part of a larger project supported by AHRQ (grant no. 1 R01 HS 025982), our research team reports the use of an evidence-based approach to compile a targeted set of existing care measures. These measures are prioritized according to their overall contribution and value to primary care. Within this paper, we describe the process by which the performance measures were selected and present the final set of measures resulting from the process.

Defining Primary care The study centers around general primary care settings, which have been defined as, “the provision of integrated, accessible health care services by clinicians who are accountable for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs, developing a sustained partnership with patients, and practicing in the context of family and community.” (1)

Using PROMES We adapted an evidence-based approach for measure development, The Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System, or ProMES, to select (modify, when appropriate) and rank existing primary care measures according to value to the primary care clinic. ProMES is a comprehensive performance measure development approach firmly grounded in motivational theory and performance measurement.(2, 3) Through a facilitated focus-group based process, these measures are defined, weighted, and prioritized to create indicators of both overall effectiveness and specific aspects of daily work. This alignment helps individuals and teams to focus their effort more clearly on the most important aspects of their work (i.e., clinical performance) resulting in greater productivity, reduced stress, and less waste of effort.(2, 3) We utilize the ProMES definition of productivity, which is how effectively an organization uses its resources to achieve its goals.

One unique feature of ProMES is the resulting measures include contingency curves, or non-linear functions that explicitly tie performance levels on a given measure to its contribution to the organization’s values; in this way, the application of ProMES yields a more nuanced approach to prioritizing work than simple linear weights, while allowing direct comparison(s) between measure(s).

Results The design team identified three fundamental objectives for delivery of high-quality primary care. The design team also selected sixteen performance indicators from the 44 pre-vetted measures that already exist in three different data sources for primary care. One indicator, Team 2 Day Post Discharge Contact Ratio, was selected as an indicator for both Objective 2 and 3. In addition, contingency curves were created for each of the indicators using the contingency functions developed by the design team.

  • Objective 1. Ensure patient has appropriate access to preventive, acute, or chronic health care services when needed.

    • – Indicators:

      • New Primary Care Patient Average Wait Time in Days

      • Established Primary Care Patient Average Wait Time in Days

      • Average 3rd Next Available Appointment in PC Clinics

      • Total Inbound PC Secure Messages to Total Outbound PC Secure Messages (Ratio)

      • Urgent Care Utilization Rate

  • Objective 2. Build a trusting, effective, sustained partnership between the health-care team, the patient, and his/her caregiver(s) towards shared goals.

    • – Indicators:

      • Patient’s Satisfaction Rating of Primary Care Provider

      • Team 2 Day Post Discharge Contact Ratio

      • Patient-Centered Medical Home Stress Discussed

  • Objective 3. Deliver safe and effective care that comprehensively addresses a given patient’s particular ecological, biological, and/or psychosocial needs.

    • – Indicators:

      • Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions (ACSC) Hospitalizations Rate Per 1000 Patients

      • Diabetes Patients with HbA1c Poor Control

      • Diabetes Electronic Composite Measure

      • Statin Medication for Patients with Cardiovascular Disease

      • Controlling High Blood Pressure

      • Renal Testing for Nephropathy

      • Effective Continuation Phase Treatment for depression

      • Hospital-wide all cause 30-day Readmission Rate

      • Team 2 Day Post Discharge Contact Ratio

Summary Performance measures selected as part of our modified-ProMES process assist in the implementation of targeted care quality measures prioritized in accordance to their value in primary care. By deriving high-value metrics, organized by care objective with numerically assigned prioritization, we anticipate the results of this paper will apply to a diverse set of stakeholders, including but not limited to policy-makers, primary care clinicians, and administrators in healthcare organizations. Our design team of nationally recognized SMEs joined together in a national panel that consists of diverse stakeholder groups to collectively identify three primary care team objectives, 16 indicators of primary care quality, and 13 indicators which require modification and further work to address gaps which exist in the primary care performance measurement domain. Measures selected as part of this study aim were constructed independent of clinic size or configuration, so that clinics of many configurations (e.g., public vs. private, large vs. small, rural vs urban, team-based vs. traditional) could benefit from their use.

Our measure set provides an actionable catalogue of measures that can serve as a first step toward interoperability of electronic health record systems. Future work toward this goal should address both logistical considerations (e.g., data capture, common data/programming language) and lingering measurement challenges, such as the best way to operationalize these measures for teams working in complex and shifting situations (e.g., rotating team members).

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Trial

Does not apply - not a clinical trial

Clinical Protocols

https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-019-0864-8

Funding Statement

The information reported in this document was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under award number R01HS025982. No other funding was used to support this work. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of their employers or of AHRQ.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • Funding Support: The information reported in this document was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under award number R01HS025982. No other funding was used to support this work. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the authors’ institutions or of AHRQ.

  • Corrected name of one of the authors from Arredondo Kelley J (incorrect) to Kelley Arredondo (correct). No other changes from original submission.

Data Availability

Data for this paper will be available upon written request to the corresponding author.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 19, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach
S.J. Hysong, K. Arredondo, A.M. Hughes, H.F. Lester, F.L. Oswald, L.A. Petersen, L. Woodard, E. Post, S. DePeralta, D.R. Murphy, J. McKnight, K. Nelson, P. Haidet
medRxiv 2021.09.13.21262970; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262970
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Essential Indicators of Quality in Primary Care Settings: An Evidence-Based, Structured, Expert Approach
S.J. Hysong, K. Arredondo, A.M. Hughes, H.F. Lester, F.L. Oswald, L.A. Petersen, L. Woodard, E. Post, S. DePeralta, D.R. Murphy, J. McKnight, K. Nelson, P. Haidet
medRxiv 2021.09.13.21262970; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.13.21262970

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (269)
  • Allergy and Immunology (549)
  • Anesthesia (134)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1747)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (238)
  • Dermatology (172)
  • Emergency Medicine (310)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (653)
  • Epidemiology (10780)
  • Forensic Medicine (8)
  • Gastroenterology (584)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2933)
  • Geriatric Medicine (286)
  • Health Economics (531)
  • Health Informatics (1918)
  • Health Policy (833)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (743)
  • Hematology (290)
  • HIV/AIDS (627)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12496)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (684)
  • Medical Education (299)
  • Medical Ethics (86)
  • Nephrology (321)
  • Neurology (2780)
  • Nursing (150)
  • Nutrition (431)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (554)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (597)
  • Oncology (1454)
  • Ophthalmology (440)
  • Orthopedics (172)
  • Otolaryngology (255)
  • Pain Medicine (190)
  • Palliative Medicine (56)
  • Pathology (379)
  • Pediatrics (865)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (362)
  • Primary Care Research (333)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2630)
  • Public and Global Health (5338)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1002)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (594)
  • Respiratory Medicine (722)
  • Rheumatology (329)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (288)
  • Sports Medicine (278)
  • Surgery (327)
  • Toxicology (47)
  • Transplantation (149)
  • Urology (125)