Advancing heart health in North Carolina primary care: the Heart Health NOW study protocol

Bryan J Weiner, Michael P Pignone, C Annette DuBard, Ann Lefebvre, Janet L Suttie, Janet K Freburger, Samuel Cykert, Bryan J Weiner, Michael P Pignone, C Annette DuBard, Ann Lefebvre, Janet L Suttie, Janet K Freburger, Samuel Cykert

Abstract

Background: The objective of Heart Health NOW (HHN) is to determine if primary care practice support-a comprehensive evidence-based quality improvement strategy involving practice facilitation, academic detailing, technology support, and regional learning collaboratives-accelerates widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in small- to medium-sized primary care practices and, additionally, increases practices' capacity to incorporate other evidence-based clinical guidelines in the future.

Methods/design: HHN is a stepped wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice support on evidence-based CVD prevention, organizational change process measures, and patient outcomes. Each practice will start the trial as a control, receive the intervention at a randomized time point, and then enter a maintenance period 12 months after the start of the intervention. The intervention will be randomized to practices in one of four strata defined by region of the state (east or west) and degree of practice readiness for change. Seventy-five practices in each region with a high degree of readiness will be randomized 1:1:1 in blocks of 3 sometime prior to month 8 to receive the intervention at month 9, 11, or 12. An additional 75 practices within each region that have a low degree of readiness or are recruited later will be randomized 1:1 in blocks of 2 prior to month 13 to receive the intervention at month 14 or 16. The sites will be ordered within each strata based on time of enrollment with the blocking based on this ordering. Evaluation will examine the effect of primary care practice support on (1) practice-level delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, (2) patient-level health outcomes, (3) practice-level implementation of clinical and organizational changes that support delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, and (4) practice-level capacity to implement future evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Discussion: Results will indicate whether primary care practice support is an effective strategy for widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines in primary care practices. Discernible reductions in cardiovascular risk in 300 practices covering over an estimated 900,000 adult patients would likely lead to prevention of thousands of cardiovascular events within 10 years.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585557.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework guiding the evaluation of Heart Health Now

References

    1. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, Butler J, Dracup K, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(8):933–44. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31820a55f5.
    1. Million Hearts: the initiative. . Accessed September 29 2015.
    1. North Carolina quick facts from the US Census Bureau. . Accessed June 20 2014.
    1. America’s health rankings: North Carolina cardiovascular deaths. 2012. . Accessed June 20 2014.
    1. Teal R, Bergmire DM, Johnston M, Weiner BJ. Implementing community-based provider participation in research: an empirical study. Implement Sci. 2012;7:41. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-41.
    1. Weiner BJ. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Sci. 2009;4:67. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-67.
    1. Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee SY. Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(4):379–436. doi: 10.1177/1077558708317802.
    1. Weiner BJ, Belden CM, Bergmire DM, Johnston M. The meaning and measurement of implementation climate. Implement Sci. 2011;6:78. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-78.
    1. Weiner BJ, Lewis MA, Linnan LA. Using organization theory to understand the determinants of effective implementation of worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Res. 2009;24(2):292–305. doi: 10.1093/her/cyn019.
    1. Solberg LI, Asche SE, Margolis KL, Whitebird RR. Measuring an organization's ability to manage change: the change process capability questionnaire and its use for improving depression care. Am J Med Qual. 2008;23(3):193–200. doi: 10.1177/1062860608314942.
    1. Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Stewart EE, Miller WL, Palmer RF, Stange KC, et al. Effect of facilitation on practice outcomes in the National Demonstration Project model of the patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(Suppl 1):S33–44. doi: 10.1370/afm.1119.
    1. Jaen CR, Ferrer RL, Miller WL, Palmer RF, Wood R, Davila M, et al. Patient outcomes at 26 months in the patient-centered medical home National Demonstration Project. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(Suppl 1):S57–67. doi: 10.1370/afm.1121.
    1. Shea CM, Jacobs SR, Esserman DA, Bruce K, Weiner BJ. Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implement Sci. 2014;9:7. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-7.
    1. Klein KJ, Sorra JS. The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manage Rev. 1996;21(4):1055–80.
    1. Halladay JR, DeWalt DA, Wise A, Qaqish B, Reiter K, Lee SY, et al. More extensive implementation of the chronic care model is associated with better lipid control in diabetes. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27(1):34–41. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.01.130070.
    1. Klein KJ, Sorra JS. The challenge of implementation. Acad Manag Rev. 1996;21(4):1055–80.
    1. Jacobs SR, Weiner BJ, Bunger AC. Context matters: measuring implementation climate among individuals and groups. Implement Sci. 2014;9:46. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-46.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Development of the Clinician & Group Surveys. . Accessed June 2 2014.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patient Experience Measures from the CAHPS® Clinician & Group Surveys. Document No. 1309. 2012. . Accessed May 21 2014.
    1. Tomoaia-Cotisel A, Scammon DL, Waitzman NJ, Cronholm PF, Halladay JR, Driscoll DL, et al. Context matters: the experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(Suppl 1):S115–23. doi: 10.1370/afm.1549.
    1. Baskerville NB, Liddy C, Hogg W. Systematic review and meta-analysis of practice facilitation within primary care settings. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(1):63–74. doi: 10.1370/afm.1312.
    1. Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ. Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Acad Manag Rev. 1994;19(2):195–229.
    1. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ. From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(3):211–36. doi: 10.1177/109442810033001.
    1. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ. From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. 2000. pp. 211–36.
    1. LeBreton JM, James LR, Lindell MK. Recent issues regarding r(WG), r*(WG), r(WG)(J), and r*(WG)(J) Organ Res Methods. 2005;8(1):128–38. doi: 10.1177/1094428104272181.
    1. LeBreton JM, Senter JL. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ Res Methods. 2008;11(4):815–52. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642.
    1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) Measure Specifications Manual for Claims and Registry Reporting of Individual Measures. 2013. . Accessed May 21 2014.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa