The Beacon Community Program is part of a larger federal strategy to use health information
technology (IT) as an enabling foundation for improving the nation’s health care system
(1). It was funded by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical
Health Act under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which also provided significant
funding to drive adoption and “meaningful use” of electronic health records (EHRs)
(2,3).
Beacon Communities were encouraged to draw not only from health IT innovations, but
also from other spheres, including quality improvement, payment reform, and consumer
engagement (4,5). Thus, the focus in the Cincinnati, Ohio, Beacon Community was not
only on technology, but also on the implementation of innovative strategies to transform
care and improve outcomes. The Cincinnati program used the infrastructure of the Patient-Centered
Medical Home (PCMH) model as a guide to realize the benefits of meaningful use (2,6),
improve clinical outcomes, and redesign practice interactions and workflows (7).
Similar to other Beacon Communities, Cincinnati targeted type 2 diabetes for its improvement
efforts (8). Specific aims included increasing the proportion of people with diabetes
in compliance with the “D5,” a National Quality Forum–endorsed composite measure indicative
of diabetes control. The composite goals include an A1C <8%, blood pressure <140/90
mmHg, LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dL, 1 aspirin per day as appropriate, and self-reported
nonsmoking status. Adherence requires all five goals to be met (9,10). Although project
faculty enlisted basic improvement science methods that could be expanded to support
work on any disease or condition, in this case, the interventions were tailored specifically
to diabetes. Additionally, the project enlisted the PCMH framework as a marker of
successful clinical and operational redesign and set a goal of 100% of practices recognized
at a rating of Level 2 or above by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).
NCQA is one of several accrediting organizations using a standard application for
PCMH recognition; it was chosen based on previous experience and payer support in
the Cincinnati area.
Transformational Framework
Technical Support
As previously noted, the Beacon program was intended to be a technology-enhanced improvement
project. It is important to recognize that the use of a health IT system is foundational
for practice transformation because it enables measurement and monitoring of outcomes.
However, health IT on its own does not ensure that a practice team will effectively
use the available tools for clinical decision support (11).
At the inception of the Cincinnati Beacon project, local practices had adopted EHRs
from various vendors and were acquiring registries or data warehouses. There was notable
disparity in end-user aptitude and adoption and a need for additional learning before
true optimization could be claimed.
PCMH Recognition
The 2011 NQCA framework for PCMH is broken down into six standards covering the areas
of access, population health, care coordination, self-management, referrals and tracking,
and performance improvement. Each standard consists of a series of elements and factors
that define required documented processes, measureable outcomes, and training responsibilities
for which points are awarded (12). A recognition level is assigned based on total
points achieved on a 100-point scale. The thresholds for recognition include a set
of must-pass elements and a minimum of 35 points to achieve Level 1, 60 points to
achieve Level 2, and 85 points to achieve Level 3.
Learning and Diffusion
The overall framework used to structure the Cincinnati Beacon Community included forming
a learning collaborative for practices engaged in the transformation based on the
Breakthrough Series Collaborative from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (7).
Coaching and instruction focused on three areas: 1) using improvement science methodology
to improve the D5 diabetes measures (9), 2) meeting NCQA Level 2 PCMH standards (12),
and 3) assisting physicians and medical staff in redesigning their practices and maximizing
each team member’s full scope of practice.
Methods
Research Design
A qualitative design was employed in which two researchers used purposive sampling
to conduct in-person individual and group interviews with key Beacon Community stakeholders
(13). Those interviewed were asked to participate voluntarily and were not provided
any compensation or incentive. This research was approved by the Western Institutional
Review Board and the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center institutional review
board.
Sample
A total of 15 interviews with 20 participants were conducted with administrators and
providers in selected health care practices in the area’s major health systems and
community health centers. Participants included representatives from one Federally
Qualified Health Center (FQHC) and all five health systems (primary care practices
and hospitals), as well as three Beacon project leaders, each from HealthBridge and
the Health Collaborative (Table 1). HealthBridge, a local health information exchange
that received the Beacon Community award, is responsible for implementation efforts,
including the facilitation of EHR adoption and achievement of meaningful use among
providers. The Health Collaborative, a regional health improvement collaborative,
is responsible for practice transformation, implementation of the PCMH model, and
improvement in its diabetes-related measures.
TABLE 1.
Participants Interviewed for Evaluation
Group Interviewed
Number of Interviews
Number of Participants
Beacon project leadership
4
6
Health systems (Mercy, Tri-Health, University of Cincinnati, St. Elizabeth’s, the
Christ Hospital)
10
13 (6 hospital administrators and 7 providers)
Federally qualified health centers/freestanding clinics
1
1 (provider)
Data Collection
Two semi-structured interview guides were devised: one for Beacon project leaders
and one for health care providers. The interview guides were field-tested for flow
and clarity of questions and adjusted before use. Interview questions related to the
overall vision of the Beacon program and diabetes initiative, issues and challenges,
successes, impact on patients and staff, and spread of the initiative to other practices.
Interviews lasted between 45 and 75 minutes each and were audio-recorded and transcribed
verbatim.
Data Analysis
All interviews were conducted before coding. A qualitative analytic software program,
NVivo 9 (QSR International, Burlington, Mass.), was used to code and analyze the data.
Interviews were separately coded by two researchers using both an a priori and an
emerging codebook. An interrater reliability (kappa) measure of 0.85 was achieved,
indicating high reliability. Common themes in both sets of interviews emerged and
were summarized and analyzed.
Results
Development of a Diabetes Risk-Stratification Tool
One crucial approach to practice transformation was the creation of interdisciplinary,
interactive, and easy-to-use tools to help practices test interventions toward improvement
in the D5 measure and to meet the requirements set forth in the standards of the NCQA
PCMH and meaningful use frameworks. Specifically, the tools were intended to help
practices use population health interventions to risk-stratify diabetes patients,
engage patients in goal-setting and self-management, educate patients on the effects
of risk on their overall health, and provide historical records of both clinical and
process interventions toward overall improvement in the D5. All of these concepts
are crucial to effectively managing chronic illness, as well as necessary to satisfy
the requirements of the NCQA PCMH application. Consistent with the Chronic Care Model
(14,15), NCQA requires practices to use clinical decision support to risk-stratify
patients by certain diseases or outcomes (NCQA Standard 3), support self-management
(Standard 4), and employ the tenets of improvement science in tracking, testing, and
analyzing changes over time (Standard 6).
Although the intention of the Beacon program and the NCQA PCMH application is largely
to maximize the ability to mine EHR data for stratifying, EHRs are still disparate
in their functional ability to perform these tasks. For this reason, efforts to coach
and train practice teams on the workflows and benefits of risk-stratifying data proved
to be challenging. At the time of the project, there were no systems or practices
in the community that could readily access an electronic clinical decision support
tool to risk-stratify for diabetes.
Working with faculty from Improving Performance in Practice, a national quality improvement
consulting firm, the improvement coaching team evaluated an electronic algorithm that
was built into the Legacy EHR system used by the University of North Carolina (UNC).
The tool was used to stratify diabetes patients into high, medium, and low risk based
on American Diabetes Association Diabetes Risk Test scoring (16). Acknowledging the
technical challenges, the team created a paper algorithm called the Diabetes Risk
Stratification Assessment, which mimicked the decision tree from the UNC tool (Figure
1).
FIGURE 1.
Diabetes risk stratification assessment tool.
This comprehensive tool was provided to all Beacon participants with coaching instructions
on how to test the tool in practice to improve interactions with patients and patient
outcomes. Although the tool was not yet available as an EHR function, efforts to utilize
it properly also encouraged the use of the EHR as a clinical decision support tool.
This included pre-visit planning, using scheduling and patient record functions to
flag patients in the various risk areas, creating standardized documentation workflows
in codified fields to capture treatment and self-management data that could be referenced
in future visits, and introducing the use of patient portal outreach to provide more
interaction opportunities with the at-risk population. Practice teams were coached
on how to use the stratifying tool as a way to talk with patients about their individual
risk. The intention was to engage patients and encourage a deeper understanding of
the patient’s own health status, as well as to help guide providers on considerations
regarding adjusting treatment goals, encouraging self-management goals, and introducing
community or educational resources to help guide patients’ journey toward better health
management.
Evolution and Adaption of the Risk Stratification Tool
The risk stratification assessment tool was tested using Plan-Do-Study-Act methods,
a quality improvement approach that enlists small tests of change. Several practices
made suggestions to improve its functionality.
Example 1: A1C Risk Assessment Tool
A three-provider practice affiliated with an academic health system expressed consistent
concerns about time constraints. The practice requested that an abridged version of
the tool be created to offset some provider resistance, accommodate completion as
patients were shown to exam rooms, and focus solely on A1C risk. An A1C Risk Stratification
Assessment tool was created to meet that request (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2.
A1C risk stratification assessment tool.
Example 2: Patient-Facing Risk Assessment Tool
A large health system with several participating practices opted to use the tool to
further patient engagement and requested a revised version that employed patient-friendly
wording to allow the risk category to be shared with patients during the visit without
causing them confusion or undue stress. This system later created an addendum to the
tool that relayed patient-driven self-management goal suggestions based on risk category.
After the Beacon project, the system adopted the tool more globally, which led to
the creation of matching “dot phrases,” or shortcuts, within the Epic EHR system,
through which patients could identify and confirm their personal self-management goals.
Once a goal was chosen, a member of the medical assistant staff would match the choice
to standardized EHR documentation, and the provider and medical assistant team would
interact with the patient to encourage achievement of the goal after the clinic visit.
An even more enhanced version of the tool was created by this health system to add
a complementary glucose scale to the document. The scale was intended to show the
patient the relationship between A1C values and daily blood glucose levels. This was
built into the EHR to be used as part of the after-visit summary to give patients
a resource to help manage their blood glucose effectively between visits (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3.
Patient-facing risk stratification assessment tool.
Example 3: EHR Chronic Care Management Tab with Risk Stratification
An FQHC that shares a centralized technical platform with a group of other FQHCs in
the area recognized an opportunity to collect the relevant data on a care management
tab and automatically calculate a composite score. A practice representative worked
directly with the EHR IT vendor to have the risk tool hardwired into the NextGen EHR.
The tab and corresponding composite score are now available for use by all those on
the centralized platform (Figure 4).
FIGURE 4.
EHR chronic care management tab with risk stratification.
All three of these examples illustrate a commitment to the core competency of risk
stratification, with varying degrees of technical support. Our experience throughout
the Beacon project was fraught with similar examples of varying adoption and evolution,
which forced us to enlist a flexible approach to implementation and use, with a heavy
emphasis on crucial concepts. Using methodological approaches developed in the Breakthrough
Series Collaborative framework (7), participants were encouraged to share their experiences
with the tools and best practices that had been developed. Important provider, patient,
and staff lessons were gathered and summarized during in-person learning sessions,
on monthly calls, and during in-practice coaching. This process contributed to the
documentation required to show that efforts were made to provide patient-centered
care, as defined in the NCQA requirements.
Recognition Outcome
All participating Beacon practices received NCQA PCMH Level 3 recognition, the highest
level of distinction. The focus of this article, the diabetes risk stratification
tool, is just one of many resources provided to help teams not only meet NCQA requirements,
but also promote meaningful and sustainable practice transformation. Teams that participated
in the development and use of the risk stratification assessment tool could effectively
account for NCQA application required elements 1G5, 1G6, 1G8, 2D2, 3A1, 3A2, 3B1,
3C1, 3C2, 3C4, 3C6, 4A3, 4A5, 4A6, 4B4, 6A2, 6C1, 6C3, and 6D1 (17).
Participant Reactions and Common Themes
Worthwhile Change
Surveyed providers across all groups indicated that they emphatically believe that
the effort to transform practices, although extensive and time consuming, was definitely
“worth it.” Most respondents, especially those in practices that had already attained
PCMH Level 3, not only believed that care had been transformed, but also were confident
that they could sustain the practice changes. Respondents noted that their whole practice
was involved in the changes and that, as a result, the whole practice was invested
in sustaining the changes. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, respondents
believed strongly that their practices functioned better and that care was markedly
improved. They wanted to sustain these positive results and reported having had an
“ah-ha” moment when they transitioned from “checking the boxes” to show that they
had fulfilled requirements for various elements of the PCMH application to actually
transforming care.
Impact on Patients and Staff
Providers reported that care transformation meant, among other things, that they were
able to go beyond care for individual patients and were now concerned about being
able to manage care at a population level. According to respondents, it also meant
that practices redesigned the care they provided to ensure that all staff could take
on as many and as advanced a set of duties as their licenses permitted. One hospital
administrator said, “It’s really about how we engage the patient better, give them
the right care at the right time, at the right place, as well as having all the members
of my team working to the highest level of certification. If I do that, then I’m going
to have happier physicians . . . and keep other folks engaged longer.” A provider
said, “I believe some of our [medical assistants] at times were frustrated by their
role of calling patients back . . . and getting in and out of a room as fast as you
can. Now, it’s going in there, talking about medications, asking questions, verifying
their med list, going through their goals . . . before the doctor gets in. It makes
my job easier. It makes my visit more useful.”
Spread to Other Practices
Some of the large health systems indicated a strong desire to spread the PCMH framework
and accompanying tools from the Beacon project sites to others within their organizations.
One system in particular was recently approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services to participate in the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) program and believed,
based on its pilot study, that practice-level work to attain PCMH status across the
ACO would allow for the improved care and generate the savings needed for the ACO
program. As one administrator said, “PCMH pertains specifically to the practice, whereas
ACO pertains to the larger delivery system. I think many PCMH’s foundational elements
used in transforming a practice apply to ACOs, which reaches a broader range of physicians
and providers.”
Value Proposition
Administrators and providers indicated that they believed perceived value is one of
the most important determinants of success and spread; providers have to think an
effort is an important innovation, improves quality, and does so substantially enough
to be worth the effort. Based on the qualitative feedback summarized above, we were
able to identify several interventions that may have contributed to the positive reactions
received from participants and to describe one representative example in detail.
Discussion
The current system of health care delivery is in need of transformation to improve
the quality and lower the cost of care provided. This article examined processes for
care transformation in selected practices in one Beacon Community. As part of this
effort, resources and a process for implementing the transformation were developed
and carefully documented. Tools were developed to help practices produce the documentation
required to meet PCMH standards using interventions targeted to improve type 2 diabetes
care. The success of practices in realizing improvement in diabetes outcomes, through
the use of clinical decision support tools as a fundamental element of the PCMH model,
was at the heart of this transformation.
Respondents in this study reported that the effort was “worth it,” while also acknowledging
the significant time required to test new ideas and tools. Successfully spreading
the transformation to other practices, as is the goal for health systems in Cincinnati,
will depend in part on a structured, well-documented set of resources and protocols
that can be deployed in a standardized way across practices. A strategy will also
be needed to introduce transformative processes that might improve outcomes, even
in settings in which EHRs and other technological supports are not available or not
yet amenable to incorporating the necessary changes.
There is a growing body of literature on the importance of having a structured, consistent
approach to implementing innovations (18,19). Research reports and published descriptions
of resources and protocols developed to promote ambulatory care improvement and to
introduce the concepts of clinical decision support are relatively new. Thus, one
contribution of this article is the description it provides of components of the care
transformation process in conjunction with a defined improvement effort, which can
then be used to transform other practices in other settings. It should be noted, however,
that, although structured protocols and resources are necessary to ensure consistency
of implementation, the process of care transformation will still be a time-consuming
one for new practices. As implementation of PCMH standards and care transformation
efforts roll out, this will be important to monitor so that communities know not only
what they might expect in terms of quality and utilization improvements (11,20,21),
but also what level of effort will be required to realize such a transformation.
Despite widespread hopes that improvements in technology would be the main drivers
of the care transformation effort, this has not always happened, and certainly was
not the case during the Beacon project. EHRs alone did not readily provide necessary
practice workflows and were not useful for comprehensive management of the diabetes
populations included in the project. Regardless of these technology challenges, teams
were offered practical solutions that reinforced the concepts of clinical decision
support and contributed to improvement in diabetes care.
The future of community-level care transformation through interventions such as the
one described here rests on participants’ ability to sustain the transformation within
their practices and to encourage its spread. The positive changes brought about by
the transformation efforts described here are a starting point; to fully maintain,
sustain, and spread the transformation, stronger technology supports will be needed,
as well as payment reform that rewards improved outcomes (11,20,21). It is important
to recognize that many of the key concepts of practice transformation require targeted
tools to ensure that health care staff can assimilate the knowledge and apply the
concepts in practice. Cincinnati practices and health systems are beginning to introduce
various payment reform strategies. These, together with the meaningful use, PCMH,
and care transformation processes that began as part of the Beacon Community project,
may be the key ingredients to ensure broader and more sustainable improvements in
patient care and outcomes.