Marshall Chin Regenstrief Qi Disparities Slides


Published on

Implementing Quality Improvement to Reduce Disparities: The Case of the Health Disparities Collaboratives

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Marshall Chin Regenstrief Qi Disparities Slides

  1. 1. Implementing Quality Improvement to Reduce Disparities: The Case of the Health Disparities Collaboratives Marshall H. Chin, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Medicine University of Chicago Director, RWJF Finding Answers: Disparities Research for Change National Program Office
  2. 2. Goals <ul><li>Describe Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC) </li></ul><ul><li>Review impact on quality of care </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze financial ramifications </li></ul><ul><li>Outline factors important for organizational change </li></ul><ul><li>List summary conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss future research recommendations </li></ul>
  3. 3. RWJF Finding Answers: Systematic Review of Interventions to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities <ul><li>Medical Care Research and Review 10/07 supplem </li></ul><ul><li>Intro, Cardiovascular, Depression, Diabetes, Breast cancer, Culture, Pay-for-Performance </li></ul><ul><li> Articles and Searchable database of 200 interv. </li></ul>
  4. 4. RWJF Finding Answers: Disparities Research for Change Lessons from Systematic Reviews <ul><li>Multifactorial interventions that target multiple levers of change </li></ul><ul><li>Culturally tailored quality improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Nurse-led interventions in context of wider systems change </li></ul>
  5. 5. Community Health Centers <ul><li>5000 sites </li></ul><ul><li>16 million patients </li></ul><ul><li>40% uninsured </li></ul><ul><li>64% minority population National Association of Community Health Centers, 2006 </li></ul>
  6. 6. Health Disparities Collaboratives: A Quality Improvement Collaborative <ul><li>National effort in > 1000 health centers beginning in 1998 3 Components </li></ul><ul><li>CQI: Rapid Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles </li></ul><ul><li>Chronic Care Model </li></ul><ul><li>Learning sessions </li></ul>
  7. 7. Plan-Do-Study-Act Cycles (PDSA) Associates in Learning / Institute for Healthcare Improvement
  8. 8. Informed, Activated Patient Productive Interactions Prepared, Proactive Practice Team Functional and Clinical Outcomes Delivery System Design Decision Support Clinical Information Systems Self- Management Support Health System Resources and Policies Community Health Care Organization MacColl Institute Chronic Care Model
  9. 9. Breakthrough Series <ul><li>Commitment of CEO </li></ul><ul><li>HDC QI team in each of health center </li></ul><ul><li>4 regional learning sessions </li></ul><ul><li>Cluster coordinator support </li></ul><ul><li>Monthly telephone conference calls </li></ul><ul><li>Monthly written progress reports </li></ul><ul><li>Computer listserver </li></ul>
  10. 10. Organizational Schema of Intervention <ul><li>Collaborative Team Center </li></ul>15-20 HCs / Trainers HDC QI Team Providers & Patients at HC
  11. 11. Methods <ul><li>Systematic review of literature </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on key studies in this presentation </li></ul>
  12. 12. Results: Participants’ Perceptions of Outcomes <ul><li>HDC is a success and worth effort > 80% </li></ul><ul><li>Improved patient outcomes 88% </li></ul><ul><li>Improved processes of care 83% </li></ul><ul><li>Improved patient satisfaction 71% </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative interviews Similar </li></ul><ul><li>Chin et al.; Chin et al. Diabetes Care 2004; 27:2-8. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Short-Term Clinical (1-2 years): Diabetes <ul><li>Random chart review </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-post improvement in 7 diabetes processes of care </li></ul><ul><li>No improvement in intermediary outcomes Chin et al. Diabetes Care. 2004. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Short-term Clinical: Asthma, Diabetes, Hypertension <ul><li>Pre-post controlled (1 yr pre and 1 yr post) </li></ul><ul><li>Improvements in processes of care for asthma and diabetes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Asthma – Rx anti-inflam med 14% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diabetes – HbA1c measurement 16% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No improvement in intermediary outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>Landon et al. NEJM 2007; 356:921-934. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Long-term Clinical (2-4 years): Processes of Care (%) Chin et al. Medical Care. In press. 41 37 22 Aspirin 50 42 33 ACE inhibitor 70 65 52 Lipid assessment 92 88 71 At least 1 A1c 2002 2000 1998 Process of Care
  16. 16. Long-term Clinical: Outcomes Chin et al. Medical Care. In press. 78 80 79 Diastolic BP (mm Hg) 133 135 133 Systolic BP (mm Hg) 108 116 127 LDL (mg/dl) 7.9 8.5 8.6 HbA1c (%) 2002 2000 1998 Outcome
  17. 17. Societal Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Diabetes <ul><li>Incorporate clinical results into a NIH simulation model of diabetes complications </li></ul><ul><li>Simulation model needed to translate changes in processes and risk factor levels into complications Huang et al. HSR 2007 (OnlineEarly Articles). </li></ul>
  18. 18. Base Case Results ICER = $33,386/QALY $101,770 10.93 24 20 15 15 Program 2: With HDC $90,085 Lifetime costs, mean 10.58 Quality-adjusted life years, mean 28 CHD,% 20 Amputation,% 18 ESRD,% 17 Blindness,% Program 1: Without HDC
  19. 19. Business Case: Case Study of 5 Health Centers with Diabetes <ul><li>Huang ES, et al. The cost consequences of improving diabetes care: the community health center experience. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. In press. </li></ul><ul><li>Brown SES, et al. Estimating the costs of quality improvement for outpatient health care organizations: a practical methodology. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2007; 16 (4): 248-251. </li></ul>
  20. 20. Local Economy External Environment Payor Mix Insurance reimbursement and incentives Internal Environ-ment Admini- strative <ul><li>Revenues </li></ul><ul><li>Grants </li></ul><ul><li>Donations </li></ul>- <ul><li>Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Daily QI activities </li></ul><ul><li>Personnel </li></ul><ul><li>Equipment </li></ul>= Administrative Balance Clinical Patient care revenues Patient care costs = - Clinical Care Balance Overall Overall center revenues Overall Center Costs = - Direct Overall Balance + + + = = = Indirect <ul><li>Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Improved clinical care </li></ul><ul><li>Morale </li></ul>- <ul><li>Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Focus of leadership on other priorities </li></ul>= Indirect Balance Patient Demographics and numbers Accreditation Bodies Conceptual Model of the Short-Term Financial Impact of Quality Improvement for Outpatient Facilities Direct
  21. 21. Business Case Study Results <ul><li>Additional admin cost = $6-$22 per patient (Year 1) </li></ul><ul><li>No regular source of revenue for these costs </li></ul><ul><li>Balance of diabetes clinical costs/revenues did not clearly improve </li></ul><ul><li>Diabetes Collaborative 2-8% of health center budget </li></ul><ul><li>QI programs represent a new cost </li></ul>
  22. 22. CEO Cost Survey <ul><li>Majority reported increased costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Costs per patient 72% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overall health center costs 73% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Majority reported no change in funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reimbursement for patient care 75% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding from government agencies 73% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding from private foundations 75% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Divided over overall effect </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Worsened finances 38% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No change 48% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved finances 14% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Huang et al. HSR 2007. </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Organizational Change and Implementation <ul><li>Common barriers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Staff burnout Chin et al. </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Wish List from Bureau of Primary Health Care 20 Training in quality improvement techniques 18 Information system technical support 26 Staff time spent on quality improvement 34 Data entry activities 44 Direct patient care services Percentage Ranked #1
  25. 25. Additional Support <ul><li>Help patients with self-management 73% </li></ul><ul><li>Information systems 77% </li></ul><ul><li>Get providers to follow guidelines 64% </li></ul>
  26. 26. Predictors of Staff Morale and Burnout <ul><li>Low cost </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal recognition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Career promotion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Skills development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fair distribution of work </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More expensive – Funding, personnel Graber et al. </li></ul>
  27. 27. Unintended Consequences <ul><li>Quality of care of chronic conditions not emphasized by HDC increased 45% </li></ul><ul><li>HDC has drawn time, energy, resources away from other health center activities 61% </li></ul><ul><li>Chien et al. </li></ul>
  28. 28. Summary Conclusions <ul><li>HDC improve clinical processes of care over short-term 1-2 year time periods and improve both processes of care and outcomes over longer 2-4 year periods. </li></ul>
  29. 29. Conclusions 2 <ul><li>Diabetes Collaborative is societally cost-effective, but there are no consistent financial streams for individual centers, raising concerns about the whether there is a business case for CEOs to adopt and sustain the HDC over the longterm. </li></ul>
  30. 30. Conclusions 3 <ul><li>Some methods to enhance implementation of the HDC are low-cost and reasonably feasible. </li></ul><ul><li>Some methods to enhance implementation of the HDC will require more resources and work. </li></ul>
  31. 31. Non-Community Health Center Settings <ul><li>Pros </li></ul><ul><li>Payor mix </li></ul><ul><li>Possibly integrated delivery system </li></ul><ul><li>Cons </li></ul><ul><li>Size </li></ul><ul><li>Culture </li></ul>
  32. 32. Key Research Questions <ul><li>How to tailor implementation of the HDC to different HCs that may be at different stages of organizational readiness to change and that may have different strengths, weaknesses, organizational contexts, and patient populations? </li></ul>
  33. 33. Research Questions 2 <ul><li>How to create a viable long-term business case for the HDC to complement the analysis demonstrating that the Diabetes Collaborative is societally cost-effective? </li></ul>
  34. 34. Research Questions 3 <ul><li>How to successfully spread the HDC across multiple diseases, conditions, and processes? </li></ul><ul><li>How to sustain the HDC over time? </li></ul><ul><li>How to integrate the general QI process of the HDC with menus of specific model programs? </li></ul>
  35. 35. Funding <ul><li>AHRQ R01 HS 10479 </li></ul><ul><li>AHRQ/HRSA U01 HS13635 </li></ul><ul><li>NIA 1K23 AG021963 </li></ul><ul><li>NIH/NIDDK P60 DK20595 Diabetes Research & Training Center </li></ul><ul><li>NIDDK K24 DK071933 </li></ul><ul><li>RWJF Generalist Physician Faculty Scholar </li></ul>