Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 77–80 | Cite as

Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and Improved Patient-centered Outcomes for Chronic Conditions

  • Julie Schmittdiel
  • David M. Mosen
  • Russell E. Glasgow
  • Judith Hibbard
  • Carol Remmers
  • Jim Bellows
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) has potential for use as a patient-centered measure of the implementation of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), but there is little research on the relationship between the PACIC and important behavioral and quality measures for patients with chronic conditions.

Objective

To examine the relationship between PACIC scores and self-management behaviors, patient rating of their health care, and self-reported quality of life.

Design

Cross-sectional survey with a 61% response rate.

Participants

Included in the survey were 4,108 adults with diabetes, chronic pain, heart failure, asthma, or coronary artery disease in the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care program across 7 regions nationally.

Measurements

The PACIC was the main independent variable. Dependent variables included use of self-management resources, self-management behaviors such as regular exercise, self-reported adherence to medications, patient rating of their health care, and quality of life.

Results

PACIC scores were significantly, positively associated with all measures (odds ratio [ORs] ranging from 1.20 to 2.36) with the exception of self-reported medication adherence.

Conclusions

Use of the PACIC, a practical, patient-level assessment of CCM implementation, could be an important tool for health systems and other stakeholders looking to improve the quality of chronic disease care.

KEY WORDS

chronic disease survey research quality assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Kaiser Permanente’s Care Management Institute.

Dr. Mosen’s salary is partially funded by the Care Management Institute. Dr. Bellows and Ms. Remmers are employed by the Care Management Institute.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Supplementary material

11606_2007_452_MOESM1_ESM.doc (96 kb)
ESM Appendix Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (DOC 97 kb).

References

  1. 1.
    Glasgow RE, Whitesides H, Nelson CC, King DK. Use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) with diabetes patients. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(11):2655–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: the chronic care model, Part 2. JAMA. 2002;288:1909–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Eff Clin Pract. 1998;112–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonomi AE, Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, Von Korff M. Assessment of chronic illness care (ACIC): a practical tool to measure quality improvement. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(3):791–820.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsai AC, Morton SC, Mangione CM, Keeler EB. A meta-analysis of interventions to improve care for chronic illness. Am J Manag Care. 2005;11(8):478–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45. Jun 26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glasgow RE, Wagner E, Schaefer J, Mahoney L, Reid , Greene S. Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care. 2005;43:436–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McGlynn EA. An evidence-based national quality measurement and reporting system. Med Care. 2003;41:I8–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glasgow RE, Emont S, Miller DC. Assessing delivery of the five ‘As’ for patient-centered counseling. Health Promot Int. 2006;21(3):245–55. Sep.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mosen DM, Schmittdiel J, Hibbard J, Sobel D, Remmers C, Bellows J. Is patient activation associated with outcomes of care for adults with chronic conditions? J Ambul Care Manage. 30(1):21–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney E, Tusler M. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chesney MA, Ickovics J, Chambers DB, Gifford AL, Neidig J, Zwickl B, et al. Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: the AACTG adherence instruments. Patient Care Committee & Adherence Working Group of the Outcomes Committee of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (AACTG). AIDS Care. 2000;12(3):255–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wagner JH, Justice AC, Chesney M, Sinclair G, Weissman S, Rodriguez-Barradas M. Patient- and provider-reported adherence: toward a clinically useful approach to measuring antiretroviral adherence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:91–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    CAHPS 2.0 Survey and Reporting Kit. Silver Spring, MD: Publications Clearinghouse; AHRQ; 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steiner JF, Koepsell TD, Fihn SD, Inui TS. A general method of compliance assessment using centralized pharmacy records. Description and validation. Med Care. 1988;26:814–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steiner JF, Prochazka AV. The assessment of refill compliance using pharmacy records: methods, validity, and applications. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:105–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmittdiel J, Shortell SM, Rundall T, Bodenheimer T, Selby JV. The effect of primary health care orientation on chronic illness care management. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:117–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992;82(5):703–10. May.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Schmittdiel
    • 1
  • David M. Mosen
    • 2
  • Russell E. Glasgow
    • 3
  • Judith Hibbard
    • 4
  • Carol Remmers
    • 5
  • Jim Bellows
    • 5
  1. 1.Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Northern CaliforniaOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Kaiser Permanente Center for Health ResearchPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Center for Dissemination and Implementation ResearchKaiser Permanente ColoradoDenverUSA
  4. 4.Department of Planning, Public Policy and ManagementUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA
  5. 5.Kaiser Permanente Care Management InstituteOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations