A Multilevel Analysis of Patient Engagement and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Primary Care Practices of Accountable Care Organizations
- 816 Downloads
The growing movement toward more accountable care delivery and the increasing number of people with chronic illnesses underscores the need for primary care practices to engage patients in their own care.
For adult primary care practices seeing patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease, we examined the relationship between selected practice characteristics, patient engagement, and patient-reported outcomes of care.
Cross-sectional multilevel observational study of 16 randomly selected practices in two large accountable care organizations (ACOs).
Patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) who met study eligibility criteria (n = 4368) and received care in 2014 were randomly selected to complete a patient activation and PRO survey (51% response rate; n = 2176). Primary care team members of the 16 practices completed surveys that assessed practice culture, relational coordination, and teamwork (86% response rate; n = 411).
Patient-reported outcomes included depression (PHQ-4), physical functioning (PROMIS SF12a), and social functioning (PROMIS SF8a), the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument (PACIC-11), and the Patient Activation Measure instrument (PAM-13). Patient-level covariates included patient age, gender, education, insurance coverage, limited English language proficiency, blood pressure, HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, and disease comorbidity burden. For each of the 16 practices, patient-centered culture and the degree of relational coordination among team members were measured using a clinician and staff survey. The implementation of shared decision-making activities in each practice was assessed using an operational leader survey.
Having a patient-centered culture was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51; confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 2.19) and better physical function scores (OR = 1.85; CI 1.25, 2.73). Patient activation was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (OR = 2.26; CI 1.79, 2.86), better physical health (OR = 2.56; CI 2.00, 3.27), and better social health functioning (OR = 4.12; CI 3.21, 5.29). Patient activation (PAM-13) mediated the positive association between patients’ experience of chronic illness care and each of the three patient-reported outcome measures—fewer depression symptoms, better physical health, and better social health. Relational coordination and shared decision-making activities reported by practices were not significantly associated with higher patient-reported outcome scores.
Diabetic and CVD patients who received care from ACO-affiliated practices with more developed patient-centered cultures reported lower PHQ-4 depression symptom scores and better physical functioning. Diabetic and CVD patients who were more highly activated to participate in their care reported lower PHQ-4 scores and better physical and social outcomes of care.
KEY WORDSpatient engagement patient-reported outcomes accountable care organizations
- 1.American Diabetes Association. Data from the 2011 national diabetes fact sheet 2013 [accessed 2016, December 22]. Available from: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/.
- 3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Fact Sheet, 2011. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.Google Scholar
- 14.Health policy brief: Patient engagement. Health Aff (Millwood). February 14, 2013.Google Scholar
- 17.Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Deutsch A, Gage B, Smith L, Kelleher C. Patient-reported outcomes in performance measurement. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum (NQF); 2012.Google Scholar
- 22.Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP. Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. 7th ed. Brooks/Cole: Monterey, CA; 1982.Google Scholar
- 23.Wiley JA, Rittenhouse D, Shortell SM, Casalino L, Ramsay PP, Bibi S, et al. Managing chronic illness: Physician practices increased the use of care management and medical home processes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; Forthcoming.Google Scholar
- 31.Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1992.Google Scholar
- 37.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The state of aging and health in America 2013. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2013.Google Scholar
- 41.Leykum LK, Lanham HJ, Pugh JA, Parchman M, Anderson RA, Crabtree BF, et al. Manifestations and implications of uncertainty for improving healthcare systems: an analysis of observational and interventional studies grounded in complexity science. Implement Sci. 2014;9:165. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0165-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 43.Hahn J, Blom KB. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA; P.L. 114-10). Congressional Research Service, 2015 Nov 10, 2015.Google Scholar
- 49.Nelson EC, Hvitfeldt HF, Reid R, Grossman D, Lindblad S, Mastanduno MP, et al. Using patient-reported information to improve health outcomes and health care value: case studies from Dartmouth, Karolinska and Group Health. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 2012.Google Scholar