BACKGROUND: This study aimed to elucidate how clinical preventive services are delivered in family practices and how this information might inform improvement efforts. METHODS: We used a comparative case study design to observe clinical preventive service delivery in 18 purposefully selected Midwestern family medicine offices from 1997 to 1999. Medical records, observation of outpatient encounters, and patient exit cards were used to calculate practice-level rates of delivery of clinical preventive services. Field notes from direct observation of clinical encounters and prolonged observation of the practice and transcripts from in-depth interviews of practice staff and physicians were systematically examined to identify approaches to delivering clinical preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: Practices developed individualized approaches for delivering clinical preventive services, with no one approach being successful across practices. Clinicians acknowledged a 3-fold mission of providing acute care, managing chronic problems, and prevention, but only some made prevention a priority. The clinical encounter was a central focus for preventive service delivery in all practices. Preventive services delivery rates often appeared to be influenced by competing demands within the clinical encounter (including between different preventive services), having a physician champion who prioritized prevention, and economic concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Practice quality improvement efforts that assume there is an optimal approach for delivering clinical preventive services fail to account for practices' propensity to optimize care processes to meet local contexts. Interventions to enhance clinical preventive service delivery should be tailored to meet the local needs of practices and their patient populations.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to elucidate how clinical preventive services are delivered in family practices and how this information might inform improvement efforts. METHODS: We used a comparative case study design to observe clinical preventive service delivery in 18 purposefully selected Midwestern family medicine offices from 1997 to 1999. Medical records, observation of outpatient encounters, and patient exit cards were used to calculate practice-level rates of delivery of clinical preventive services. Field notes from direct observation of clinical encounters and prolonged observation of the practice and transcripts from in-depth interviews of practice staff and physicians were systematically examined to identify approaches to delivering clinical preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: Practices developed individualized approaches for delivering clinical preventive services, with no one approach being successful across practices. Clinicians acknowledged a 3-fold mission of providing acute care, managing chronic problems, and prevention, but only some made prevention a priority. The clinical encounter was a central focus for preventive service delivery in all practices. Preventive services delivery rates often appeared to be influenced by competing demands within the clinical encounter (including between different preventive services), having a physician champion who prioritized prevention, and economic concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Practice quality improvement efforts that assume there is an optimal approach for delivering clinical preventive services fail to account for practices' propensity to optimize care processes to meet local contexts. Interventions to enhance clinical preventive service delivery should be tailored to meet the local needs of practices and their patient populations.
Authors: Deborah Cohen; Reuben R McDaniel; Benjamin F Crabtree; Mary C Ruhe; Sharon M Weyer; Alfred Tallia; William L Miller; Meredith A Goodwin; Paul Nutting; Leif I Solberg; Stephen J Zyzanski; Carlos R Jaén; Valerie Gilchrist; Kurt C Stange Journal: J Healthc Manag Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: James C Martin; Robert F Avant; Marjorie A Bowman; John R Bucholtz; John R Dickinson; Kenneth L Evans; Larry A Green; Douglas E Henley; Warren A Jones; Samuel C Matheny; Janice E Nevin; Sandra L Panther; James C Puffer; Richard G Roberts; Denise V Rodgers; Roger A Sherwood; Kurt C Stange; Cynthia W Weber Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Simone Dahrouge; William E Hogg; Grant Russell; Meltem Tuna; Robert Geneau; Laura K Muldoon; Elizabeth Kristjansson; John Fletcher Journal: CMAJ Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Jean O'Malley; David I Buckley; Motomi Mori; David A Lieberman; Lyle J Fagnan; James Wallace; Betty Liu; Cynthia Morris Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: G Talley Holman; John W Beasley; Ben-Tzion Karsh; Jamie A Stone; Paul D Smith; Tosha B Wetterneck Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chris Feifer; Lynne Nemeth; Paul J Nietert; Andrea M Wessell; Ruth G Jenkins; Loraine Roylance; Steven M Ornstein Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Gregg H Gilbert; Valeria V Gordan; Ellen M Funkhouser; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Vibeke Qvist; Gerald Anderson; Donald Worley Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 3.383