BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.
BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.
Authors: Hayden B Bosworth; Tara Dudley; Maren K Olsen; Corrine I Voils; Benjamin Powers; Mary K Goldstein; Eugene Z Oddone Journal: Am J Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Julienne K Kirk; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ronny A Bell; Leah V Passmore; Denise E Bonds; Andrew J Karter; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Michele Heisler; Mary M Hogan; Timothy P Hofer; Julie A Schmittdiel; Manel Pladevall; Eve A Kerr Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Amanda H Salanitro; Monika M Safford; Thomas K Houston; Jessica H Williams; Fernando Ovalle; Pamela Payne-Foster; Jeroan J Allison; Carlos A Estrada Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Urmimala Sarkar; Andrew J Karter; Jennifer Y Liu; Howard H Moffet; Nancy E Adler; Dean Schillinger Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Meredith Manze; Adam J Rose; Michelle B Orner; Dan R Berlowitz; Nancy R Kressin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Heather Bennett; Kelsey Laird; David Margolius; Victoria Ngo; David H Thom; Thomas Bodenheimer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 3.295