PURPOSE: New approaches to chronic disease management emphasize the need to improve the delivery of primary care services to meet the needs of chronically ill patients. This study (1) assessed whether chronic disease management differed among 4 models of primary health care delivery and (2) identified which practice organizational factors were independently associated with high-quality care. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional survey with nested qualitative case studies (2 practices per model) in 137 randomly selected primary care practices from 4 delivery models in Ontario Canada: fee for service, capitation, blended payment, and community health centers (CHCs). Practice and clinician surveys were based on the Primary Care Assessment Tool. A chart audit assessed evidence-based care delivery for patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery disease. Intermediate outcomes were calculated for patients with diabetes and hypertension. Multiple linear regression identified those organizational factors independently associated with chronic disease management. RESULTS: Chronic disease management was superior in CHCs. Clinicians in CHCs found it easier than those in the other models to promote high-quality care through longer consultations and interprofessional collaboration. Across the whole sample and independent of model, high-quality chronic disease management was associated with the presence of a nurse-practitioner. It was also associated with lower patient-family physician ratios and when practices had 4 or fewer full-time-equivalent family physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The study adds to the literature supporting the value of nurse-practitioners within primary care teams and validates the contributions of Ontario's CHCs. Our observation that quality of care decreased in larger, busier practices suggests that moves toward larger practices and greater patient-physician ratios may have unanticipated negative effects on processes of care quality.
PURPOSE: New approaches to chronic disease management emphasize the need to improve the delivery of primary care services to meet the needs of chronically ill patients. This study (1) assessed whether chronic disease management differed among 4 models of primary health care delivery and (2) identified which practice organizational factors were independently associated with high-quality care. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional survey with nested qualitative case studies (2 practices per model) in 137 randomly selected primary care practices from 4 delivery models in Ontario Canada: fee for service, capitation, blended payment, and community health centers (CHCs). Practice and clinician surveys were based on the Primary Care Assessment Tool. A chart audit assessed evidence-based care delivery for patients with diabetes, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery disease. Intermediate outcomes were calculated for patients with diabetes and hypertension. Multiple linear regression identified those organizational factors independently associated with chronic disease management. RESULTS:Chronic disease management was superior in CHCs. Clinicians in CHCs found it easier than those in the other models to promote high-quality care through longer consultations and interprofessional collaboration. Across the whole sample and independent of model, high-quality chronic disease management was associated with the presence of a nurse-practitioner. It was also associated with lower patient-family physician ratios and when practices had 4 or fewer full-time-equivalent family physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The study adds to the literature supporting the value of nurse-practitioners within primary care teams and validates the contributions of Ontario's CHCs. Our observation that quality of care decreased in larger, busier practices suggests that moves toward larger practices and greater patient-physician ratios may have unanticipated negative effects on processes of care quality.
Authors: P Liu; J M Arnold; I Belenkie; C Demers; P Dorian; N Gianetti; H Haddad; J Howlett; A Ignazewski; P Jong; R McKelvie; G Moe; J D Parker; V Rao; J L Rouleau; K Teo; R Tsuyuki; M White; V Huckel; D Issac; D Johnstone; M-H LeBlanc; H Lee; G Newton; J Niznick; H Ross; S Roth; D Roy; S Smith; B Sussex; S Yusuf Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2003-03-31 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Thomas G Rundall; Stephen M Shortell; Margaret C Wang; Lawrence Casalino; Thomas Bodenheimer; Robin R Gillies; Julie A Schmittdiel; Nancy Oswald; James C Robinson Journal: BMJ Date: 2002-10-26
Authors: Lawrence Casalino; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell; Julie A Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; James C Robinson; Thomas Rundall; Nancy Oswald; Helen Schauffler; Margaret C Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003 Jan 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Litaker; Lorraine Mion; Loretta Planavsky; Christopher Kippes; Neil Mehta; Joseph Frolkis Journal: J Interprof Care Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.338
Authors: Pamela A Ohman-Strickland; A John Orzano; Shawna V Hudson; Leif I Solberg; Barbara DiCiccio-Bloom; Dena O'Malley; Alfred F Tallia; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Laura Muldoon; Simone Dahrouge; William Hogg; Robert Geneau; Grant Russell; Michael Shortt Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Simone Dahrouge; William Hogg; Jaime Younger; Elizabeth Muggah; Grant Russell; Richard H Glazier Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Harry H X Wang; Samuel Y S Wong; Martin C S Wong; Xiao Lin Wei; Jia Ji Wang; Donald K T Li; Jin Ling Tang; Gemma Y Gao; Sian M Griffiths Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166