Corinne M Rhodes1, Yuchiao Chang2,3, Susan Regan2,3, Daniel E Singer2,3, Virginia A Triant2,4,3. 1. University of Pennsylvania, Division of General Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Massachusetts General Hospital, Divisions of. 2. General Internal Medicine. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Infectious Diseases, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) quality indicators according to model of HIV care delivery. Comparing HIV quality indicators by HIV care model could help inform best practices because patients achieving higher levels of quality indicators may have a mortality benefit. METHODS: Using the Partners HIV Cohort, we categorized 1565 patients into 3 HIV care models: infectious disease provider only (ID), generalist only (generalist), or infectious disease provider and generalist (ID plus generalist). We examined 12 HIV quality indicators used by 5 major medical and quality associations and grouped them into 4 domains: process, screening, immunization, and HIV management. We used generalized estimating equations to account for most common provider and multivariable analyses adjusted for prespecified covariates to compare composite rates of HIV quality indicator completion. RESULTS: We found significant differences between HIV care models, with the ID plus generalists group achieving significantly higher quality measures than the ID group in HIV management (94.4% vs 91.7%, P = .03) and higher quality measures than generalists in immunization (87.8% vs 80.6%, P = .03) in multivariable adjusted analyses. All models achieved rates that equaled or surpassed previously reported quality indicator rates. The absolute differences between groups were small and ranged from 2% to 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that multiple HIV care models are effective with respect to HIV quality metrics. Factors to consider when determining HIV care model include healthcare setting, feasibility, and physician and patient preference. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) quality indicators according to model of HIV care delivery. Comparing HIV quality indicators by HIV care model could help inform best practices because patients achieving higher levels of quality indicators may have a mortality benefit. METHODS: Using the Partners HIV Cohort, we categorized 1565 patients into 3 HIV care models: infectious disease provider only (ID), generalist only (generalist), or infectious disease provider and generalist (ID plus generalist). We examined 12 HIV quality indicators used by 5 major medical and quality associations and grouped them into 4 domains: process, screening, immunization, and HIV management. We used generalized estimating equations to account for most common provider and multivariable analyses adjusted for prespecified covariates to compare composite rates of HIV quality indicator completion. RESULTS: We found significant differences between HIV care models, with the ID plus generalists group achieving significantly higher quality measures than the ID group in HIV management (94.4% vs 91.7%, P = .03) and higher quality measures than generalists in immunization (87.8% vs 80.6%, P = .03) in multivariable adjusted analyses. All models achieved rates that equaled or surpassed previously reported quality indicator rates. The absolute differences between groups were small and ranged from 2% to 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that multiple HIV care models are effective with respect to HIV quality metrics. Factors to consider when determining HIV care model include healthcare setting, feasibility, and physician and patient preference. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV; primary care models; quality indicators.
Authors: Shawn L Fultz; Joseph L Goulet; Sharon Weissman; David Rimland; David Leaf; Cynthia Gibert; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Amy C Justice Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-07-22 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Claire E Kendall; Douglas G Manuel; Jaime Younger; William Hogg; Richard H Glazier; Monica Taljaard Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Michael Horberg; Leo Hurley; William Towner; Rebecca Gambatese; Daniel Klein; Diana Antoniskis; Winkler Weinberg; Peter Kadlecik; Carol Remmers; Robert Dobrinich; Charles Quesenberry; Michael Silverberg; Michael Johnson Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Bruce E Landon; Ira B Wilson; Keith McInnes; Mary Beth Landrum; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Peter V Marsden; Paul D Cleary Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-05-23
Authors: Keri N Althoff; Peter Rebeiro; John T Brooks; Kate Buchacz; Kelly Gebo; Jeffrey Martin; Robert Hogg; Jennifer E Thorne; Marina Klein; M John Gill; Timothy R Sterling; Baligh Yehia; Michael J Silverberg; Heidi Crane; Amy C Justice; Stephen J Gange; Richard Moore; Mari M Kitahata; Michael A Horberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Mari M Kitahata; Stephen E Van Rompaey; Peter W Dillingham; Thomas D Koepsell; Richard A Deyo; Wayne Dodge; Edward H Wagner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael A Horberg; Leo B Hurley; William J Towner; Michael W Allerton; Beth T Tang; Sheryl L Catz; Michael J Silverberg; Charles P Quesenberry Journal: HIV AIDS (Auckl) Date: 2012-08-15
Authors: A Ben Appenheimer; Barbara Bokhour; D Keith McInnes; Kelly K Richardson; Andrew L Thurman; Brice F Beck; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; Steven M Asch; Amanda M Midboe; Thom Taylor; Kelly Dvorin; Allen L Gifford; Michael E Ohl Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Allison R Webel; Julie Schexnayder; C Robin Rentrope; Hayden B Bosworth; Corrilynn O Hileman; Nwora Lance Okeke; Rajesh Vedanthan; Chris T Longenecker Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.295