Literature DB >> 36201392

Bolstering the Business Case for Adoption of Shared Decision-Making Systems in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Trial.

JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen1,2, Jeffrey P Anderson3, Karen L Margolis1, Rebecca C Rossom1, Kristen M Kopski4, Beth M Averbeck5, Jeanine A Rosner5, Heidi L Ekstrom1,2, Steven P Dehmer1, Patrick J O'Connor1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited budgets may often constrain the ability of health care delivery systems to adopt shared decision-making (SDM) systems designed to improve clinical encounters with patients and quality of care.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of an SDM system shown to improve diabetes and cardiovascular patient outcomes on factors affecting revenue generation in primary care clinics.
METHODS: As part of a large multisite clinic randomized controlled trial (RCT), we explored the differences in 1 care system between clinics randomized to use an SDM intervention (n=8) versus control clinics (n=9) regarding the (1) likelihood of diagnostic coding for cardiometabolic conditions using the 10th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and (2) current procedural terminology (CPT) billing codes.
RESULTS: At all 24,138 encounters with care gaps targeted by the SDM system, the proportion assigned high-complexity CPT codes for level of service 5 was significantly higher at the intervention clinics (6.1%) compared to that in the control clinics (2.9%), with P<.001 and adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.64 (95% CI 1.02-2.61). This was consistently observed across the following specific care gaps: diabetes with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)>8% (n=8463), 7.2% vs 3.4%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.01-3.67); blood pressure above goal (n=8515), 6.5% vs 3.7%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.42 (95% CI 0.72-2.79); suboptimal statin management (n=17,765), 5.8% vs 3%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.41 (95% CI 0.76-2.61); tobacco dependency (n=7449), 7.5% vs. 3.4%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 2.14 (95% CI 1.31-3.51); BMI >30 kg/m2 (n=19,838), 6.2% vs 2.9%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.45 (95% CI 0.75-2.8). Compared to control clinics, intervention clinics assigned ICD-10 diagnosis codes more often for observed cardiometabolic conditions with care gaps, although the difference did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized study, use of a clinically effective SDM system at encounters with care gaps significantly increased the proportion of encounters assigned high-complexity (level 5) CPT codes, and it was associated with a nonsignificant increase in assigning ICD-10 codes for observed cardiometabolic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02451670; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451670. ©JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen, Jeffrey P Anderson, Karen L Margolis, Rebecca C Rossom, Kristen M Kopski, Beth M Averbeck, Jeanine A Rosner, Heidi L Ekstrom, Steven P Dehmer, Patrick J O’Connor. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 06.10.2022.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CPT levels of service; ICD-10 diagnostic coding; clinical decision support; primary care; shared decision-making

Year:  2022        PMID: 36201392      PMCID: PMC9585448          DOI: 10.2196/32666

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JMIR Form Res        ISSN: 2561-326X


  29 in total

1.  The Medicare Advantage success story--looking beyond the cost difference.

Authors:  Jeet S Guram; Robert E Moffit
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson; Karen M Eddleman; Nicole M Jarrett; Ken LaBresh; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  Setting value-based payment goals--HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care.

Authors:  Sylvia M Burwell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Medicare fraud in the United States: can it ever be stopped?

Authors:  Chelsea Hill; Alex Hunter; Leslie Johnson; Alberto Coustasse
Journal:  Health Care Manag (Frederick)       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep

Review 5.  6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2018.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 19.112

6.  Clinical decision support directed to primary care patients and providers reduces cardiovascular risk: a randomized trial.

Authors:  JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen; A Lauren Crain; Karen L Margolis; Heidi L Ekstrom; Deepika Appana; Gerald Amundson; Rashmi Sharma; Jay R Desai; Patrick J O'Connor
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 7.  Enabling health care decisionmaking through clinical decision support and knowledge management.

Authors:  David Lobach; Gillian D Sanders; Tiffani J Bright; Anthony Wong; Ravi Dhurjati; Erin Bristow; Lori Bastian; Remy Coeytaux; Gregory Samsa; Vic Hasselblad; John W Williams; Liz Wing; Michael Musty; Amy S Kendrick
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep)       Date:  2012-04

Review 8.  Cost and economic benefit of clinical decision support systems for cardiovascular disease prevention: a community guide systematic review.

Authors:  Verughese Jacob; Anilkrishna B Thota; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Gibril J Njie; Krista K Proia; David P Hopkins; Murray N Ross; Nicolaas P Pronk; John M Clymer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Aspirin in primary prevention: USPSTF recommendations.

Authors:  J Aalbers
Journal:  Cardiovasc J Afr       Date:  2010 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.167

10.  Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to bodyweight and dose: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials.

Authors:  Peter M Rothwell; Nancy R Cook; J Michael Gaziano; Jacqueline F Price; Jill F F Belch; Maria Carla Roncaglioni; Takeshi Morimoto; Ziyah Mehta
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.