UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Clinically relevant quality measures for risk factor control in primary care: a retrospective cohort study - Zurich Open Repository and Archive


Weiler, Stefan; Gemperli, Armin; Collet, Tinh-Hai; Bauer, Douglas C; Zimmerli, Lukas; Cornuz, Jacques; Battegay, Edouard; Gaspoz, Jean-Michel; Kerr, Eve A; Aujesky, Drahomir; Rodondi, Nicolas (2014). Clinically relevant quality measures for risk factor control in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Services Research, 14(1):306.

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Assessment of the proportion of patients with well controlled cardiovascular risk factors underestimates the proportion of patients receiving high quality of care. Evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control gives a different picture of quality of care. We assessed physician response to control cardiovascular risk factors, as well as markers of potential overtreatment in Switzerland, a country with universal healthcare coverage but without systematic quality monitoring, annual report cards on quality of care or financial incentives to improve quality.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1002 randomly selected patients aged 50-80 years from four university primary care settings in Switzerland. For hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, we first measured proportions in control, then assessed therapy modifications among those in poor control. "Appropriate clinical action" was defined as a therapy modification or return to control without therapy modification within 12 months among patients with baseline poor control. Potential overtreatment of these conditions was defined as intensive treatment among low-risk patients with optimal target values.
RESULTS
20% of patients with hypertension, 41% with dyslipidemia and 36% with diabetes mellitus were in control at baseline. When appropriate clinical action in response to poor control was integrated into measuring quality of care, 52 to 55% had appropriate quality of care. Over 12 months, therapy of 61% of patients with baseline poor control was modified for hypertension, 33% for dyslipidemia, and 85% for diabetes mellitus. Increases in number of drug classes (28-51%) and in drug doses (10-61%) were the most common therapy modifications. Patients with target organ damage and higher baseline values were more likely to have appropriate clinical action. We found low rates of potential overtreatment with 2% for hypertension, 3% for diabetes mellitus and 3-6% for dyslipidemia.
CONCLUSIONS
In primary care, evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control, in addition to assessing proportions in control, provide a broader view of the quality of care than relying solely on measures of proportions in control. Such measures could be more clinically relevant and acceptable to physicians than simply reporting levels of control.

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Assessment of the proportion of patients with well controlled cardiovascular risk factors underestimates the proportion of patients receiving high quality of care. Evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control gives a different picture of quality of care. We assessed physician response to control cardiovascular risk factors, as well as markers of potential overtreatment in Switzerland, a country with universal healthcare coverage but without systematic quality monitoring, annual report cards on quality of care or financial incentives to improve quality.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1002 randomly selected patients aged 50-80 years from four university primary care settings in Switzerland. For hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, we first measured proportions in control, then assessed therapy modifications among those in poor control. "Appropriate clinical action" was defined as a therapy modification or return to control without therapy modification within 12 months among patients with baseline poor control. Potential overtreatment of these conditions was defined as intensive treatment among low-risk patients with optimal target values.
RESULTS
20% of patients with hypertension, 41% with dyslipidemia and 36% with diabetes mellitus were in control at baseline. When appropriate clinical action in response to poor control was integrated into measuring quality of care, 52 to 55% had appropriate quality of care. Over 12 months, therapy of 61% of patients with baseline poor control was modified for hypertension, 33% for dyslipidemia, and 85% for diabetes mellitus. Increases in number of drug classes (28-51%) and in drug doses (10-61%) were the most common therapy modifications. Patients with target organ damage and higher baseline values were more likely to have appropriate clinical action. We found low rates of potential overtreatment with 2% for hypertension, 3% for diabetes mellitus and 3-6% for dyslipidemia.
CONCLUSIONS
In primary care, evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control, in addition to assessing proportions in control, provide a broader view of the quality of care than relying solely on measures of proportions in control. Such measures could be more clinically relevant and acceptable to physicians than simply reporting levels of control.

Citations

2 citations in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

45 downloads since deposited on 18 Jul 2014
17 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Contributors:Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Bern, Department of Clinical Research, Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne, Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Service of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Lausanne, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 11Medical Outpatient Department/Ambulatory Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Department of Community Medicine and Primary Care, University Hospitals of Geneva and Faculty of Medicine
Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic and Policlinic for Internal Medicine
04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:15 July 2014
Deposited On:18 Jul 2014 09:21
Last Modified:15 Sep 2016 10:55
Publisher:BioMed Central
ISSN:1472-6963
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-306
PubMed ID:25027581

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 665kB
View at publisher
Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 490kB
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations