Effect of a Pragmatic, Cluster-randomized Controlled Trial on Patient Experience With Care: The Transforming Outcomes for Patients Through Medical Home Evaluation and reDesign (TOPMED) Study. Issue 8 (August 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dorr, David A.; Anastas, Tracy; Ramsey, Katrina; Wagner, Jesse; Sachdeva, Bhavaya; Michaels, LeAnn; Fagnan, Lyle J.
• Is Part Of: Medical care. Volume 54:Issue 8(2016)
• Publication Date: 2016-08
• Subjects: CAHPS -- patient-centered care -- primary care -- quality improvement; Economics, Medical -- Periodicals; Insurance, Health -- Periodicals; Santé, Services de -- Administration -- Périodiques; Soins médicaux -- Périodiques; Medical economics -- Periodicals; Health insurance -- Periodicals; Medical economics -- United States -- Periodicals; Health insurance -- United States -- Periodicals; Comprehensive Health Care -- Periodicals; Personal Health Services -- Periodicals; Gezondheidszorg; Économie de la santé -- Périodiques; Santé, Services de -- Périodiques; Health insurance; Medical economics; United States; Periodicals; 362.10973
• DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000552
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7079

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Health reform programs like the patient-centered medical home are intended to improve the triple aim. Previous studies on patient-centered medical homes have shown mixed effects, but high value elements (HVEs) are expected to improve the triple aim. Objective: The aim of this study is to understand whether focusing on HVEs would improve patient experience with care. Methods: Eight clinics were cluster-randomized in a year-long trial. Both arms received practice facilitation, IT-based reporting, and financial incentives. Intervention practices were encouraged to choose HVEs for quality improvement goals. To assess patient experience, 1597 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys were sent pretrial and posttrial to a stratified random sample of patients. Difference-in-difference multivariate analysis was used to compare patient responses from intervention and control practices, adjusting for confounders. Results: The response rate was 43% (n=686). Nonrespondent analysis showed no difference between arms, although differences were seen by risk status and age. The overall difference in difference was 2.8%, favoring the intervention. The intervention performed better in 9 of 11 composites. The intervention performed significantly better in follow-up on test results ( P =0.091) and patients' rating of the provider ( P =0.091), whereas the control performed better in access to care ( P =0.093). Both arms also had decreases, including 4 of 11 composites for the intervention, and 8 of 11 for the control. Discussion: Practices that targeted HVEs showed significantly more improvement in patient experience of care. However, contemporaneous trends may have affected results, leading to declines in patient experience in both arms. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.