Quality Indicators For Primary Care Research Articles

Adherence to diabetes quality indicators in primary care and all-cause mortality: A nationwide population-based historical cohort study

Background In the last three decades, much effort has been invested in measuring and improving the quality of diabetes care. We assessed the association between adherence to diabetes quality indicators and all-cause mortality in the primary care setting. Methods A nationwide, population-based, historical cohort study of all people aged 45–80 with pharmacologically-treated diabetes in 2005 (n = 222,235). Data on annual performance of quality indicators (including indicators for metabolic risk factor management and glycemic control) and vital status were retrieved from electronic medical records of the four Israeli health maintenance organizations. Cox proportional hazards and time-dependent models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality by degree of adherence to quality indicators. Results During 2,000,052 person-years of follow-up, 35.8% of participants died. An inverse dose–response association between the degree of adherence and mortality was shown for most of the quality indicators. Participants who were not tested for proteinuria or did not visit an ophthalmologist during the first-5-years of follow-up had HRs of 2.60 (95%CI:2.49–2.69) and 2.09 (95%CI:2.01–2.16), respectively, compared with those who were fully adherent. In time-dependent analyses, not measuring LDL-cholesterol, blood pressure, HbA1c, or HbA1c>9% were similarly associated with mortality (HRs ≈1.5). The association of uncontrolled blood pressure with mortality was modified by age, with increased mortality shown for those with controlled blood pressure at older ages (≥65 years). Conclusions Longitudinal adherence to diabetes quality indicators is associated with reduced all-cause mortality. Primary care professionals need to be supported by health care systems to perform quality indicators.

Dementia and comorbidities in primary care: a scoping review

BackgroundPeople with dementia (PwD) are known to have more chronic conditions compared to those without dementia, which can impact the clinical presentation of dementia, complicate clinical management and reduce overall quality of life. While primary care providers (PCPs) are integral to dementia care, it is currently unclear how PCPs adapt dementia care practices to account for comorbidities. This scoping review maps recent literature that describes the role for PCPs in the prevention, detection/diagnosis and management of dementia in the context of comorbidities, identifies critical knowledge gaps and proposes potential avenues for future research.MethodsWe searched for peer-reviewed literature published between 2017–2022 in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus using key terms related to dementia, primary care, and comorbidity. The literature was screened for relevance by title-abstract screening and subsequent full-text screening. The prioritized papers were categorized as either ‘Risk Assessment and Prevention’, ‘Screening, Detection, and Diagnosis’ or ‘Management’ and were further labelled as either ‘Tools and Technologies’, ‘Recommendations for Clinical Practice’ or ‘Programs and Initiatives’. ResultsWe identified 1,058 unique records in our search and respectively excluded 800 and 230 publications during title-abstract and full-text screening. Twenty-eight articles were included in our review, where ~ 50% describe the development and testing of tools and technologies that use pre-existing conditions to assess dementia risk. Only one publication provides official dementia screening guidelines for PCPs in people with pre-existing conditions. About 30% of the articles discuss managing the care of PwD, where most were anchored around models of multidisciplinary care and mitigating potentially inappropriate prescribing. ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that examines the role for PCPs in the prevention, detection/diagnosis and management of dementia in the context of comorbidities. Given our findings, we recommend that future studies: 1) further validate tools for risk assessment, timely detection and diagnosis that incorporate other health conditions; 2) provide additional guidance into how comorbidities could impact dementia care (including prescribing medication) in primary care settings; 3) incorporate comorbidities into primary care quality indicators for dementia; and 4) explore how to best incorporate dementia and comorbidities into models/frameworks of holistic, person-centred care.

Quality Indicators for Chronic Diseases in Primary Care

Quality indicators is defined as nominal, ordinal or quantitative measures of health care quality in order to provide effective, safe and human-centered health care. They are the most important tools in monitoring quality. Quality indicators are widely used in many countries, including Türkiye, to evaluate and improve the quality of care in the health system. Quality indicators in primary care in Türkiye started to be implemented in 2017 by the Ministry of Health with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Care Quality Indicators Turkey project. According to this project Turkey includes 9 categories. These are Primary Health Care (preventable hospital admissions), Primary Care (prescribing), Acute Care, Mental Health Services, Patient Safety, Patient Experiences, Cancer Care, Infectious Disease Care, Dementia Health Services. The Category of Primary care has seven quality indicators. Although it was introduced in 2017 it is not widely used in primary care. Primary care plays an important role in the promotion of health care. Therefore, using quality indicators will be helpful in this process. Keywords: chronic disease, family physician, quality ındicators, health care

Geographic proximity to primary care providers as a risk-assessment criterion for quality performance measures.

Previous studies have found a mixed association between Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) designation and improvements in primary care quality indicators, including avoidable pediatric emergency department (ED) encounters. Whether these associations persist after accounting for the geographic locations of providers relative to where patients reside is unknown. To examine the association between geographic proximity to primary care providers versus hospitals and risk of avoidable and potentially avoidable ED visits among children with pre-existing diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or asthma. Retrospective cohort study of a panel of pediatric Medicaid claims data from the South Carolina from 2016-2018 for 2,959 beneficiaries having a pre-existing diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADD, ages 6-12) and 6,390 beneficiaries with asthma (MMA, ages 5-18), as defined using Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) performance measures. We calculated differences in avoidable and potentially avoidable ED visits by the beneficiary's PCMH attribution type and in relation to differences in proximity to their primary care providers versus hospitals. Outcomes were defined using the New York University Emergency Department Algorithm (NYU-EDA). Differences in ED visit risk were assessed using generalized estimation equations and compared using marginal effects models. The 2.4 percentage point reduction in risk of avoidable ED visits among children in the ADD cohort who attended a PCMH versus those who did not increased to 3.9 to 7.2 percentage points as relative proximity to primary care providers versus hospitals improved (p < 0.01). Children in the ADD and MMA cohorts that were enrolled in a medical home, but did not attend one for primary care services exhibited a 5.4 and 3.0 percentage point increase in avoidable ED visit compared to children who were unenrolled and did not attend medical homes (p < 0.05), but these differences were only observed when geographic proximity to hospitals was more convenient than primary care providers. Mixed findings were observed for potentially avoidable visits. In several health care performance evaluations, patient-centered medical homes have not been found to reduce differences in hospital utilization for conditions that are treatable in primary care settings among children with chronic illnesses. Analytical approaches that also consider geographic proximity to health care services can identify performance benefits of medical homes. Expanding risk-adjustment models to also include geographic data would benefit ongoing quality improvement initiatives.

Quality indicator framework for primary care of patients with dementia.

To develop a framework of population-based primary care quality indicators adapted to patients with dementia and to identify a subset of stakeholder-driven priority indicators. Framework development was carried out through the selection of an initial framework based on a rapid review and identification of relevant indicators and enrichment based on existing dementia indicators and guidelines. Prioritization of indicators was carried out through a stakeholder survey. Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. Stakeholders in community dementia care (N=109) including clinicians, patients, caregivers, decision makers, and managers. Primary care quality indicators. The framework comprised 34 indicators across 8 domains of quality (access, integration, effective care, efficient care, equity, safety, population health, and patient-centred care). Access to a regular primary care provider, continuity of care, early-stage diagnosis, and access to home care were consistently rated as priorities. Equitable care was a specific priority among patients and caregivers; clinicians reported avoidable hospitalizations as among their priorities. A framework of indicators was established for persons with dementia that adds an important dimension to existing primary care and dementia quality indicators by providing primary care and population-based perspectives. This framework could set a foundation for the ongoing monitoring of primary care practices and policies for persons with dementia at a population level.

Development of primary care quality indicators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using a Delphi-derived method

High-quality care for patients with COPD is necessary. To achieve quality improvement in primary care, the general practitioner and the electronic health record (EHR) play an important role. The aim of this study was to develop a set of evidence-based and EHR extractable quality indicators (QIs) to measure and improve the quality of COPD primary care. We composed a multidisciplinary expert panel of 12 members, including patients, and used a RAND-modified Delphi method. The SMART principle was applied to select recommendations and QIs from international guidelines as well as existing sets of QIs, and these recommendations and QIs were added to an individual written questionnaire. Based on the median score, prioritization and degree of agreement, the recommendations and QIs were rated as having a high, uncertain or low potential to measure the quality of COPD primary care and were then discussed in an online consensus meeting for inclusion or exclusion. After a final validation, a core set of recommendations was translated into QIs. From 37 recommendations, obtained out of 10 international guidelines, and 5 existing indicators, a core set of 18 recommendations and 2 QIs was derived after the rating procedure. The expert panel added one new recommendation. Together, the recommendations and QIs were translated and merged into a final set of 21 QIs. Our study developed a set of 21 evidence-based and EHR-extractable QIs for COPD in primary care. These indicators can be used in an automated quality assessment to measure and improve the quality of COPD primary care.

Headache service quality evaluation: implementation of quality indicators in primary care in Europe

BackgroundLifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.MethodsWe included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients’ records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.ResultsThe principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 (“headache”) rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements.This study also demonstrated that patients’ satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.

Facility standards and the quality of public sector primary care: Evidence from South Africa's "Ideal Clinics" program.

Primary healthcare systems are central to achieving universal healthcare coverage. However, in many low- and middle-income country settings, primary care quality is challenged by inadequate facility infrastructure and equipment, limited human resources, and poor provider process. We study the effects of a recent large-scale quality improvement policy in South Africa, the Ideal Clinics Realization and Maintenance Program (ICRMP). The ICRMP introduced a set of standards for facilities and a quality improvement process involving manuals, district-based support, and external assessment. Exploiting differential prioritization of facilities for the ICRMP's quality improvement process, we apply differences-in-differences methods to identify the effects of the program's efforts on standards scores and primary care quality indicators over the first 12 months of implementation. We find large and statistically significant increases in standards scores, but mixed effects on care outcomes-a small magnitude improvement in early antenatal care usage, null effects on childhood immunization and cervical cancer screening, and small negative effect of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care. While the ICRMP process has led to significant improvements in facilities' satisfaction of the program's standards, we were unable to detect meaningful change in care quality indicators.

Quality indicators for primary care and patients' experience: A leap beyond.

Quality indicators for primary care and patients' experience: A leap beyond.

Transgender and Nontrans Patients Do Not Receive Statistically Different Quality Primary Care at Whitman-Walker Health, 2008-2016.

Purpose: Washington, DC, has the highest prevalence of transgender persons in the United States at 2.8%. Transgender persons in DC have lower income, less stable housing, and more HIV infection than nontrans persons. Data are scarce regarding primary care quality among trans persons. We provide a detailed analysis of transgender patients at Whitman-Walker Health, an HIV- and LGBT-focused community health center.Methods: We performed a retrospective electronic medical record review of transgender patients ≥18 years of age from 2008 to 2016, evaluating demographic factors, HIV status, gender-affirming care, and primary care quality indicators.Results: Of 20,097 patients, 1822 (9.0%) self-identify as transgender (62.9% trans female and 37.2% trans male), and 18,275 were nontransgender. Transgender patients are more likely to be young, white, HIV negative, and reside outside Washington, DC, than nontrans patients. Transgender patients are more likely to engage in primary care and have a similar likelihood of mammogram and colonoscopy screening than nontrans patients. Trans males are more likely to be privately insured, have lower rates of HIV testing than nontrans patients, and have higher rates of cervical Pap smears than cis females. Trans females have a high prevalence of HIV infection (26.6%).Conclusion: This is the largest single-center U.S. transgender cohort to date. Over a quarter of trans females are HIV positive, consistent with a national prevalence of 27.7%. Transgender and nontrans patients do not receive statistically different quality of primary care. Trans patients' high engagement in primary care may result from providing hormone therapy and primary care within a single provider visit.

Development and Pilot Testing of Quality Indicators for Primary Care in Japan.

Introduction: To the best of our knowledge, no quality indicators (QIs) for primary care provided by local clinics have yet been developed in Japan. We aimed to develop valid and applicable QIs to evaluate primary care in Japan. Methods: Two focus group interviews were held to identify conceptual categories. Existing indicators for these categories were identified, and initial sets of potential QIs were developed. Using a modified Delphi appropriateness method, a multidisciplinary expert panel then developed and selected the QIs. Feasibility and applicability of these QIs were then confirmed in pilot testing at six local clinics in Hokkaido, Japan. To determine patient acceptance of these quality improvement activities, the survey asked two questions, “Do you think it is preferable that the patients of this clinic be periodically surveyed?” and “Do you think it is preferable that this clinic periodically undergo an external quality review by an independent body?” Results: Seven categories emerged from the focus group discussions as key components of primary care in Japan. Thirty-nine QIs under five categories (Comprehensive care/Standardized care, Access, Communication, Co-ordination, and Understanding of patient background) were finally selected and named the QIs for Primary Care Practice in Japan. In pilot testing at six primary care clinics in 2015, 65.4% of patients answered favorably to the idea that clinics should conduct regular patient surveys, and 71.8% answered favorably to the idea that clinics should undergo periodic external quality review by an independent body. Conclusions: We developed QIs to assess primary care services provided by clinics in Japan, for the first time. Although further refinement is required, establishment of these QIs is the first step in quality improvement for primary care practices in Japan.

Do care plans and annual reviews of physical health influence unplanned hospital utilisation for people with serious mental illness? Analysis of linked longitudinal primary and secondary healthcare records in England

ObjectiveTo investigate whether two primary care activities that are framed as indicators of primary care quality (comprehensive care plans and annual reviews of physical health) influence unplanned utilisation of hospital...

Evidence-based indicators for the measurement of quality of primary care using health insurance claims data in Switzerland: results of a pragmatic consensus process

BackgroundThe level of quality of care of ambulatory services in Switzerland is almost completely unknown. By adapting existing instruments to the Swiss national context, the present project aimed to define quality indicators (QI) for the measurement of quality of primary care for use on health insurance claims data. These data are pre-existing and available nationwide which provides an excellent opportunity for their use in the context of health care quality assurance.MethodsPragmatic 6-step process based on informal consensus. Potential QI consisted of recommendations extracted from internationally accepted medical practice guidelines and pre-existing QI for primary care. An independent interdisciplinary group of experts rated potential QI based on explicit criteria related to evidence, relevance for Swiss public health, and controllability in the Swiss primary care context. Feasibility of a preliminary set of QI was tested using claims data of persons with basic mandatory health insurance with insurance at one of the largest Swiss health insurers. This test built the basis for expert consensus on the final set of QI.ResultsOf 49 potential indicators, 23 were selected for feasibility testing based on claims data. The expert group consented a final set of 24 QI covering the domains general aspects/ efficiency (7 QI), drug safety (2), geriatric care (4), respiratory disease (2), diabetes (5) and cardiovascular disease (4).ConclusionsThe present project provides the first nationwide applicable explicit evidence-based criteria to measure quality of care of ambulatory primary care in Switzerland. The set intends to increase transparency related to quality and variance of care in Switzerland.

The quality of primary care provided to the elderly in Israel

BackgroundIn view of increasing global and local trends in population ageing and the high healthcare utilization rates among the elderly, this study assesses the quality of primary care provided to the elderly population in Israel. It examines changes in quality over time, how quality varies across sub-groups of the elderly, and how quality in Israel compares with other countries. Data originate from the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare (QICH), which operates in full collaboration with Israel’s four HMOs.MethodsThe study population included all elderly Israeli residents aged 65 years or older during 2002–2015 (N = 879,671 residents in 2015). Seven elderly-specific quality indicators from within the QICH framework were included: influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations, benzodiazepine overuse, long-acting benzodiazepine use, body weight documentation, weight loss and underweight. In addition, two non-age specific quality indicators relating to diabetes mellitus were included: the rate of HbA1C documentation and uncontrolled diabetes. Data were collected from patient electronic medical records (EMR) in accordance with each HMO, and aggregated by three variables: gender, age, and socio-economic position (SEP).ResultsDuring the measurement period, vaccination rates significantly increased (Influenza: from 42.0% in 2002 to 63.2% in 2015; and pneumococcal vaccination: from 25.8% in 2005 to 77.0% in 2015). Body weight documentation (in 65–74 year old persons) increased from only 16.3% in 2003 to 80.9% in 2015. The rate of underweight (BMI < 23 kg/m2) and significant weight-loss (10% or more of their body weight) was only measured in 2015. The overall rate of benzodiazepine overuse remained steady from 2011 to 2015 at around 5%, while the rate of long-acting benzodiazepine use decreased from 3.8% in 2011 to 2.4% in 2015.The rate of HbA1c documentation for elderly diabetics was higher than for non-elderly diabetics in 2015 (92.2% vs 87.9%). The rate of uncontrolled diabetes was lower for the elderly than the non-elderly population in 2015 (6.9% vs. 15.7%).Gender disparities were observed across all measures, after age stratification, with worse indicator rates among females compared to males. SEP-disparities were not consistent across measures.In all indicators except benzodiazepine overuse, Israel showed a higher quality of care for the elderly in comparison with the international healthcare community.ConclusionsOverall, the quality of care received by elderly Israelis has improved substantially since measurements first began; yet, females receive lower quality care than males. Monitoring results of primary care quality indicators can contribute to population’s successful aging; both chronic conditions at earlier ages (e.g. diabetes), and short-term hazardous conditions such as the use of potentially harmful medications and weight loss should be evaluated.

Research activity and quality indicators in primary care - An explorative qualitative interview study

BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests that research activity improves healthcare performance in secondary care. Staff who contribute and participate in research studies, tend to have a greater understanding, and use, of current evidence and guidelines. The engagement in research in primary care and correlation with quality indicators (QIs) is unclear.AimThe aim of this study is exploring the link between research activity and quality indicators in primary care.Method4 GPs and 4 practice managers consented and participated in semi-structured interviews conducted in spring 2017. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted until data saturation was achieved. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic framework analysis.ResultsPractices with a GP research champion were more likely to undertake research. Staff directly participating in the recruitment and follow-up and the research teams adopting a participatory and active research methodology is more likely to lead to improvement in quality. Including research as Enhanced Service may influence increased participation. The QOF is most likely to reflect improvement related to research, but opinions were mixed.ConclusionClinical Commissioning Groups and NHS England should be encouraged to develop QIs for research. As the landscape changes with the creation of Accountable Care Systems, there is an opportunity address the inclusion of research into practice contracts. This paper is the first to explore this topic in primary care and the findings will contribute towards developing quantitative research to expand the findings of this exploratory study.

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis

BackgroundInterpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages.MethodsWe used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms—mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators.ResultsEach implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. ‘graded tasks’ and ‘problem solving’ for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants ‘environmental context’ and ‘social and professional roles’ (e.g. ‘restructuring the social and ‘physical environment’ and ‘adding objects to the environment’) were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting ‘environmental context’, ‘social influences’ and ‘social and professional roles’ within our chosen delivery mechanisms.ConclusionWe have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

Identifying primary care quality indicators for people with serious mental illness: a systematic review.

BackgroundSerious mental illness (SMI) — which comprises long-term conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychoses — has enormous costs for patients and society. In many countries, people with SMI are treated solely in primary care, and have particular needs for physical care.AimThe objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to create a list of quality indicators relevant to patients with SMI that could be captured using routine data, and which could be used to monitor or incentivise better-quality primary care.Design and settingA systematic literature review, combined with a search of quality indicator databases and guidelines.MethodThe authors assessed whether indicators could be measured from routine data and the quality of the evidence.ResultsOut of 1847 papers and quality indicator databases identified, 27 were included, from which 59 quality indicators were identified, covering six domains. Of the 59 indicators, 52 could be assessed using routine data. The evidence base underpinning these indicators was relatively weak, and was primarily based on expert opinion rather than trial evidence.ConclusionWith appropriate adaptation for different contexts, and in line with the relative responsibilities of primary and secondary care, use of the quality indicators has the potential to improve care and to improve the physical and mental health of people with SMI. However, before the indicators can be used to monitor or incentivise primary care quality, more robust links need to be established, with improved patient outcomes.

Quality indicators for the detection and management of chronic kidney disease in primary care in Canada derived from a modified Delphi panel approach.

The detection and management of chronic kidney disease lies within primary care; however, performance measures applicable in the Canadian context are lacking. We sought to develop a set of primary care quality indicators for chronic kidney disease in the Canadian setting and to assess the current state of the disease's detection and management in primary care. We used a modified Delphi panel approach, involving 20 panel members from across Canada (10 family physicians, 7 nephrologists, 1 patient, 1 primary care nurse and 1 pharmacist). Indicators identified from peer-reviewed and grey literature sources were subjected to 3 rounds of voting to develop a set of quality indicators for the detection and management of chronic kidney disease in the primary care setting. The final indicators were applied to primary care electronic medical records in the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) to assess the current state of primary care detection and management of chronic kidney disease in Ontario. Seventeen indicators made up the final list, with 1 under the category Prevalence, Incidence and Mortality; 4 under Screening, Diagnosis and Risk Factors; 11 under Management; and 1 under Referral to a Specialist. In a sample of 139 993 adult patients not on dialysis, 6848 (4.9%) had stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease, with the average age of patients being 76.1 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.0); 62.9% of patients were female. Diagnosis and screening for chronic kidney disease were poorly performed. Only 27.1% of patients with stage 3 or higher disease had their diagnosis documented in their cumulative patient profile. Albumin-creatinine ratio testing was only performed for 16.3% of patients with a low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and for 28.5% of patients with risk factors for chronic kidney disease. Family physicians performed relatively better with the management of chronic kidney disease, with 90.4% of patients with stage 3 or higher disease having an eGFR performed in the previous 18 months and 83.1% having a blood pressure recorded in the previous 9 months. We propose a set of measurable indicators to evaluate the quality of the management of chronic kidney disease in primary care. These indicators may be used to identify opportunities to improve current practice in Canada.

Quality of Care for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease in the Primary Care Setting: A Retrospective Cohort Study From Ontario, Canada.

Background:Patients with chronic kidney disease may not be receiving recommended primary renal care.Objective:To use recently established primary care quality indicators for chronic kidney disease to determine the proportion of patients receiving recommended renal care.Design:Retrospective cohort study using administrative data with linked laboratory information.Setting:The study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2012.Patients:Patients over 40 years with chronic kidney disease or abnormal kidney function in primary care were included.Measurements:In total, 11 quality indicators were assessed for chronic kidney disease identified through a Delphi panel in areas of screening, monitoring, drug prescribing, and laboratory monitoring after initiating an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).Methods:We calculated the proportion and cumulative incidence at the end of follow-up of patients meeting each indicator and stratified results by age, sex, cohort entry, and chronic kidney disease stage.Results:Less than half of patients received follow-up tests after an initial abnormal kidney function result. Most patients with chronic kidney disease received regular monitoring of serum creatinine (91%), but urine albumin-to-creatinine monitoring was lower (70%). A total of 84% of patients age 66 and older did not receive a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescription of at least 2-week duration. Three quarters of patients age 66 and older were on an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and 96% did not receive an ACE inhibitor and ARB concurrently. Among patients 66 to 80 years of age with chronic kidney disease, 65% were on a statin. One quarter of patients age 66 and older who initiated an ACE inhibitor or ARB had their serum creatinine and potassium monitored within 7 to 30 days.Limitations:This study was limited to people in Ontario with linked laboratory information.Conclusions:There was generally strong performance across many of the quality of care indicators. Areas where more attention may be needed are laboratory testing to confirm initial abnormal kidney function test results and monitoring serum creatinine and potassium after initiating a new ACE inhibitor or ARB.

Primary Care Physician Panel Size and Quality of Care: A Population-Based Study in Ontario, Canada.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the number of patients under a primary care physician's care (panel size) and primary care quality indicators. We conducted a cross-sectional, population-based study of fee-for-service and capitated interprofessional and non-interprofessional primary health care practices in Ontario, Canada between April 2008 and March 2010, encompassing 4,195 physicians with panel sizes ≥1,200 serving 8.3 million patients. Data was extracted from multiple linked, health-related administrative databases and covered 16 quality indicators spanning 5 dimensions of care: access, continuity, comprehensiveness, and evidence-based indicators of cancer screening and chronic disease management. The likelihood of being up-to-date on cervical, colorectal, and breast cancer screening showed relative decreases of 7.9% (P <.001), 5.9% (P = .01), and 4.6% (P <.001), respectively, with increasing panel size (from 1,200 to 3,900). Eight chronic care indicators (4 medication-based and 4 screening-based) showed no significant association with panel size. The likelihood of individuals with a new diagnosis of congestive heart failure having an echocardiogram, however, increased by a relative 8.1% (P <.001) with higher panel size. Increasing panel size was also associated with a 10.8% relative increase in hospitalization rates for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions (P = .04) and a 10.8% decrease in non-urgent emergency department visits (P = .004). Continuity was highest with medium panel sizes (P <.001), and comprehensiveness had a small decrease (P = .03) with increasing panel size. Increasing panel size was associated with small decreases in cancer screening, continuity, and comprehensiveness, but showed no consistent relationships with chronic disease management or access indicators. We found no panel size threshold above which quality of care suffered.