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

被引:3
|
作者
Sperl-Hillen, JoAnn M. [1 ,2 ,6 ]
Anderson, Jeffrey P. [3 ]
Margolis, Karen L. [1 ]
Rossom, Rebecca C. [1 ]
Kopski, Kristen M. [4 ]
Averbeck, Beth M. [5 ]
Rosner, Jeanine A. [5 ]
Ekstrom, Heidi L. [1 ,2 ]
Dehmer, Steven P. [1 ]
O'Connor, Patrick J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] HealthPartners Inst, Bloomington, MN USA
[2] HealthPartners Ctr Chron Care Innovat, Res Dept, Bloomington, MN USA
[3] Genesis Res, Hoboken, NJ USA
[4] Med Hlth Plan, Minneapolis, MN USA
[5] HealthPartners, Bloomington, MN USA
[6] HealthPartners Ctr Chron Care Innovat, Res Dept, 8170 33rd Ave S, Bloomington, MN 55425 USA
关键词
clinical decision support; primary care; ICD-10 diagnostic coding; CPT levels of service; shared decision-making; CARDIOVASCULAR-DISEASE; SUPPORT-SYSTEMS; TASK-FORCE; PREVENTION; COST; RISK;
D O I
10.2196/32666
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Shared Decision-Making in Diabetes Care
    Tamhane, Shrikant
    Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene
    Hargraves, Ian
    Montori, Victor M.
    CURRENT DIABETES REPORTS, 2015, 15 (12)
  • [32] Shared decision-making in antihypertensive therapy: a cluster randomised controlled trial
    Tinsel, Iris
    Buchholz, Anika
    Vach, Werner
    Siegel, Achim
    Duerk, Thorsten
    Buchholz, Angela
    Niebling, Wilhelm
    Fischer, Karl-Georg
    BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, 2013, 14
  • [33] Shared decision-making in antihypertensive therapy: a cluster randomised controlled trial
    Iris Tinsel
    Anika Buchholz
    Werner Vach
    Achim Siegel
    Thorsten Dürk
    Angela Buchholz
    Wilhelm Niebling
    Karl-Georg Fischer
    BMC Family Practice, 14
  • [34] A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening
    Volk, RJ
    Cass, AR
    Spann, SJ
    ARCHIVES OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 1999, 8 (04) : 333 - 340
  • [35] A shared decision-making tool for obstructive sleep apnea without tonsillar hypertrophy: A randomized controlled trial
    Bergeron, Mathieu
    Duggins, Angela L.
    Cohen, Aliza P.
    Tiemeyer, Karin
    Mullen, Lisa
    Crisalli, Joseph
    McArthur, Angela
    Ishman, Stacey L.
    LARYNGOSCOPE, 2018, 128 (04): : 1007 - 1015
  • [36] Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision-making aid for orthodontics
    Parker, Kate
    Cunningham, Susan J.
    Petrie, Aviva
    Ryan, Fiona S.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2017, 152 (02) : 154 - 160
  • [37] Three to tango: Making the case for shared shared decision-making
    Sanatani, Michael
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2023, 112
  • [38] CONFLICTS AND SHARED DECISION-MAKING IN SHARED CARE PLANNING
    Malacarne, Paolo
    Marsico, Gaia
    Zullo, Silvia
    BIOLAW JOURNAL-RIVISTA DI BIODIRITTO, 2025, (01): : 71 - 82
  • [39] Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation
    Elwyn, G
    Edwards, A
    Kinnersley, P
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 1999, 49 (443): : 477 - 482
  • [40] Does shared decision-making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care?
    van Esch, Thamar E. M.
    Brabers, Anne E. M.
    Hek, Karin
    van Dijk, Liset
    Verheij, Robert A.
    de Jong, Judith D.
    JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2018, 73 (11) : 3199 - 3205