Annals of family medicine · 2018
Organizational Leadership and Adaptive Reserve in Blood Pressure Control: The Heart Health NOW Study.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Henderson Kamal H, DeWalt Darren A, Halladay Jacquie, Weiner Bryan J, Kim Jung I, Fine Jason, Cykert Samuel
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess whether a practice's adaptive reserve and high leadership capability in quality improvement are associated with population blood pressure control.
METHODS: We divided practices into quartiles of blood pressure control performance and considered the top quartile as the benchmark for comparison. Using abstracted clinical data from electronic health records, we performed a cross-sectional study to assess the association of top quartile hypertension control and (1) the baseline practice adaptive reserve (PAR) scores and (2) baseline practice leadership scores, using modified Poisson regression models adjusting for practice-level characteristics.
RESULTS: Among 181 practices, 46 were in the top quartile, which averaged 68% or better blood pressure control. Practices with higher PAR scores compared with lower PAR scores were not more likely to reside in the top quartile of performance (prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.92 for highest quartile; 95% CI, 0.9-4.1). Similarly, high quality improvement leadership capability compared with lower capability did not predict better blood pressure control performance (PR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.57-1.56). Practices with higher proportions of commercially insured patients were more likely than practices with lower proportions of commercially insured patients to have top quartile performance (37% vs 26%, P =.002), whereas lower proportions of the uninsured (8% vs 14%, P =.055) were associated with better performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that adaptive reserve and leadership capability in quality improvement implementation are not statistically associated with achieving top quartile practice-level hypertension control at baseline in the Heart Health NOW project. Our findings, however, may be limited by a lack of patient-related factors and small sample size to preclude strong conclusions.
METHODS: We divided practices into quartiles of blood pressure control performance and considered the top quartile as the benchmark for comparison. Using abstracted clinical data from electronic health records, we performed a cross-sectional study to assess the association of top quartile hypertension control and (1) the baseline practice adaptive reserve (PAR) scores and (2) baseline practice leadership scores, using modified Poisson regression models adjusting for practice-level characteristics.
RESULTS: Among 181 practices, 46 were in the top quartile, which averaged 68% or better blood pressure control. Practices with higher PAR scores compared with lower PAR scores were not more likely to reside in the top quartile of performance (prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.92 for highest quartile; 95% CI, 0.9-4.1). Similarly, high quality improvement leadership capability compared with lower capability did not predict better blood pressure control performance (PR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.57-1.56). Practices with higher proportions of commercially insured patients were more likely than practices with lower proportions of commercially insured patients to have top quartile performance (37% vs 26%, P =.002), whereas lower proportions of the uninsured (8% vs 14%, P =.055) were associated with better performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that adaptive reserve and leadership capability in quality improvement implementation are not statistically associated with achieving top quartile practice-level hypertension control at baseline in the Heart Health NOW project. Our findings, however, may be limited by a lack of patient-related factors and small sample size to preclude strong conclusions.