Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2017 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2017 Open Access

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon: a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges

Zeitschrift:
BMC Health Services Research > Ausgabe 1/2017
Autoren:
Rachel Gold, Arwen Bunce, Stuart Cowburn, James V. Davis, Celine Hollombe, Christine A. Nelson, Jon Puro, John Muench, Christian Hill, Victoria Jaworski, MaryBeth Mercer, Colleen Howard, Nancy Perrin, Jennifer DeVoe
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12913-017-2194-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Background

Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients.

Methods

We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing.

Results

Recommended prescribing occurred at 13–16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines.

Conclusions

Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing.

Clinical trials registration

This trial was registered retrospectively.
Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791. Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.
Zusatzmaterial
Additional file 1: Appendix A. Publications: The Evidence Behind the ALL Initiative Medications (DOC 29 kb).
12913_2017_2194_MOESM1_ESM.doc
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe