Capacity and readiness for quality improvement among home and community-based service providers

Readiness and Implementation of Quality Improvement Strategies Among Small- and Medium-Sized Primary Care Practices: an Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about what determines strategy implementation around quality improvement (QI) in small- and medium-sized practices. Key questions are whether QI strategies are associated with practice readiness and practice characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

Grounded in organizational readiness theory, we examined how readiness and practice characteristics affect QI strategy implementation. The study was a component of a larger practice-level intervention, Heart of Virginia Healthcare, which sought to transform primary care while improving cardiovascular care.

DESIGN

This observational study analyzed practice correlates of QI strategy implementation in primary care at 3 and 12 months. Data were derived from surveys completed by clinicians and staff and from assessments by practice coaches.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 175 small- and medium-sized primary care practices were included.

MAIN MEASURES

Outcome was QI strategy implementation in three domains: (1) aspirin, blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking cessation (ABCS); (2) care coordination; and (3) organizational-level improvement. Coaches assessed implementation at 3 and 12 months. Readiness was measured by baseline member surveys, 1831 responses from 175 practices, a response rate of 73%. Practice survey assessed practice characteristics, a response rate of 93%. We used multivariate regression.

KEY RESULTS

QI strategy implementation increased from 3 to 12 months: the mean for ABCS from 1.20 to 1.59, care coordination from 2.15 to 2.75, organizational improvement from 1.37 to 1.78 (95% CI). There was no statistically significant association between readiness and QI strategy implementation across domains. Independent practice implementation was statistically significantly higher than hospital-owned practices at 3 months for ABCS (95% CI, P = 0.01) and care coordination (95% CI, P = 0.03), and at 12 months for care coordination (95% CI, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

QI strategy implementation varies by practice ownership. Independent practices focus on patient care-related activities. FQHCs may need additional time to adopt and implement QI activities. Practice readiness may require more structural and organizational changes before starting a QI effort.

COVID-19 exposures and infection control among home care agencies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Home care agencies (HCAs) provide caregivers, who perform an important role in maintaining the health and well-being of older adults. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, paid caregivers had the potential to inadvertently spread COVID-19. We sought to characterize the effects of COVID-19 on HCAs and examine HCAs' infection prevention and control (IPC) policies.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a qualitative analysis of data collected from a national survey of HCAs. Surveys were e-mailed to members of a national HCA association on March 18, 2020. Questions included queries on demographics, COVID-19 exposures, effects of COVID-19, and IPC protocols.

RESULTS

1204 HCAs responded with an average census of 96.2 (5-2800) patients daily. Across 36 states, 238 HCAs reported COVID-19 cases or exposures among caregivers. HCAs experienced challenges related to changing patient needs (e.g. decreased caregiver requests), staffing shortages (e.g., fear of COVID-19, inability to train caregivers), and management issues (e.g., inability to obtain supplies). ICP protocols varied in how HCAs followed recommended guidelines, responded to COVID-19 exposures, performed infection surveillance, and implemented precautions. Additionally, HCAs had varying policies for caregiver PTO.

CONCLUSIONS

HCAs experienced COVID-19 exposures and/or cases early in the pandemic. HCAs identified staffing and PPE shortages, and lack of IPC guidance as challenges. Although caregivers are providing essential care for millions of older adults, they have been largely absent from federal, state, and health system strategies for mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Future policies must include HCAs and their caregivers to optimize care for older adults.

Preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services in Germany: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Most people prefer to "age in place" and to remain in their homes for as long as possible even in case they require long-term care. While informal care is projected to decrease in Germany, the use of home- and community-based services (HCBS) can be expected to increase in the future. Preference-based data on aspects of HCBS is needed to optimize person-centered care.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate preferences for home- and community-based long-term care services packages.

DESIGN

Discrete choice experiment conducted in mailed survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomly selected sample of the general population aged 45-64 years in Germany (n = 1.209).

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

Preferences and marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for HCBS were assessed with respect to five HCBS attributes (with 2-4 levels): care time per day, service level of the HCBS provider, quality of care, number of different caregivers per month, co-payment.

RESULTS

Quality of care was the most important attribute to respondents and small teams of regular caregivers (1-2) were preferred over larger teams. Yet, an extended range of services of the HCBS provider was not preferred over a more narrow range. WTP per hour of HCBS was €8.98.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings on preferences for HCBS in the general population in Germany add to the growing international evidence of preferences for LTC. In light of the great importance of high care quality to respondents, reimbursement for services by HCBS providers could be more strongly linked to the quality of services.

Home and Community-Based Service Organizations’ Capacity for and Experiences With Quality Improvement Initiatives

Few studies have examined quality improvement (QI) initiatives among home and community-based service (HCBS) providers. Study objectives were to (1) examine HCBS organizations’ QI capacity, (2) explore organizational differences in providers’ QI experiences, and (3) explore the impact of a state’s QI initiatives on providers’ efforts. A survey assessing HCBS providers’ experiences and QI capacity was administered. Overall, respondents reported a moderate amount of previous QI experience. In terms of QI capacity, smaller and rural organizations were more likely to report inadequate support for project implementation ( p < .05). Larger organizations were more likely to report challenges with staffing. Smaller organizations reported less of a perceived impact of the state’s initiative ( p < .05). Smaller and rural providers need individualized support to overcome lack of QI experience and resources.