Enhancing guideline-based asthma care processes through a multi-state, multi-center quality improvement program

ERS/EAACI statement on adherence to international adult asthma guidelines

Guidelines aim to standardise and optimise asthma diagnosis and management. Nevertheless, adherence to guidelines is suboptimal and may vary across different healthcare professional (HCP) groups.Further to these concerns, this European Respiratory Society (ERS)/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) statement aims to: 1) evaluate the understanding of and adherence to international asthma guidelines by HCPs of different specialties via an international online survey; and 2) assess strategies focused at improving implementation of guideline-recommended interventions, and compare process and clinical outcomes in patients managed by HCPs of different specialties via systematic reviews.The online survey identified discrepancies between HCPs of different specialties which may be due to poor dissemination or lack of knowledge of the guidelines but also a reflection of the adaptations made in different clinical settings, based on available resources. The systematic reviews demonstrated that multifaceted quality improvement initiatives addressing multiple challenges to guidelines adherence are most effective in improving guidelines adherence. Differences in outcomes between patients managed by generalists or specialists should be further evaluated.Guidelines need to consider the heterogeneity of real-life settings for asthma management and tailor their recommendations accordingly. Continuous, multifaceted quality improvement processes are required to optimise and maintain guidelines adherence. Validated referral pathways for uncontrolled asthma or uncertain diagnosis are needed.

Translational Effect of Provider-Focused, Multi-State, Multi-Clinic Asthma Care Quality Improvement Program on Patient-Level Health Care Costs

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

Enhancing Care for Patients with Asthma (ECPA), a year-long provider-focused, multi-state, multi-clinic quality improvement program, decreased avoidable utilizations among patients with asthma, but its effects on health care expenditures were not determined. This study examined the translational and sustainable effects of improved care through ECPA on individual-level total health care costs due to asthma.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study in which attributed 1683 patients in a 12-month pre-ECPA implementation period served as their own control. We constructed the total annual asthma-related health care costs per patient occurred during pre-ECPA implementation, ECPA implementation, and post-ECPA completion. We used 3-level generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate the ECPA effect on the annual health care costs and account for correlation between the repeated outcome measures for each patient and nested clinic. All costs were adjusted for inflation to 2014 U.S. dollars, the last year of program observation.

RESULTS

Total asthma-related health care costs among the 1683 included patients decreased from an average of $7033 to $3237 per person-year (pre-ECPA implementation vs implementation). Using the cost data from the 12-month pre-ECPA implementation period as a reference, GLMMs found that the ECPA implementation was associated with a reduction in total annual asthma-related health care costs by 56.4% (95% CI -60.7%, -51.8%). During the 12-months after ECPA completion period, health care costs were also found to be significantly lower, experiencing a 57.3% reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic benefits of ECPA provide a justification to adopt this quality improvement initiative to more primary care clinics at a national level.

Case analyses of state-sponsored asthma quality improvement interventions - benefits and technical assistance efforts

OBJECTIVE

A cross-case analysis was used to discover how two states benefited from expanded use of evaluation for asthma quality improvement initiatives. If an asthma quality improvement (QI) initiative is successfully evaluated, data can inform how to effectively integrate clinical practice guidelines and circumvent non-clinical reasons that interrupt QI projects such as low staff interest. This article addresses a gap in the literature on quality of evaluation support needed to improve and sustain asthma QI at local health care organizations by describing the similar discoveries observed at two independent QI statewide initiatives in Indiana and Montana.

METHODS

As part of a larger review, two states funded through the National Asthma Control Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were identified based on similarities in evaluation approaches. Each state used an iterative stakeholder-driven evaluation approach, mixed methods, process evaluation indicators, and active use of evaluation findings. The asthma QI initiatives and evaluations in Indiana and Montana were coordinated independent of each other.

RESULTS

Although both states found that asthma QI initiatives improved health outcomes, evaluation data were able to further pinpoint areas that would improve quality of technical support to health care organizations and identify markers of sustainability, such as nontraditional benefits to staff, and intervention sites.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that when evaluation is used to guide implementation, data are available to develop site-specific assistance and identify sustainability markers to prevent interruption of positive health outcomes associated with an asthma QI initiative.

Reducing potentially preventable health events among patients with asthma through multi-state, multi-center quality improvement program

INTRODUCTION

Enhancing Care for Patients with Asthma is a multi-state, multi-center quality improvement program developed to augment guideline-based practice among health care providers through Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. This study examined the association between the implementation of the guideline-based quality improvement program and subsequent changes in asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

METHODS

This retrospective, interrupted time-series study used administrative claims data from a private insurer that provided coverage to patients receiving care from participating health centers (15 centers in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Illinois). The 12-month implementation period started in January 2013 for centers in Cohort 1 and October 2013 for centers in Cohort 2. The claims of 1,828 patients with asthma from January 2012 to May 2015 were analyzed. The data included 12-month pre-program implementation, 12-month program implementation, and 5-month post-program completion periods.

RESULTS

The average number of asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations decreased from 2.22 to 1.38 and 1.97 to 1.04 per 100 patients per month, respectively, in the 12-month pre-implementation period as compared to 12-month implementation period. The results of three-level generalized linear mixed models found that during the 12-month implementation period, patients had 37.7% and 47.1% lower rates of emergency room visits and hospitalizations, respectively, compared to the 12-month pre-implementation period (p < 0.001 in both comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhancing Care for Patients with Asthma is an effective quality improvement program that was successfully executed in diverse geographical states and associated with reductions in potentially preventable health events. The findings support the widespread use of the program in other settings.