Abstract Background Despite compelling evidence of the benefits of treatment and well-accepted guidelines for treatment, hypertension is controlled in less than one-half of United States citizens. Methods/design This randomized controlled trial tests whether explicit financial incentives promote the translation of guideline-recommended care for hypertension into clinical practice and improve blood pressure (BP) control in the primary care setting. Using constrained randomization, we assigned 12 Veterans Affairs hospital outpatient clinics to four study arms: physician-level incentive; group-level incentive; combination of physician and group incentives; and no incentives (control). All participants at the hospital (cluster) were assigned to the same study arm. We enrolled 83 full-time primary care physicians and 42 non-physician personnel. The intervention consisted of an educational session about guideline-recommended care for hypertension, five audit and feedback reports, and five disbursements of incentive payments. Incentive payments rewarded participants for chart-documented use of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medications, BP control, and appropriate responses to uncontrolled BP during a prior four-month performance period over the 20-month intervention. To identify potential unintended consequences of the incentives, the study team interviewed study participants, as well as non-participant primary care personnel and leadership at study sites. Chart reviews included data collection on quality measures not related to hypertension. To evaluate the persistence of the effect of the incentives, the study design includes a washout period. Discussion We briefly describe the rationale for the interventions being studied, as well as the major design choices. Rigorous research designs such as the one described here are necessary to determine whether performance-based payment arrangements such as financial incentives result in meaningful quality improvements. Trial Registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00302718

Importance

Pay for performance is intended to align incentives to promote high-quality care, but results have been contradictory.

Objective

To test the effect of explicit financial incentives to reward guideline-recommended hypertension care.

Design, setting, and participants

Cluster randomized trial of 12 Veterans Affairs outpatient clinics with 5 performance periods and a 12-month washout that enrolled 83 primary care physicians and 42 nonphysician personnel (eg, nurses, pharmacists).

Interventions

Physician-level (individual) incentives, practice-level incentives, both, or none. Intervention participants received up to 5 payments every 4 months; all participants could access feedback reports.

Main outcomes and measures

Among a random sample, number of patients achieving guideline-recommended blood pressure thresholds or receiving an appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure, number of patients prescribed guideline-recommended medications, and number who developed hypotension.

Results

Mean (SD) total payments over the study were $4270 ($459), $2672 ($153), and $1648 ($248) for the combined, individual, and practice-level interventions, respectively. The unadjusted baseline and final percentages and the adjusted absolute change over the study in patients meeting the combined blood pressure/appropriate response measure were 75% to 84% and 8.84% (95% CI, 4.20% to 11.80%) for the individual group, 80% to 85% and 3.70% (95% CI, 0.24% to 7.68%) for the practice-level group, 79% to 88% and 5.54% (95% CI, 1.92% to 9.52%) for the combined group, and 86% to 86% and 0.47% (95% CI, -3.12% to 4.04%) for the control group. The adjusted absolute estimated difference in the change between the proportion of patients with blood pressure control/appropriate response for individual incentive and control groups was 8.36% (95% CI, 2.40% to 13.00%; P=.005). The other incentive groups did not show a significant change compared with controls for this outcome. For medications, the unadjusted baseline and final percentages and the adjusted absolute change were 61% to 73% and 9.07% (95% CI, 4.52% to 13.44%), 56% to 65% and 4.98% (95% CI, 0.64% to 10.08%), 65% to 80% and 7.26% (95% CI, 2.92% to 12.48%), and 63% to 72% and 4.35% (95% CI, -0.28% to 9.28%), respectively. These changes in the use of guideline-recommended medications were not significant in any of the incentive groups compared with controls, nor was the incidence of hypotension. The effect of the incentive was not sustained after a washout.

Conclusions and relevance

Individual financial incentives, but not practice-level or combined incentives, resulted in greater blood pressure control or appropriate response to uncontrolled blood pressure; none of the incentives resulted in greater use of guideline-recommended medications or increased incidence of hypotension compared with controls. Further research is needed on the factors that contributed to these findings.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00302718.

Background and objectives

NICUs vary in the quality of care delivered to very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. NICU performance on 1 measure of quality only modestly predicts performance on others. Composite measurement of quality of care delivery may provide a more comprehensive assessment of quality. The objective of our study was to develop a robust composite indicator of quality of NICU care provided to VLBW infants that accurately discriminates performance among NICUs.

Methods

We developed a composite indicator, Baby-MONITOR, based on 9 measures of quality chosen by a panel of experts. Measures were standardized, equally weighted, and averaged. We used the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative database to perform across-sectional analysis of care given to VLBW infants between 2004 and 2010. Performance on the Baby-MONITOR is not an absolute marker of quality but indicates overall performance relative to that of the other NICUs. We used sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of the composite indicator, by varying assumptions and methods.

Results

Our sample included 9023 VLBW infants in 22 California regional NICUs. We found significant variations within and between NICUs on measured components of the Baby-MONITOR. Risk-adjusted composite scores discriminated performance among this sample of NICUs. Sensitivity analysis that included different approaches to normalization, weighting, and aggregation of individual measures showed the Baby-MONITOR to be robust (r = 0.89-0.99).

Conclusions

The Baby-MONITOR may be a useful tool to comprehensively assess the quality of care delivered by NICUs.

Background

Antimicrobial stewardship to combat the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has become a national priority. This project focuses on reducing inappropriate use of antimicrobials for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), a very common condition that leads to antimicrobial overuse in acute and long-term care. We previously conducted a successful intervention, entitled "Kicking Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI): the No Knee-Jerk Antibiotics Campaign," to decrease guideline-discordant ordering of urine cultures and antibiotics for ASB. The current objective is to facilitate implementation of a scalable version of the Kicking CAUTI campaign across four geographically diverse Veterans Health Administration facilities while assessing what aspects of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention are essential to success and sustainability.

Methods

This project uses an interrupted time series design with four control sites. The two main intervention tools are (1) an evidence-based algorithm that distills the guidelines into a streamlined clinical pathway and (2) case-based audit and feedback to train clinicians to use the algorithm. Our conceptual framework for the development and implementation of this intervention draws on May's General Theory of Implementation. The intervention is directed at providers in acute and long-term care, and the goal is to reduce inappropriate screening for and treatment of ASB in all patients and residents, not just those with urinary catheters. The start-up for each facility consists of centrally-led phone calls with local site champions and baseline surveys. Case-based audit and feedback will begin at a given site after the start-up period and continue for 12 months, followed by a sustainability assessment. In addition to the clinical outcomes, we will explore the relationship between the dose of the intervention and clinical outcomes.

Discussion

This project moves from a proof-of-concept effectiveness study to implementation involving significantly more sites, and uses the General Theory of Implementation to embed the intervention into normal processes of care with usual care providers. Aspects of implementation that will be explored include dissemination, internal and external facilitation, and organizational partnerships. "Less is More" is the natural next step from our prior successful Kicking CAUTI intervention, and has the potential to improve patient care while advancing the science of implementation.

Objective

In preparation for a multisite antibiotic stewardship intervention, we assessed knowledge and attitudes toward management of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) plus teamwork and safety climate among providers, nurses, and clinical nurse assistants (CNAs).

Design

Prospective surveys during January-June 2018.

Setting

All acute and long-term care units of 4 Veterans' Affairs facilities.

Methods

The survey instrument included 2 previously tested subcomponents: the Kicking CAUTI survey (ASB knowledge and attitudes) and the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ).

Results

A total of 534 surveys were completed, with an overall response rate of 65%. Cognitive biases impacting management of ASB were identified. For example, providers presented with a case scenario of an asymptomatic patient with a positive urine culture were more likely to give antibiotics if the organism was resistant to antibiotics. Additionally, more than 80% of both nurses and CNAs indicated that foul smell is an appropriate indication for a urine culture. We found significant interprofessional differences in teamwork and safety climate (defined as attitudes about issues relevant to patient safety), with CNAs having highest scores and resident physicians having the lowest scores on self-reported perceptions of teamwork and safety climates (P < .001). Among providers, higher safety-climate scores were significantly associated with appropriate risk perceptions related to ASB, whereas social norms concerning ASB management were correlated with higher teamwork climate ratings.

Conclusions

Our survey revealed substantial misunderstanding regarding management of ASB among providers, nurses, and CNAs. Educating and empowering these professionals to discourage unnecessary urine culturing and inappropriate antibiotic use will be key components of antibiotic stewardship efforts.