Introduction

The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have proposed adjusting hypertension-related care quality measures by excluding patients with economic/access issues from the denominator of rate calculations. No research to date has explored the methods to operationalize this recommendation or how to measure economic/access issues. This study applied and compared different approaches to populating these denominator exceptions.

Methods

Electronic health record data from 2019 were used in 2021 to calculate hypertension control rates in 84 community health centers. A total of 10 different indicators of patient economic/access barriers to care were used as denominator exclusions to calculate and then compare adjusted quality measure performance. Data came from a nonprofit health center‒controlled network that hosts a shared electronic health record for community health centers located in 22 states.

Results

A total of 5 of 10 measures yielded an increase in adjusted hypertension control rates in ≥50% of clinics (average rate increases of 0.7-3.71 percentage points). A total of 3 of 10 measures yielded a decrease in adjusted hypertension control rates in >50% of clinics (average rate decreases of 1.33-13.82 percentage points). A total of 5 measures resulted in excluding >50% of the clinic's patient population from quality measure assessments.

Conclusions

Changes in clinic-level hypertension control rates after adjustment differed depending on the measure of economic/access issue. Regardless of the exclusion method, changes between baseline and adjusted rates were small. Removing community health center patients experiencing economic/access barriers from a hypertension control quality measure resulted in excluding a large proportion of patients, raising concerns about whether this calculation can be a meaningful measure of clinical performance.

Purpose of review

An expanding body of research documents associations between socioeconomic circumstances and health outcomes, which has led health care institutions to invest in new activities to identify and address patients' social circumstances in the context of care delivery. Despite growing national investment in these "social care" initiatives, the extent to which social care activities are routinely incorporated into care for patients with type II diabetes mellitus (T2D), specifically, is unknown. We conducted a scoping review of existing T2D treatment and management guidelines to explore whether and how these guidelines incorporate recommendations that reflect social care practice categories.

Recent findings

We applied search terms to locate all T2D treatment and management guidelines for adults published in the US from 1977 to 2021. The search captured 158 national guidelines. We subsequently applied the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine framework to search each guideline for recommendations related to five social care activities: Awareness, Adjustment, Assistance, Advocacy, and Alignment. The majority of guidelines (122; 77%) did not recommend any social care activities. The remainder (36; 23%) referred to one or more social care activities. In the guidelines that referred to at least one type of social care activity, adjustments to medical treatment based on social risk were most common [34/36 (94%)]. Recommended adjustments included decreasing medication costs to accommodate financial strain, changing literacy level or language of handouts, and providing virtual visits to accommodate transportation insecurity. Ensuring that practice guidelines more consistently reflect social care best practices may improve outcomes for patients living with T2D.

OBJECTIVE: Increased social risk data collection in health care settings presents new opportunities to apply this information to improve patient outcomes. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support these applications. We conducted a participatory engagement process to develop electronic health record (EHR)-based CDS tools to facilitate social risk-informed care plan adjustments in community health centers (CHCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified potential care plan adaptations through systematic reviews of hypertension and diabetes clinical guidelines. The results were used to inform an engagement process in which CHC staff and patients provided feedback on potential adjustments identified in the guideline reviews and on tool form and functions that could help CHC teams implement these suggested adjustments for patients with social risks. RESULTS: Partners universally prioritized tools for social risk screening and documentation. Additional high-priority content included adjusting medication costs and changing follow-up plans based on reported social risks. Most content recommendations reflected partners interests in encouraging provider-patient dialogue about care plan adaptations specific to patients social needs. Partners recommended CDS tool functions such as alerts and shortcuts to facilitate and efficiently document social risk-informed care plan adjustments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: CDS tools were designed to support CHC providers and staff to more consistently tailor care based on information about patients social context and thereby enhance patients ability to adhere to care plans. While such adjustments occur on an ad hoc basis in many care settings, these are among the first tools designed both to systematize and document these activities.