HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ann Fam Med. 2020 Jan;18(1):66-72. doi: 10.1370/afm.2492.
The purpose of this study was to assess whether primary care practices certified as medical homes differ in having the practice systems required for that designation and in attaining favorable outcomes for their patients with diabetes, and whether those systems are associated with better diabetes outcomes.
We undertook a cross-sectional observational study, Understanding Infrastructure Transformation Effects on Diabetes (UNITED), of 586 Minnesota adult primary care practices, comparing those that were certified vs uncertified as medical homes in 2017, with analyses supplemented by previously published studies of these practices. We collected survey information about the presence of medical home practice systems for diabetes care and obtained 6 standardized measures of diabetes care collected yearly from all Minnesota practices.
Of 416 practices completing questionnaires (71% of all practices, 92% of participating practices), 394 had data on diabetes care measures. Uncertified practices (39%) were more likely than certified practices to be rural, but their patient populations were similar. Certified practices had more medical home practice systems (79.2% vs 74.9%, =.01) and were more likely to meet a composite measure of optimal diabetes care (46.8% vs 43.2%, <.001). A 1-SD increase in presence of practice systems was associated with a 1.4% higher probability of meeting that measure ( <.001).
Practices certified as medical homes have more practice systems and higher performance on diabetes care than uncertified practices, but there is extensive overlap, and any differences may reflect self-selection for certification.
本研究旨在评估初级保健实践是否在拥有该指定所需的实践系统方面存在差异,并为其糖尿病患者取得有利的结果,以及这些系统是否与更好的糖尿病结果相关。
我们进行了一项横断面观察性研究,即理解基础设施转型对糖尿病的影响(UNITED),研究了明尼苏达州的 586 家成人初级保健实践,比较了 2017 年获得医疗之家认证和未获得认证的实践,分析结果补充了这些实践的先前发表的研究。我们收集了有关糖尿病护理实践系统存在情况的调查信息,并从所有明尼苏达州的实践中获得了每年收集的 6 项标准化糖尿病护理措施。
在完成问卷调查的 416 家实践中(所有实践的 71%,参与实践的 92%),有 394 家实践提供了糖尿病护理措施的数据。未获得认证的实践(39%)比获得认证的实践更有可能位于农村地区,但患者群体相似。获得认证的实践拥有更多的医疗之家实践系统(79.2%比 74.9%, <.01),并且更有可能符合最佳糖尿病护理综合措施(46.8%比 43.2%, <.001)。实践系统存在的 1-SD 增加与符合该措施的可能性增加 1.4%相关( <.001)。
获得医疗之家认证的实践在糖尿病护理方面拥有更多的实践系统和更高的绩效,而未获得认证的实践则存在大量重叠,任何差异都可能反映出自我选择认证。