Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Brief report: The prevalence and use of chronic disease registries in physician organizations

A national survey

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Disease registries are lists of patients with a particular chronic illness, including clinical information, to improve the care of individuals and populations. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of disease registries in physician organizations and the extent to which they are used to improve care.

DESIGN: A cross-sectional national telephone survey with a response rate of 70%.

SETTING: All physician organizations in the United States with 20 physicians or more.

PARTICIPANTS: Chief executive officers, presidents, or medical directors of 1040 physician organizations.

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of organizations reported having a registry for at least 1 chronic illness, with diabetes registries being the most common. Half (51%) of the registries were not linked to clinical data. Organizations with at least 1 registry were more likely to have implemented other chronic care improvements (P<.0001). Factors associated with the presence of registries in physician organizations include external incentives for quality and extent of information technology capabilities.

CONCLUSIONS: Disease registries are not utilized by half of physician organizations. This finding is disturbing because registries have the potential to catalyze needed improvement in chronic care management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saydah SH, Fradkin J, Cowie CC. Poor control of risk factors for vascular disease among adults with previously diagnosed diabetes. JAMA. 2004;291:335–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA. 2003;289:2560–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. JAMA. 2002;288:1775–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weingarten SR, Henning JM, Badamgarav E, et al. Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness—which ones work? Meta-analysis of published reports. BMJ. 2002;325:925–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lorig KR, Ritter P, Stewart AL, et al. Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Med Care. 2001;39:1217–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. Changing physician performance. JAMA. 1995;274:700–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferguson JA, Weinberger M. Case management programs in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:123–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rich MW, Beckham V, Wittenberg C, Leven CL, Freedland KE, Carney RM. A multidisciplinary intervention to prevent readmission of elderly patients with congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1190–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A. Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Affairs. 2001;20:64–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. The Chronic Care Model, Part 2. JAMA. 2002;288:1909–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Metzger J. Using Computerized Registries in Chronic Disease Care. Oakland, Calif: California Healthcare Foundation; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, Thomson O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev., 2003;(3):CD000259.

  14. Stroebel RJ, Scheitel SM, Fitz JS, et al. A randomized trial of three diabetes registry implementation strategies in a community internal medicine practice. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28:441–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Karter AJ, Parker MM, Moffet HH, et al. Missed appointments and poor glycemic control. Med Care. 2004;42:110–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Renders CM, Valk GD, Griffin S, et al. Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev., 2001;(1):CD001481.

  17. Grant RW, Hamrick HE, Sullivan CM, et al. Impact of population management with direct physician feedback on care of patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:2275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris MF, Priddin D, Ruscoe W, Infante FA, O’Toole BI. Quality of care provided by general practitioners using or not using Division-based diabetes registers. Med J Aust. 2002;177:250–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Casalino L, Gillies RR, Shortell SM, et al. External incentives, information technology, and organized processes to improve health care quality for patients with chronic diseases. JAMA. 2003;289:434–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wholey D, Christianson JB, Engberg J, Bryce C. HMO market structure and performance 1985–1995. Health Aff (Millwood). 1997;16:75–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research, Oakland, CA, USA

    Julie Schmittdiel PhD

  2. NAS Consulting, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Neil A. Solomon MD

  3. School of Public Health, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif, USA

    Robin R. Gillies PhD & Stephen M. Shortell PhD

  4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, Building 80-83, San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Avenue, 94110, San Francisco, CA

    Thomas Bodenheimer MD

Authors
  1. Julie Schmittdiel PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Bodenheimer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil A. Solomon MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robin R. Gillies PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephen M. Shortell PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Bodenheimer MD.

Additional information

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, to disclose regarding this article or this research.

This study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Grant no. 038690.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmittdiel, J., Bodenheimer, T., Solomon, N.A. et al. Brief report: The prevalence and use of chronic disease registries in physician organizations. J GEN INTERN MED 20, 855–858 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0171.x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0171.x

Key Words

Search

Navigation