Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Primary Care Clinic-Based Chronic Disease Care

Features of Successful Programs

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Disease Management and Health Outcomes

Abstract

Objective

To identify common features of primary care clinics that have successfully achieved improvement in chronic disease care.

Methods

We analyzed seven primary care practices that have achieved significant improvement in chronic disease care provided to adults with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lipid disorders, or heart disease. Strategies used to improve care were mapped across categories of the Enhanced Primary Care (EPC) model, and common features were identified.

Results

The seven practices achieved significant improvement in health outcomes of adults with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or lipid disorders within 1 to 2 years. Outcome measures typically included all people in the practice with the conditions of interest. Improvement was sufficient to substantially reduce risk of major cardiovascular events by over 20% on a population basis. In the majority of successful primary care practices, combinations of ten key strategies were used: leadership; resources; clinical guidelines; organized care teams; patient activation; information systems; identification of population at risk; monitoring; prioritization; and active outreach to patients.

Conclusions

The results support the existence of an EPC model capable of achieving significant improvements in chronic disease care over a relatively short period of time. Health systems and primary care practices interested in improving the care of patients with chronic diseases may consider simultaneous use of the various improvement strategies identified in this study.

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

Fig. 1
Table I

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weiner JP, Parente ST, Garnick DW, et al. Variation in office-based quality: a claims-based profile of care provided to Medicare patients with diabetes. JAMA 1995; 273: 1503–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Peters AL, Legorreta A, Ossorio RC, et al. Quality of outpatient care provided to diabetic patients: a health maintenance organization experience. Diabetes Care 1996; 19: 601–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Os’Connor PJ, Trence D, Rush WA. Relative effectiveness of niacin and lovastatin for treatment of dyslipidemias in a health maintenance organization. J Fam Pract 1997; 44: 562–7

    Google Scholar 

  4. Glasgow RE, Hiss RG, Anderson RM, et al. Report of the health care delivery work group: behavioral research related to the establishment of a chronic disease model for diabetes care. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 124–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harris MI. Health care and health status and outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000; 23: 754–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Greenfield S, Nerlson EC, Zubkoff M, et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1992; 267: 1624–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, et al. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialists. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 1995; 274: 1436–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Griffin S, Kinmonth A. Diabetes care: the effectiveness of systems for routine surveillance for people with diabetes (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Systematic Reviewa. Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. The Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford Update Software, 2000

  9. Grumbach K, Selby J, Schmittdiel J, et al. Quality of primary care practice in a large HMO according to physician specialty. Health Serv Res 1999; 34: 485–502

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Selby J, Grumbach K, Quesenberry CJ, et al. Differences in resource use and costs of primary care in a large HMO according to physician specialty. Health Serv Res 1999; 34: 503–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Os’Connor PJ. Commentary: practice environment, specialty, and primary care. Health Serv Res 1999; 34: 519–24

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vanselow N. Primary care and the specialist. JAMA 1998; 279: 1394–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sperl-Hillen J, Os’Connor PJ, Carlson RR, et al. Improving diabetes care in a large health care system: an enhanced primary care approach. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000; 26: 615–22

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nyman MA, Murphy ME, Schryver PG, et al. Improving performance in diabetes care: a multicomponent intervention. Eff Clin Pract 2000; 3: 205–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sidorov J, Gabbay R, Harris R, et al. Disease management for diabetes mellitus: impact on hemoglobin Alc. Am J Manag Care 2000; 6: 1217–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sutherland JE, Hoehms JD, Os’Donnell B, et al. Diabetes management quality improvement in a family practice residency program. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001; 14: 243–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aubert RE, Herman WH, Waters J, et al. Nurse case management to improve glycemic control in diabetic patients in a health maintenance organization: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 605–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Os’Connor PJ, Quiter ES, Rush WA, et al. Impact of hypertension guideline implementation on blood pressure control and drug use in primary care clinics. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1999; 25: 68–77

    Google Scholar 

  19. Os’Connor P, Rush W, Pronk N, et al. Identifying diabetes mellitus or heart disease among health maintenance organization members: sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and cost of survey and database methods. Am J Manag Care 1998; 4: 335–42

    Google Scholar 

  20. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Clinical care guideline: treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Bloomington, (MN): Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  21. Prochaska J, DiClemente C. Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviors. Prog Behav Modif 1992; 28: 183–218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Connor PJ, Prochinska JO, Pronk NP, et al. Professional advice and readings to change behavior risk factors among members of a managed care organization. Am J Manag Care 2001; 7: 125–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Os’Connor PJ, Rush WA, Pronk NP. Database systems to identify biological risk in managed care organizations: implications for clinical care. J Ambulatory Care Manage 1997; 20: 17–23

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pronk NP, Os’Connor PJ, Isham G, et al. Building a patient registry for implementation of health promotion initiatives: targeting high-risk individuals. HMO Pract 1997; 11: 43–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Os’Connor PJ, Rush WA, Rardin KA, et al. Are HMO members willing to engage in two-way communication to improve health? HMO Pract 1996; 10: 17–9

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pero J, Cutler J, McMahon S, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease: part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990; 335: 765–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rolnick S, Os’Connor P. Assessing the impact of clinical guidelines: research lessons learned. J Ambulatory Care Manage 1997; 20: 47–55

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Korff MV. Improving outcomes in chronic illness. Managed Care Q 1996; 4: 12–25

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Os’Connor PJ, Solberg LI, Baird M. The future of primary care: the enhanced primary care model. J Fam Pract 1998; 47: 62–7

    Google Scholar 

  30. Solberg LI, Reger LA, Pearson TL, et al. Using continuous quality improvement to improve diabetes care in populations: the IDEAL model: improving care for diabetics through empowerment, active collaboration and leadership. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1997; 23: 581–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Os’Connor PJ, Rush WA, Peterson J, et al. Continuous quality improvement can improve glycemic control for HMO patients with diabetes. Arch Fam Med 1996; 5: 502–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pronk NP, Os’Connor PJ. Systems approach to population health improvement. J Ambulatory Care Manage 1997; 20: 24–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Boyle RG, Os’Connor PJ, Pronk NP, et al. Stages of change for physical activity, diet, and smoking among HMO members with chronic conditions. Am J Health Promot 1998; 12: 170–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Os’Connor PJ, Desai J, Rush WA, et al. Is having a regular provider of diabetes care related to intensity of care and glycemic control? J Fam Pract 1998; 47: 290–7

    Google Scholar 

  35. Herman WH, Alexander CM, Cook JR, et al. Effect of simvastatin treatment on cardiovascular resource utilization in impaired fasting glucose and diabetes: findings from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 1771–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wagner EH, Sandhu N, Newton KM, et al. Effect of improved glycemic control on health care costs and utilization. JAMA 2001; 285: 182–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Maciosek M, Goodman M, Os’Connor PJ. Selecting diabetes improvement strategies: costs and population health impact. Diabetes 2000: 49 Suppl. 1: S345

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rogers S, Humphrey C, Nazareth I, et al. Designing trials of interventions to change professional practice in primary care: lessons from an exploratory study of two change strategies. BMJ 2000; 320: 1580–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Korff MV. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Mem Fund Q 1996; 74: 511–44

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wagner EH, Glasgow RE, Davis C, et al. Quality improvement in chronic illness care: a collaborative approach. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2001; 27: 63–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by RO1 grant HS09946 from The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The authors report no conflict of interest related to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HealthPartners Research Foundation, 8100 34th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota, MN, 55440-1524, USA

    Patrick J. Os’Connor (Practicing Family Physician and Senior Clinical Investigator), JoAnn M. Sperl-Hillen & Nicolaas P. Pronk

  2. Quello Medical Group, Bloomington, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

    Terry Murray

Authors
  1. Patrick J. Os’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. JoAnn M. Sperl-Hillen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolaas P. Pronk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Terry Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick J. Os’Connor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Os’Connor, P.J., Sperl-Hillen, J.M., Pronk, N.P. et al. Primary Care Clinic-Based Chronic Disease Care. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes 9, 691–698 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200109120-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200109120-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation