• Roy T Sabo, Rebecca S Etz, Martha M Gonzalez, Nicole J Johnson, Jonathan P O'Neal, Sarah R Reves, and Jesse C Crosson.
• From the Department of Biostatistics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (RTS); Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond (RTS, RSE, MMG, NJJ, JPO, SRR); TMF Health Quality Institute, Austin, TX (JCC). roy.sabo@vcuhealth.org.
• J Am Board Fam Med. 2020 Sep 1; 33 (5): 728-735.

BackgroundPrevious research demonstrated that registries are effective for improving clinical guideline adherence for the care of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, registry implementation has typically relied on intensive support (such as practice facilitators) for practice change and care improvement.ObjectiveTo determine whether a remotely delivered, low-intensity organizational change intervention supports implementation and use of diabetes registries in primary care.DesignCluster-randomized controlled effectiveness trial of providing limited external support leveraging internal practice resources and problem-solving capacities for driving diabetes registry implementation in 32 practices in Virginia.InterventionAll practices identified local implementation champions who participated in an in-person education session on the value and use of diabetes registries, while intervention practices were also paired with peer mentors and had access to a physician informaticist, who worked remotely to assist practices with implementation.Main MeasuresPractice champions reported progress on registry implementation milestone achievement, and reported practice-level organizational capacity by using a modified version of the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC).Key ResultsIntervention practices were significantly more likely to have implemented a registry (44% vs 6%, P = .04) and to have achieved more implementation milestones (5.5 vs 2.6, P < .0001) than control practices. Baseline ACIC scores indicated room for organizational improvement with regard to chronic illness care (overall median, 6.4; range, 3.8 to 10.8) and clinical information systems use (median, 6.0; range, 0 to 11) with no significant differences between intervention and control practices.ConclusionsRemotely provided guidance paired with limited in-person assistance can support rapid implementation of diabetes registries in typical primary care practices.© Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

19 keywords...

hide…