Linda Casebeer

Background: Unwarranted variability in clinical practice is a challenging problem in practice today, leading to poor outcomes for patients and low-value care for providers, payers, and patients. Objective: In this study, we introduced a novel tool, QualityIQ, and determined the extent to which it helps primary care physicians to align care decisions with the latest best practices included in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Methods: We developed the fully automated QualityIQ patient simulation platform with real-time evidence-based feedback and gamified peer benchmarking. Each case included workup, diagnosis, and management questions with explicit evidence-based scoring criteria. We recruited practicing primary care physicians across the United States into the study via the web and conducted a cross-sectional study of clinical decisions among a national sample of primary care physicians, randomized to continuing medical education (CME) and non-CME study arms. Physicians “cared” for 8 weekly cases that covered typical primary care scenarios. We measured participation rates, changes in quality scores (including MIPS scores), self-reported practice change, and physician satisfaction with the tool. The primary outcomes for this study were evidence-based care scores within each case, adherence to MIPS measures, and variation in clinical decision-making among the primary care providers caring for the same patient. Results: We found strong, scalable engagement with the tool, with 75% of participants (61 non-CME and 59 CME) completing at least 6 of 8 total cases. We saw significant improvement in evidence-based clinical decisions across multiple conditions, such as diabetes (+8.3%, P<.001) and osteoarthritis (+7.6%, P=.003) and with MIPS-related quality measures, such as diabetes eye examinations (+22%, P<.001), depression screening (+11%, P<.001), and asthma medications (+33%, P<.001). Although the CME availability did not increase enrollment in the study, participants who were offered CME credits were more likely to complete at least 6 of the 8 cases. Conclusions: Although CME availability did not prove to be important, the short, clinically detailed case simulations with real-time feedback and gamified peer benchmarking did lead to significant improvements in evidence-based care decisions among all practicing physicians. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800901

BACKGROUND Unwarranted variability in clinical practice is a challenging problem in practice today, leading to poor outcomes for patients and low-value care for providers, payers, and patients. OBJECTIVE In this study, we introduced a novel tool, QualityIQ, and determined the extent to which it helps primary care physicians to align care decisions with the latest best practices included in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). METHODS We developed the fully automated QualityIQ patient simulation platform with real-time evidence-based feedback and gamified peer benchmarking. Each case included workup, diagnosis, and management questions with explicit evidence-based scoring criteria. We recruited practicing primary care physicians across the United States into the study via the web and conducted a cross-sectional study of clinical decisions among a national sample of primary care physicians, randomized to continuing medical education (CME) and non-CME study arms. Physicians “cared” for 8 weekly cases that covered typical primary care scenarios. We measured participation rates, changes in quality scores (including MIPS scores), self-reported practice change, and physician satisfaction with the tool. The primary outcomes for this study were evidence-based care scores within each case, adherence to MIPS measures, and variation in clinical decision-making among the primary care providers caring for the same patient. RESULTS We found strong, scalable engagement with the tool, with 75% of participants (61 non-CME and 59 CME) completing at least 6 of 8 total cases. We saw significant improvement in evidence-based clinical decisions across multiple conditions, such as diabetes (+8.3%, P<.001) and osteoarthritis (+7.6%, P=.003) and with MIPS-related quality measures, such as diabetes eye examinations (+22%, P<.001), depression screening (+11%, P<.001), and asthma medications (+33%, P<.001). Although the CME availability did not increase enrollment in the study, participants who were offered CME credits were more likely to complete at least 6 of the 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS Although CME availability did not prove to be important, the short, clinically detailed case simulations with real-time feedback and gamified peer benchmarking did lead to significant improvements in evidence-based care decisions among all practicing physicians. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03800901; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800901

The amount of medical education offered through the Internet continues to increase, providing unprecedented access for physicians nationwide. However, the process of evaluating these activities is ongoing. This study is a continuation of an earlier report that found online continuing medical education (CME) to be highly effective in making evidence-based decisions.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient education program developed to facilitate statin adherence.

The internet has had a strong impact on how physicians access information and on the development of continuing medical education activities. Evaluation of the effectiveness of these activities has lagged behind their development.

Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is suboptimal. The purposes of this study were to identify practice patterns and barriers among U.S. general internists and family physicians in regard to cardiovascular risk management, and examine the association between physician characteristics and cardiovascular risk management.

Introduction: Rapidly expanding science and mandates for maintaining credentials place increasing demands on continuing medical education (CME) activities to provide information that is current and relevant to patient care. Quality may be seen as the perceived level of service measured against consumer expectations. Standard tools have not been developed to determine how well CME activities meet consumer expectations. Methods: A widely used approach for evaluating perceptions of service quality in other fields, SERVQUAL, was adapted for CME by eliciting perspectives from physician consumers of CME and CME providers through nominal group techniques. These perspectives were used to develop a CMEQUAL evaluation survey instrument. Feasibility testing was conducted. Data were analyzed and items were tested for internal consistency. Results: CME participants were individuals willing to complete items related to expectations before participation and perceptions after participation in a CME activity. Of the CME activity participants who provided CMEQUAL rating data for the study, 43% rated their overall perceptions of the CME activity below their overall expectations. CME activities most clearly met participant expectations in providing fair and balanced evidence‐based content. Areas of lower priority for participants included opportunities for self‐assessment, solving cases, and interactive learning. Two areas highly valued by participants but not adequately addressed by CME activities were (1) translating trial data to patient seen in practice and (2) addressing barriers to optimal patient management. Discussion: Developing standards for evaluating physician perceptions of the quality of CME activities may assist CME providers in improving the effectiveness of CME activities in meeting physician learning needs.

Introduction: Much of the international community has an increased awareness of potential biologic, chemical, and nuclear threats and the need for physicians to rapidly acquire new knowledge and skills in order to protect the public's health. The present study evaluated the educational effectiveness of an online bioterrorism continuing medical education (CME) activity designed to address clinical issues involving suspected bioterrorism and reporting procedures in the United States. Methods: This was a retrospective survey of physicians who had completed an online CME activity on bioterrorism compared with a nonparticipant group who had completed at least 1 unrelated online CME course from the same medical school Web site and were matched on similar characteristics. An online survey instrument was developed to assess clinical and systems knowledge and confidence in recognition of illnesses associated with a potential bioterrorism attack. A power calculation indicated that a sample size of 100 (50 in each group) would achieve 90% power to detect a 10% to 15% difference in test scores between the two groups. Results: Compared with nonparticipant physicians, participants correctly diagnosed anthrax (p = .01) and viral exanthem (p = .01), but not smallpox, more frequently than nonparticipants. Participants knew more frequently than nonparticipants who to contact regarding a potential bioterrorism event (p = .03) Participants were more confident than nonparticipants about finding information to guide diagnoses of patients with biologic exposure (p = .01), chemical exposure (p = .02), and radiation exposure (p = .04). Discussion: An online bioterrorism course shows promise as an educational intervention in preparing physicians to better diagnose emerging rare infections, including those that may be associated with a bioterrorist event, in increasing confidence in diagnosing these infections, and in reporting of such infections for practicing physicians.