Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context

Deborah J. Cohen, Shannon M. Sweeney, William L. Miller, Jennifer D. Hall, Edward J. Miech, Rachel J. Springer, Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Laura Damschroder and Miguel Marino
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2021, 19 (3) 240-248; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2668
Deborah J. Cohen
1Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: cohendj@ohsu.edu
Shannon M. Sweeney
1Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William L. Miller
3Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania
MD, MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer D. Hall
1Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward J. Miech
4Regenstrief Institute, Center for Health Services Research, Indianapolis, Indiana
EdD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachel J. Springer
1Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bijal A. Balasubramanian
2Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Science, UTHealth School of Public Health, Dallas, Texas
MBBS, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Damschroder
5Implementation Pathways, LLC and VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan
MPH, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miguel Marino
1Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Primary Care Practice Characteristics

    CharacteristicPractices in Smoking Analysis (N = 59)Practices in BP Analysis (N = 73)
    Practice characteristics
    Ownership, No. (%)
        Clinicians36 (61.0)43 (58.9)
        Hospital/health system13 (22.0)16 (21.9)
        FQHC7 (11.9)9 (12.3)
        RHC/IHS3 (5.1)5 (6.8)
    Practice size, No. (%)
        Solo practice19 (32.2)21 (28.8)
        2-5 clinicians31 (52.5)41 (56.2)
        6-10 clinicians6 (10.2)8 (11.0)
        ≥11 clinicians2 (3.4)2 (2.7)
        Missing1 (1.7)1 (1.4)
    Geographic region/Cooperative, No. (%)
        Midwest (IN, IL, WI)12 (20.3)15 (20.5)
        North Carolina8 (13.6)9 (12.3)
        Northwest (OR, WA, ID)4 (6.8)7 (9.6)
        New York City (5 NY boroughs)15 (25.4)14 (19.2)
        Oklahoma7 (11.9)9 (12.3)
        Southwest (CO, NM)9 (15.3)11 (15.1)
        Virginia4 (6.8)8 (11.0)
    Location, No. (%)
        Rural area4 (6.8)8 (11.0)
        Large town10 (16.9)12 (16.4)
        Suburban4 (6.8)6 (8.2)
        Urban core41 (69.5)47 (64.4)
    Patient characteristics
    White, mean (SD), %61.4 (33.7)60.9 (33.4)
    Medicaid coverage, mean (SD), %20.5 (17.1)19.6 (17.2)
    Performance on CQM metric at baseline, No. (%)
        <50%26 (44.1)20 (27.4)
        50%-60%2 (3.4)16 (21.9)
        60%-70%6 (10.2)19 (26.0)
        70%-80%14 (23.7)15 (20.5)
        80%-90%11 (18.6)3 (4.1)
    • BP = blood pressure; CO = Colorado; CQM = clinical quality measure; FQHC = Federally Qualified Health Center; ID = Idaho; IHS = Indian Health Service; IL = Illinois; IN = Indiana, NM = New Mexico; NY = New York; OR = Oregon; RHC = rural health clinic; WA = Washington; WI = Wisconsin.

    • Note: Practices with >90% performance on the smoking CQM (11 practices) or BP CQM (1 practice) at baseline were excluded from analyses because they could not logically achieve a ≥10-point gain.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Pathways Linked to a ≥10-Point Gain in Smoking Outcome

    PathwayConsistency, % (No./N)Raw Coverage, % (No./N)Unique Coverage, % (No./N)Cases Included in Pathwaya
    Process improvement = 1
    AND
    Ownership = clinician
    93 (13/14)45 (13/29)21 (6/29)A1, B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, E1, E2, F1, F2, F12, G1, G2
    Any operational practice change = 1b
    AND
    Duration of facilitation = 25-49.9 hours
    91 (10/11)34 (10/29)21 (6/29)A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B5, B7, B12, G1, G3
    Identify referral resources = 1
    AND
    100 (6/6)20 (6/29)10 (3/29)A5, C2, E1, E2, F1, G4
    Referral tracking = 0
    AND
    Duration of facilitation = 10-24.9 hours
    Overall model92 (22/24)76 (22/29)N/A
    • N/A = not applicable.

    • ↵a Bold indicates cases uniquely explained by each pathway. Each letter refers to a different Cooperative and each number to a different practice in that Cooperative.

    • ↵b Any 1 of 3 operational changes (documentation, process improvement, and/or referral to resources).

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Qualitative Excerpts Demonstrating Pathways Linked to a ≥10-Point Gain in Smoking Outcome

    PathwayExcerpt
    Process improvement: changed practice workflows including processes to ensure clinicians provided brief counseling, changed workflow to enable MAs to provide brief counseling/referral for patients
    AND
    Clinician ownership
    Basically, they had a standing order for these tobacco users ... that will occur during the visit. There were some aspects of it that the MA can do or the person rooming. They had plenty of literature about tobacco cessation, as well as the state quitlines and different resources that are available, so they would do some of that. Then there was more counseling done within the visit, by the provider. (Facilitator interview; 2-5 clinicians; clinician owned)
    Any of 3 operational changes:
    1. Process improvement: changed practice workflows including processes to ensure clinicians provided brief counseling, changed workflow to enable MAs to provide brief counseling/referral for patients

    2. Documentation: reported working to change documentation behavior after someone in practice learned they were not documenting correctly

    3. Identify referral resources: gave information about quitlines and other resources to patients


    AND
    25-49.9 facilitation hours
    Their smoking [assessment and counseling] was a little bit on the low side, so I made sure I went back to it just to tell them, this is the protocol you need to follow. Make sure every patient is being screened for smoking. If there is a patient that’s smoking, make sure they give all the information that’s needed for them to quit. (Facilitator interview; solo practice; clinician owned; facilitation duration 4 [25-49.9 hours with a facilitator])
    What I focused on was helping them to document properly in [their EHR] because [their EHR] has a very specific way to document smoking cessation counseling. It has to be documented in a particular place. (Facilitator interview; 2-5 clinicians; FQHC; facilitation duration 4 [25-49.9 hours with a facilitator])
    We were given a lot of brochures, and I was able to get a lot of free gums and patches for patients that couldn’t get them before.… We [previously] didn’t even know about [the quitline], that we can refer [patients] for that, and that they can receive free patches and gum. (Practice interview; 2-5 clinicians; clinician owned; facilitation duration 4 [25-49.9 hours with a facilitator])
    Identify referral resources: gave information about quitlines and other resources to patients
    WITHOUT
    Tracking referrals: tracked patient’s referral and followed through on a referral to a quitline or another smoking cessation resource
    AND
    10-24.9 hours of facilitation
    With the smoking, we did a lot of patient education. We pushed that 1-800-QUITNOW smoke line that [our state] has. We had tear-out pages where you post it on the wall and people would just tear off the number; something that no one really notices, so we put some in the bathroom. We made sure that they were in the [examination] rooms. (Facilitator interview; 2-5 clinicians; clinician owned; facilitation duration 3 [10-24.9 hours with a facilitator])
    • EHR = electronic health record; FQHC = Federally Qualified Health Center; MA = medical assistant.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Pathways Linked to a ≥10-Point Gain in BP Outcome

    PathwayConsistency, % (No./N)Raw Coverage, % (No./N)Unique Coverage, % (No./N)Cases Included in Pathwaya
    Take second BP = 1
    AND
    Documentation = 1
    AND
    Ownership = clinician
    91 (10/11)38 (10/26)19 (5/26)A2, A3, A6, B8, C3, C4, E2, E3, F3, G2
    Take second BP = 1
    AND
    Duration of facilitation = ≥50 hours
    100 (3/3)12 (3/26)4 (2/26)A1, B8, B9
    Measurement training = 2
    AND
    Duration of facilitation = 10-24.9 hours
    75 (3/4)12 (3/26)4 (2/26)E2, G4, G5
    Measurement training = 1 (ie, without follow-up)
    AND
    Size = solo clinician
    73 (8/11)31 (8/26)15 (4/26)A2, A3, A6, A7, B8, F1, F4, F5
    Overall model82 (18/22)69 (18/26)N/A
    • BP = blood pressure; N/A = not applicable.

    • ↵a Bold indicates cases uniquely explained by each pathway. Each letter refers to a different Cooperative and each number to a different practice in that Cooperative.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Qualitative Excerpts Demonstrating Pathways Linked to a ≥10-Point Gain in BP Outcome

    PathwayExcerpt
    Measurement training: educated practice staff about how to take an accurate BP
    AND
    Solo practice
    We gave different tips on making sure that [the patient is] keeping both feet on the floor, [their] back is supported, they have an empty bladder, they’re not talking. Different tips like that to try to help patients lower their blood pressure. My biggest thing for all my providers that I recommended is to not talk to the patient while you’re doing it. Because I know most nurses or MAs are still trying to collect information while they’re taking blood pressure. (Facilitator interview; solo practice; clinician owned)
    [I] brought his nurse in, and the 3 of us [the facilitator, nurse, and clinician] went through proper blood pressure measurement. I printed out this PowerPoint that we had. ... We went, step by step, how to take the blood pressure. (Facilitator interview; solo practice; clinician owned)
    Take second BP: took second BP during visit if first was elevated
    AND
    Documentation: practice developed method for documenting second or home BP as a discrete field in EHR
    AND
    Clinician ownership
    We’re on the third floor so some patients say, “Oh, great. I’ll take the stairs.” By the time they get here their blood pressure is high, or else they’re late and they’re frantic, or they’ve been fighting the ice and snow, traffic, whatever. So, we get a high blood pressure reading and the MAs didn’t know to retake it at the end of the visit. ... Also understanding which [blood pressure] to record in our EHR and which is counted. If they take 3 blood pressures during the course of the appointment, which one is the one that’s pulling or counting? We had to do some digging and ask some questions and figure all that out. (Practice interview; 2-5 clinicians; clinician owned)
    Take second BP: took second BP during visit if first was elevated
    AND
    ≥50 facilitation hours
    We did workflow-mapping exercises, which [the practice] really liked. What I appreciated is they really spent time thinking about the workflow, and what worked and what didn’t. Whether the BP should be done again before—for example, before the patient sees the provider. (Facilitator interview; ≥11 clinicians; FQHC; facilitation duration 5 [≥50 hours with a facilitator])
    Measurement training: educated practice staff about how to take an accurate BP
    AND
    10-24.9 facilitation hours
    They weren’t aware of the 5-minute rule, waiting, making sure the patient wasn’t talking, feet on the floor. We did some training, internal training, of how to take a blood pressure properly. That went over well. All of the MAs, all the providers, medical staff, went to the training. (Facilitator interview; 2-5 clinicians; system owned; facilitation duration 3 [10-24.9 hours with a facilitator])
    • BP = blood pressure; EHR = electronic health record; FQHC = Federally Qualified Health Center; MA = medical assistant.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • The Article in Brief


    Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context


    Deborah J. Cohen, and colleagues

    Background In order to make meaningful gains in cardiovascular disease care, primary care medical practices should adopt a set of care improvements specific to their practice size and type. High blood pressure and smoking are among the biggest risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease. Primary care physicians help patients manage high blood pressure and provide smoking cessation interventions. Researchers collected qualitative data from a subset of participating EvidenceNOW primary care practices to answer the following research question: In the context of an initiative focused on improving cardiovascular disease preventive care, what factors and operational changes were linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure outcomes?


    What This Study Found Researchers found that there is no one central playbook for all types of practices, but they did identify combinations of practice characteristics, amount of practice facilitation, and operational changes linked with improved cardiovascular disease care. Smaller, solo and clinician-owned practices that changed routine aspects of their process, such as training medical assistants to perform accurate blood pressure readings; allowing staff to take repeated blood pressure measures and note second readings in electronic medical records; and equipping clinicians with the tools to perform smoking screening and cessation referrals, were able to make substantial improvements.

    In addition, working with a practice facilitator helped. Smaller practices that participated in a moderate amount of facilitation were able to make these improvements. However, for larger hospital or health system–owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more facilitation was necessary.


    Implications     

    • Researchers conclude: “making operational changes alone—in certain clinical settings—was insufficient to achieve meaningful improvements.” In practices that are part of larger, more complex systems, external facilitation along with prioritization of operational changes may be critical to successful quality improvement.
  • Supplemental Appendixes, Tables & Figures

    Supplemental Appendixes, Tables, & Figures

    • Cohen_Supp_Apps.pdf
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (3)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (3)
Vol. 19, Issue 3
1 May 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • The Issue In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 15 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context
Deborah J. Cohen, Shannon M. Sweeney, William L. Miller, Jennifer D. Hall, Edward J. Miech, Rachel J. Springer, Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Laura Damschroder, Miguel Marino
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2021, 19 (3) 240-248; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2668

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context
Deborah J. Cohen, Shannon M. Sweeney, William L. Miller, Jennifer D. Hall, Edward J. Miech, Rachel J. Springer, Bijal A. Balasubramanian, Laura Damschroder, Miguel Marino
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2021, 19 (3) 240-248; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2668
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions
  • Estimating the Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction of a Quality Improvement Initiative in Primary Care: Findings from EvidenceNOW
  • Estimating the Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction of a Quality Improvement Initiative in Primary Care: Findings from EvidenceNOW
  • How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?
  • Organizational Factors Associated with Guideline Concordance of Chronic Disease Care and Management Practices
  • Organizational Factors Associated with Guideline Concordance of Chronic Disease Care and Management Practices
  • How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?
  • Pairing regression and configurational analysis in health services research: modelling outcomes in an observational cohort using a split-sample design
  • Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff
  • The Need for Coaches in the Clinical World
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
  • Adverse Outcomes Associated With Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Prevention
  • Methods:
    • Mixed methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health services
  • Other topics:
    • Quality improvement
    • Organizational / practice change

Keywords

  • quality improvement
  • configurational comparative methods
  • mixed methods
  • cardiovascular prevention
  • smoking cessation
  • blood pressure management
  • organizational change
  • primary care
  • practice-based research

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine