Introduction

The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology have proposed adjusting hypertension-related care quality measures by excluding patients with economic/access issues from the denominator of rate calculations. No research to date has explored the methods to operationalize this recommendation or how to measure economic/access issues. This study applied and compared different approaches to populating these denominator exceptions.

Methods

Electronic health record data from 2019 were used in 2021 to calculate hypertension control rates in 84 community health centers. A total of 10 different indicators of patient economic/access barriers to care were used as denominator exclusions to calculate and then compare adjusted quality measure performance. Data came from a nonprofit health center‒controlled network that hosts a shared electronic health record for community health centers located in 22 states.

Results

A total of 5 of 10 measures yielded an increase in adjusted hypertension control rates in ≥50% of clinics (average rate increases of 0.7-3.71 percentage points). A total of 3 of 10 measures yielded a decrease in adjusted hypertension control rates in >50% of clinics (average rate decreases of 1.33-13.82 percentage points). A total of 5 measures resulted in excluding >50% of the clinic's patient population from quality measure assessments.

Conclusions

Changes in clinic-level hypertension control rates after adjustment differed depending on the measure of economic/access issue. Regardless of the exclusion method, changes between baseline and adjusted rates were small. Removing community health center patients experiencing economic/access barriers from a hypertension control quality measure resulted in excluding a large proportion of patients, raising concerns about whether this calculation can be a meaningful measure of clinical performance.

Purpose

To assess the extent that patients' social determinants of health (SDOH) influence safety-net primary care clinicians' decisions at the point of care; examine how that information comes to the clinician's attention; and analyze clinician, patient, and encounter characteristics associated with the use of SDOH data in clinical decision making.

Methods

Thirty-eight clinicians working in 21 clinics were prompted to complete 2 short card surveys embedded in the electronic health record (EHR) daily for 3 weeks. Survey data were matched with clinician-, encounter-, and patient-level variables from the EHR. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equation models were used to assess relationships between the variables and the clinician reported use of SDOH data to inform care.

Results

Social determinants of health were reported to influence care in 35% of surveyed encounters. The most common sources of information on patients' SDOH were conversations with patients (76%), prior knowledge (64%), and the EHR (46%). Social determinants of health were significantly more likely to influence care among male and non-English-speaking patients, and those with discrete SDOH screening data documented in the EHR.

Conclusions

Electronic health records present an opportunity to support clinicians integrating information about patients' social and economic circumstances into care planning. Study findings suggest that SDOH information from standardized screening documented in the EHR, combined with patient-clinician conversations, may enable social risk-adjusted care. Electronic health record tools and clinic workflows could be used to support both documentation and conversations. Study results also identified factors that may cue clinicians to include SDOH information in point-of-care decision-making. Future research should explore this topic further.