Abstract
Despite progress to define primary care practice transformation models, there remains gaps in translating evidence-based guidelines into routine clinical care. Primary care providers (MD, DO, NP, PA) and researchers need tools to assess modifiable factors that improve practice performance to inform practice transformation efforts. We aimed to develop a pragmatic tool for assessing practice-level primary care structures and processes that are associated with better care quality and clinical outcomes. We generated 314 candidate items for the Tool for Advancing Practice Performance (TAPP) using data from a comprehensive literature review, Delphi study, and qualitative interviews with high-performing practices. We used empirical criteria and expert review to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity via removing and retaining items. The retained items were formatted into a survey tool, and we further revised the tool based on feedback elicited from cognitive interviews and pilot testing with primary care providers and staff. The final candidate pool comprised 126 items after refinement and expert review. For the survey tool, we adapted and developed survey questions for each of the 126 items. Eight cognitive interview participants reviewed the tool and provided feedback on its content and language. Based on this feedback, we eliminated 13 items because they were poorly or incorrectly understood by participants, resulting in a 113-item tool. Fifteen participants pilot tested the tool and no additional items were eliminated. The TAPP is a novel, low-burden tool that researchers and primary care providers can use to identify areas for improvement at the practice-level. Practices and health systems could use the TAPP to assess their own performance and identify gaps in their structures and processes, and practice networks and health systems can use the tool to assess structures and processes at individual clinics, track this information over time, and evaluate its relationship to care quality and clinical outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine Institutional Review Board.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
↵¶ LK and MMP are Joint First Authors.
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript.
