Search

Background: Patients with disabilities often require healthcare accommodations in order to access high-quality, equitable healthcare services. While attention has been paid to accommodation needs in specific disability populations, limited research to date has explored healthcare accommodations that cross-cut diverse disability populations.Objective: To identify a deeper understanding regarding accommodations in healthcare settings that could apply across disability populations and promote equitable healthcare.Design: We conducted qualitative focus groups with patients with disabilities and caregivers to understand their experiences and preferences for healthcare accommodations.Participants: We recruited patients and caregivers across all major disability categories to participate in focus groups. Participants were recruited through advocacy organizations and healthcare settings in Southeastern Minnesota.Approach: A total of eight focus groups were conducted with 56 participants. Participants described their healthcare experiences and desires for healthcare accommodations. The multidisciplinary research team recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded all focus groups. The team thematically coded transcripts using content analysis within and across focus groups to identify major themes.Key Results: Patients identified four challenges and corresponding steps healthcare team could take to promote equitable care: (1) consistent documentation of disabilities and needed accommodations in the medical record; (2) allowance for accommodations to the environment, including adapting physical space, physical structures, and scheduling and rooming processes; (3) provide accommodations for administrative tasks, such as completing paper or electronic forms; and (4) adapt communication during interactions, such as speaking slower or using terms that patients can easily understand.Conclusion: These identified themes represent specific opportunities for healthcare teams to effectively provide accessible care to patients with disabilities. Many of the accommodations require minimal financial investment, but did require behavioral changes by the healthcare team to ensure equitable healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical video telehealth (CVT) offers the opportunity to improve access to healthcare providers in medically underserved areas. However, because CVT encounters are mediated through technology, they may result in unintended consequences related to the patient-provider interaction.Methods: Twenty-seven patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus enrolled in Veteran Affairs Health Care and at least one previous telehealth visit experience were interviewed regarding their perspectives on facilitators and barriers to communication with their provider during their CVT visit. The semi-structured telephone interviews were approximately 30 min and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We conducted a thematic content analysis of the interview transcripts. Codes from the transcripts were grouped into thematic categories using the constant comparison method and each theme is represented with illustrative quotes.Results: We identified several themes related to patients' perspectives on CVT. In general, patients expressed satisfaction with CVT visits including better access to appointments, shorter travel time, and less time in the waiting room. Yet, patients also identified several challenges and concerns about CVT visits compared with in-person visits, including concerns about errors in their care because of perceived difficulty completing the physical exam, perceptions that providers paid less attention to them, barriers to speaking up and asking questions, and difficulty establishing a provider-patient relationship. Patients reported feeling less involved during the visit, difficulty finding opportunities to speak, and feeling rushed by the provider.Conclusions: Patients believed that CVT can improve their access to care, but could hinder communication with their provider, and some were concerned about the completeness and accuracy of the physical exam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy used to build practice capacity and support practice changes to improve health care outcomes. Yet, few studies have investigated how practice facilitation strategies are tailored to different primary care contexts.Objective: To identify contextual factors that drive facilitators' strategies to meet practice improvement goals, and how these strategies are tailored to practice context.Design: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews analyzed using inductive (open coding) and deductive (thematic) approaches. This study was conducted as part of a larger study, HealthyHearts New York City, which evaluated the impact of practice facilitation on adoption of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines.Participants: 15 facilitators working in two practice contexts: small independent practices (SIPs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).Main Measures: Strategies facilitators use to support and promote practice changes and contextual factors that impact this approach.Key Results: Contextual factors were described similarly across settings and included the policy environment, patient needs, site characteristics, leadership engagement, and competing priorities. We identified four facilitation strategies used to tailor to contextual factors and support practice change: (a) remain flexible to align with practice and organizational priorities; (b) build relationships; (c) provide value through information technology expertise; and (d) build capacity and create efficiencies. Facilitators in SIPs and FQHCs described using the same strategies, often in combination, but tailored to their specific contexts.Conclusions: Despite significant infrastructure and resource differences between SIPs and FQHCs, the contextual factors that influenced the facilitator's change process and the strategies used to address those factors were remarkably similar. The findings emphasize that facilitators require multidisciplinary skills to support sustainable practice improvement in the context of varying complex health care delivery settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Personalized care planning is a patient-centered, whole-person approach to treatment planning. Personalized care plans improve patient outcomes and are now mandated for chronic care management reimbursement. Yet guidance on how to best implement personalized care planning in practice is limited.Objective: We examined the adoption of personalized care planning in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) clinics to identify processes and organizational characteristics that facilitated or hindered use in routine practice.Design: Qualitative multiple-case study design. We conducted site visits at PCMH clinics in four US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers. Data included 10 general clinic observations, 34 direct observations of patient-provider clinical encounters, 60 key informant interviews, and a document review. Data were analyzed via qualitative content analysis using a priori and emergent coding.Participants: Employees and patients participating in clinical encounters in PCMH clinics at four VHA medical centers.Key Results: Each clinic used a distinct approach to personalized care planning: (1) distributed tasks approach; (2) two-tiered approach; (3) health coaching approach; and (4) leveraging a village approach. Each varied in workflow, healthcare team utilization, and degree of integration into clinical care. Across sites, critical components for implementation included expanding planning beyond initial assessment of patient priorities; framing the initiative for patients; using a team-based approach to care plan development and updates; using communication mechanisms beyond the electronic health record; and engaging stakeholders in implementation planning.Conclusions: Personalized care planning is a novel patient-centered practice, but complicated to implement. We found variation in effective implementation and identified critical components to structuring this practice in a manner that engages patients in treatment aligned with personal priorities. Primary care practices seeking to implement personalized care planning must go beyond simply asking patients a series of questions to establish a plan. They must also engage team members in plan development, communication, and dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For at least the past two decades, medical educators have worked to improve patient communication and health care delivery to diverse patient populations; despite efforts, patients continue to report prejudice and bias during their clinical encounters. Targeted instruction in implicit bias recognition and management may promote the delivery of equitable care, but students at times resist this instruction. Little guidance exists to overcome this resistance and to engage students in implicit bias instruction; instruction over time could lead to eventual skill development that is necessary to mitigate the influence of implicit bias on clinical practice behaviors.Objective: To explore student perceptions of challenges and opportunities when participating in implicit bias instruction.Approach: We conducted a qualitative study that involved 11 focus groups with medical students across each of the four class years to explore their perceptions of challenges and opportunities related to participating in such instruction. We analyzed transcripts for themes.Key Results: Our analysis suggests a range of attitudes toward implicit bias instruction and identifies contextual factors that may influence these attitudes. The themes were (1) resistance; (2) shame; (3) the negative role of the hidden curriculum; and (4) structural barriers to student engagement. Students expressed resistance to implicit bias instruction; some of these attitudes are fueled from concerns of anticipated shame within the learning environment. Participants also indicated that student engagement in implicit bias instruction was influenced by the hidden curriculum and structural barriers.Conclusions: These insights can inform future curriculum development efforts. Considerations related to instructional design and programmatic decision-making are highlighted. These considerations for implicit bias instruction may provide useful frameworks for educators looking for opportunities to minimize student resistance and maximize engagement in multi-session instruction in implicit bias recognition and management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Workforce projections indicate a potential shortage of up to 31,000 adult primary care providers by the year 2025. Approximately 80 % of internal medicine residents and nearly two-thirds of primary care internal medicine residents do not plan to have a career in primary care or general internal medicine.Objective: We aimed to explore contextual and programmatic factors within primary care residency training environments that may influence career choices.Design: This was a qualitative study based on semi-structured, in-person interviews.Participants: Three primary care internal medicine residency programs were purposefully selected to represent a diversity of training environments. Second and third year residents were interviewed.Approach: We used a survey guide developed from pilot interviews and existing literature. Three members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and developed the code structure based on the constant comparative method. The research team identified emerging themes and refined codes. ATLAS.ti was used for the analysis.Key Results: We completed 24 interviews (12 second-year residents, and 12 third-year residents). The age range was 27-39 years. Four recurrent themes characterized contextual and programmatic factors contributing to residents' decision-making: resident expectations of a career in primary care, navigation of the boundary between social needs and medical needs, mentorship and perceptions of primary care, and structural features of the training program.Conclusions: Addressing aspects of training that may discourage residents from careers in primary care such as lack of diversity in outpatient experiences and resident frustration with their inability to address social needs of patients, and strengthening aspects of training that may encourage interests in careers in primary care such as mentorship and protected time away from inpatient responsibilities during primary care rotations, may increase the proportion of residents enrolled in primary care training programs who pursue a career in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in reducing the overuse of healthcare services. However, little is known about how patients conceptualize the benefits and harms of overused screening tests or how patients make decisions regarding these tests.Objective: To determine how patients think about the harms and benefits of overused screening tests and how they consider these and other factors when making decisions.Design: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews.Participants: The study comprised 50 patients, ages 50-84, who had previously received or not received any of four overused screening services: 1) prostate cancer screening (men ages 50-69), 2) colon cancer screening (men and women ages 76-85), 3) osteoporosis screening (low-risk women ages 50-64), or 4) cardiovascular disease screening (low-risk men and women ages 50-85).Approach: We conducted a thematic analysis, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcriptions to identify themes and exemplifying quotes.Key Results: Many patients could not name a harm of screening. When they did name harms, patients often focused on only the harms of the screening test itself and rarely mentioned harms further along the screening cascade (e.g., from follow-up testing and treatment). In contrast, patients could easily name benefits of screening, although many seemed to misunderstand or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits. Furthermore, patients described many additional factors they considered when making screening decisions, including their clinicians' recommendations, their age, family or friends' experiences with disease, and insurance coverage.Conclusions: This study highlights the need to help adults recognize and understand the benefits and harms of screening and make appropriate decisions about overused screening tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-centered access is a philosophy and a method that supports efforts to redesign health-care delivery systems to deliver higher quality care and to better meet the needs and preferences of patients. Since mid-2000, Group Health Cooperative has pursued an ensemble of strategic initiatives aimed at promoting patient-centered access, referred to as the Access Initiative. In support of this strategy, Group Health has also engaged in enterprise implementation of an electronic medical record and clinical information system that is integrated with their patient Web site, MyGroupHealth.Objective: To elicit, describe, and characterize providers' perceptions of the effects of the Access Initiative, an information technology-enabled organizational redesign initiative intended to promote patient-centered access.Design: Thematic analysis of semi-structured in-depth interviews.Participants: Twenty-two care providers representing 14 primary care, medical, and surgical specialties at Group Health Cooperative, an integrated health-care system based in Seattle, Washington.Findings: Analyses of the interview transcripts revealed nine emergent themes, five of which have particular relevance for health-care organizations pursuing patient-centered access: the Access Initiative improved patient satisfaction, improved the quality of encounter-based care, compromised providers' focus on population health, created additional work for providers, and decreased job satisfaction for primary care providers and some medical specialists.Conclusions: Providers like that the Access Initiative is mostly good for their patients, but dislike the negative effects on their own quality of life - especially in primary care. These reforms may not be sustainable under current models of organization and financing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Language barriers in medical care are a large and growing problem in the United States. Most research has focused on how language barriers affect patients. Less is known of the physician perspective and the efforts they are making to overcome these barriers.Objective: To learn about current approaches to communicating with limited English-proficient (LEP) patients and the associated financial and nonfinancial constraints that private practice physicians and managers perceive in providing these services.Design: Computer-assisted telephone focus groups with open-ended discussion guide.Setting: Small private practices in geographic areas that have experienced recent dramatic increases in LEP populations.Participants: Primary care physicians, specialists, and practice managers.Approach: Focus group transcripts were systematically coded using grounded theory analysis. The research team then identified common themes that arose across the groups.Results: Citing the cost, inaccessibility, and inconvenience of using professional interpreters, physicians commonly used family and friends as interpreters. Few recalled any actual experience with professional interpreters or were well-informed about the cost of their services. Physicians and office managers voiced uniform concern about how language barriers impede quality and safety of patient care and increased malpractice risk.Conclusions: Health care providers in private practice recognize the importance of overcoming language barriers. However, perceived barriers to implementing cost-effective strategies to these barriers are high. Physicians in private practice would benefit from information about how to best overcome language barriers in their practices efficiently and affordably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]