Search

Introduction/objectives: With growing vaccination misinformation and mistrust, strategies to improve vaccination communication across community-based settings are needed., Methods: The Rural Adolescent Vaccine Enterprise (RAVE), a 5-year (2018-2022) stepped-wedge cluster randomized study, tested a clinic-based practice facilitation intervention designed to improve HPV vaccination. An exploratory aim sought to explore the use of partnerships between primary care clinics and a community partner of their choosing, to implement a social marketing campaign related to HPV immunization. We assessed perceptions about the value and success of the partnership, and barriers and facilitators to its implementation using a 29-item community partner survey, key informant interviews, and field notes from practice facilitators., Results: Of the initial 45 clinics participating in RAVE, 9 were unable to either start or complete the study, and 36 participants (80.0%) were actively engaged. Of these, 16/36 clinics (44.4%) reported establishing successful partnerships, 10 reported attempting to develop partnerships (27.8%), and another 10 reported not developing a partnership (27.8%), which were often caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common partnership was with public health departments at 27.3%. Other partnerships involved libraries, school districts, and local businesses. More than half (63.7%) reported that creating messages regarding getting HPV vaccination was moderately to very challenging. Just under half reported (45.5%) that messaging was hard because of a lack of understanding about the seriousness of diseases caused by HPV, parents being against vaccines because of safety concerns, and religious values that result in a lack of openness to HPV vaccines. Community partners' health priorities changed as a result of RAVE, with 80% prioritizing childhood immunizations as a result of the RAVE partnership., Conclusions: Community groups want to partner with primary care organizations to serve their patients and populations. More research is needed on how best to bring these groups together., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Purpose: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection contributes to vaccine-preventable malignancies. Rural populations experience lower HPV vaccination rates despite similar rates of other childhood vaccinations. Individual- and clinic-level characteristics likely contribute to this disparity, but little is known about the separate roles of each. We compared clinic-level HPV vaccination rates among rural versus urban primary care clinics, identified factors associated with HPV vaccination, and separately assessed the impact of individual- and clinic-level characteristics on rural disparities in HPV vaccination., Methods: This cross-sectional study included 537 Oregon primary care clinics participating in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program during 2019. Vaccination status was assessed using Oregon's ALERT Immunization Information System and included HPV vaccine ≥ 1 dose for ages 11 and 12; HPV vaccination up to date (UTD) for ages 13-17, and coadministration with tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap). Rural versus urban clinic-level outcomes were assessed using negative binomial regression., Findings: Participating clinics were 24.5% rural and 75.6% urban. Family medicine clinics comprised 71.1%; pediatrics, 16.9%; and mixed, 12.1%. Across clinics, the average proportion of patients qualifying for VFC was 43%, and non-White patients were 14.1%. The mean rate of HPV vaccine ≥1 dose was lower among rural clinics (46.9% vs 51.1%, P = .039), as was vaccination UTD (40.5% vs 49.9%, P < .001). Adjusting for differences in individual- and clinic-level characteristics, rural disparities were no longer statistically significant., Conclusions: Both individual- and clinic-level characteristics play a role in rural disparities in HPV vaccination, and modifiable clinic-level differences may be opportune targets to address these disparities., (© 2022 National Rural Health Association.)

Completion of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine series remains low. Partnerships between primary care (PC) clinics and local pharmacies could boost vaccination rates. We conducted a scoping literature review to address what is known and what gaps exist on the interface between U.S. primary care clinics and pharmacies for HPV vaccination. We searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL file and Cumulative Index to Allied Health Literature for articles published between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2020. Search subjects included: 1) Pharmacy HPV Vaccination, 2) Pharmacy/PC Collaboration, and 3) Pharmacy/PC Collaboration vaccination. We developed an abstraction form to collect information on research methods, settings, strengths, weaknesses and findings. We screened 407 articles for inclusion; 17 met inclusion criteria: 13 (76.5%) reported on observational/descriptive studies; 4 articles (23.5%) reported on intervention studies, none of which were conducted in rural areas. Observational studies focused on willingness to be vaccinated for HPV and facilitators and barriers for vaccination, especially at pharmacies. Many studies concluded that knowledge about and comfort with HPV vaccine administration were needed for all vaccination stakeholders (clinicians, pharmacists, parents, and patients). Intervention studies were small with weak study designs, many of which revealed that pharmacists were not successful in integrating services into broader primary care systems. Challenges included getting physicians to sign standing order protocols, poor service delivery due to engagement barriers, and low parental demand for pharmacists to administer the vaccine. In conclusion, larger more discerning studies are needed to fully understand the potential of primary care and pharmacy interactions for HPV vaccination., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Purpose: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease., Methods: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance., Results: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA., Conclusion: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months., (© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Context: To compare rural independent and health system primary care practices with urban practices to external practice facilitation support in terms of recruitment, readiness, engagement, retention, and change in quality improvement (QI) capacity and quality metric performance., Methods: The setting consisted of 135 small or medium-sized primary care practices participating in the Healthy Hearts Northwest quality improvement initiative. The practices were stratified by geography, rural or urban, and by ownership (independent [physician-owned] or system-owned [health/hospital system]). The quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey tool was used to measure QI at baseline and after 12 months of practice facilitation. Changes in 3 clinical quality measures (CQMs)-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control, and tobacco use screening and cessation-were measured at baseline in 2015 and follow-up in 2017., Results: Rural practices were more likely to enroll in the study, with 1 out of 3.5 rural recruited practices enrolled, compared with 1 out of 7 urban practices enrolled. Rural independent practices had the lowest QI capacity at baseline, making the largest gain in establishing a regular QI process involving cross-functional teams. Rural independent practices made the greatest improvement in meeting the BP control CQM, from 55.5% to 66.1% ( P ≤ .001) and the smoking cessation metric, from 72.3% to 86.7% ( P ≤ .001)., Conclusions: Investing practice facilitation and sustained QI strategies in rural independent practices, where the need is high and resources are low, will yield benefits that outweigh centrally prescribed models., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in recent history as radically and forcefully changing healthcare delivery. Practice facilitators, who often use tools of improvement science, have long played a critical role in supporting routine primary care practice transformation when healthcare system and policy changes occur. However, current events have taken many healthcare systems to the brink of collapse. Our practice facilitation team, which has a long history of sustained primary care partnerships in rural under-resourced settings, is finding creative solutions to carry forward work in research and quality improvement, and the tools of improvement science are well-suited to address rapidly changing demands of primary care during such a crisis. We reflect here on practice facilitation through the pandemic-the value of applied improvement science, and the critical necessity of strong relationships, flexibility, and creativity to support ongoing primary care partnerships.

Background: There is no commonly accepted comprehensive framework for describing the practical specifics of external support for practice change. Our goal was to develop such a taxonomy that could be used by both external groups or researchers and health care leaders., Methods: The leaders of 8 grants from Agency for Research and Quality for the EvidenceNOW study of improving cardiovascular preventive services in over 1500 primary care practices nationwide worked collaboratively over 18 months to develop descriptions of key domains that might comprehensively characterize any external support intervention. Combining literature reviews with our practical experiences in this initiative and past work, we aimed to define these domains and recommend measures for them., Results: The taxonomy includes 1 domain to specify the conceptual model(s) on which an intervention is built and another to specify the types of support strategies used. Another 5 domains provide specifics about the dose/mode of that support, the types of change process and care process changes that are encouraged, and the degree to which the strategies are prescriptive and standardized. A model was created to illustrate how the domains fit together and how they would respond to practice needs and reactions., Conclusions: This taxonomy and its use in more consistently documenting and characterizing external support interventions should facilitate communication and synergies between 3 areas (quality improvement, practice change research, and implementation science) that have historically tended to work independently. The taxonomy was designed to be as useful for practices or health systems managing change as it is for research., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic skin disorder often beginning in infancy. Skin barrier dysfunction early in life serves as a central event in the pathogenesis of AD. In infants at high risk of developing AD, preventative application of lipid-rich emollients may reduce the risk of developing AD. This study aims to measure the effectiveness of this intervention in a population not selected for risk via a pragmatic, randomized, physician-blinded trial in the primary care setting., Methods: Infant-parent dyads are recruited from a primary care practice participating through one of four practice-based research networks in Oregon, Colorado, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Eligible dyads are randomized to the intervention (daily use of lipid-rich emollient) or the control (no emollient) group (n = 625 infants in each) and are followed for 24 months. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of physician-diagnosed AD and secondary outcomes include caregiver-reported measures of AD and development of other atopic diseases. Data collection occurs via chart review and surveys, with no study visits required. Data will be analyzed utilizing intention-to-treat principles., Discussion: AD is a common skin condition in infants that affects quality of life and is associated with the development of other atopic diseases. If a safe intervention, such as application of lipid-rich emollients, in the general population effectively decreases AD prevalence, this could alter the guidance given by providers regarding routine skin care of infants. Because of the pragmatic design, we anticipate that this trial will yield generalizable results., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03409367. Registered on 11 February 2018.

Introduction: For many patients, primary care is an appropriate setting for advance care planning (ACP). ACP focuses on what matters most to patients and ensuring health care supports patient-defined goals. ACP may involve interactions between a clinician and a patient, but for seriously ill patients ACP could be managed by a team. Methods: We are conducting a cluster randomized trial comparing team-based to clinician-focused ACP using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in 42 practices recruited from 7 practice-based research networks (PBRNs). Practices were randomized to one of the two models. Patients are referred to the study after engaging in ACP in primary care. Our target enrollment is 1260 subjects. Patient data are collected at enrollment, six months and one year. Primary outcomes are patient-reported goal-concordant care and days at home. Secondary outcomes include additional patient measures, clinician/team experience, and practice-level measures of SICP implementation. Study Implementation: This trial was designed and is conducted by the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC), a consortium of PBRNs focused on integrating engagement with patients, families, and other stakeholders into primary care research and practice. The trial pairs a comparative effectiveness study with implementation of a new program and is designed to balance fidelity to the assigned model with flexibility to allow each practice to adapt implementation to their environment and priorities. Our dissemination will report the results of comparing the two models and the implementation experience of the practices to create guidance for the spread of ACP in primary care.

Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act triggered 2 successive grant initiatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, allowing for the evolution of health extension models among 20 states, not limited to support for in-clinic primary care practice transformation, but also including a broader concept incorporating technical assistance for practices and their communities to address social determinants of health. Five states stand out in stretching the boundaries of health extension: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. Their stories reveal lessons learned regarding the successes and challenges, including the importance of building sustained relationships with practices and community coalitions; of documenting success in broad terms as well as achieving diverse outcomes of meaning to different stakeholders; of understanding that health extension is a function that can be carried out by an individual or group depending on resources; and of being prepared for political struggles over "turf" and ownership of extension. All states saw the need for long-term, sustained fundraising beyond grants in an environment expecting a short-term return on investment, and they were challenged operating in a shifting health system landscape where the creativity and personal relationships built with small primary care practices was hindered when these practices were purchased by larger health delivery systems., (© 2019 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Purpose: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance., Methods: Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach., Results: Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76)., Conclusions: Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation., (© 2019 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Healthy Hearts Northwest (H2N) is a study of external support strategies to build quality improvement (QI) capacity in primary care with a focus on cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation., Methods: To guide practice facilitator support, experts in practice transformation identified seven domains of QI capacity and mapped items from a previously validated medical home assessment tool to them. A practice facilitator (PF) met with clinicians and staff in each practice to discuss each item on the Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA) resulting in a practice-level response to each item. We examined the association between the QICA total and sub-scale scores, practice characteristics, a measure of prior experience with managing practice change, and performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for the three cardiovascular risk factors., Results: The QICA score was associated with prior experience managing change and moderately associated with two of the three CQMs: aspirin use (r = 0.16, p = 0.049) and blood pressure control (r = 0.18, p = 0.013). Rural practices and those with 2-5 clinicians had lower QICA scores.., Conclusions: The QICA is useful for assessing QI capacity within a practice and may serve as a guide for both facilitators and primary care practices in efforts to build this capacity and improve measures of clinical quality., Trial Registration: This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier# NCT02839382, retrospectively registered on July 21, 2016.

Objectives: To test the effectiveness of a comprehensive team-based intervention to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination completion rates and reduce missed opportunities to vaccinate in rural Oregon., Design: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial., Participants: Forty family physicians and pediatricians who are members of the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network., Intervention: Tailored to individual practice needs, components will include (1) practice facilitation with clinicians, nurses, front office staff, and others who have patient contact to redesign patient care and communication strategies to optimize HPV vaccine series completion; (2) workflow mapping adapted to practice context to support HPV vaccine delivery; (3) a practice improvement model designed to firmly establish reminder and recall systems and then standing orders; (4) education for patients and parents that underscores HPV vaccination is safe, effective, and an important approach for reducing cancer risk; and (5) partnering with community organizations to plan and implement a social marketing campaign on HPV vaccination., Main Outcome Measures: Initiation and completion of the HPV vaccine series as well as reduction in rates of missed opportunities to vaccinate derived from Oregon Immunization Program data., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govPRS, NCT03604393 : .Trial was registered on July 11, 2018. The first participant was enrolled on September 11, 2018.

Background: Little is known about the burden of atopic dermatitis (AD) encountered in US primary care practices and the frequency and type of skin care practices routinely used in children., Objective: To estimate the prevalence of AD in children 0 to 5 years attending primary care practices in the United States and to describe routine skin care practices used in this population., Design: A cross-sectional survey study of a convenience sample of children under the age of 5 attending primary care practices for any reason., Setting: Ten primary care practices in 5 US states., Results: Among 652 children attending primary care practices, the estimated prevalence of ever having AD was 24% (95% CI, 21-28) ranging from 15% among those under the age of 1 to 38% among those aged 4 to 5 years. The prevalence of comorbid asthma was higher among AD participants compared to those with no AD, namely, 12% and 4%, respectively ( P < .001). Moisturizers with high water:oil ratios were most commonly used (ie, lotions) in the non-AD population, whereas moisturizers with low water:oil content (ie, ointments) were most common when AD was present., Conclusions: Our study found a large burden of AD in the primary care practice setting in the US. The majority of households reported skin care practices that may be detrimental to the skin barrier, such as frequent bathing and the routine use of moisturizers with high water: oil ratios. Clinical trials are needed to identify which skin care practices are optimal for reducing the significant burden of AD in the community., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared.

Purpose: With one-half of Americans projected to be living with at least one chronic condition before 2020, enhancing patient self-management support (SMS) may improve health-related behaviors and clinical outcomes. Routine SMS implementation in primary care settings is difficult. Little is known about the practice conditions required for successful implementation of SMS tools., Methods: Four primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) recruited 16 practices to participate in a boot camp translation process to adapt patient-centered SMS tools. Boot camp translation sessions were held over a 2-month period with 2 patients, a clinician, and a care manager from each practice. Qualitative case comparison and qualitative comparative analysis were used to examine practice conditions needed to implement SMS tools. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and analysis., Results: Four different practice conditions affected the implementation of new SMS tools: functional practice organization; system that enables innovation and change; presence of a visible, activated champion; and synergy and alignment of SMS changes with other work. Qualitative comparative analysis suggested that it was necessary to have an enabling system, a visible champion, and synergy for a practice to at least minimally implement the SMS tools. Sufficiency testing, however, failed to show robust consistency to satisfactorily explain conditions required to implement new SMS tools., Conclusions: To implement tailored self-management support tools relatively rapidly, the minimum necessary conditions include a system that enables innovation and change, presence of a visible champion, and alignment of SMS changes with other work; yet, these alone are insufficient to ensure successful implementation., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest None.

Purpose: Boot camp translation is a proven process to engage community members and health professionals in translating and disseminating evidence-based "best practices" models for health prevention and chronic illness care. Primary care practice improvement studies, particularly involving patient-driven change, as seen with self-management support (SMS), require engaged practice teams that include patients. Models of engagement such as boot camp translation may be effective., Methods: Four geographically dispersed practice-based research networks (PBRNs) from the Meta-LARC consortium engaged 16 practices to form SMS implementation teams involving a clinician, care manager, and 2 patients in each team. Our study adapted the boot camp translation model to engage the implementation teams in describing patient SMS, studying the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's SMS Resource Library, and adapting and implementing self-management tools at each practice site. Testimonials and quotes were collected across the 4 PBRNs through a facilitated brainstorming discussion and consensus model at each PBRN kickoff meeting to address the focused question, "What do patients want and need in order to self-manage their chronic illnesses?", Results: Testimonials collected across the 4 PBRNs and participation levels indicated there was a high degree of engagement in the boot camp translation process across the PBRNs and the practices. Each PBRN developed themes expressed by patients and the practices regarding what patients want and need to self-manage their illnesses. Each practice selected, adapted, and implemented an SMS tool., Conclusions: Results suggest that adapted boot camp translation was effective in guiding multiple practices to implement self-management support tools for the INSTTEPP trial. Additional study of the adapted boot camp translation process in practice quality improvement and practice redesign studies is needed., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest None.

Historically, a single research project involving numerous practice-based research networks (PBRNs) required multiple institutional review boards (IRBs) to be involved in approval of the project. However, to avoid redundancies, federal IRB regulations now allow cooperative research projects that involve more than one institution to use reasonable methods of cooperative IRB review and to cede authority for review and oversight of the project to a single lead IRB. Through ceding, a lead IRB has the authority for review and oversight of the project delegated by all participating sites' IRBs and becomes the IRB of record for the ceded sites. In the conduct of cooperative research projects, each institution or primary care office site is still responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects and for complying with applicable regulations. The purpose of this report is to delineate the process, including cooperation and effort of personnel, for accomplishing IRB approval for the Implementing Networks' Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) clinical trial. This process involved 4 PBRNs, 16 family physician offices, 4 academic institution's IRBs, and 4 family practice office external IRBs ceding to the lead IRB. Once ceding was accomplished, subsequent IRB modifications and continuing reviews were the responsibility of the lead IRB, ultimately saving time for all participants and keeping the project on schedule., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest None.

Purpose: Patient self-management is an inevitable part of the work of being a patient, and self-management support (SMS) has become increasingly important in chronic disease management. However, the majority of SMS resources available in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality SMS Resource Library were developed without explicit collaboration between clinicians and patients., Methods: Translation of SMS tools derived from the library into primary care practices occurred utilizing boot camp translation in four different practice-based research networks (PBRNs). The typical model of boot camp translation was adapted for the purpose of the Implementing Networks' Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) study to develop SMS tools for implementation in the participating practices. Clinicians, clinic staff members, and patients were involved throughout the translation process. Existing resources from the SMS library were reviewed and adapted by each boot camp translation group to create tools unique to the patients in each network., Results: There was no preexisting resource within the library that was deemed suitable for implementation without modification. Each network adapted tools from the SMS library to create different products. Common themes emerged from each network's translation process that highlighted the importance of patient engagement in the translation process. Boot camp translation, in conjunction with PBRNs, can be implemented to adapt SMS tools for implementation in member practices., Conclusions: Boot camp translation with a combination of practices and patients can be implemented to facilitate a process of local adaptation that improves the local applicability of SMS tools in primary care clinics., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest None.

Purpose: Self-management support (SMS) is a pillar of the well-established chronic care model and a key component of improving outcomes for patients with chronic illnesses. The Implementing Networks' Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) trial sought to determine whether a boot camp translation process could assist small to medium-sized primary care practices with care managers implement SMS tools., Methods: INSTTEPP used a stepped-wedge design across 16 practices from 4 practice-based research networks over 12 months. Each network completed a 2-month boot camp translation for creating SMS tools with 16 participants (2 patients, a clinician, and a care manager from each of 4 practices) and subsequent implementation. Outcome measures for patients were the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), self-rated health, and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) process-of-care items at baseline, 1 and 2 months. Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) and theory of planned behavior outcomes were assessed at 5 points over 10 months for clinicians and staff., Results: A total of 297 patients and 89 practice staff and clinicians completed surveys during the study. Over successive 2-month sampling periods, intervention patients experienced greater improvement in PACIC process of care and self-rated health compared to control patients (P<0.0001 and P=0.0273, respectively). PAM (P=0.3515), CS-PAM (P=0.7464), and theory of planned behavior outcomes (P>0.10 for all) were not significantly different., Conclusions: Significant effects on process of care and self-rated health are evidence that the boot camp translation intervention impacted SMS. A larger trial with a typical 6-month boot camp intervention may show significant effects on other outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest None.

Purpose: The methods and costs to enroll small primary care practices in large, regional quality improvement initiatives are unknown. We describe the recruitment approach, cost, and resources required to recruit and enroll 500 practices in the Northwest and Midwest regional cooperatives participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded initiative, EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care., Methods: The project management team of each cooperative tracked data on recruitment methods used for identifying and connecting with practices. We developed a cost-of-recruitment template and used it to record personnel time and associated costs of travel and communication materials., Results: A total of 3,669 practices were contacted during the 14- to 18-month recruitment period, resulting in 484 enrolled practices across the 6 states served by the 2 cooperatives. The average number of interactions per enrolled practice was 7, with a total of 29,100 hours and a total cost of $2.675 million, or $5,529 per enrolled practice. Prior partnerships predicted recruiting almost 1 in 3 of these practices as contrasted to 1 in 20 practices without a previous relationship or warm hand-off., Conclusions: Recruitment of practices for large-scale practice quality improvement transformation initiatives is difficult and costly. The cost of recruiting practices without existing partnerships is expensive, costing 7 times more than reaching out to familiar practices. Investigators initiating and studying practice quality improvement initiatives should budget adequate funds to support high-touch recruitment strategies, including building trusted relationships over a long time frame, for a year or more., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: authors report none., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Purpose: Colon cancer screening is effective. To complete screening in 80% of individuals over age 50 years by 2018 will require adequate colonoscopy capacity throughout the country, including rural areas, where colonoscopy providers may have less specialized training. Our aim was to study the quality of colonoscopy in rural settings., Methods: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) collaborated to recruit Oregon rural practices to submit colonoscopy reports to CORI's National Endoscopic Database (NED). Ten ORPRN sites were compared to non-ORPRN rural (n = 11) and nonrural (n = 43) sites between January 2009 and October 2011. Established colonoscopy quality measures were calculated for all sites., Results: No ORPRN physicians were gastroenterologists compared with 82% of nonrural physicians. ORPRN practices reached the cecum in 87.4% of exams compared with 89.3% of rural sites (P = .0002) and 90.9% of nonrural sites (P < .0001). Resected polyps were less likely to be retrieved (84.7% vs 91.6%; P < .0001) and sent to pathology (77.1% vs 91.3%; P < .0001) at ORPRN practices compared to nonrural sites. The overall polyp detection (39.0% vs 40.3%) was similar (P = .217) between ORPRN and nonrural practices. Of exams with polyps, the rate for largest polyp on exam 6-9 mm was 20.8% at ORPRN sites, compared to 26.8% at nonrural sites (P < .0001), and for polyps >9mm 16.6% vs 18.7% (P = .106)., Conclusion: ORPRN sites performed well on most colonoscopy quality measures, suggesting that high-quality colonoscopy can be performed in rural settings., (© 2016 National Rural Health Association.)

Background: Intervention toolkits are common products of grant-funded research in public health and primary care settings. Toolkits are designed to address the knowledge translation gap by speeding implementation and dissemination of research into practice. However, few studies describe characteristics of effective intervention toolkits and their implementation. Therefore, we conducted this study to explore what clinic and community-based users want in intervention toolkits and to identify the factors that support application in practice., Methods: In this qualitative descriptive study we conducted focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of community health coalition members, public health experts, and primary care professionals between November 2010 and January 2012. The transdisciplinary research team used thematic analysis to identify themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant role and toolkit experience., Results: Ninety six participants representing primary care (n = 54, 56%) and community settings (n = 42, 44%) participated in 18 sessions (13 focus groups, five key informant interviews). Participants ranged from those naïve through expert in toolkit development; many reported limited application of toolkits in actual practice. Participants wanted toolkits targeted at the right audience and demonstrated to be effective. Well organized toolkits, often with a quick start guide, with tools that were easy to tailor and apply were desired. Irrespective of perceived quality, participants experienced with practice change emphasized that leadership, staff buy-in, and facilitative support was essential for intervention toolkits to be translated into changes in clinic or public -health practice., Conclusions: Given the emphasis on toolkits in supporting implementation and dissemination of research and clinical guidelines, studies are warranted to determine when and how toolkits are used. Funders, policy makers, researchers, and leaders in primary care and public health are encouraged to allocate resources to foster both toolkit development and implementation. Support, through practice facilitation and organizational leadership, are critical for translating knowledge from intervention toolkits into practice.

Background: Patient engagement throughout research is a way to generate more relevant patient-important research questions, methods and results with the ultimate aim of facilitating translation of research into practice. Tokenism is defined as the practice of making perfunctory or symbolic efforts to engage communities or patients., Objective: We wanted to explore how tokenism might influence engaging patients in research to help researchers work towards more genuine engagement., Methods: The Community Clinician Advisory Group and Patient and Clinician Engagement program held a workshop at the 2015 North American Primary Care Research Group meeting titled 'How Do We Move beyond Tokenism in Patient Engagement?' Patients, clinicians and academic researchers contributed examples of genuine and token engagement characteristics based on personal experience and knowledge. Data were iteratively collated and categorized into domains and items., Results: Examples of genuine and token engagement were categorized into three domains: Methods/Structure of engagement, Intent and Relationship building. Members with experience in patient-engaged research projects felt that longitudinal engagement was a key element to effectively translating research into local community and practice., Conclusions: The group (i) highly valued genuine intent and relationship building as elements to combat tokenism; (ii) noted that early genuine attempts at engagement may superficially resemble tokenism as researchers build enduring and trusting relationships with patient/community partners and (iii) emphasized the importance of seeking and utilizing patient experiences throughout research. These observations may contribute to more formal methods to help researchers (and reviewers) evaluate where engagement processes sit along the 'genuine-token' continuum., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Health extension programs represent an opportunity for practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and primary care practices to develop collaborations reaching beyond the clinic walls to address the upstream social determinants of health and engage in community-based research. The Health Extension Regional Officers (HEROs) program at the University of New Mexico described in this issue of the JABFM is an innovative model with a bidirectional approach to linking academic health centers to community-based practices and organizations. Health extension programs are local, influenced by history, relationships, and support. Oregon's health extension workforce represents a diverse group that includes practice facilitators, community health workers, and Cooperative Extension agents. PBRNs are measuring success in terms of collaboration across a spectrum of health activities. The Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network uses a "Four Pillars" model of community engagement, practice transformation, research, and education to involve researchers, health policy experts, educators, and health extension workers to improve community health., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Little attention has been paid to quality improvement (QI) capacity within smaller primary care practices which comprise nearly half of all primary care settings. Strategies for external support to build such capacity include practice facilitation (PF), shared learning opportunities, and educational outreach. Although PF has proven effectiveness, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of combining these strategies. Here, we describe the protocol of the "Healthy Hearts Northwest" (H2N) study, a randomized trial designed to address these questions while improving risk factors for cardiovascular disease., Methods/design: The targeted enrollment is 250 smaller primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The study is utilizing a two-by-two factorial design to assess four different combinations of practice support: PF alone, PF with educational outreach, PF with shared learning opportunities, or PF with both. A mixed methods approach is being used for evaluation and will include data from (1) baseline and follow-up practice and staff surveys; (2) baseline and quarterly clinical performance measurement from each practice on four cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, lipid management and smoking cessation support; and (3) a quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey used by external practice facilitators to guide improvement efforts., Discussion: Results from this study will inform future large-scale practice improvement initiatives by providing comparisons of promising external practice support strategies and advance our understanding of how to build QI capacity in primary care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02839382.

In this commentary, we propose that practice-based research networks (PBRNs) engage with funders and policymakers by applying the same engagement strategies they have successfully used to build relationships with community stakeholders. A community engagement approach to achieve new funding streams for PBRNs should include a strategy to engage key stakeholders from the communities of funders, thought leaders, and policymakers using collaborative principles and methods. PBRNs that implement this strategy would build a robust network of engaged partners at the community level, across networks, and would reach state and federal policymakers, academic family medicine departments, funding bodies, and national thought leaders in the redesign of health care delivery., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Health reform programs like the patient-centered medical home are intended to improve the triple aim. Previous studies on patient-centered medical homes have shown mixed effects, but high value elements (HVEs) are expected to improve the triple aim., Objective: The aim of this study is to understand whether focusing on HVEs would improve patient experience with care., Methods: Eight clinics were cluster-randomized in a year-long trial. Both arms received practice facilitation, IT-based reporting, and financial incentives. Intervention practices were encouraged to choose HVEs for quality improvement goals. To assess patient experience, 1597 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys were sent pretrial and posttrial to a stratified random sample of patients. Difference-in-difference multivariate analysis was used to compare patient responses from intervention and control practices, adjusting for confounders., Results: The response rate was 43% (n=686). Nonrespondent analysis showed no difference between arms, although differences were seen by risk status and age. The overall difference in difference was 2.8%, favoring the intervention. The intervention performed better in 9 of 11 composites. The intervention performed significantly better in follow-up on test results (P=0.091) and patients' rating of the provider (P=0.091), whereas the control performed better in access to care (P=0.093). Both arms also had decreases, including 4 of 11 composites for the intervention, and 8 of 11 for the control., Discussion: Practices that targeted HVEs showed significantly more improvement in patient experience of care. However, contemporaneous trends may have affected results, leading to declines in patient experience in both arms.

Using peer learning strategies, seven experienced PBRNs working in collaborative teams articulated procedures for PBRN Research Good Practices (PRGPs). The PRGPs is a PBRN-specific resource to facilitate PBRN management and staff training, to promote adherence to study protocols, and to increase validity and generalizability of study findings. This paper describes the team science processes which culminated in the PRGPs. Skilled facilitators used team science strategies and methods from the Technology of Participation (ToP®), and the Consensus Workshop Method to support teams to codify diverse research expertise in practice-based research. The participatory nature of "sense-making" moved through identifiable stages. Lessons learned include (1) team input into the scope of the final outcome proved vital to project relevance; (2) PBRNs with diverse domains of research expertise contributed broad knowledge on each topic; and (3) ToP® structured facilitation techniques were critical for establishing trust and clarifying the "sense-making" process., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) conduct research in community settings, which poses quality control challenges to the integrity of research, such as study implementation and data collection. A foundation for improving research processes within PBRNs is needed to ensure research integrity., Methods: Network directors and coordinators from seven U.S.-based PBRNs worked with a professional team facilitator during semiannual in-person meetings and monthly conference calls to produce content for a compendium of recommended research practices specific to the context of PBRNs. Participants were assigned to contribute content congruent with their expertise. Feedback on the draft document was obtained from attendees at the preconference workshop at the annual PBRN meeting in 2013. A revised document was circulated to additional PBRN peers prior to finalization., Results: The PBRN Research Good Practices (PRGPs) document is organized into four chapters: (1) Building PBRN Infrastructure; (2) Study Development and Implementation; (3) Data Management, and (4) Dissemination Policies. Each chapter contains an introduction, detailed procedures for each section, and example resources with information links., Conclusion: The PRGPs is a PBRN-specific resource to facilitate PBRN management and staff training, to promote adherence to study protocols, and to increase validity and generalizability of study findings., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Responding to quality metrics is an accepted and expected component of the current health care environment. Little is known about which measures physicians identify as a priority when reporting the quality of care to their patients, especially the care of children in rural settings. The objective of this study is for physicians caring for children in rural communities to identify which of the initial core sets of 24 child health quality measures are useful and are a priority for reporting and improving care., Methods: A survey was sent to rural Oregon physicians who provide care to children., Results: Of 955 eligible physicians, 172 (18%) completed the survey. The majority of respondents were family physicians (84%), and most respondents (58%) were in private practice. The child health measures stratified into 3 priority tiers: high, medium, and low priority. The top-tier priority measures included childhood immunization status, well-child visits, adolescent immunization status, body mass index assessment, and developmental screening. Dental treatment services, adequate prenatal care, and lower-birth-weight infants were among the lower-tier measures., Conclusions: The priority measures identified by rural family physicians reflect the relevance of the selected measures to their daily practice responsibilities, with missed opportunities to improve community health., (© Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Health care in the United States is in the midst of a near perfect storm: strong cost pressures, dramatic redesign efforts like patient-centered medical homes and accountable care organizations, and a broad series of payment and eligibility reforms. To date, alternative models of care intended to reduce costs and improve outcomes have shown mixed effects in the U.S., in part due to the difficulty of performing rigorous evaluation studies that control for the broader transformation while avoiding other biases, such as organizational or clinic effect on individual patient outcomes. Our objective is to test whether clinics assigned to achieve high value elements (HVEs) of practice redesign are more likely than controls to achieve improvements in patient health and satisfaction with care and reduction in costs., Methods/design: To prepare, we interview stakeholders, align with health reform, and propose a pilot. Participants are primary care clinics engaged in reform. Study protocol requires that both arms receive monthly practice facilitation, IT-based milestone reporting, and small financial incentives based on self-determined quality improvement (QI) goals; intervention receives additional prompting to choose HVEs. Design is a cluster randomized controlled trial over 1 year with pre- and post-washout periods. Outcomes are unplanned utilization and costs, patient experience of care, quality, and team performance. Analysis is a multivariate difference-in-difference with adjustments for patient risk, intraclinic correlation, and other confounders., Discussion: The TOPMED study is a cluster randomized controlled trial focused on learning how primary care practices can transform within health reform guidelines to achieve outcomes related to the Triple Aim., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02106221.

Purpose: Remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) may improve the quality of care, reduce access barriers, and help control medical costs. Despite the role of primary care clinicians as potential key users of RMTs, few studies explore their views. This study explores rural primary care clinician interest and the resources necessary to incorporate RMTs into routine practice., Methods: We conducted 15 in-depth interviews with rural primary care clinician members of the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) from November 2011 to April 2012. Our multidisciplinary team used thematic analysis to identify emergent themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant and practice characteristics., Results: Clinicians expressed interest in RMTs most relevant to their clinical practice, such as supporting chronic disease management, noting benefits to patients of all ages. They expressed concern about the quantity of data, patient motivation to utilize equipment, and potential changes to the patient-clinician encounter. Direct data transfer into the clinic's electronic health record (EHR), availability in multiple formats, and review by ancillary staff could facilitate implementation. Although participants acknowledged the potential system-level benefits of using RMTs, adoption would be difficult without payment reform., Conclusions: Adoption of RMTs by rural primary care clinicians may be influenced by equipment purpose and functionality, implementation resources, and payment. Clinician and staff engagement will be critical to actualize RMT use in routine primary care., (Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine associations between the number and types of patients' chronic diseases and being up to date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening., Methods: Data were abstracted from medical charts at 4 primary care clinics located in 2 rural Oregon communities. Eligibility criteria included being at least 55 years old and having at least 1 clinic visit in the past 2 years., Results: Of 3433 patients included, 503 (15%) had no chronic illness, 646 (19%) had 1, 786 (23%) had 2, and 1498 (44%) had ≥3 chronic conditions. Women with asthma/chronic lung disease and with cardiovascular disease were less likely to be up o date for mammography screening (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.80), and those with chronic digestive disorders were more likely to be up to date for mammography (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03-1.66) compared with those without chronic conditions. Women with arthritis, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension were less likely to be up to date for cervical cancer screening (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.68) compared with those without chronic conditions. Men with cardiovascular disease were less likely to be up to date for colorectal cancer screening (adjusted OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80), and women with depression were less likely to be up to date (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91) compared with men and women without chronic conditions., Conclusion: Specific chronic conditions were found to be associated with up-to-date status for cancer screening. This finding may help practices to identify patients who need to receive cancer screening., (© Copyright 2014 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: Community engagement (CE) and community-engaged research (CEnR) are increasingly recognized as critical elements in research translation. Process models to develop CEnR partnerships in rural and underserved communities are needed., Method: Academic partners transformed four established Community Health Improvement Partnerships (CHIPs) into Community Health Improvement and Research Partnerships (CHIRPs). The intervention consisted of three elements: an academic-community kickoff/orientation meeting, delivery of eight research training modules to CHIRP members, and local community-based participatory research (CBPR) pilot studies addressing childhood obesity. We conducted a mixed methods analysis of pre-/postsurveys, interviews, session evaluations, observational field notes, and attendance logs to evaluate intervention effectiveness and acceptability., Results: Forty-nine community members participated; most (78.7%) attended five or more research training sessions. Session quality and usefulness was high. Community members reported significant increases in their confidence for participating in all phases of research (e.g., formulating research questions, selecting research methods, writing manuscripts). All CHIRP groups successfully conducted CBPR pilot studies., Conclusions: The CHIRP process builds on existing infrastructure in academic and community settings to foster CEnR. Brief research training and pilot studies around community-identified health needs can enhance individual and organizational capacity to address health disparities in rural and underserved communities., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Previous research on ascertainment of cancer family history and cancer screening has been conducted in urban settings., Purpose: To examine whether documented family history of breast or colorectal cancer is associated with breast or colorectal cancer screening., Methods: Medical record reviews were conducted on 3433 patients aged 55 and older from four primary care practices in two rural Oregon communities. Data collected included patient demographic and risk information, including any documentation of family history of breast or colorectal cancer, and receipt of screening for these cancers., Results: A positive breast cancer family history was associated with an increased likelihood of being up-to-date for mammography screening (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.45-3.00 relative to a recorded negative history). A positive family history for colorectal cancer was associated with an increased likelihood of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening according to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force low risk guidelines for males (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.15-7.29) and females (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.32-4.64) relative to a recorded negative family history. The absence of any recorded family cancer history was associated with a decreased likelihood of being up-to-date for mammography screening (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88 relative to recorded negative history) or for colorectal cancer screening (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.96 in females, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.88 in males relative to recorded negative history)., Conclusion: Further research is needed to determine if establishing routines to document family history of cancer would improve appropriate use of cancer screening., (© 2013.)

Background: Academic medical centers are examining relationships with the pharmaceutical industry and making changes to limit interactions. Most doctors, however, practice outside of academic institutions and see pharmaceutical detailers and accept drug samples and gifts. Little guidance for practicing physicians exists about transforming practices to become pharma-free. Consideration must be given to the impact on practice culture, staff views, and patient needs., Methods: A small private practice, setting out to transform into a pharma-free clinic, used a practice transformation process that examined the industry presence in the clinic, educated the doctors on potential conflicts of interest, and improved practice flow. Staff were given the opportunity to share concerns, and their issues were acknowledged. Educational interventions were developed to help providers keep current. Finally, efforts were made to educate patients about the policy., Results: The clinic recorded the degree to which it was detailed. Loss of gifts, keeping current with new drugs, and managing without samples were noted concerns. Policy change champions developed strategies to address concerns., Discussion: A shift in practice culture to a pharma-free clinic is achievable and maintainable over time. Barriers to success can be identified and overcome with attention given to careful gathering of information, staff input, and stakeholder education.

Background: Academic detailing is an interactive, convenient, and user-friendly approach to delivering non-commercial education to healthcare clinicians. While evidence suggests academic detailing is associated with improvements in prescribing behavior, uncertainty exists about generalizability and scalability in diverse settings. Our study evaluates different models of delivering academic detailing in a rural family medicine setting., Methods: We conducted a pilot project to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction with academic detailing delivered face-to-face as compared to a modified approach using distance-learning technology. The recipients were four family medicine clinics within the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN). Two clinics were allocated to receive face-to-face detailing and two received outreach through video conferencing or asynchronous web-based outreach. Surveys at midpoint and completion were used to assess effectiveness and satisfaction., Results: Each clinic received four outreach visits over an eight month period. Topics included treatment-resistant depression, management of atypical antipsychotics, drugs for insomnia, and benzodiazepine tapering. Overall, 90% of participating clinicians were satisfied with the program. Respondents who received in person detailing reported a higher likelihood of changing their behavior compared to respondents in the distance detailing group for five of seven content areas. While 90%-100% of respondents indicated they would continue to participate if the program were continued, the likelihood of participation declined if only distance approaches were offered., Conclusions: We found strong support and satisfaction for the program among participating clinicians. Participants favored in-person approaches to distance interactions. Future efforts will be directed at quantitative methods for evaluating the economic and clinical effectiveness of detailing in rural family practice settings.

Background: The current study was performed to determine, in rural settings, the relation between the type and status of insurance coverage and being up-to-date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening., Methods: Four primary care practices in 2 rural Oregon communities participated. Medical chart reviews that were conducted between October 2008 and August 2009 assessed insurance coverage and up-to-date status for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Inclusion criteria involved having at least 1 health care visit within the past 5 years and being aged ≥ 55 years., Results: The majority of patients were women aged 55 years to 70 years, employed or retired, and who had private health insurance and an average of 2.5 comorbid conditions. The overall percentage of eligible women who were up-to-date for cervical cancer screening was 30%; approximately 27% of women were up-to-date for clinical breast examination, 37% were up-to-date for mammography, and 19% were up-to-date for both mammography and clinical breast examination. Approximately 38% of men and 35% of women were up-to-date for colorectal cancer screening using any test at appropriate screening intervals. In general, having any insurance versus being uninsured was associated with undergoing cancer screening. For each type of screening, patients who had at least 1 health maintenance visit were significantly more likely to be up-to-date compared with those with no health maintenance visits. A significant interaction was found between having health maintenance visits, having any health insurance, and being up-to-date for cancer screening tests., Conclusions: Overall, the percentage of patients who were up-to-date for any cancer screening, especially cervical cancer screening, was found to be very low in rural Oregon. Patients with some form of health insurance were more likely to have had a health maintenance visit within the previous 2 years and to be up-to-date for breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer screening., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Assessment of patient safety culture has recently expanded in inpatient settings, but the majority of medical encounters occurs in office settings, and less is known about the determinants of perceived quality and safety in ambulatory care. The Medical Office Survey of Patient Safety was developed to assess perceived quality of care and patient safety culture in medical offices, including a domain to assess the quality criteria as defined by the Institute of Medicine: patient-centered, effective, timely, efficient, and equitable., Methods: We surveyed 6534 clinicians and staff in 306 medical practices from 11 practice based research networks (PBRNs) in 16 states. We collected data on office size, ownership, and use of health information technologies (HIT) and assessed perceived patient safety and quality of care with the Medical Office Survey of Patient Safety's overall quality domain. Using a mixed model that adjusted for the role of respondents, we examined the relationship between perceived safety and quality of care and office size, ownership, and the degree of implementation of HIT., Results: Small practices (3-15 personnel) reported the highest proportion of positive perceptions of quality and safety. The lowest proportion of positive perceptions of quality and safety occurred in large (41-70 personnel) and very large practices (>70 personnel). After controlling for office size, we found no relationship between perceived quality and safety and practice ownership. The relationship of HIT implementation to perceived quality and safety was not clear. We found the highest proportion of positive perceptions in practices with the least HIT and those with the most HIT and the lowest proportion in practices with intermediate levels of HIT., Conclusions: Personnel in small practices reported the highest overall quality and safety of care, and perceived quality and safety declined with increasing office size. No clear relationship was found between perceived quality and safety and implementation of HIT.

Comparative effectiveness research fundamentally reorients how clinical evidence is generated and used with the goal of providing actionable information to decision-makers. To achieve this, it is vital that decision-makers and the research enterprise are engaged from research inception, to evidence generation and translation. Practice-based research networks are affiliated clinicians in diverse communities with the goal of conducting research to improve care. Practice-based research networks have the potential to advance all phases of the comparative effectiveness research cycle. The aim of this paper is to explore current and potential roles of practice-based research networks in conducting comparative effectiveness research.

Context: Little is known about rural clinicians' perspectives regarding early childhood immunization delivery, their adherence to recommended best immunization practices, or the specific barriers they confront., Purpose: To examine immunization practices, beliefs, and barriers among rural primary care clinicians for children in Oregon and compare those who deliver all recommended immunizations in their practices with those who do not., Methods: A mailed questionnaire was sent to all physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants practicing primary care in rural communities throughout Oregon., Findings: While 39% of rural clinicians reported delivering all childhood immunizations in their clinic, 43% of clinicians reported that they refer patients elsewhere for some vaccinations, and 18% provided no immunizations in the clinic whatsoever. Leading reasons for referral include inadequate reimbursement, parental request, and storage and stocking difficulties. Nearly a third of respondents reported that they had some level of concern about the safety of immunizations, and 14% reported that concerns about safety were a specific reason for referring. Clinicians who delivered only some of the recommended immunizations were less likely than nonreferring clinicians to have adopted evidence-based best immunization practices., Conclusions: This study of rural clinicians in Oregon demonstrates the prevalence of barriers to primary care based immunization delivery in rural regions. While some barriers may be difficult to overcome, others may be amenable to educational outreach and support. Thus, efforts to improve population immunization rates should focus on promoting immunization "best practices" and enhancing the capacity of practices to provide immunizations and ensuring that any alternative means of delivering immunizations are effective., (© 2011 National Rural Health Association.)

Purpose: The physician-pharmaceutical industry relationship has come under increasing scrutiny. Little guidance exists concerning how smaller practices should manage this relationship.In 2006, Madras Medical Group, a small family practice in rural Oregon, implemented a policy prohibiting visits from representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and the acceptance of drug samples. This qualitative study documents the attitudes of clinic personnel in response to this policy., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted using standardized questions related to 4 areas of policy perception: verification of policy decision, impact on clinic operations,influence of pharmaceutical industry, and lessons to share. Common themes were identified., Results: Three physicians and 3 nurses participated in the study. There was consensus on the existence and effectiveness of the clinic policy. Key themes identified from both groups of interviewees included the perception of enhanced clinic operation after eliminating interruptions from pharmaceutical representatives, positive response from the public, and reduced diversion of samples for personal use. Clinicians interviewed agreed that samples were of questionable benefit,that information obtained from industry representatives was incomplete or of questionable veracity or objectivity, and that it was helpful to substitute other drug information sources and clinic-sponsored lunches for past industry offerings., Conclusion: In this case study, a policy prohibiting pharmaceutical representatives from a small family practice was well accepted and a source of pride among physicians and nurses. Other clinics wishing to enact a similar policy may wish to supplement their efforts by proactively using other sources of drug information.

This study sought to understand the acceptability and feasibility of office-based nurse care management in medium to large rural primary care practices. A qualitative assessment of Care Management Plus (a focused medical home model for complex patients) implementation was conducted using semistructured interviews with 4 staff cohorts. Cohorts included clinician champions, clinician partners, practice administrators, and nurse care managers. Seven key implementation attributes were: a proven care coordination program; adequate staffing; practice buy-in; adequate time; measurement; practice facilitation; and functional information technology. Although staff was positive about the care coordination concept, model acceptability was varied and additional study is required to determine sustainability.

Purpose: In this study, we developed and field tested the Medication Error and Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (MEADERS)-an easy-to-use, Web-based reporting system designed for busy office practices., Methods: We conducted a 10-week field test of MEADERS in which 220 physicians and office staff from 24 practices reported medication errors and adverse drug events they observed during usual clinical care. The main outcomes were (1) use and acceptability of MEADERS measured with a postreporting survey and interviews with office managers and lead physicians, and (2) distributions of characteristics of the medication event reports., Results: A total of 507 anonymous event reports were submitted. The mean reporting time was 4.3 minutes. Of these reports, 357 (70%) included medication errors only, 138 (27%) involved adverse drug events only, and 12 (2.4%) included both. Medication errors were roughly equally divided among ordering medications, implementing prescription orders, errors by patients receiving the medications, and documentation errors. The most frequent contributors to the medication errors and adverse drug events were communication problems (41%) and knowledge deficits (22%). Eight (1.6%) of the reported events led to hospitalization. Reporting raised staff and physician awareness of the kinds of errors that occur in office medication management; however, 36% agreed or strongly agreed that the event reporting "has increased the fear of repercussion in the practice." Time pressure was the main barrier to reporting., Conclusions: It is feasible for primary care clinicians and office staff to report medication errors and adverse drug events to a Web-based reporting system. Time pressures and a punitive culture are barriers to event reporting that must be overcome. Further testing of MEADERS as a quality improvement tool is warranted.

Purpose: Little is known about the impact of recent restrictions on pharmaceutical industry detailing and sampling on prescribing behavior, particularly within smaller, independent practices. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a policy prohibiting prescription drug samples and pharmaceutical industry interaction on prescribing patterns in a rural family practice clinic in central Oregon., Methods: Segmented linear regression models were used to evaluate trends in prescribing using locally obtained pharmacy claims. Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims were used to control for secular prescribing changes. Total and class-specific monthly trends in branded, promoted, and average prescription drug costs were analyzed 18 months before and after policy implementation., Results: Aggregate trends of brand name drug use did not change significantly after policy implementation. In aggregate, use of promoted agents decreased by 1.43% while nonpromoted branded agents increased by 3.04%. Branded drugs prescribed for respiratory disease declined significantly by 11.34% compared with a control group of prescribers. Relative to the control group, prescriptions of promoted cholesterol-lowering drugs and antidepressants were reduced by approximately 9.98% and 11.34%, respectively. The trend in average cost per prescription for lipid-lowering drugs was significantly reduced by $0.70 per prescription per month. Overall, average prescription drug costs increased by $5.18 immediately after policy implementation., Conclusions: Restriction of pharmaceutical industry representatives and samples from a rural family practice clinic produced modest reductions in branded drug use that varied by class. Although aggregate average costs increased, prescriptions for branded and promoted lipid-lowering agents and antidepressants were reduced.

Purpose: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide an important approach to implementing primary care research at the community level, thus increasing the relevance and utility of research findings for routine primary care practices. PBRNs expend considerable time and energy in the recruitment, engagement, and retention of network clinicians and practices to establish this community-based primary care research laboratory. This study assessed factors motivating PBRN clinicians to participate and stay involved in practice-based research in their primary care office setting., Methods: We invited practicing clinicians across the United States who are affiliated with a PBRN to share their stories regarding motivations to participate in practice-based research. Using qualitative methods, we categorized the stories into the main motivation for participation and the perceived impact of participation., Results: We collected 37 stories from clinicians affiliated with 12 PBRNS located in 14 states. Motivations for participation in practice-based research included themes associated with personal satisfaction, improving local clinic-based care, and contributing to community- and system-level improvements. Sources of personal satisfaction corresponded to the 3 psychological needs postulated by Deci's and Ryan's Self-Determination Theory: competence, autonomy, and relatedness., Conclusions: These stories from PBRN clinicians describe the values, motivations, and unique paths that clinicians took as they chose to participate and stay active in a PBRN. Their voices have the potential to influence others to participate in practice-based research.