Search

Background: Patient complexity is often operationalized by counting multiple chronic conditions (MCC) without considering contextual factors that can affect patient risk for adverse outcomes.Objective: Our objective was to develop a conceptual model of complexity addressing gaps identified in a review of published conceptual models.Data Sources: We searched for English-language MEDLINE papers published between 1 January 2004 and 16 January 2014. Two reviewers independently evaluated abstracts and all authors contributed to the development of the conceptual model in an iterative process.Results: From 1606 identified abstracts, six conceptual models were selected. One additional model was identified through reference review. Each model had strengths, but several constructs were not fully considered: 1) contextual factors; 2) dynamics of complexity; 3) patients' preferences; 4) acute health shocks; and 5) resilience. Our Cycle of Complexity model illustrates relationships between acute shocks and medical events, healthcare access and utilization, workload and capacity, and patient preferences in the context of interpersonal, organizational, and community factors.Conclusions/implications: This model may inform studies on the etiology of and changes in complexity, the relationship between complexity and patient outcomes, and intervention development to improve modifiable elements of complex patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Financial burden can affect healthcare utilization. Few studies have assessed the short-term associations between material (debt, trouble paying rent) and psychological (worry or distress about affording future healthcare) financial risks, and subsequent outpatient and emergency healthcare use. Worry was defined as concerns about affording future healthcare.Objective: Examine whether worry about affording healthcare is associated with healthcare utilization when controlling for material risk and general anxiety DESIGN: Longitudinal observational study PARTICIPANTS: Kaiser Permanente members with exchange-based federally subsidized health insurance (n = 450, 45% response rate) MAIN MEASURES: Survey measures of financial risks (material difficulty paying for medical care and worry about affording healthcare) and general anxiety. Healthcare use (primary care, urgent care, emergency department, and outpatient specialty visits) in the 6 months following survey completion.Key Results: Emergency department and primary care visits were not associated with material risk, worry about affording care, or general anxiety in individual and pooled analyses (all 95% confidence intervals (CI) for relative risk (RR) included 1). Although no individual predictor was associated with urgent care use (all 95% CIs for RR included 1), worry about affording prescriptions (relative risk (RR) = 2.01; 95% CI 1.14, 3.55) and general anxiety (RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.15, 0.95) were significant when included in the same model, suggesting the two confounded each other. Worry about affording healthcare services was associated with fewer specialty care visits (RR = 0.40; 95% CI 0.25, 0.64) even when controlling for material risk and general anxiety, although general anxiety was also associated with more specialty care visits (RR = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.23, 3.18).Conclusions: Screening for both general anxiety and financial worry may assist with specialty care utilization. Identifying these concerns may provide more opportunities to assist patients. Future research should examine interventions to reduce worry about cost of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Innovations and improvements in care delivery are often not spread across all settings that would benefit from their uptake. Scale-up and spread efforts are deliberate efforts to increase the impact of innovations successfully tested in pilot projects so as to benefit more people. The final stages of scale-up and spread initiatives must contend with reaching hard-to-engage sites.Objective: To describe the process of scale-up and spread initiatives, with a focus on hard-to-engage sites and strategies to approach them.Design: Qualitative content analysis of systematically identified literature and key informant interviews.Participants: Leads from large magnitude scale-up and spread projects.Approach: We conducted a systematic literature search on large magnitude scale-up and spread and interviews with eight project leads, who shared their perspectives on strategies to scale-up and spread clinical and administrative practices across healthcare systems, focusing on hard-to-engage sites. We synthesized these data using content analysis.Key Results: Searches identified 1919 titles, of which 52 articles were included. Thirty-four discussed general scale-up and spread strategies, 11 described hard-to-engage sites, and 7 discussed strategies for hard-to-engage sites. These included publications were combined with interview findings to describe a fourth phase of the national scale-up and spread process, common challenges for spreading to hard-to-engage sites, and potential benefits of working with hard-to-engage sites, as well as useful strategies for working with hard-to-engage sites.Conclusions: We identified scant published evidence that describes strategies for reaching hard-to-engage sites. The sparse data we identified aligned with key informant accounts. Future work could focus on better documentation of the later stages of spread efforts, including specific tailoring of approaches and strategies used with hard-to-engage sites. Spread efforts should include a "flexible, tailored approach" for this highly variable group, especially as implementation science is looking to expand its impact in routine care settings. [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: 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: Decision makers are increasingly tasked with reducing health care costs, but the public may be mistrustful of these efforts. Public deliberation helps gather input on these types of issues by convening a group of diverse individuals to learn about and discuss values-based dilemmas.Objective: To explore public perceptions of health care costs and how they intersect with medical mistrust.Design and Participants: This mixed-methods study analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial including four public deliberation groups (n = 96) and a control group (n = 348) comprising English-speaking adults aged 18 years and older. Data were collected in 2012 in four U.S. regions.Approach: We used data from four survey items to compare attitude shifts about costs among participants in deliberation groups to participants in the control group. We qualitatively analyzed deliberation transcripts to identify themes related to attitude shifts and to provide context for quantitative results about attitude shifts.Key Results: Deliberation participants were significantly more likely than control group participants to agree that doctors and patients should consider cost when making treatment decisions (β = 0.59; p < 0.01) and that people should consider the effect on group premiums when making treatment decisions (β = 0.48; p < 0.01). Qualitatively, participants mistrusted the health care system's profit motives (e.g., that systems prioritize making money over patient needs); however, after grappling with patient/doctor autonomy and learning about and examining their own views related to costs during the process of deliberation, they largely concluded that payers have the right to set some boundaries to curb costs.Conclusions: Individuals who are informed about costs may be receptive to boundaries that reduce societal health care costs, despite their mistrust of the health care system's profit motives, especially if decision makers communicate their rationale in a transparent manner. Future work should aim to develop transparent policies and practices that earn public trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With emerging global payment structures, medical systems need to understand longer-term impacts of care transition strategies.Objective: To determine the effect of a care transition program using patient navigators (PNs) on health service utilization among high-risk safety-net patients over a 180-day period.Design: Randomized controlled trial conducted October 2011 through April 2013.Participants: Patients admitted to the general medicine service with ≥1 readmission risk factor: (1) age ≥ 60; (2) in-network inpatient admission within prior 6 months; (3) index length of stay ≥ 3 days; or (4) admission diagnosis of heart failure or (5) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The analytic sample included 739 intervention patients, 1182 controls.Interventions: Through hospital visits and 30 days of post-discharge telephone outreach, PNs provided coaching and assistance with medications, appointments, transportation, communication with primary care, and self-care.Main Measures: Primary outcomes: (1) hospital-based utilization, a composite of ED visits and hospital admissions; (2) hospital admissions; (3) ED visits; and (4) outpatient visits. We evaluated outcomes following an index discharge, stratified by patient age (≥ 60 and < 60 years), using a 180-day time frame divided into six 30-day periods.Key Results: The PN program produced starkly different outcomes by patient age. Among older PN patients, hospital-based utilization was consistently lower than controls, producing an 18.7% cumulative decrease at 180 days (p = 0.038); outpatient visits increased in the critical first 30-day period (p = 0.006). Among younger PN patients, hospital-based utilization was 31.7% (p = 0.038) higher at 180 days, largely reflecting sharply higher utilization in the initial 30 days (p = 0.002), with non-significant changes thereafter; outpatient visits experienced no significant changes.Conclusions: A PN program serving high-risk safety-net patients differentially impacted patients based on age, and among younger patients, outcomes varied over time. Our findings highlight the importance for future research to evaluate care transition programs among different subpopulations and over longer time periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In Argentina, the national guidelines for lipid control emphasize the use of relatively inexpensive low- or moderate-potency statins by patients at high risk (>20 %) of a cardiovascular event. The objective of this study was to compare the impact and costs of the current national CVD prevention guidelines with regard to morbidity and mortality in Argentina with the impact and costs of three strategies that incorporate high-potency statins.Methods: We used the CVD Policy Model-Argentina to model the proposed interventions. This model is a national-scale, state-transition (Markov) computer simulation model of the CVD incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs in adults 35-84 years of age. We modeled three scenarios: scenario 1 lowers the risk threshold for treatment to >10 % according the Framingham Risk Score (FRS); scenario 2 intensifies statin potency under current treatment thresholds; and scenario 3 combines both scenarios by lowering the treatment threshold to ≥10 % FRS and intensifying statin potency.Results: Scenario 1 would translate into 1400 fewer MIs and 500 fewer CHD deaths every year, a 3 % and 2 % reduction, respectively. Scenario 2 would lead to 2000 fewer MIs and 1000 fewer CHD deaths every year. Scenario 3 would result in the greatest reduction in MIs and CHD deaths, with 3400 fewer MIs and 1400 fewer CHD deaths every year, which translates to a 7 % and 6 % reduction, respectively. All scenarios were cost-effective if the cost of a high-potency statin pill was under US$0.25.Conclusion: Incorporating those individuals with greater than 10 % cardiovascular risk and the use of high-potency statins into Argentina's national lipid guidelines could result in fewer CHD deaths and events at a reasonable cost. [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: The healthcare system is ill-equipped to meet the needs of adults on the autism spectrum.Objective: Our goal was to use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and evaluate tools to facilitate the primary healthcare of autistic adults.Design: Toolkit development included cognitive interviewing and test-retest reliability studies. Evaluation consisted of a mixed-methods, single-arm pre/post-intervention comparison.Participants: A total of 259 autistic adults and 51 primary care providers (PCPs) residing in the United States.Interventions: The AASPIRE Healthcare toolkit includes the Autism Healthcare Accommodations Tool (AHAT)-a tool that allows patients to create a personalized accommodations report for their PCP-and general healthcare- and autism-related information, worksheets, checklists, and resources for patients and healthcare providers.Main Measures: Satisfaction with patient-provider communication, healthcare self-efficacy, barriers to healthcare, and satisfaction with the toolkit's usability and utility; responses to open-ended questions.Key Results: Preliminary testing of the AHAT demonstrated strong content validity and adequate test-retest stability. Almost all patient participants (>94 %) felt that the AHAT and the toolkit were easy to use, important, and useful. In pre/post-intervention comparisons, the mean number of barriers decreased (from 4.07 to 2.82, p < 0.0001), healthcare self-efficacy increased (from 37.9 to 39.4, p = 0.02), and satisfaction with PCP communication improved (from 30.9 to 32.6, p = 0.03). Patients stated that the toolkit helped clarify their needs, enabled them to self-advocate and prepare for visits more effectively, and positively influenced provider behavior. Most of the PCPs surveyed read the AHAT (97 %), rated it as moderately or very useful (82 %), and would recommend it to other patients (87 %).Conclusions: The CBPR process resulted in a reliable healthcare accommodation tool and a highly accessible healthcare toolkit. Patients and providers indicated that the tools positively impacted healthcare interactions. The toolkit has the potential to reduce barriers to healthcare and improve healthcare self-efficacy and patient-provider communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many Veterans treated within the VA Healthcare System (VA) are also enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and receive treatment outside the VA. Prior research has not accounted for the multiple ways that Veterans receive services across healthcare systems.Objective: We aimed to establish a typology of VA and Medicare utilization among dually enrolled Veterans with type 2 diabetes.Design: This was a retrospective cohort.Participants: 316,775 community-dwelling Veterans age ≥ 65 years with type 2 diabetes who were dually enrolled in the VA and FFS Medicare in 2008-2009.Methods: Using latent class analysis, we identified classes of Veterans based upon their probability of using VA and Medicare diabetes care services, including patient visits, laboratory tests, glucose test strips, and medications. We compared the amount of healthcare use between classes and identified factors associated with class membership using multinomial regression.Key Results: We identified four distinct latent classes: class 1 (53.9%) had high probabilities of VA use and low probabilities of Medicare use; classes 2 (17.2%), 3 (21.8%), and 4 (7.0%) had high probabilities of VA and Medicare use, but differed in their Medicare services used. For example, Veterans in class 3 received test strips exclusively through Medicare, while Veterans in class 4 were reliant on Medicare for medications. Living ≥ 40 miles from a VA predicted membership in classes 3 (OR 1.1, CI 1.06-1.15) and 4 (OR 1.11, CI 1.04-1.18), while Medicaid eligibility predicted membership in class 4 (OR 4.30, CI 4.10-4.51).Conclusions: Veterans with diabetes can be grouped into four distinct classes of dual health system use, representing a novel way to characterize how patients use multiple services across healthcare systems. This classification has applications for identifying patients facing differential risk from care fragmentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last decade, various pay-for-performance (P4P) programs have been implemented to improve quality in health systems, including the VHA. P4P programs are complex, and their effects may vary by design, context, and other implementation processes. We conducted a systematic review and key informant (KI) interviews to better understand the implementation factors that modify the effectiveness of P4P.Methods: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through April 2014, and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P implementation. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed P4P researchers to gain further insight.Results: Among 1363 titles and abstracts, we selected 509 for full-text review, and included 41 primary studies. Of these 41 studies, 33 examined P4P programs in ambulatory settings, 7 targeted hospitals, and 1 study applied to nursing homes. Related to implementation, 13 studies examined program design, 8 examined implementation processes, 6 the outer setting, 18 the inner setting, and 5 provider characteristics. Results suggest the importance of considering underlying payment models and using statistically stringent methods of composite measure development, and ensuring that high-quality care will be maintained after incentive removal. We found no conclusive evidence that provider or practice characteristics relate to P4P effectiveness. Interviews with 14 KIs supported limited evidence that effective P4P program measures should be aligned with organizational goals, that incentive structures should be carefully considered, and that factors such as a strong infrastructure and public reporting may have a large influence.Discussion: There is limited evidence from which to draw firm conclusions related to P4P implementation. Findings from studies and KI interviews suggest that P4P programs should undergo regular evaluation and should target areas of poor performance. Additionally, measures and incentives should align with organizational priorities, and programs should allow for changes over time in response to data and provider input. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a project undertaken at Brigham and Womens Hospital (BWH) that focused on electronic referral order systems established in the U.S. and internationally with broad uptake by primary care physicians (PCPs) and improved physician satisfaction. It aims to add to the existing literature on eReferral systems by tracking physician satisfaction across an entire health system and using administrative claims to look at the impact of eReferral on total specialist utlization.