Search

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are needed to study topics relevant to older adults with serious illness. Investigators conducting clinical trials with this population are challenged by how to appropriately define, classify, report, and monitor serious and non-serious adverse events (SAEs/AEs), given that some traditionally reported AEs (pressure ulcers, delirium) and SAEs (death, hospitalization) are common in persons with serious illness, and may be consistent with their goals of care. OBJECTIVES: A multi-stakeholder group convened to establish greater clarity on and new approaches to address this critical issue. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two study investigators, members of regulatory and sponsor agencies, and patient stakeholders took part. APPROACH: The group met virtually four times and, using a collaborative approach, conducted a survey, select interviews, and reviewed regulatory guidance to collectively define the problem and identify a new approach. RESULTS: SAE/AE challenges fell into two areas: (1) definitions and classifications, including (a) implausible relationships, (b) misalignment with patient-centered care goals, and (c) well-known associations, and (2) reporting and monitoring, including (a) limited guidance, (b) inconsistent standards across regulators, and (c) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) member knowledge gaps. Problems largely reflected practice norms rather than regulatory requirements that already support context-specific and aggregate reporting. Approaches can be improved by adopting principles that better align strategies for addressing adverse events with the type of intervention being tested, favoring routine and aggregate over expedited reporting, and prioritizing how SAE/AEs relate to patient-centered care goals. Reporting plans and decisions should follow an algorithm underpinned by these principles. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the proposed approach-and supporting it with education and better alignment with regulatory guidance and procedures-could improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials safety involving older adults with serious illness and other vulnerable populations.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) can help clinicians adjust treatments and deliver patient-centered care, but organizational adoption of PROs remains low. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent of PRO adoption among health systems and physician practices nationally and examines the organizational capabilities associated with more extensive PRO adoption. DESIGN: Two nationally representative surveys were analyzed in parallel to assess health system and physician practice capabilities associated with adoption of PROs of disability, pain, and depression. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 323 US health system and 2,190 physician practice respondents METHODS: Multivariable regression models separately estimated the association of health system and physician practice capabilities associated with system-level and practice-level adoption of PROs. MAIN MEASURES: Health system and physician practice adoption of PROs for depression, pain, and disability. KEY RESULTS: Pain (50.6%) and depression (43.8%) PROs were more commonly adopted by all hospitals and medical groups within health systems compared to disability PROs (26.5%). In adjusted analyses, systems with more advanced health IT functions were more likely to use disability (p

BACKGROUND: There are unmet primary care needs among people with serious mental illness that might be improved with integrated care and medical care management. Many healthcare organizations have attempted to address this problem, but few interventions have been rigorously studied and found to be effective. OBJECTIVE: Study the implementation and effectiveness of a novel, specialized primary care medical home designed to improve the healthcare of patients with serious mental illness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clustered controlled trial for a median of 401 days. One Veterans Health Administration medical center was assigned to intervention and two were assigned to usual care (control). Thirty-nine clinicians and managers were included in the study, as well as 331 patients who met eligibility criteria. INTERVENTION: A specialized medical home with systematic patient engagement, proactive nurse panel management, a collaborative care psychiatrist, and a primary care physician providing care that included psychiatric treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Quality of care, chronic illness care and care experience, symptoms, and quality of life. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-five intervention patients (40%) moved all psychiatric care to the primary care team. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. Compared with control, intervention patients had greater improvement over time in appropriate screening for body mass index, lipids, and glucose (χ2 = 6.9, 14.3, and 3.9; Ps

BACKGROUND: There are few studies to date of interventions to increase viral hepatitis screening among Asian Americans, who have high rates of chronic hepatitis B (HBV) infection. OBJECTIVE: To develop, implement, and test the efficacy of a mobile application (Hepatitis App) delivered in four languages to increase HBV screening among Asian Americans. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred fifty-two Asian American patients ≥ 18 years of age, who had no prior HBV testing, and received primary care within two healthcare systems in San Francisco, CA. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group received the Hepatitis App, delivering interactive video education on viral hepatitis in English, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Vietnamese and a provider printout (Provider Alert) and Provider Panel Notification. The comparison group received a mobile application delivering nutrition and physical activity education and Provider Panel Notification. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient-provider discussion about HBV and documentation of a HBV screening test within 3 months post-intervention. Secondary outcome was documentation of an order for a HBV screening test. KEY RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 57 years and were 64% female, 80% foreign-born, and 44% with limited English fluency. At post-visit, over 80% of intervention participants reported they liked using the Hepatitis App. At 3-month follow-up, the intervention group was more likely than the comparison group (all P

BACKGROUND: High-quality contraceptive counseling is critical to support Veterans reproductive autonomy and promote healthy outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe perceived quality of contraceptive counseling in Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care and assess factors associated with perceived high- and low-quality contraceptive counseling. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from the Examining Contraceptive Use and Unmet Need in women Veterans (ECUUN) national telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans aged 18-44 who received contraceptive services from a VA primary care clinic in the past year (N=506). MAIN MEASURES: Perceived quality of contraceptive counseling was captured by assessing Veterans agreement with 6 statements regarding provider counseling adapted from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. High-quality counseling was defined as a top score of strongly agreeing on all 6 items; low-quality counseling was defined as not agreeing (neutral, disagreeing, or strongly disagreeing) with >3 items. We constructed two multivariable models to assess associations between patient-, provider-, and system-level factors and perceived high-quality (Model 1) and perceived low-quality counseling (Model 2). KEY RESULTS: Most participants strongly agreed that their providers listened carefully (74%), explained things clearly (77%), and spent enough time discussing things (71%). Lower proportions strongly agreed that their provider discussed more than one option (54%), discussed pros/cons of various methods (44%), or asked which choice they thought was best for them (62%). In Model 1, Veterans who received care in a Womens Health Clinic (WHC) had twice the odds of perceiving high-quality counseling (aOR=1.99; 95%CI=1.24-3.22). In Model 2, Veterans who received care in a WHC (aOR=0.49; 95%CI=0.25-0.97) or from clinicians who provide cervical cancer screening (aOR=0.49; 95%CI=0.26-0.95) had half the odds of perceiving low-quality counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to improve the quality of contraceptive counseling within VA primary care settings, including more consistent efforts to seek patients perspectives with respect to contraceptive decisions.

BackgroundPatient-centered counseling to help women achieve their reproductive goals is an essential yet often absent component of primary care.ObjectiveWe developed and piloted MyPath, a novel web-based decision support tool integrating reproductive goals assessment, information about optimizing health before pregnancy, and contraceptive decision support, for use prior to primary care visits in the Veterans Administration (VA).DesignWe created MyPath using best practices for decision tool development, including a conceptual framework informed by theory and user-centered design with input from patients, providers, and scientific experts. We conducted a non-randomized pilot in two VA Women's Health primary care clinics. A control group (n = 28) was recruited prior to and intervention group (n = 30) recruited after introduction of MyPath into clinics.ParticipantsWomen Veterans ages 18-44 with an upcoming visit scheduled with one of eight providers.InterventionsAfter recruitment of controls, providers and staff received a brief introduction to MyPath. Patients scheduled to see providers in the intervention phase used MyPath on an iPad in the waiting room prior to their visit.Main measuresAcceptability, feasibility, discussions about pregnancy and/or contraceptive needs, and contraceptive decision quality by a survey of participants and providers.Key resultsNearly all participants who used MyPath reported they learned new information (97%) and would recommend it to other Veterans (93%). No providers reported that MyPath significantly increased workload. A greater proportion of intervention participants reported having discussions about reproductive needs in their visit compared to controls (93% vs 68%; p = 0.02). Intervention participants also experienced greater increases in pre-/post-visit knowledge and communication self-efficacy and a trend towards greater reduction in contraceptive decision conflict compared to controls.ConclusionsMyPath was highly acceptable to women, increased the proportion of primary care visits addressing reproductive needs, and improved decision quality without increasing providers' perceived workload. A larger randomized evaluation of effectiveness is warranted.

BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of patient-centered medical home (PCMH), little is known about why practices pursue PCMH and what is needed to undergo transformation.ObjectiveExamine reasons practices obtained and maintained PCMH recognition and what resources were needed.DesignQualitative study of practice leader perspectives on PCMH transformation, based on a random sample of primary care practices engaged in PCMH transformation, stratified by US region, practice size, PCMH recognition history, and practice use of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) PCMH survey.Participants105 practice leaders from 294 sampled practices (36% response rate).ApproachContent analysis of interviews with practice leaders to identify themes.ResultsMost practice leaders had local control of PCMH transformation decisions, even if practices adopted quality initiatives under the direction of an organization or network. Financial incentives, being in a statewide effort, and the intrinsic desire to improve care or experiences were the most common reasons practice leaders decided to obtain PCMH recognition and pursue associated care delivery changes. Leadership support and direction were highlighted as essential throughout PCMH transformation. Practice leaders reported needing specialized staff knowledge and significant resources to meet PCMH requirements, including staff knowledgeable about how to implement PCMH changes, track and monitor improvements, and navigate implementation of simultaneous changes, and staff with specific quality improvement (QI) expertise related to evaluating changes and scaling-up programs.ConclusionPCMH efforts necessitated support and assistance to frontline, on-site practice leaders leading care delivery changes. Such change efforts should include financial incentives (e.g., direct payment or additional reimbursement), leadership direction and support, and internal or external staff with experience with the PCMH application process, implementation changes, and QI expertise in monitoring process and outcome data. Policies that recognize and meet the needs of on-site practice leaders will better promote primary care practice transformation and move practices further toward their PCMH transformation goals.

BackgroundPhysicians' fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy.ObjectiveTo identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments DESIGN: This is an observational study of regularly scheduled primary care visits involving discussion of chronic pain management. A coding system to characterize patient assessments about opioids, physician responses to assessments, and patient-endorsed opioid side effects was developed and applied to transcripts of video-recorded visits. All visits were independently coded by 2 authors.ParticipantsEighty-six established adult patients taking opioids for chronic pain; 49 physicians in 2 academic primary care clinics MAIN MEASURES: Frequency and topic of patients' opioid assessments; proportion of opioid assessments classified as clues (assessments indicating potential willingness to consider non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses); physician responses to patient clues; frequency and type of patient-endorsed side effects KEY RESULTS: Patients made a mean of 3.2 opioid assessments (median 2) per visit. The most common assessment topics were pain relief (51%), effect on function (21%), and opioid safety (14%). Forty-seven percent of opioid assessments (mean 1.5 per visit) were classified as clues. Fifty-three percent of visits included ≥ 1 clue; 21% of visits contained ≥ 3 clues. Physicians responded to patient clues with no/minimal response 43% of the time, sympathetic/empathetic statements 14% of the time, and further explored clues 43% of the time. Fifty-eight percent of patients endorsed ≥ 1 opioid-related side effect; 10% endorsed ≥ 3 side effects. The most commonly endorsed side effects were constipation (15% of patients), sedation (15%), withdrawal symptoms (13%), and nausea (12%).ConclusionsPatient statements suggesting openness to non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses are common during routine primary care visits. Listening for and exploring these clues may be a patient-centered strategy for broaching difficult topics with patients on long-term opioid therapy.

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recognized as a core strategy to improve patient-centered care. However, the implementation of SDM in routine care settings has been slow and its impact mixed.ObjectiveWe examine the temporal association of patient activation and patients' experience with the SDM process to assess the dominant directionality of this relationship.DesignPatient activation, or a patients' knowledge, skills, and confidence in self-management, was assessed using the 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM). Patient-reported assessment of the SDM process was assessed using the 3-item CollaboRATE measure. Patients at 16 adult primary care practices were surveyed in 2015 and 2016 on PAM (α = 0.92), CollaboRATE (α = 0.90), and demographics. The relationship between PAM and CollaboRATE was estimated using a cross-lagged panel model with clustered robust standard errors and practice fixed effects, controlling for patient characteristics.Participants1222 adult patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease with survey responses at baseline (51% response rate) and a 1-year follow-up (73% response rate).ResultsPAM (mean 3.27 vs 3.28 on a range of 1 to 4; p = 0.082) and CollaboRATE (mean 3.62 vs 3.63 on a range of 1 to 5; p = 0.14) did not change significantly over time. In adjusted analyses, the path from baseline PAM to follow-up CollaboRATE (β = 0.35; p

BackgroundUncontrolled hypertension contributes to disparities in cardiovascular outcomes. Patient intervention strategies informed by behavioral economics and social psychology could improve blood pressure (BP) control in disadvantaged minority populations.ObjectiveTo assess the impact on BP control of an intervention combining short-term financial incentives with promotion of intrinsic motivation among highly disadvantaged patients.DesignRandomized controlled trial.ParticipantsTwo hundred seven adults (98% African American or Latino) aged 18 or older with uncontrolled hypertension attending Federally Qualified Health Centers.InterventionSix-month intervention, combining financial incentives for measuring home BP, recording medication use, BP improvement, and achieving target BP values with counseling linking hypertension control efforts to participants' personal reasons to stay healthy.Main measuresPrimary outcomes: percentage achieving systolic BP (SBP)

BackgroundIntensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home.ObjectiveDetermine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction.DesignCross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study.ParticipantsTwo thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care.InterventionPIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff.Main measuresPatient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction.Key resultsSeven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance.ConclusionsAugmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

BackgroundPatients' comprehension of their medical conditions is fundamental to patient-centered care. Hospitalizations present opportunities to educate patients but also challenges to patient comprehension given the complexity and rapid pace of clinical care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the current state of inpatients' knowledge of their hospitalization, assess the methods used to determine patient comprehension, and appraise the effects of interventions on improving knowledge.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from January 1, 1995 through December 11, 2017. Eligible studies included patients under inpatient or observation status on internal medicine, family medicine, or neurology services. We extracted study characteristics (author, year, country, study design, sample size, patient characteristics, methods, intervention, primary endpoints, results) in a standardized fashion. The quality of observational studies was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observation Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies and the quality of interventional studies was assessed using adapted EPOC criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration.ResultsTwenty-eight studies met the criteria for inclusion, including 17 observational studies and 11 interventional studies. Patient knowledge of all aspects of their hospitalization was poor and patients often overestimated their knowledge. Older patients and those with lower education levels were more likely to have poorer knowledge. Intervention methods varied, but generally showed improvements in patient knowledge. Few interventional studies assessed the effect on health behaviors or outcomes and those that did were often underpowered.DiscussionClinicians should be aware that comprehension is often poor among hospitalized patients, especially in those with lower education and advanced age. Our results are limited by overall poor quality of interventional studies. Future research should use objective, standardized measures of patient comprehension and interventions should be multifaceted in approach, focusing on knowledge improvement while also addressing other factors influencing outcomes.

BackgroundThe growing movement toward more accountable care delivery and the increasing number of people with chronic illnesses underscores the need for primary care practices to engage patients in their own care.ObjectiveFor adult primary care practices seeing patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease, we examined the relationship between selected practice characteristics, patient engagement, and patient-reported outcomes of care.DesignCross-sectional multilevel observational study of 16 randomly selected practices in two large accountable care organizations (ACOs).ParticipantsPatients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) who met study eligibility criteria (n = 4368) and received care in 2014 were randomly selected to complete a patient activation and PRO survey (51% response rate; n = 2176). Primary care team members of the 16 practices completed surveys that assessed practice culture, relational coordination, and teamwork (86% response rate; n = 411).Main measuresPatient-reported outcomes included depression (PHQ-4), physical functioning (PROMIS SF12a), and social functioning (PROMIS SF8a), the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument (PACIC-11), and the Patient Activation Measure instrument (PAM-13). Patient-level covariates included patient age, gender, education, insurance coverage, limited English language proficiency, blood pressure, HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, and disease comorbidity burden. For each of the 16 practices, patient-centered culture and the degree of relational coordination among team members were measured using a clinician and staff survey. The implementation of shared decision-making activities in each practice was assessed using an operational leader survey.Key resultsHaving a patient-centered culture was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51; confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 2.19) and better physical function scores (OR = 1.85; CI 1.25, 2.73). Patient activation was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (OR = 2.26; CI 1.79, 2.86), better physical health (OR = 2.56; CI 2.00, 3.27), and better social health functioning (OR = 4.12; CI 3.21, 5.29). Patient activation (PAM-13) mediated the positive association between patients' experience of chronic illness care and each of the three patient-reported outcome measures-fewer depression symptoms, better physical health, and better social health. Relational coordination and shared decision-making activities reported by practices were not significantly associated with higher patient-reported outcome scores.ConclusionsDiabetic and CVD patients who received care from ACO-affiliated practices with more developed patient-centered cultures reported lower PHQ-4 depression symptom scores and better physical functioning. Diabetic and CVD patients who were more highly activated to participate in their care reported lower PHQ-4 scores and better physical and social outcomes of care.

BackgroundThe benefits of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) over and above that of a usual source of medical care have yet to be determined, particularly for adults with mental health disorders.ObjectiveTo examine qualities of a usual provider that align with PCMH goals of access, comprehensiveness, and patient-centered care, and to determine whether PCMH qualities in a usual provider are associated with the use of mental health services (MHS).DesignUsing national data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we conducted a lagged cross-sectional study of MHS use subsequent to participant reports of psychological distress and usual provider and practice characteristics.ParticipantsA total of 2,358 adults, aged 18-64 years, met the criteria for serious psychological distress and reported on their usual provider and practice characteristics.Main measuresWe defined "usual provider" as a primary care provider/practice, and "PCMH provider" as a usual provider that delivered accessible, comprehensive, patient-centered care as determined by patient self-reporting. The dependent variable, MHS, included self-reported mental health visits to a primary care provider or mental health specialist, counseling, and psychiatric medication treatment over a period of 1 year.ResultsParticipants with a usual provider were significantly more likely than those with no usual provider to have experienced a primary care mental health visit (marginal effect [ME] = 8.5, 95 % CI = 3.2-13.8) and to have received psychiatric medication (ME = 15.5, 95 % CI = 9.4-21.5). Participants with a PCMH were additionally more likely than those with no usual provider to visit a mental health specialist (ME = 7.6, 95 % CI = 0.7-14.4) and receive mental health counseling (ME = 8.5, 95 % CI = 1.5-15.6). Among those who reported having had any type of mental health visit, participants with a PCMH were more likely to have received mental health counseling than those with only a usual provider (ME = 10.0, 95 % CI = 1.0-19.0).ConclusionsAccess to a usual provider is associated with increased receipt of needed MHS. Patients who have a usual provider with PCMH qualities are more likely to receive mental health counseling.

Background: Sexual minority men (SMM) face severe health inequities alongside negative experiences that drive avoidance of medical care. Understanding how SMM experience healthcare is paramount to improving this population's health. Patient-centered care, which emphasizes mutual respect and collaboration between patients and providers, may alleviate the disparaging effects of the homophobia that SMM face in healthcare settings., Objective: To explore how SMM perceive their experiences with healthcare providers and how care can most effectively meet their needs., Design: Semi-structured qualitative interviews focused on healthcare experiences, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and HIV-related beliefs were conducted between July and November 2018., Participants: The study included a sample of 43 young adult SMM (ages 25-27), representing diverse socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, in New York City., Approach: Researchers utilized a multiphase, systematic coding method to identify salient themes in the interview transcripts., Key Results: Analyses revealed three main themes: (1) SMM perceived that their clinicians often lack adequate skills and knowledge required to provide care that considers participants' identities and behaviors; (2) SMM desired patient-centered care as a way to regain agency and actively participate in making decisions about their health; and (3) SMM felt that patient-centered care was more common with providers who were LGBTQ-affirming, including many who felt that this was especially true for LGBTQ-identified providers., Conclusions: SMM expressed a clear and strong desire for patient-centered approaches to care, often informed by experiences with healthcare providers who were unable to adequately meet their needs. However, widespread adoption of patient-centered care will require improving education and training for clinicians, with a focus on LGBTQ-specific clinical care and cultural humility. Through centering patients' preferences and experiences in the construction of care, patient-centered care can reduce health inequities among SMM and empower healthcare utilization in a population burdened by historic and ongoing stigmatization., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

BackgroundAdvance care planning often only focuses on written advance directives rather than on future goals important to patients and families. Heart failure has a particularly uncertain future with variable clinical trajectories. A better understanding of patient and family concerns about and perceptions of the future could improve advance care planning.ObjectiveWe aimed to identify how patients with heart failure and their informal (family) caregivers perceive their future.DesignThis was a cross-sectional study using qualitative methods.ParticipantsThirty-three patients from an academic health care system with New York Heart Association class II-IV heart failure and 20 of their informal caregivers participated in the study. We used a purposive sampling strategy to include patients within a range of ages and health statuses.ApproachParticipants were asked in individual, semi-structured interviews: "When you think about what lies ahead, what comes to mind?" Qualitative analysis used an inductive approach. Early in the analysis, it became clear that participants' narratives about the future were described in terms of past transitions. This led us to use transition theory to further guide analysis. Transition theory describes how people restructure their reality and resolve uncertainty during change.Key resultsPatients and their caregivers talked about past and present transitions when asked about the future: "The present gets in the way of talking about the future." We identified four common pivotal transitions, including the shock of first being diagnosed with heart failure; learning to adjust to life with heart failure; reframing and taking back control of one's life; and understanding and accepting that death is inevitable. Concerns about the future were framed based on the most recent transition.ConclusionsHeart failure is a series of transitions according to patients and caregivers. By recognizing and educating patients about transitions, identifying transition-specific concerns, and supporting patients and caregivers through transitions, the process of planning for the future as part of advance care planning may be improved.

Measures of patients' care experiences are increasingly used as quality measures in accountability initiatives. As the prominence and financial impact of patient experience measures have increased, so too have concerns about the relevance and fairness of including them as indicators of health care quality. Using evidence from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys, the most widely used patient experience measures in the United States, we address seven common critiques of patient experience measures: (1) consumers do not have the expertise needed to evaluate care quality; (2) patient "satisfaction" is subjective and thus not valid or actionable; (3) increasing emphasis on improving patient experiences encourages health care providers and plans to fulfill patient desires, leading to care that is inappropriate, ineffective, and/or inefficient; (4) there is a trade-off between providing good patient experiences and providing high-quality clinical care; (5) patient scores cannot be fairly compared across health care providers or plans due to factors beyond providers' control; (6) response rates to patient experience surveys are low, or responses reflect only patients with extreme experiences; and (7) there are faster, cheaper, and more customized ways to survey patients than the standardized approaches mandated by federal accountability initiatives.

BackgroundSocial determinants directly contribute to poorer health, and coordination between healthcare and community-based resources is pivotal to addressing these needs. However, our healthcare system remains poorly equipped to address social determinants of health. The potential of health information technology to bridge this gap across the delivery of healthcare and social services remains unrealized.Objective, design, and participantsWe conducted in-depth, in-person interviews with 50 healthcare and social service providers to determine the feasibility of a social-health information exchange (S-HIE) in an urban safety-net setting in Dallas County, Texas. After completion of interviews, we conducted a town hall meeting to identify desired functionalities for a S-HIE.ApproachWe conducted thematic analysis of interview responses using the constant comparative method to explore perceptions about current communication and coordination across sectors, and barriers and enablers to S-HIE implementation. We sought participant confirmation of findings and conducted a forced-rank vote during the town hall to prioritize potential S-HIE functionalities.Key resultsWe found that healthcare and social service providers perceived a need for improved information sharing, communication, and care coordination across sectors and were enthusiastic about the potential of a S-HIE, but shared many technical, legal, and ethical concerns around cross-sector information sharing. Desired technical S-HIE functionalities encompassed fairly simple transactional operations such as the ability to view basic demographic information, visit and referral data, and medical history from both healthcare and social service settings.ConclusionsA S-HIE is an innovative and feasible approach to enabling better linkages between healthcare and social service providers. However, to develop S-HIEs in communities across the country, policy interventions are needed to standardize regulatory requirements, to foster increased IT capability and uptake among social service agencies, and to align healthcare and social service priorities to enable dissemination and broader adoption of this and similar IT initiatives.

BackgroundInterpersonal care (IPC) is increasingly emphasized as health care systems focus on implementing patient-centered care. Language barriers may be a particularly important influence on IPC ratings among rural Spanish-speaking Latinos.ObjectiveTo examine the associations between provider Spanish fluency and Spanish-speaking patients' ratings of IPC and between patient-provider language concordance and patient engagement in diabetes self-care activities.DesignCross-sectional survey combined with chart reviews.Setting/participantsTwo hundred fifty Latino adults with diabetes receiving care at safety-net community health centers in two rural California counties.Main measuresUsing a validated questionnaire, we assessed patient ratings of IPC in three areas: communication, decision-making, and interpersonal style. Patient-provider language concordance was measured by physician self-reported fluency in Spanish. We measured participation in diabetes self-care activities by patient self-report. The survey response rate was 68%.Key resultsPatients with language-concordant providers had more favorable IPC ratings (20% to 41% of language-discordant patients had optimal scores for IPC scales vs. 35% to 69% of language-concordant patients, p

BackgroundHigh functioning interdisciplinary primary care teams are a critical component of the patient-centered medical home. In 2010, the Veterans Administration (VA) implemented a medical home model termed the Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT), with reorganization of staff into small teams ("teamlets") as a core feature.ObjectiveTo examine the early experiences of primary care personnel as they assumed new roles through reorganization into teamlets.DesignConvergent mixed methods study design involving semi-structured interviews and a survey; data were collected in 2011 and 2012.ParticipantsWe interviewed 41 frontline teamlet members (i.e., primary care physicians and staff) from three practices that were part of a PACT demonstration laboratory and examined clinician and staff survey data from 22 practices.Main measuresSemi-structured interview guide and clinician and staff survey questions covering the following domains: teamlet formation and structure, within-teamlet communication, cross-coverage, role changes, teamlet training, impact on Veterans, and leadership facilitation and support.Key resultsRespondents had limited input into teamlet structure and indicated limited training on the PACT initiative. Guidelines delineating each teamlet member's roles and responsibilities were emphasized as important needs. Chronic understaffing also contributed to implementation challenges and territorial attitudes surfaced when cross-coverage was not clear. In addition, several core features of VA's medical home transformation were not fully implemented by teamlet members. Most also reported limited guidance and feedback from leadership. Despite these challenges, teamlet-based care was perceived to have a positive impact on Veterans' experiences of primary care and also resulted in improved communication among staff.ConclusionsThe PACT teamlet model holds much promise for improving primary care at the VA. However, more comprehensive training, improving the stability of teamlets, developing clear cross-coverage policies, and better defined teamlet member responsibilities are important areas in need of attention by VA leadership.

BackgroundAlthough many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain.ObjectiveTo describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs.DesignCross-sectional study and time trend analysis.DataNationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010.Main measuresProportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality.Key resultsAmong 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p = 0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p

IntroductionThe U.S. faces a critical gap between residency training and clinical practice that affects the recruitment and preparation of internal medicine residents for primary care careers. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) represents a new clinical microsystem that is being widely promoted and implemented to improve access, quality, and sustainability in primary care practice.AimWe address two key questions regarding the training of internal medicine residents for practice in PCMHs. First, what are the educational implications of practice transformations to primary care home models? Second, what must we do differently to prepare internal medicine residents for their futures in PCMHs?Program descriptionThe 2011 Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) PCMH Education Summit established seven work groups to address the following topics: resident workplace competencies, teamwork, continuity of care, assessment, faculty development, 'medical home builder' tools, and policy. The output from the competency work group was foundational for the work of other groups. The work group considered several educational frameworks, including developmental milestones, competencies, and entrustable professional activities (EPAs).ResultsThe competency work group defined 25 internal medicine resident PCMH EPAs. The 2011 National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH standards served as an organizing framework for EPAs.DiscussionThe list of PCMH EPAs has the potential to begin to transform the education of internal medicine residents for practice and leadership in the PCMH. It will guide curriculum development, learner assessment, and clinical practice redesign for academic health centers.

BackgroundHandoffs are communication processes that enact the transfer of responsibility between providers across clinical settings. Prior research on handoff communication has focused on inpatient settings between provider teams and has emphasized patient safety. This study examines handoff communication within multidisciplinary provider teams in two outpatient settings.ObjectiveTo conduct an exploratory study that describes handoff communication among multidisciplinary providers, to develop a theory-driven descriptive framework for outpatient handoffs, and to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different handoff types.Design & settingQualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 31 primary care, mental health, and social work providers in two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center outpatient clinics.ApproachAudio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Grounded Practical Theory to develop a theoretical model of and a descriptive framework for handoff communication among multidisciplinary providers.ResultsMultidisciplinary providers reported that handoff decisions across settings were made spontaneously and without clear guidelines. Two situated values, clinic efficiency and patient-centeredness, shaped multidisciplinary providers' handoff decisions. Providers reported three handoff techniques along a continuum: the electronic handoff, which was the most clinically efficient; the provider-to-provider handoff, which balanced clinic efficiency and patient-centeredness; and the collaborative handoff, which was the most patient-centered. Providers described handoff choice as a practical response to manage constituent features of clinic efficiency (time, space, medium of communication) and patient-centeredness (information continuity, management continuity, relational continuity, and social interaction). We present a theoretical and descriptive framework to help providers evaluate differential handoff use, reflect on situated values guiding clinic communication, and guide future research.ConclusionsHandoff communication reflected multidisciplinary providers' efforts to balance clinic efficiency with patient-centeredness within the constraints of day-to-day clinical practice. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses among alternative handoff options may enhance multidisciplinary provider handoff decision-making and may contribute to increased coordination and continuity of care across outpatient settings.

BackgroundThe Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is a widely endorsed model of delivery system reform that emphasizes primary care. Pilot demonstration projects are underway in many states, sponsored by Medicare, Medicaid, major health plans and multi-payer coalitions.MethodsIn this paper we consider the development of a long-term policy-relevant research agenda on outcomes of the PCMH. We provide an overview of potential measures of PCMH impact, identify measurement challenges and recommend areas for further study. Although the PCMH should not be expected to solve every problem in the health care system, developing a research agenda for measuring outcomes of delivery system innovations such as the PCMH should be considered in the context of the larger effort to improve the US health care system, with the ultimate goal to improve population health.ResultsAs a framework for our discussion, we have chosen the Institute of Medicine's six specific aims for 21st century health care: (1) safe, (2) effective, (3) patient-centered, (4) timely, (5) efficient and (6) equitable. In addition, we include potential areas of PCMH outcomes that do not easily fall under this framework and consider unintended consequences.ConclusionMulti-stakeholder involvement will be essential in developing a long-term policy-relevant research agenda for outcomes of the PCMH.

Patient-centered care has been described as one approach to cultural competency education that could reduce racial and ethnic health disparities by preparing providers to deliver care that is respectful and responsive to the preferences of each patient. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a curriculum in teaching patient-centered care (PCC) behaviors to medical students, we drew on the work of Kleinman, Eisenberg, and Good to develop a scale that could be embedded across cases in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE).To compare the reliability, validity, and feasibility of an embedded patient-centered care scale with the use of a single culturally challenging case in measuring students′ use of PCC behaviors as part of a comprehensive OSCE.A total of 322 students from two California medical schools participated in the OSCE as beginning seniors. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of each approach. Construct validity was addressed by establishing convergent and divergent validity using the cultural challenge case total score and OSCE component scores. Feasibility assessment considered cost and training needs for the standardized patients (SPs).Medical students demonstrated a moderate level of patient-centered skill (mean = 63%, SD = 11%). The PCC Scale demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency (alpha = 0.68) over the single case scale (alpha = 0.60). Both convergent and divergent validities were established through low to moderate correlation coefficients.The insertion of PCC items across multiple cases in a comprehensive OSCE can provide a reliable estimate of students′ use of PCC behaviors without incurring extra costs associated with implementing a special cross-cultural OSCE. This approach is particularly feasible when an OSCE is already part of the standard assessment of clinical skills. Reliability may be increased with an additional investment in SP training.

Physicians associate empathy with benevolent emotions and with developing a shared understanding with patients. While there have been many articles on managing "difficult" patients, little attention has been paid to the challenges physicians face during conflicts with patients, especially when both parties are angry and yet empathy is still needed. This topic is especially important in light of recent studies showing that practicing medicine increasingly requires physicians to manage their own feelings of anger and frustration. This article seeks to describe how physicians can learn to empathize with patients even when they are both subject to emotions that lead to interpersonal distancing. Empathy is defined as engaged curiosity about another's particular emotional perspective. Five specific ways for physicians to foster empathy during conflict are described: recognizing one's own emotions, attending to negative emotions over time, attuning to patients' verbal and nonverbal emotional messages, and becoming receptive to negative feedback. Importantly, physicians who learn to empathize with patients during emotionally charged interactions can reduce anger and frustration and also increase their therapeutic impact.

The University of Wisconsin's Tobacco Intervention Basic Skills curriculum (TIBS) was inaugurated to begin training 147 first-year medical students in skills for promoting health behavior change. Learning activities included lecture, demonstration, reading, quiz, role-play exercises, and standardized patient interviews. After TIBS, the 69 students who provided pre- and postintervention data exhibited more therapeutic attitudes and increased knowledge and self-confidence in applying TIBS skills. Two months later, 52% of the 109 posttest respondents had applied TIBS in clinical settings, often for behaviors other than tobacco use. We conclude that medical students can gain from early training on promoting behavior change.

Some problems in clinic function recur because of unexpected value differences between patients, faculty, and residents. Cultural consensus analysis (CCA) is a method used by anthropologists to identify groups with shared values. After conducting an ethnographic study and using focus groups, we developed and validated a CCA tool for use in clinics. Using this instrument, we identified distinct groups with 6 important value differences between those groups. An analysis of these value differences suggested specific and pragmatic interventions to improve clinic functioning. The instrument has also performed well in preliminary tests at another clinic.

Background/objective: Optimizing patients' access to primary care is critically important but challenging. In a national survey, we asked primary care providers and staff to rate specific care processes as access management challenges and assessed whether clinics with more of these challenges had worse access outcomes., Methods: Study design: Cross sectional. National Primary Care Personnel Survey (NPCPS) (2018) participants included 6210 primary care providers (PCPs) and staff in 813 clinics (19% response rate) and 158,645 of their patients. We linked PCP and staff ratings of access management challenges to veterans' perceived access from 2018-2019 Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Patient Centered Medical Home (SHEP-PCMH) surveys (35.6% response rate)., Main Measures: The NPCPS queried PCPs and staff about access management challenges. The mean overall access challenge score was 28.6, SD 6.0. The SHEP-PCMH access composite asked how often veterans reported always obtaining urgent appointments same/next day; routine appointments when desired and having medical questions answered during office hours., Analytic Approach: We aggregated PCP and staff responses to clinic level, and use multi-level, multivariate logistic regressions to assess associations between clinic-level access management challenges and patient perceptions of access. We controlled for veteran-, facility-, and area-level characteristics., Key Results: Veterans at clinics with more access management challenges (> 75 th percentile) had a lower likelihood of reporting always receiving timely urgent care appointments (AOR: .86, 95% CI: .78-.95); always receiving routine appointments (AOR: .74, 95% CI: .67-.82); and always reporting same- or next-day answers to telephone questions (AOR: .79, 95% CI: .70-.90) compared to veterans receiving care at clinics with fewer (< 25 th percentile) challenges., Discussion/conclusion: Findings show a strong relationship between higher levels of access management challenges and worse patient perceptions of access. Addressing access management challenges, particularly those associated with call center communication, may be an actionable path for improved patient experience., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are prevalent but underdiagnosed., Objective: To compare new dementia/MCI diagnosis rates in geriatrics-focused primary care clinics and traditional primary care clinics., Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective matched cohort study that spanned 2017-2021., Participants: Community-dwelling Veterans over 65 receiving primary care in a geriatrics-focused medical home (GeriPACT) or traditional primary care home (PACT) at one of 57 Veterans Affairs sites. We excluded individuals with a documented diagnosis of dementia or MCI in the year prior to enrollment., Main Measures: Diagnoses obtained from EHR. Cognitive status was assessed using modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (mTICS) tool., Key Results: The 470 participants included in this analysis were predominantly white, non-Hispanic males with an average age of 80.3 years. 9.4% of participants received a diagnosis of dementia/MCI after 24 months: 11.5% in GeriPACT and 7.2% in PACT. Adjusted OR for dementia/MCI diagnosis based on GeriPACT exposure was 1.47 (95% CI 0.65-3.29). Low mTICS score (≤ 27) (OR 4.89, 95% CI 2.36-10.13) and marital status (married/partnered) (OR 1.89, CI 0.99-3.59) were independent predictors of dementia/MCI diagnosis. When stratified by cognitive status: diagnosis rates were 20.8% in GeriPACT and 16.7% in PACT among those who scored lower on the cognitive assessment (mTICS ≤ 27); 7.4% in GeriPACT and 3.6% in PACT among those who scored higher (mTICS > 27). The OR for new dementia/MCI diagnosis in GeriPACT was 1.19 (95% CI 0.49-2.91) among those with a low mTICS score and 1.85 (95% CI 0.70-4.88) among those with a higher mTICS score., Conclusions: Observed rates of new dementia/MCI diagnosis were higher in GeriPACT, but with considerable uncertainty around estimates. Geriatrics-focused primary care clinics may be a promising avenue for improving the detection of dementia in older adults, but further larger studies are needed to confirm this relationship., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)