Search

Abstract Background The Covid Connected Care Center (C4), a low-barrier telephone nurse hotline, was developed at an academic medical center to increase access to healthcare information and services across the state of Oregon, including to those without a usual source of care. Other studies have demonstrated that telephone triage services can positively influence health behaviors, but it is not known how this effect is maintained across racial/ethnic groups. The objective of this study was to show that the C4 reached throughout the state of Oregon, was valuable to callers, and that recommendations given affected callers’ subsequent health-related behaviors. Methods This mixed-methods study, informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Addoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework, assessed caller demographics and clinical care from March 30 2020 until September 8, 2021. Descriptive statistics, multivariable risk models and Zou’s modified Poisson modeling were applied to electronic health record and call system data; An inductive approach was used for patient and staff experience surveys and semi-structured interviews. Approval was obtained from the OHSU Institutional Review Board (Study 00021413). Results 145,537 telephone calls and 92,100 text-based contacts (61% and 39%, respectively) were included. Callers tended to not have a usual source of primary care and utilized recommended services. Emergency department utilization was minimal (1.5%). Racial or ethnic disparities were not detected in the recommendations, but Black (RR 0.92, CI 0.86–0.98) and Multiracial (RR 0.90 CI 0.81–0.99) callers were less likely than non-Hispanic white callers to receive a COVID-19 test. Participants in the post-call survey (n = 50) would recommend this service to friends or family. Interviews with callers (n = 9) revealed this was because they valued assistance translating general recommendations into a personalized care plan. C4 staff interviewed (n = 9) valued the opportunity to serve the public. The C4 was a trusted resource to the public and reached the intended audiences. However, disparities in access to COVID-19 testing persisted. Conclusions Nursing triage hotlines can guide caller behavior and be an effective part of a robust public health information infrastructure.

Objective: To describe telemedicine use patterns and understand clinic’s approaches to shifting care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used electronic health record data from 203 community health centers across 13 states between 01/01/2019 and 6/31/2021 to describe trends in telemedicine visit rates over time. Qualitative data were collected from 13 of those community health centers to understand factors influencing adoption and implementation of telemedicine. Results: Most clinics in our sample were in urban areas (n = 176) and served a majority of uninsured and publicly insured patients (12.8% and 44.4%, respectively) across racial and ethnic minority groups (16.6% Black and 29.3% Hispanic). During our analysis period there was a 791% increase in telemedicine visits from before the pandemic (.06% pre- vs 47.5% during). A latent class growth analysis was used to examine differences in patterns of adoption of telemedicine across the 203 CHCs. The model resulted in 6 clusters representing various levels of telemedicine adoption. A mixed methods approach streamlined these clusters into 4 final groups. Clinics that reported rapid adoption of telemedicine attributed this change to leadership prioritization of telemedicine, robust quality improvement processes (eg, using PDSA processes), and emphasis on training and technology support. Conclusions: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine adoption rates varied across clinics. Our study highlight that organizational factors contributed to the clinic’s ability to rapidly uptake and use telemedicine services throughout the pandemic. These approaches could inform future non-pandemic practice change and care delivery.

Abstract Background Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts. Objective Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy. Methods Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes. Findings Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator’s role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process. Impact Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

Abstract Background Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Evidence demonstrates that screening for unhealthy alcohol use and providing persons engaged in risky drinking with brief behavioral and counseling interventions improves health outcomes, collectively termed screening and brief interventions. Medication assisted therapy (MAT) is another effective method for treatment of moderate or severe alcohol use disorder. Yet, primary care clinicians are not regularly screening for or treating unhealthy alcohol use. Methods and analysis We are initiating a clinic-level randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate how primary care clinicians can impact unhealthy alcohol use through screening, counseling, and MAT. One hundred and 25 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) will be engaged; each will receive practice facilitation to promote screening, counseling, and MAT either at the beginning of the trial or at a 6-month control period start date. For each practice, the intervention includes provision of a practice facilitator, learning collaboratives with three practice champions, and clinic-wide information sessions. Clinics will be enrolled for 6–12 months. After completion of the intervention, we will conduct a mixed methods analysis to identify changes in screening rates, increase in provision of brief counseling and interventions as well as MAT, and the reduction of alcohol intake for patients after practices receive practice facilitation. Discussion This study offers a systematic process for dissemination and implementation of the evidence-based practice of screening, counseling, and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. Practices will be asked to implement a process for screening, counseling, and treatment based on their practice characteristics, patient population, and workflow. We propose practice facilitation as a robust and feasible intervention to assist in making changes within the practice. We believe that the process can be replicated and used in a broad range of clinical settings; we anticipate this will be supported by our evaluation of this approach. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023 , Registered 5 February 2020.

Abstract Background Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs). Methods This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs’ EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes. Results Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes. Conclusions Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics’ ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Abstract Background The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. Methods EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives’ implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. Results Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. Conclusions Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. Trial registration Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02560428).

Abstract Background Children with health insurance have increased access to healthcare and receive higher quality care. However, despite recent initiatives expanding children’s coverage, many remain uninsured. New technologies present opportunities for helping clinics provide enrollment support for patients. We developed and tested electronic health record (EHR)-based tools to help clinics provide children’s insurance assistance. Methods We used mixed methods to understand tool adoption, and to assess impact of tool use on insurance coverage, healthcare utilization, and receipt of recommended care. We conducted intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses comparing pediatric patients in 4 intervention clinics (n = 15,024) to those at 4 matched control clinics (n = 12,227). We conducted effect-of-treatment-on-the-treated (ETOT) analyses comparing intervention clinic patients with tool use (n = 2240) to intervention clinic patients without tool use (n = 12,784). Results Tools were used for only 15% of eligible patients. Qualitative data indicated that tool adoption was limited by: (1) concurrent initiatives that duplicated the work associated with the tools, and (2) inability to obtain accurate insurance coverage data and end dates. The ITT analyses showed that intervention clinic patients had higher odds of gaining insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.14–1.51) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.68–0.88), compared to control clinic patients. Similarly, ETOT findings showed that intervention clinic patients with tool use had higher odds of gaining insurance (aOR = 1.83, 95%CI 1.64–2.04) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.53–0.91), compared to patients without tool use. The ETOT analyses also showed higher rates of receipt of return visits, well-child visits, and several immunizations among patients for whom the tools were used. Conclusions This pragmatic trial, the first to evaluate EHR-based insurance assistance tools, suggests that it is feasible to create and implement tools that help clinics provide insurance enrollment support to pediatric patients. While ITT findings were limited by low rates of tool use, ITT and ETOT findings suggest tool use was associated with better odds of gaining and keeping coverage. Further, ETOT findings suggest that use of such tools may positively impact healthcare utilization and quality of pediatric care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02298361; retrospectively registered on November 5, 2014.

Abstract 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: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a key tool for primary care practice. However, EHR functionality is not keeping pace with the evolving informational and decision-support needs of behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) working on integrated teams. Objective: Describe workflows and tasks of BHCs working with integrated teams, identify their health information technology needs, and develop EHR tools to address them. Method: A mixed-methods, comparative-case study of six community health centers (CHCs) in Oregon, each with at least one BHC integrated in their primary care team. We observed clinical work and conducted interviews to understand workflows and clinical tasks, aiming to identify how effectively current EHRs supported integrated care delivery, including transitions, documentation, information sharing, and decision making. We analyzed these data and employed a user-centered design process to develop EHR tools addressing the identified needs. Results: BHCs used the primary care EHR for documentation and communication with other team members, but the EHR lacked the functionality to fully support integrated care. Needs include the ability to: (1) automate and track paper-based screening; (2) document behavioral health history; (3) access patient social and medical history relevant to behavioral health issues, and (4) rapidly document and track progress on goals. To meet these needs, we engaged users and developed a set of EHR tools called the BH e-Suite. Conclusion: Integrated primary care teams, and particularly BHCs, have unique information needs, workflows and tasks. These needs can be met and supported by the EHR with a moderate level of modification.

Background: Changes in health insurance policies have increased coverage opportunities, but enrollees are required to annually reapply for benefits which, if not managed appropriately, can lead to insurance gaps. Electronic health records (EHRs) can automate processes for assisting patients with health insurance enrollment and re-enrollment. Objective: We describe community health centers' (CHC) workflow, documentation, and tracking needs for assisting families with insurance application processes, and the health information technology (IT) tool components that were developed to meet those needs. Method: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and observation of clinic operations and insurance application assistance processes. Data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We diagramed workflows and shared information with a team of developers who built the EHR-based tools. Results: Four steps to the insurance assistance workflow were common among CHCs: 1) Identifying patients for public health insurance application assistance; 2) Completing and submitting the public health insurance application when clinic staff met with patients to collect requisite information and helped them apply for benefits; 3) Tracking public health insurance approval to monitor for decisions; and 4) assisting with annual health insurance reapplication. We developed EHR-based tools to support clinical staff with each of these steps. Conclusion: CHCs are uniquely positioned to help patients and families with public health insurance applications. CHCs have invested in staff to assist patients with insurance applications and help prevent coverage gaps. To best assist patients and to foster efficiency, EHR based insurance tools need comprehensive, timely, and accurate health insurance information.

Although much attention has been focused on individual-level drivers of burnout in primary care settings, examining the structural and cultural factors of practice environments with no burnout could identify solutions. In this cross-sectional analysis of survey data from 715 small-to-medium-size primary care practices in the United States participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's EvidenceNOW initiative, we found that zero-burnout practices had higher levels of psychological safety and adaptive reserve, a measure of practice capacity for learning and development. Compared with high-burnout practices, zero-burnout practices also reported using more quality improvement strategies, more commonly were solo and clinician owned, and less commonly had participated in accountable care organizations or other demonstration projects. Efforts to prevent burnout in primary care may benefit from focusing on enhancing organization and practice culture, including promoting leadership development and fostering practice agency.

Federal value-based payment programs require primary care practices to conduct quality improvement activities, informed by the electronic reports on clinical quality measures that their electronic health records (EHRs) generate. To determine whether EHRs produce reports adequate to the task, we examined survey responses from 1,492 practices across twelve states, supplemented with qualitative data. Meaningful-use participation, which requires the use of a federally certified EHR, was associated with the ability to generate reports-but the reports did not necessarily support quality improvement initiatives. Practices reported numerous challenges in generating adequate reports, such as difficulty manipulating and aligning measurement time frames with quality improvement needs, lack of functionality for generating reports on electronic clinical quality measures at different levels, discordance between clinical guidelines and measures available in reports, questionable data quality, and vendors that were unreceptive to changing EHR configuration beyond federal requirements. The current state of EHR measurement functionality may be insufficient to support federal initiatives that tie payment to clinical quality measures.

Failed diffusion of innovations may be linked to an inability to use and apply data, information, and knowledge to change perceptions of current practice and motivate change. Using qualitative and quantitative data from three large-scale health care delivery innovations-accountable care organizations, advanced primary care practice, and EvidenceNOW-we assessed where data-driven innovation is occurring and where challenges lie. We found that implementation of some technological components of innovation (for example, electronic health records) has occurred among health care organizations, but core functions needed to use data to drive innovation are lacking. Deficits include the inability to extract and aggregate data from the records; gaps in sharing data; and challenges in adopting advanced data functions, particularly those related to timely reporting of performance data. The unexpectedly high costs and burden incurred during implementation of the innovations have limited organizations' ability to address these and other deficits. Solutions that could help speed progress in data-driven innovation include facilitating peer-to-peer technical assistance, providing tailored feedback reports to providers from data aggregators, and using practice facilitators skilled in using data technology for quality improvement to help practices transform. Policy efforts that promote these solutions may enable more rapid uptake of and successful participation in innovative delivery system reforms.

Health care extension is an approach to providing external support to primary care practices with the aim of diffusing innovation. EvidenceNOW was launched to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular preventive care in the primary care setting. Seven regional grantee cooperatives provided the foundational elements of health care extension-technological and quality improvement support, practice capacity building, and linking with community resources-to more than two hundred primary care practices in each region. This article describes how the cooperatives varied in their approaches to extension and provides early empirical evidence that health care extension is a feasible and potentially useful approach for providing quality improvement support to primary care practices. With investment, health care extension may be an effective platform for federal and state quality improvement efforts to create economies of scale and provide practices with more robust and coordinated support services.

In 2012 Oregon initiated an ambitious delivery system reform, moving the majority of its Medicaid enrollees into sixteen coordinated care organizations, a type of Medicaid accountable care organization. Using claims data, we assessed measures of access, appropriateness of care, utilization, and expenditures for five service areas (evaluation and management, imaging, procedures, tests, and inpatient facility care), comparing Oregon to the neighboring state of Washington. Overall, the transformation into coordinated care organizations was associated with a 7 percent relative reduction in expenditures across the sum of these services, attributable primarily to reductions in inpatient utilization. The change to coordinated care organizations also demonstrated reductions in avoidable emergency department visits and improvements in some measures of appropriateness of care, but also exhibited reductions in primary care visits, a potential area of concern. Oregon's coordinated care organizations could provide lessons for controlling health care spending for other state Medicaid programs., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)