Search

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.

Several recent national initiatives have called for increased efforts to integrate social determinants of health (SDH) into health care settings using health information technology (HIT). However, there is limited evidence to guide the implementation of these recommendations in practice. Research is needed to understand what SDH information is most important to collect, how SDH information can be used to inform clinical care and referrals, and ultimately, whether and how integrating SDH screening and action into primary care affects individual and population health. We recently proposed a conceptual framework to illustrate how HIT can be used to bring SDH information into primary care. In this paper, we describe how we are putting this conceptual model into practice within the OCHIN network of community health centers by highlighting examples of ongoing research, identifying knowledge gaps, and outlining a roadmap of future research to move the field forward.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a marked increase in telehealth for the provision of primary care-based opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. This mixed methods study examines characteristics associated with having the majority of OUD-related visits via telehealth versus in-person, and changes in mode of delivery (in-person, telephone, video) over time. Methods: Logistic regression was performed using electronic health record data from patients with ≥1 visit with an OUD diagnosis to ≥1 of the two study clinics (Rural Health Clinic; urban Federally Qualified Health Center) and ≥1 OUD medication ordered from 3/8/2020-9/1/2021, with >50% of OUD visits via telehealth (vs. >50% in-person) as the dependent variable and patient characteristics as independent variables. Changes in visit type over time were also examined. Inductive coding was used to analyze data from interviews with clinical team members (n = 10) who provide OUD care to understand decision-making around visit type. Results: New patients (vs. returning; OR = 0.47;95%CI:0.27-0.83), those with ≥1 psychiatric diagnosis (vs. none; OR = 0.49,95%CI:0.29-0.82), and rural clinic patients (vs. urban; OR = 0.05; 95%CI:0.03-0.08) had lower odds of having the majority of visits via telehealth than in-person. Patterns of visit type varied over time by clinic, with the majority of telehealth visits delivered via telephone. Team members described flexibility for patients as a key telehealth benefit, but described in-person visits as more conducive to building rapport with new patients and those with increased psychological burden. Conclusion: Understanding how and why telehealth is used for OUD treatment is critical for ensuring access to care and informing OUD-related policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness.Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators.Results: Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators (P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators.Conclusions: Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Facilitation is an implementation strategy that can help primary care practices improve healthcare quality and build quality improvement (QI) capacity when delivered in a flexible manner by trained professionals. Practice ownership is associated with use of QI. However, little is known about how practices of different ownership participate in external facilitation, and this could inform future initiatives.Objective: Using data from EvidenceNOW, we examined how practice ownership influences participation in external facilitation.Study Design: We used an iterative mixed-methods design.Participants, Approach, and Measures: We collected data from practices on practice characteristics (e.g., location, size, payer mix) and ownership type via surveys and from facilitators on the number of hours, encounters, and months each practice had with a facilitator via facilitation logs. Using multivariable linear regression, we examined the association between facilitation and ownership (n = 1117 practices). We conducted semi-structured interviews with EvidenceNOW leadership (n = 12) and facilitators (n = 51) and observed facilitators in a subset of practices (n = 64); we analyzed this qualitative data for patterns of facilitation.Key Results: In the fully adjusted model, differences by ownership were non-significant; FQHCs, however, had significantly less participation in facilitation than clinician-owned practices across two measures (unadjusted difference: - 2.83, p < 0.01 for number of encounters, and - 2.04, p < 0.01 for number of months with encounters). Qualitative data showed that Health System and FQHC ownership influenced types of practices enrolled in EvidenceNOW, and suggested that in these practices lower autonomy and greater complexity compared to clinician-owned ownership influenced facilitation participation patterns.Conclusions: Practice ownership shaped how but not how much practices participated in external facilitation. This finding highlights the importance of tailoring facilitation approaches based on ownership-related characteristics in future QI initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Integrating primary care and behavioral health is an important focus of health system transformation. Cross-case comparative analysis of 19 practices in the United States describing integrated care clinical workflows. Surveys, observation visits, and key informant interviews analyzed using immersion-crystallization. Staff performed tasks and behaviors--guided by protocols or scripts--to support 4 workflow phases: (1) identifying; (2) engaging/transitioning; (3) providing treatment; and (4) monitoring/adjusting care. Shared electronic health records and accessible staffing/scheduling facilitated workflows. Stakeholders should consider these workflow phases, address structural features, and utilize a developmental approach as they operationalize integrated care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched the EvidenceNOW Initiative to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care in smaller primary care practices. AHRQ funded eight grantees (seven regional Cooperatives and one independent national evaluation) to participate in EvidenceNOW. The national evaluation examines quality improvement efforts and outcomes for more than 1500 small primary care practices (restricted to those with fewer than ten physicians per clinic). Examples of external support include practice facilitation, expert consultation, performance feedback, and educational materials and activities. This paper describes the study protocol for the EvidenceNOW national evaluation, which is called Evaluating System Change to Advance Learning and Take Evidence to Scale (ESCALATES).Methods: This prospective observational study will examine the portfolio of EvidenceNOW Cooperatives using both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data include: online implementation diaries, observation and interviews at Cooperatives and practices, and systematic assessment of context from the perspective of Cooperative team members. Quantitative data include: practice-level performance on clinical quality measures (aspirin prescribing, blood pressure and cholesterol control, and smoking cessation; ABCS) collected by Cooperatives from electronic health records (EHRs); practice and practice member surveys to assess practice capacity and other organizational and structural characteristics; and systematic tracking of intervention delivery. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses will be conducted to examine how Cooperatives organize to provide external support to practices, to compare effectiveness of the dissemination and implementation approaches they implement, and to examine how regional variations and other organization and contextual factors influence implementation and effectiveness.Discussion: ESCALATES is a national evaluation of an ambitious large-scale dissemination and implementation effort focused on transforming smaller primary care practices. Insights will help to inform the design of national health care practice extension systems aimed at supporting practice transformation efforts in the USA.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02560428 (09/21/15). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease preventive services (aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support) are crucial to controlling cardiovascular diseases. This study draws from 1,248 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices participating in the EvidenceNOW Initiative from 2015-2016 across 12 states to provide practice-level aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support estimates; report the percentage of practices that meet Million Hearts targets; and identify the practice characteristics associated with better performance.Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized linear regression modeling (analyzed in 2020-2021) to examine the association of aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance with practice characteristics that included structural attributes (e.g., size, ownership, rurality), practice capacity and contextual characteristics, health information technology, and patient panel demographics.Results: On average, practice performance on aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality measures was 64% for aspirin, 63% for blood pressure, and 62% for smoking-cessation support. The 2012 Million Hearts goal of achieving the rates of 70% was achieved by 52% (aspirin), 32% (blood pressure), and 54% (smoking) of practices. Practice characteristics associated with aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance included ownership (hospital/health system-owned practices had 11% higher aspirin performance than clinician-owned practices [p=0.001]), rurality (rural practices had lower performance than urban practices in all aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality metrics [difference in aspirin=11.1%, p=0.001; blood pressure=4.2%, p=0.022; smoking=14.4%, p=0.009]), and disruptions (practices that experienced >1 major disruption showed lower aspirin performance [-7.1%, p<0.001]).Conclusions: Achieving the Million Hearts targets may be assisted by collecting and reporting practice-level performance, which can promote change at the practice level and identify areas where additional support is needed to achieve initiative goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two primary care clinics implemented an opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment program that integrates behavioral health counseling with buprenorphine treatment and uses tiers. This project aimed to understand how patients moved through tiers in this program. Method: We purposively sampled 20 patients with at least 10 OUD-related treatment visits; we documented tier changes at all visits between September 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018 using a standard data collection instrument. These data were used to construct run-charts. Results: About 45% of sampled patients had at least one relapse noted and 60% of patients dropped in tier during the study. Reductions in tier often happened when the patient was navigating difficult psychosocial situations in their life, whereas increases in tier often accompanied positive life events. We also found variation in use of the tiers. Discussion: OUD treatment from two clinics by tier illustrates that recovery is an individualized process based on patient need that can fluctuate due to psychosocial triggers and significant life events. Having tiers can guide treatment and provide both clinicians and patients with information about what to expect during treatment while still allowing the flexibility to meet patients where they are. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), can be administered within primary care; however, little is known about characteristics associated with retention on buprenorphine in these settings. This study examines patient correlates of buprenorphine retention and whether an integrated, interdisciplinary treatment model (buprenorphine and behavioral health) is associated with higher odds of buprenorphine retention than a primarily medication-only treatment model.Methods: Electronic health record data from adult patients with an OUD, ≥1 buprenorphine order and ≥1 visit to either of two primary care clinics between 9/2/2014-6/27/2018 were extracted (N = 494 patients). Two research team members reviewed the medication start and stop dates for each buprenorphine order and classified as retained (≥6 months of orders) or not retained (<6 months of orders). Logistic regressions estimated the odds of retention on buprenorphine by 1) patient characteristics and 2) timing of patient's engagement in buprenorphine treatment (pre- or post-implementation of an integrated treatment model).Results: Of the study sample, 53% had ≥6 months of buprenorphine orders. Almost two times higher odds of retention were found among patients with ≥1 psychiatric comorbidity (versus none) and among those with buprenorphine orders in the post- versus pre-period.Conclusions: An integrated, interdisciplinary model of OUD treatment was associated with ≥6 months of buprenorphine orders among our study population. Continued research is needed in real-world primary care settings to understand the impact of OUD treatment models on patient outcomes. A more nuanced examination of the associations between psychiatric diagnoses and buprenorphine treatment retention is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]