Search

Purpose: We undertook a study to identify conditions and operational changes linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure (BP) outcomes in primary care.Methods: We purposively sampled and interviewed practice staff (eg, office managers, clinicians) from a subset of 104 practices participating in EvidenceNOW-a multisite cardiovascular disease prevention initiative. We calculated Clinical Quality Measure improvements, with targets of 10-point or greater absolute improvements in the proportion of patients with smoking screening and, if relevant, counseling and in the proportion of hypertensive patients with adequately controlled BP. We analyzed interview data to identify operational changes, transforming these into numeric data. We used Configurational Comparative Methods to assess the joint effects of multiple factors on outcomes.Results: In clinician-owned practices, implementing a workflow to routinely screen, counsel, and connect patients to smoking cessation resources, or implementing a documentation change or a referral to a resource alone led to an improvement of at least 10 points in the smoking outcome with a moderate level of facilitation support. These patterns did not manifest in health- or hospital system-owned practices or in Federally Qualified Health Centers, however. The BP outcome improved by at least 10 points among solo practices after medical assistants were trained to take an accurate BP. Among larger, clinician-owned practices, BP outcomes improved when practices implemented a second BP measurement when the first was elevated, and when staff learned where to document this information in the electronic health record. With 50 hours or more of facilitation, BP outcomes improved among larger and health- and hospital system-owned practices that implemented these operational changes.Conclusions: There was no magic bullet for improving smoking or BP outcomes. Multiple combinations of operational changes led to improvements, but only in specific contexts of practice size and ownership, or dose of external facilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Objective: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Design: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Participants: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Approach: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Key Results: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Conclusions: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practice transformation, organizational change, innovation, quality improvement, professional practice, health extension, outreach, practice facilitation, primary care, burnout, health information technology, practice-based research. [Extracted from the article]

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]

PURPOSE Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P = .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Objective: To evaluate the impacts of a transition to an "integrated managed care" model, wherein Medicaid managed care organizations moved from a "carve‐out" model to a "carve‐in" model integrating the financing of behavioral and physical health care. Data Sources/Study Setting: Medicaid claims data from Washington State, 2014–2019, supplemented with structured interviews with key stakeholders. Study Design: This mixed‐methods study used difference‐in‐differences models to compare changes in two counties that transitioned to financial integration in 2016 to 10 comparison counties maintaining carve‐out models, combined with qualitative analyses of 15 key informant interviews. Quantitative outcomes included binary measures of access to outpatient mental health care, primary care, the emergency department (ED), and inpatient care for mental health conditions. Data Collection: Medicaid claims were collected administratively, and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Principal Findings: The transition to financially integrated care was initially disruptive for behavioral health providers and was associated with a temporary decline in access to outpatient mental health services among enrollees with serious mental illness (SMI), but there were no statistically significant or sustained differences after the first year. Enrollees with SMI also experienced a slight increase in access to primary care (1.8%, 95% CI 1.0%–2.6%), but no sustained statistically significant changes in the use of ED or inpatient services for mental health care. The transition to financially integrated care had relatively little impact on primary care providers, with few changes for enrollees with mild, moderate, or no mental illness. Conclusions: Financial integration of behavioral and physical health in Medicaid managed care did not appear to drive clinical transformation and was disruptive to behavioral health providers. States moving towards "carve‐in" models may need to incorporate support for practice transformation or financial incentives to achieve the benefits of coordinated mental and physical health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Improving primary care quality is a national priority, but little is known about the extent to which small to medium-size practices use quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve care. We examined variations in use of QI strategies among 1,181 small to medium-size primary care practices engaged in a national initiative spanning 12 US states to improve quality of care for heart health and assessed factors associated with those variations.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, practice characteristics were assessed by surveying practice leaders. Practice use of QI strategies was measured by the validated Change Process Capability Questionnaire (CPCQ) Strategies Scale (scores range from -28 to 28, with higher scores indicating more use of QI strategies). Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between practice characteristics and the CPCQ strategies score.Results: The mean CPCQ strategies score was 9.1 (SD = 12.2). Practices that participated in accountable care organizations and those that had someone in the practice to configure clinical quality reports from electronic health records (EHRs), had produced quality reports, or had discussed clinical quality data during meetings had higher CPCQ strategies scores. Health system-owned practices and those experiencing major disruptive changes, such as implementing a new EHR system or clinician turnover, had lower CPCQ strategies scores.Conclusion: There is substantial variation in the use of QI strategies among small to medium-size primary care practices across 12 US states. Findings suggest that practices may need external support to strengthen their ability to do QI and to be prepared for new payment and delivery models. [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]

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: 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: 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]

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]

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]

Abstract: Objective: Teachable moments (TM) are opportunities created through physician–patient interaction and used to encourage patients to change unhealthy behaviors. We examine the effectiveness of TMs to increase patients’ recall of advice, motivation to modify behavior, and behavior change. Methods: A mixed-method observational study of 811 patient visits to 28 primary care clinicians used audio-recordings of visits to identify TMs and other types of advice in health behavior change talk. Patient surveys assessed smoking, exercise, fruit/vegetable consumption, height, weight, and readiness for change prior to the observed visit and 6-weeks post-visit. Results: Compared to other identified categories of advice (i.e. missed opportunities or teachable moment attempts), recall was greatest after TMs occurred (83% vs. 49–74%). TMs had the greatest proportion of patients change in importance and confidence and increase readiness to change; however differences were small. TMs had greater positive behavior change scores than other categories of advice; however, this pattern was statistically non-significant and was not observed for BMI change. Conclusion: TMs have a greater positive influence on several intermediate markers of patient behavior change compared to other categories of advice. Practice implications: TMs show promise as an approach for clinicians to discuss behavior change with patients efficiently and effectively. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]

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 FROM AUTHOR]