Search

This supplement to the Annals of Family Medicine brings together early learning from multiple examples of health extension and practice transformation support, with the goal of informing future efforts to improve our health care system. As this supplement is published, 2 major federal investments

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.

PURPOSE Recent efforts to encourage meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) assume that widespread adoption will improve the quality of ambulatory care, especially for complex clinical conditions such as diabetes. Cross-sectional studies of typical uses of commercially available ambulatory EHRs provide confl icting evidence for an association between EHR use and improved care, and effects of longer-term EHR use in community-based primary care set- tings on the quality of care are not well understood. METHODS We analyzed data from 16 EHR-using and 26 non-EHR-using prac- tices in 2 northeastern states participating in a group-randomized quality improvement trial. Measures of care were assessed for 798 patients with diabe- tes. We used hierarchical linear models to examine the relationship between EHR use and adherence to evidence-based diabetes care guidelines, and hierarchical logistic models to compare rates of improvement over 3 years. RESULTS EHR use was not associated with better adherence to care guide- lines or a more rapid improvement in adherence. In fact, patients in practices that did not use an EHR were more likely than those in practices that used an EHR to meet all of 3 intermediate outcomes targets for hemoglobin A1c, low- density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure at the 2-year follow-up (odds ratio = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). Although the quality of care improved across all practices, rates of improvement did not differ between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Consistent use of an EHR over 3 years does not ensure success- ful use for improving the quality of diabetes care. Ongoing efforts to encourage adoption and meaningful use of EHRs in primary care should focus on ensuring that use succeeds in improving care. These efforts will need to include provision of assistance to longer-term EHR users.

PURPOSE Clinicians often have an intuitive understanding of how their relationships with patients foster healing. Yet we know little empirically about the experience of healing and how it occurs between clinicians and patients. Our purpose was to create a model that identifies how healing relationships are developed and maintained. METHODS Primary care clinicians were purposefully selected as exemplar healers. Patients were selected by these clinicians as having experienced healing relationships. In-depth interviews, designed to elicit stories of healing relationships, were conducted with patients and clinicians separately. A multidisciplinary team analyzed the interviews using an iterative process, leading to the development of case studies for each clinician-patient dyad. A comparative analysis across dyads was conducted to identify common components of healing relationships RESULTS Three key processes emerged as fostering healing relationships: (1) valuing/creating a nonjudgmental emotional bond; (2) appreciating power/consciously managing clinician power in ways that would most benefit the patient; and (3) abiding/displaying a commitment to caring for patients over time. Three relational outcomes result from these processes: trust, hope, and a sense of being known. Clinician competencies that facilitate these processes are self-confidence, emotional self-management, mindfulness, and knowledge. CONCLUSIONS Healing relationships have an underlying structure and lead to important patient-centered outcomes. This conceptual model of clinician-patient healing relationships may be generalizable to other kinds of healing relationships.

BACKGROUND This study aimed to elucidate how clinical preventive services are delivered in family practices and how this information might inform improvement efforts. METHODS We used a comparative case study design to observe clinical preventive service delivery in 18 purposefully selected Midwestern family medicine offices from 1997 to 1999. Medical records, observation of outpatient encounters, and patient exit cards were used to calculate practice-level rates of delivery of clinical preventive services. Field notes from direct observation of clinical encounters and prolonged observation of the practice and transcripts from in-depth interviews of practice staff and physicians were systematically examined to identify approaches to delivering clinical preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS Practices developed individualized approaches for delivering clinical preventive services, with no one approach being successful across practices. Clinicians acknowledged a 3-fold mission of providing acute care, managing chronic problems, and prevention, but only some made prevention a priority. The clinical encounter was a central focus for preventive service delivery in all practices. Preventive services delivery rates often appeared to be influenced by competing demands within the clinical encounter (including between different preventive services), having a physician champion who prioritized prevention, and economic concerns. CONCLUSIONS Practice quality improvement efforts that assume there is an optimal approach for delivering clinical preventive services fail to account for practices’ propensity to optimize care processes to meet local contexts. Interventions to enhance clinical preventive service delivery should be tailored to meet the local needs of practices and their patient populations.

PURPOSE Our objective was to identify themes that emerged from the evaluation of 17 interventions funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Prescription for Health that aimed to enhance adherence to healthy behaviors in the primary care setting. METHODS We performed a content analysis of diary data from this 16-month ini- tiative. Other data sources used to complement this analysis include funded grant applications and fi eld notes from interviews with investigative teams and a lim- ited number of site visits. Participants were 17 practice-based research networks (PBRNs) that had projects funded during Round 1 of Prescription for Health. RESULTS Five themes emerged regarding implementation of health behavior change: (1) health behavior change resources are enthusiastically received by prac- tices and patients, and when given a choice, patients prefer methods of assistance that involve personal contact; (2) practice extenders require extensive training, as well as careful case management and support, in order to function fully and avoid burnout; (3) integrating behavior change tools into the primary care setting requires time, effort, and often specialized expertise; (4) even simple interventions require practice change, and use of a practice change model to guide implementation efforts is crucial; and (5) research philosophy and project management approaches vary across PBRNs and have implications for the potential sustainability of an intervention. CONCLUSIONS A more versatile, multifaceted solution involving new tools, tech- nologies, and multidisciplinary care teams is needed in order to integrate health behavior change into everyday primary care routines. Even the best interventions require a model to articulate how to integrate an innovation into practices.

The articles in this issue bring new insights into clinical practice, health care policy, and the role of often hidden cognitive and social processes in shaping care. Several reports offer important evidence (in the traditional sense of that word) that informs clinical practice. We learn that

Vulnerability is an unavoidable human experience that can either sensitize us to experiences of patients and those we teach or wall us off from feelings and honest emotions. Three essays show sensitivity to vulnerability, and the lessons that emerge from the personal experiences of the authors can

A house is not a home unless it contains food and fire for the mind as well as the body. Benjamin Franklin When people talk about buying a new house, they express concerns about the aesthetics or durability of the structure, about the (the heart of the home). Someone will say reassuringly, “