Search

Guidelines for managing and preventing chronic disease tend to be well-known. Yet, translation of this evidence into practice is inconsistent. We identify a combination of factors that are connected to guideline concordant delivery of evidence-informed chronic disease care in primary care.Cross-sectional observational study; purposively selected 22 practices to vary on size, ownership and geographic location, using National Quality Forum metrics to ensure practices had a ≥ 70% quality level for at least 2 of the following: aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol and diabetes management. Interviewed 2 professionals (eg, medical director, practice manager) per practice (n = 44) to understand staffing and clinical operations. Analyzed data using an iterative and inductive approach.Community Health Centers (CHCs) employed interdisciplinary clinical teams that included a variety of professionals as compared with hospital-health systems (HHS) and clinician-owned practices. Despite this difference, practice members consistently reported a number of functions that may be connected to clinical chronic care quality, including: having engaged leadership; a culture of teamwork; engaging in team-based care; using data to inform quality improvement; empaneling patients; and managing the care of patient panels, with a focus on continuity and comprehensiveness, as well as having a commitment to the community.There are mutable organizational attributes connected-guideline concordant chronic disease care in primary care. Research and policy reform are needed to promote and study how to achieve widespread adoption of these functions and organizational attributes that may be central to achieving equity and improving chronic disease prevention.

Primary care practices in underserved and/or rural areas have limited access to mental health specialty resources for their patients. Telemedicine can help address this issue, but little is known about how patients and clinicians experience telemental health care.This pragmatic randomized effectiveness trial compared telepsychiatry collaborative care, where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to primary care teams, to a referral approach, where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment. Twelve Federally Qualified Health Centers in rural and/or underserved areas in 3 states participated.Patients and clinicians reported that both interventions alleviated barriers to accessing mental health care, provided quality treatment, and offered improvements over usual care. Telepsychiatry collaborative care was identified as better for patients with difficulty developing trust with new providers. This approach also required more primary care involvement than referral care, creating more opportunities for clinician learning related to mental health diagnosis and treatment. The referral approach was identified as better suited for patients with higher complexity or desiring specific psychotherapies.Both approaches addressed patient needs and provided access to specialty mental health care. Each approach better aligned with different patients' needs, suggesting that having both approaches available to practices is optimal for supporting patient-centered care.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Structures (context of care delivery) and processes (actions aimed at delivery care) are posited to drive patient outcomes. Despite decades of primary care research, there remains a lack of evidence connecting specific structures/processes to patient outcomes to determine which of the numerous recommended structures/processes to prioritize for implementation. The objective of this study was to identify structures/processes most commonly present in high-performing primary care practices for chronic care management and prevention. We conducted key informant interviews with a national sample of 22 high-performing primary care practices. We identified the 10 most commonly present structures/processes in these practices, which largely enable 2 core functions: mobilizing staff to conduct patient outreach and helping practices avoid gaps in care. Given the costs of implementing and maintaining numerous structures/processes, our study provides a starting list for providers to prioritize and for researchers to investigate further for specific effects on patient outcomes.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder are common in primary care. Evidence supports collaborative care in primary care settings to treat depression and anxiety, and recent studies have evaluated its effectiveness in treating complex conditions such as PTSD and bipolar disorder. This study aimed to examine how primary care clinicians experience collaborative care for patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders.The authors conducted semistructured interviews with 22 primary care clinicians participating in a pragmatic trial that included telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC) to treat patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder in rural or underserved areas. Analysis utilized a constant comparative method to identify recurring themes.Clinicians reported that TCC improved their confidence in managing medications for patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder and supported their ongoing learning and skill development. Clinicians also reported improvements in patient engagement in care. Care managers were crucial to realizing these benefits by fostering communication within the clinical team while engaging patients through regular outreach. Clinicians valued TCC because it included and supported them in improving the care of patients' mental health conditions, which opened opportunities for clinicians to enhance care and address co-occurring general medical conditions. Overall, benefits of the TCC model outweighed its minimal burdens.Clinicians found that TCC supported their care of patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder. This approach has the potential to extend the reach of specialty mental health care and to support primary care clinicians treating patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders.

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).

Background Patients with complex health care needs may suffer adverse outcomes from fragmented and delayed care, reducing well-being and increasing health care costs. Health reform efforts, especially those in primary care, attempt to mitigate risk of adverse outcomes by better targeting resources to those most in need. However, predicting who is susceptible to adverse outcomes, such as unplanned hospitalizations, ED visits, or other potentially avoidable expenditures, can be difficult, and providing intensive levels of resources to all patients is neither wanted nor efficient. Our objective was to understand if primary care teams can predict patient risk better than standard risk scores. Methods Six primary care practices risk stratified their entire patient population over a 2-year period, and worked to mitigate risk for those at high risk through care management and coordination. Individual patient risk scores created by the practices were collected and compared to a common risk score (Hierarchical Condition Categories) in their ability to predict future expenditures, ED visits, and hospitalizations. Accuracy of predictions, sensitivity, positive predictive values (PPV), and c-statistics were calculated for each risk scoring type. Analyses were stratified by whether the practice used intuition alone, an algorithm alone, or adjudicated an algorithmic risk score. Results In all, 40,342 patients were risk stratified. Practice scores had 38.6% agreement with HCC scores on identification of high-risk patients. For the 3,381 patients with reliable outcomes data, accuracy was high (0.71–0.88) but sensitivity and PPV were low (0.16–0.40). Practice-created scores had 0.02–0.14 lower sensitivity, specificity and PPV compared to HCC in prediction of outcomes. Practices using adjudication had, on average, .16 higher sensitivity. Conclusions Practices using simple risk stratification techniques had slightly worse accuracy in predicting common outcomes than HCC, but adjudication improved prediction.

ImportanceWork environments and practice structural features are associated with both burnout and the ability of practices to enhance quality of care.ObjectiveTo characterize factors associated with primary care practices successfully improving quality scores without increasing clinician and staff burnout.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study assessed small- to medium-sized primary care practices that participated in the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative using surveys that were administered at baseline (September 2015 to April 2017) and after the intervention (January 2017 to October 2018). Data were analyzed from February 2022 to January 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome of being a quality and well-being positive deviant practice was defined as a practice with a stable or improved percentage of clinicians and staff reporting burnout over the study period and with practice-level improvement in all 3 cardiovascular quality measures: aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling.ResultsOf 727 practices with complete burnout and aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling data, 18.3% (n = 133) met the criteria to be considered quality and well-being positive deviant practices. In analyses adjusted for practice location, accountable care organization and demonstration project participation, and practice specialty composition, clinician-owned practices had greater odds of being a positive deviant practice (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.16-3.54) than practices owned by a hospital or health system.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, clinician-owned practices were more likely to achieve improvements in cardiovascular quality outcomes without increasing staff member burnout than were practices owned by a hospital or health system. Given increasing health care consolidation, our findings suggest the value of studying cultural features of clinician-owned practices that may be associated with positive quality and experience outcomes.

Background Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) from electronic health records (EHRs) are a key component of quality improvement (QI) initiatives in small-to-medium size primary care practices, but using eCQMs for QI can be challenging. Organizational strategies are needed to effectively operationalize eCQMs for QI in these practice settings. Objective This study aimed to characterize strategies that seven regional cooperatives participating in the EvidenceNOW initiative developed to generate and report EHR-based eCQMs for QI in small-to-medium size practices. Methods A qualitative study comprised of 17 interviews with representatives from all seven EvidenceNOW cooperatives was conducted. Interviewees included administrators were with both strategic and cooperative-level operational responsibilities and external practice facilitators were with hands-on experience helping practices use EHRs and eCQMs. A subteam conducted 1-hour semistructured telephone interviews with administrators and practice facilitators, then analyzed interview transcripts using immersion crystallization. The analysis and a conceptual model were vetted and approved by the larger group of coauthors. Results Cooperative strategies consisted of efforts in four key domains. First, cooperative adaptation shaped overall strategies for calculating eCQMs whether using EHRs, a centralized source, or a “hybrid strategy” of the two. Second, the eCQM generation described how EHR data were extracted, validated, and reported for calculating eCQMs. Third, practice facilitation characterized how facilitators with backgrounds in health information technology (IT) delivered services and solutions for data capture and quality and practice support. Fourth, performance reporting strategies and tools informed QI efforts and how cooperatives could alter their approaches to eCQMs. Conclusion Cooperatives ultimately generated and reported eCQMs using hybrid strategies because they determined neither EHRs alone nor centralized sources alone could operationalize eCQMs for QI. This required cooperatives to devise solutions and utilize resources that often are unavailable to typical small-to-medium-sized practices. The experiences from EvidenceNOW cooperatives provide insights into how organizations can plan for challenges and operationalize EHR-based eCQMs.

To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care.Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720).Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours,Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

BackgroundThough the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers’ shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding.ResultsFive community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change.ConclusionThis analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Objectives To identify the unmet information needs of clinical teams delivering care to patients with complex medical, social, and economic needs; and to propose principles for redesigning electronic health records (EHR) to address these needs. Materials and Methods In this observational study, we interviewed and observed care teams in 9 community health centers in Oregon and Washington to understand their use of the EHR when caring for patients with complex medical and socioeconomic needs. Data were analyzed using a comparative approach to identify EHR users’ information needs, which were then used to produce EHR design principles. Results Analyses of > 300 hours of observations and 51 interviews identified 4 major categories of information needs related to: consistency of social determinants of health (SDH) documentation; SDH information prioritization and changes to this prioritization; initiation and follow-up of community resource referrals; and timely communication of SDH information. Within these categories were 10 unmet information needs to be addressed by EHR designers. We propose the following EHR design principles to address these needs: enhance the flexibility of EHR documentation workflows; expand the ability to exchange information within teams and between systems; balance innovation and standardization of health information technology systems; organize and simplify information displays; and prioritize and reduce information. Conclusion Developing EHR tools that are simple, accessible, easy to use, and able to be updated by a range of professionals is critical. The identified information needs and design principles should inform developers and implementers working in community health centers and other settings where complex patients receive care.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of the Primary Care Extension Program to ensure access to high-quality primary care in the US.

OBJECTIVE: Early childhood parenting interventions are increasingly delivered in primary care, but parental engagement with those interventions is often suboptimal. We sought to better understand parents’ preferences for the content and delivery method of behavioral health guidance in pediatric primary care, and to determine the relationship of those preferences with demographic characteristics, child behavior problems, and parenting style. METHOD: Participants were 396 parents of young children recruited from primary care offices. We collected measures of parental preferences (including behavioral topics, intervention strategies, and methods of delivery) for behavioral intervention in primary care, child behavior symptoms, parenting style, and demographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to identify parents’ most preferred behavioral topics and intervention delivery methods. We used a hierarchical regression approach to determine whether parenting style predicted parents’ preferences beyond demographic and child-level factors. RESULTS: Nearly all parents (96%) endorsed a behavioral topic (e.g., aggression) as important. Most preferred to receive intervention during routine medical appointments. Child behavior problems correlated with parents’ overall interest in behavioral guidance, but clinically significant symptoms did not differentiate interest in any single topic. Socioeconomic factors and negative parenting practices predicted some parental preferences. Notably, lax parenting generally predicted higher interest in behavioral intervention, whereas hostile and physically controlling parenting predicted lower interest. CONCLUSION: Most parents are interested in behavioral guidance as part of primary care, but their preferences for the content and delivery of that guidance varies by known socioeconomic, child, and parenting risk factors. Tailoring intervention to parents’ preferences may increase engagement with available interventions.

Hypertension treatment and control prevent more cardiovascular events than management of other modifiable risk factors. Although the age-adjusted proportion of US adults with controlled blood pressure (BP) defined as

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as heart failure and stroke has been the top cause of death for over 90 years. The beneficial effects of four simple treatment options ‐‐ aspirin prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol management and smoking screening and cessation counseling (ABCS) ‐‐ in reducing mortality are well established. Yet, delivering the ABCS at optimal levels continues to be challenging for primary care practices, where the majority of patients receive care. In 2015, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care, a national, 110 million dollar initiative focused on providing external support interventions (e.g., practice facilitation or health information technology support) to 1500 small‐to‐medium sized primary care practices with over eight million patients. The research objective of this study was to estimate EvidenceNOW‐related reductions in the risk of experiencing an adverse CVD event. STUDY DESIGN: Study Design: We developed a new methodology to calculate CVD risk using (i) ABCS levels of EvidenceNOW practices; (ii) patient‐level information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); and (iii) information about CVD risk over a 10‐year period developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. We estimated 10‐year CVD risk at baseline, just before EvidenceNOW started, and reductions to risk due to EvidenceNOW‐related improvements in the ABCS. POPULATION STUDIED: Primary care practices participating in EvidenceNOW and NHANES study participants. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average 10‐year CVD risk at baseline was estimated to be 10.3 percent among patients of practices participating in the initiative. Improvements in the ABCS due to EvidenceNow reduced this risk by about 0.1 percentage points, or approximately 1.0 percent relative to baseline. Two patient populations had the biggest CVD risk reduction: those with hypertension and those with multiple comorbidities who have a high CVD risk. According to these estimates, EvidenceNOW prevented about 4000 CVD events at a cost of approximately $29,000 per event. CONCLUSIONS: EvidenceNOW successfully reduced CVD events among patients of practices participating in the initiative, although overall reductions were small. Risk reductions were stronger for high‐risk patients, such as those with multiple comorbidities. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: Preventive care efforts to reduce cardiovascular disease in primary care practices are cost effective even for a large patient population with moderate CVD risk and therefore should be implemented more widely. Targeting specific patient population can be a valuable policy to improve the health of high‐risk populations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

This Viewpoint discusses how the lack of a comprehensive national primary care approach creates gaps and confusion in federal policy and proposes solutions.

Primary care is a key setting for the delivery of parent-focused behavioral interventions. Various methods of intervention show promising efficacy, but fail to engage adequate parental participation. This study used a sequential-explanatory mixed method design to understand factors underlying parents’ attitudes towards the content, sources, and delivery methods of behavioral guidance in primary care. Fifteen parents who previously participated in a larger survey study participated in interviews about their experiences and attitudes towards integrated primary care. Qualitative data were analyzed and sorted by quantitative data of interest to identify demographic, child, and parental factors that shape attitudes towards integrated care. Parents emphasized a need for tailored behavioral guidance, and multiple interconnected factors (e.g., trust of providers, perceived convenience of delivery modalities, stigma associated with behavioral health services) drove parents’ attitudes towards behavioral primary care. These attitudes varied based on socioeconomic status, child behavior symptoms, and reported use of corporal punishment.

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 (

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

INTRODUCTION: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused in primary care. Little is known about patient demographics associated with MAT initiation, particularly among models with an interdisciplinary approach, including behavioral health integration. We hypothesize few disparities in MAT initiation by patient characteristics after implementing this model for OUD. METHODS: Electronic health record data were used to identify adults with ≥1 primary care visit in 1 of 2 study clinics in a Pacific Northwest academic health system between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2017 (n = 23,372). Rates of documented OUD diagnosis were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios of MAT initiation, defined as ≥1 electronic health record order for buprenorphine or naltrexone, by patient covariates. RESULTS: Seven percent of the study sample had an OUD diagnosis. Of those patients, 32% had ≥1 MAT order. Patients with documented psychiatric diagnoses or tobacco use had higher odds of initiating MAT (odds ratio [OR] = 1.62, P = .0003; OR = 2.46, P < .0001, respectively). Uninsured, Medicaid, and Medicare patients had lower odds than those commercially insured (OR = 0.53, 0.38, and 0.31, respectively; P < .0001). Patients who were older, of a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white, had documented diabetes, and had documented asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease showed lower odds of initiation. DISCUSSION: MAT initiation varied by patient characteristics, including disparities by insurance coverage and race/ethnicity. The addition of behavioral health did not eliminate disparities in care, but higher odds of initiation among those with a documented psychiatric diagnosis may suggest this model reaches some vulnerable populations. Additional research is needed to further examine these findings.

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

Introduction: Primary care risk stratification (RS) has been shown to help practices better understand their patient populations9 needs and may improve health outcomes and reduce expenditures by targeting and tailoring care to high-need patients. This study aims to understand key considerations practices faced and practice experiences as they began to implement RS models. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews about experiences in RS with 34 stakeholders from 15 primary care practices in Oregon and Colorado and qualitatively analyzed the data. Results: Three decisions were important in shaping practices9 experiences with RS: choosing established versus self-created algorithms or heuristics, clinical intuition, or a combination; selecting mechanisms for assigning risk scores; determining how to integrate RS approaches into care delivery. Practices using clinical intuition found stratification time-consuming and difficult to incorporate into existing workflows, but trusted risk scores more than those using algorithms. Trust in risk scores was influenced by data extraction capabilities; practices often lacked sufficient data to calculate their perceived optimal risk score. Displaying the scores to the care team was a major issue. Finally, obtaining buy-in from care team members was challenging, requiring repeated cycles of improvement and workflow integration. Discussion: Practices used iterative approaches to RS implementation. As a result, procedural and algorithmic changes were introduced and were influenced by practices9 health IT, staffing, and resource capacities. Practices were most successful when able to make iterative changes to their approaches, incorporated both automation and human process in RS, educated staff on the importance of RS, and had readily accessible risk scores.

Disruptions in primary care practices, like ownership change, clinician turnover, and electronic health record system implementation, can stall quality improvement (QI) efforts. However, little is known about the relationship between these disruptions and practice participation in facilitated QI.We explore this relationship using data collected from EvidenceNOW in a mixed-methods convergent design. EvidenceNOW was a large-scale facilitation-based QI initiative in small and medium primary care practices. Data included practice surveys, facilitator time logs, site visit field notes, and interviews with facilitators and practices. Using multivariate regression, we examined associations between disruptions during interventions and practice participation in facilitation, measured by in-person facilitator hours in 987 practices. We analyzed qualitative data on 40 practices that described disruptions. Qualitative and quantitative teams iterated analyses based on each other's emergent findings.Many practices (51%) reported experiencing 1 or more disruptions during the 3- to 15-month interventions. Loss of clinicians (31.6%) was most prevalent. In adjusted analyses, disruptions were not significantly associated with participation in facilitation. Qualitative data revealed that practices that continued active participation were motivated, had some QI infrastructure, and found value in working with their facilitators. Facilitators enabled practice participation by doing EHR-related work for practices, adapting work for available staff, and helping address needs beyond the explicit aims of EvidenceNOW.Disruptions are prevalent in primary care, but practices can continue participating in QI interventions, particularly when supported by a facilitator. Facilitators may benefit from additional training in approaches for helping practices attenuate the effects of disruptions and adapting strategies to help interventions work to continue building QI capacity.

Background: There is no commonly accepted comprehensive framework for describing the practical specifics of external support for practice change. Our goal was to develop such a taxonomy that could be used by both external groups or researchers and health care leaders. Methods: The leaders of 8 grants from Agency for Research and Quality for the EvidenceNOW study of improving cardiovascular preventive services in over 1500 primary care practices nationwide worked collaboratively over 18 months to develop descriptions of key domains that might comprehensively characterize any external support intervention. Combining literature reviews with our practical experiences in this initiative and past work, we aimed to define these domains and recommend measures for them. Results: The taxonomy includes 1 domain to specify the conceptual model(s) on which an intervention is built and another to specify the types of support strategies used. Another 5 domains provide specifics about the dose/mode of that support, the types of change process and care process changes that are encouraged, and the degree to which the strategies are prescriptive and standardized. A model was created to illustrate how the domains fit together and how they would respond to practice needs and reactions. Conclusions: This taxonomy and its use in more consistently documenting and characterizing external support interventions should facilitate communication and synergies between 3 areas (quality improvement, practice change research, and implementation science) that have historically tended to work independently. The taxonomy was designed to be as useful for practices or health systems managing change as it is for research.

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.

To respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and recover from its aftermath, primary care teams will face waves of overwhelming demand for information and the need to significantly transform care delivery. Innovation: Oregon Health & Science University’s primary care team envisioned and implemented the COVID-19 Connected Care Center, a statewide telephone “hotline” service. Results: The hotline has taken more than 5825 calls from patients in 33 of Oregon’s 36 counties in less than 3 months. In preliminary survey data, 86% of patients said their questions were answered during the call, 90% would recommend this service, and 70% reported a reduction in stress levels about coronavirus. In qualitative interviews, patients reported their questions answered, short wait times, nurses spent time as needed, and appropriate follow-up was arranged. Conclusion: Academic health centers may have the capacity to leverage their extensive resources to rapidly launch a multiphased pandemic response that meets peoples’ need for information and access to primary care, while minimizing risk of infection and emergency department use and rapidly supporting primary care teams to make the necessary operational changes to do the same in their communities. Such efforts require external funding in a fee-for-service payment model.

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.

Background: Facilitation is an effective approach for helping practices implement sustainable evidence-based practice improvements. Few studies examine the facilitation infrastructure and support needed for large-scale dissemination and implementation initiatives. Methods: The Agency for Health care Research and Quality funded 7 Cooperatives, each of which worked with over 200 primary care practices to rapidly disseminate and implement improvements in cardiovascular preventive care. The intervention target was to improve primary care practice capacity for quality initiative and the ABCS of cardiovascular disease prevention: aspirin in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation. We identified the organizational elements and infrastructures Cooperatives used to support facilitators by reviewing facilitator logs, online diary data, semistructured interviews with facilitators, and fieldnotes from facilitator observations. We analyzed these data using a coding and sorting process. Results: Each Cooperative partnered with 2 to 16 organizations, piecing together 16 to 35 facilitators, often from other quality improvement projects. Quality assurance strategies included establishing initial and ongoing training, processes to support facilitators, and monitoring to assure consistency and quality. Cooperatives developed facilitator toolkits, implemented initiative-specific training, and developed processes for peer-to-peer learning and support. Conclusions: Supporting a large-scale facilitation workforce requires creating an infrastructure, including initial training, and ongoing support and monitoring, often borrowing from other ongoing initiatives. Facilitation that recognizes the need to support the vital integrating functions of primary care might be more efficient and effective than this fragmented approach to quality improvement.

Background Much of the research on high-cost patients in healthcare has taken a static approach to studying what is actually a dynamic process. High-cost patients often utilize services across multiple sectors along care pathways, but due to the cross-sectional nature of many study designs, we lack a clear understanding of the temporal relationship between high-cost spending in community and acute care. Studying care trajectories for high cost patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) can shed light on the dynamic interplay between community-based and acute care along the care continuum, and provide information about signals in community care that may indicate future elective and urgent hospitalizations. Methods Using linked health administrative data in Ontario, Canada, 74,683 incident cases with cardiovascular disease were identified between the years 2009 and 2011. Patients were followed for 36 months (total study duration 2009–2014) until the first urgent or elective admission to hospital for a heart-related condition. We used an extended Cox survival model with competing risks to study the relationship between high-cost spending in community care with two mutually exclusive outcomes: urgent or elective hospitalizations. Results Elective hospitalizations were most clearly signaled by a high-cost utilization of community-based specialist services in the month prior to hospital admission (hazard ratio 9.074, p

Background: Integrating behavioral health into primary care can improve care quality; however, most electronic health records are not designed to meet the needs of integrated teams. We worked with practices and behavioral health (BH) clinicians to design a suite of electronic health record tools to address these needs (“BH e-Suite”). The purpose of this article is to examine whether implementation of the BH e-Suite changes process of care, intermediate clinical outcomes, and patient experiences, and whether its use is acceptable to practice members and BH clinicians. Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed-methods proof-of-concept study, implementing the BH e-Suite across 6 Oregon federally qualified community health centers (“intervention clinics”). We matched intervention clinics to 6 control clinics, based on location and patient panel characteristics, to assess whether process of care (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 screening) and intermediate outcomes (PHQ-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scores) changed postimplementation. Prepost patient surveys were used to assess changes in patient experience. To elucidate factors influencing implementation, we merged quantitative findings with structured observations, surveys, and interviews with practice members. Results: Implementation improved process of care (PHQ-9 screening). During the course of the study, change in intermediate outcomes was not observed. Degree of BH e-Suite implementation varied: 2 clinics fully implemented, 2 partially implemented, and 2 practices did not implement at all. Initial practice conditions (eg, low resistance to change, higher capacity), process characteristics (eg, thoughtful planning), and individual characteristics (eg, high self-efficacy) were related to degree of implementation. Conclusions: Health information technology tools designed for behavioral health integration must fit the needs of clinics for the successful uptake and improvement in patient experiences. Research is needed to further assess the effectiveness of this tool in improving patient outcomes and to optimize broader dissemination of this tool among primary care clinics integrating behavioral health.

Purpose: Practice facilitators (“facilitators”) can play an important role in supporting primary care practices in performing quality improvement (QI), but they need complete and accurate clinical performance data from practices9 electronic health records (EHR) to help them set improvement priorities, guide clinical change, and monitor progress. Here, we describe the strategies facilitators use to help practices perform QI when complete or accurate performance data are not available. Methods: Seven regional cooperatives enrolled approximately 1500 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices and 136 facilitators in EvidenceNOW, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality9s initiative to improve cardiovascular preventive services. The national evaluation team analyzed qualitative data from online diaries, site visit field notes, and interviews to discover how facilitators worked with practices on EHR data challenges to obtain and use data for QI. Results: We found facilitators faced practice-level EHR data challenges, such as a lack of clinical performance data, partial or incomplete clinical performance data, and inaccurate clinical performance data. We found that facilitators responded to these challenges, respectively, by using other data sources or tools to fill in for missing data, approximating performance reports and generating patient lists, and teaching practices how to document care and confirm performance measures. In addition, facilitators helped practices communicate with EHR vendors or health systems in requesting data they needed. Overall, facilitators tailored strategies to fit the individual practice and helped build data skills and trust. Conclusion: Facilitators can use a range of strategies to help practices perform data-driven QI when performance data are inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. Support is necessary to help practices, particularly those with EHR data challenges, build their capacity for conducting data-driven QI that is required of them for participating in practice transformation and performance-based payment programs. It is questionable how practices with data challenges will perform in programs without this kind of support.

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.

Integrated behavioral health and primary care is a patient-centered approach designed to address a person's physical, emotional, and social healthcare needs. Increasingly, practices are integrating care to help achieve the Quadruple Aim, yet no studies have examined, using qualitative methods, patients' experiences of care in integrated settings. The purpose of this study was to examine patients' experiences of care in community-based settings integrating behavioral health and primary care. This is a qualitative study of 24 patients receiving care across five practices participating in Advancing Care Together (ACT). ACT was a 4-year demonstration project (2010-2014) of primary care and community mental health centers (CMHCs) integrating care. We conducted in-depth interviews in 2014 and a multidisciplinary team analyzed data using an inductive qualitative descriptive approach. Nineteen patients described receiving integrated care. Both primary care and CMHC patients felt cared for when the full spectrum of their needs, including physical, emotional, and social circumstances, were addressed. Patients perceived personal, interpersonal, and organizational benefits from integrated care. Interactions with integrated team members helped patients develop and/or improve coping skills; patients shared lessons learned with family and friends. Service proximity, provider continuity and trust, and a number of free initial behavioral health appointments supported patient access to, and engagement with, integrated care. In contrast, patients' prior experience, provider "mismatch," clinician turnover, and restrictive insurance coverage presented barriers in accessing and sustaining care. Patients in both primary care and CMHCs perceived similar benefits from integrated care related to personal growth, improved quality, and access to care. Policy makers and practice leadership should attend to proximity, continuity, trust, and cost/coverage as factors that can impede or facilitate engagement with integrated care.

Objective The federal meaningful use (MU) program was aimed at improving adoption and use of electronic health records, but practicing physicians have criticized it. This study was aimed at quantifying the benefits (ie, usefulness) and burdens (ie, workload) of the MU program for practicing family physicians. Materials and Methods An interdisciplinary national panel of experts (physicians and engineers) identified the work associated with MU criteria during patient encounters. They conducted a national survey to assess each criterion’s level of patient benefit and compliance burden. Results In 2015, 480 US family physicians responded to the survey. Their demographics were comparable to US norms. Eighteen of 31 MU criteria were perceived as useful for more than half of patient encounters, with 13 of those being useful for more than two-thirds. Thirteen criteria were useful for less than half of patient encounters. Four useful criteria were reported as having a high compliance burden. Discussion There was high variability in physicians’ perceived benefits and burdens of MU criteria. MU Stage 1 criteria, which are more related to basic/routine care, were perceived as beneficial by most physicians. Stage 2 criteria, which are more related to complex and population care, were perceived as less beneficial and more burdensome to comply with. Conclusion MU was discontinued, but the merit-based incentive payment system within the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 adopted its criteria. For many physicians, MU created a significant practice burden without clear benefits to patient care. This study suggests that policymakers should not assess MU in aggregate, but as individual criteria for open discussion.

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.