Search

Objective: To examine sociodemographic factors associated with having unmet needs in medications, mental health, and food security among older adults during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Data Sources and Study Setting: Primary data and secondary data from the electronic health records (EHR) in an age‐friendly academic health system in 2020 were used. Study Design: Observational study examining factors associated with having unmet needs in medications, food, and mental health. Data Collecting/Extraction Methods: Data from a computer‐assisted telephone interview and EHR on community‐dwelling older patients were analyzed. Principle Findings: Among 3400 eligible patients, 1921 (53.3%) (average age 76, SD 11) responded, with 857 (45%) of respondents having at least one unmet need. Unmet needs for medications were present in 595 (31.0%), for food in 196 (10.2%), and for mental health services in 292 (15.2%). Racial minorities had significantly higher probabilities of having unmet needs for medicine and food, and of being referred for services related to medications, food, and mental health. Patients living in more resource‐limited neighborhoods had a higher probability of being referred for mental health services. Conclusions: Age‐friendly health systems (AFHS) and their recognition should include assessing and addressing social risk factors among older adults. Proactive efforts to address unmet needs should be integral to AFHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Digital exposure notification (EN) approaches may offer considerable advantages over traditional contact tracing in speed, scale, efficacy, and confidentiality in pandemic control. We applied the science of learning health systems to test the effect of framing and digital means, email vs Short Message Service (SMS), on EN adoption among patients of an academic health center. Methods: We tested three communication approaches of the Apple and Google EN system in a rapid learning cycle involving 15 000 patients pseudorandomly assigned to three groups. The patients in the first group received a 284‐word email that presented EN as a tool that can help slow the spread. The patients in the second group received a 32‐word SMS that described EN as a new tool to help slow the spread (SlowTheSpreadSMS). Patients in the third group received a 47‐word SMS that depicted the system as a new digital tool that can empower them to protect their family and friends (EmpowerSMS). A brief four‐question anonymous survey of adoption was included in a reminder message sent 2 days after the initial outreach. Results: One hundred and sixty people responded to the survey within 1 week: 2.33% from EmpowerSMS, 0.97% from SlowTheSpreadSMS, and 0.53% from emails; 29 (41.43%), 24 (41.38%), and 11 (34.38%) reported having adopted EN from each group, respectively. Patient reported barriers to adoption included iOS version incompatibility, privacy concerns, and low trust of government agencies or companies like Apple and Google. Patients recommended that healthcare systems play an active role in disseminating information about this tool. Patients also recommended advertising on social media and providing reassurance about privacy. Conclusions: The EmpowerSMS resulted in relatively more survey responses. Both SMS groups had slightly higher, but not statistically significant EN adoption rates compared to email. Findings from the pilot not only informed operational decision‐making in our health system but also contributed to EN rollout planning in our State. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nationally over 50% of physicians report symptoms of burnout.Objective: To understand the perspectives of health system leaders and frontline physicians on contributors to physician burnout and strategies to improve well-being.Design: We conducted in-depth interviews with health system leaders and frontline physicians at a large, predominantly fee-for-service, multispecialty group practice with approximately 1300 physicians.Participants: The 17 participants included 15 physicians, (12 Internal Medicine and Family Medicine physicians and 3 from other specialties), 11 individuals in leadership roles, and 11 women.Approach: Interviews included a review of factors associated with burnout at the organization, asking participants which factors they believed contributed to burnout, questions about experiences of burnout, and what specific changes would improve well-being.Key Results: All 17 participants agreed that organizational factors were key contributors to burnout, while only 9 mentioned the salience of individual factors: "It does not matter how resilient or positive you are, the work environment, especially in primary care will eventually be a problem." An increasing workload associated with the electronic health record (EHR) and a culture focused on productivity were cited as contributing to burnout, especially among physicians in Internal Medicine and Family Medicine (primary care) departments. Physicians in primary care, women, and leaders described multiple barriers to well-being. Participants described responding to increased workloads by reducing clinical work hours. Participants suggested reducing and compensating EHR work, expanding care teams/support staff, reducing use of metrics, providing more support to leaders, changing the business model, and increasing positivity and collegiality, as essential to improving well-being.Conclusion: Interviews reveal a variety of interacting factors contributing to physician burnout. Reducing clinical work hours has become a coping strategy. Changes recommended to improve physician well-being include increasing support staff, reducing EHR workload, changing revenue generation and compensation approaches, and shifting organizational culture to place more value on physician wellness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the reliability of data in electronic health records (EHRs) for measuring processes of care among primary care physicians (PCPs) and examine the relationship between these measures and clinical outcomes.Data Sources/study Setting: EHR data from 15,370 patients with diabetes, 49,561 with hypertension, in a group practice serving four Northern California counties.Study Design/methods: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multilevel analyses of the relationships between processes of care variables and factor scales with control of hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure (BP), and low density lipoprotein (LDL) among patients with diabetes and BP among patients with hypertension.Principal Findings: Volume of e-messages, number of days to the third-next-available appointment, and team communication emerged as reliable factors of PCP processes of care in EFA (Cronbach's alpha=0.73, 0.62, and 0.91). Volume of e-messages was associated with higher odds of LDL control (≤100) (OR=1.13, p<.05) among patients with diabetes. Frequent in-person visits were associated with better BP (OR=1.02, p<.01) and LDL control (OR=1.01, p<.01) among patients with diabetes, and better BP control (OR=1.04, p<.01) among patients with hypertension.Conclusions: The EHR offers process of care measures which can augment patient-reported measures of patient-centeredness. Two of them are significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Future research should examine their association with additional outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To assess the reliability of data in electronic health records (EHRs) for measuring processes of care among primary care physicians (PCPs) and examine the relationship between these measures and clinical outcomes. Data Sources/Study Setting. EHR data from 15,370 patients with diabetes, 49,561 with hypertension, in a group practice serving four Northern California counties. Study Design/Methods. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multilevel analyses of the relationships between processes of care variables and factor scales with control of hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure (BP), and low density lipoprotein (LDL) among patients with diabetes and BP among patients with hypertension. Principal Findings. Volume of e-messages, number of days to the third-next-available appointment, and team communication emerged as reliable factors of PCP processes of care in EFA (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73, 0.62, and 0.91). Volume of e-messages was associated with higher odds of LDL control (≤100) (OR = 1.13, p < .05) among patients with diabetes. Frequent in-person visits were associated with better BP (OR = 1.02, p < .01) and LDL control (OR = 1.01, p < .01) among patients with diabetes, and better BP control (OR = 1.04, p < .01) among patients with hypertension. Conclusions. The EHR offers process of care measures which can augment patient-reported measures of patient-centeredness. Two of them are significantly associated with clinical outcomes. Future research should examine their association with additional outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To use an innovative videotape analysis method to examine how clinic time was spent during elderly patients' visits to primary care physicians. Secondary objectives were to identify the factors that influence time allocations. Data Sources. A convenience sample of 392 videotapes of routine office visits conducted between 1998 and 2000 from multiple primary care practices in the United States, supplemented by patient and physician surveys. Research Design. Videotaped visits were examined for visit length and time devoted to specific topics—a novel approach to study time allocation. A survival analysis model analyzed the effects of patient, physician, and physician practice setting on how clinic time was spent. Principal Findings. Very limited amount of time was dedicated to specific topics in office visits. The median visit length was 15.7 minutes covering a median of six topics. About 5 minutes were spent on the longest topic whereas the remaining topics each received 1.1 minutes. While time spent by patient and physician on a topic responded to many factors, length of the visit overall varied little even when contents of visits varied widely. Macro factors associated with each site had more influence on visit and topic length than the nature of the problem patients presented. Conclusions. Many topics compete for visit time, resulting in small amount of time being spent on each topic. A highly regimented schedule might interfere with having sufficient time for patients with complex or multiple problems. Efforts to improve the quality of care need to recognize the time pressure on both patients and physicians, the effects of financial incentives, and the time costs of improving patient–physician interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly advancing field that is beginning to enter the practice of medicine. Primary care is a cornerstone of medicine and deals with challenges such as physician shortage and burnout which impact patient care. AI and its application via digital health is increasingly presented as a possible solution. However, there is a scarcity of research focusing on primary care physician (PCP) attitudes toward AI. This study examines PCP views on AI in primary care. We explore its potential impact on topics pertinent to primary care such as the doctor-patient relationship and clinical workflow. By doing so, we aim to inform primary care stakeholders to encourage successful, equitable uptake of future AI tools. Our study is the first to our knowledge to explore PCP attitudes using specific primary care AI use cases rather than discussing AI in medicine in general terms. Methods: From June to August 2023, we conducted a survey among 47 primary care physicians affiliated with a large academic health system in Southern California. The survey quantified attitudes toward AI in general as well as concerning two specific AI use cases. Additionally, we conducted interviews with 15 survey respondents. Results: Our findings suggest that PCPs have largely positive views of AI. However, attitudes often hinged on the context of adoption. While some concerns reported by PCPs regarding AI in primary care focused on technology (accuracy, safety, bias), many focused on people-and-process factors (workflow, equity, reimbursement, doctor-patient relationship). Conclusion: Our study offers nuanced insights into PCP attitudes towards AI in primary care and highlights the need for primary care stakeholder alignment on key issues raised by PCPs. AI initiatives that fail to address both the technological and people-and-process concerns raised by PCPs may struggle to make an impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence to date indicates that compassion and empathy are health-enhancing qualities. Research points to interventions and practices involving compassion and empathy being beneficial, as well as being salient outcomes of contemplative practices such as mindfulness. Advancing the science of compassion and empathy requires that we select measures best suited to evaluating effectiveness of training and answering research questions. The objective of this scoping review was to 1) determine what instruments are currently available for measuring empathy and compassion, 2) assess how and to what extent they have been validated, and 3) provide an online tool to assist researchers and program evaluators in selecting appropriate measures for their settings and populations. A scoping review and broad evidence map were employed to systematically search and present an overview of the large and diverse body of literature pertaining to measuring compassion and empathy. A search string yielded 19,446 articles, and screening resulted in 559 measure development or validation articles reporting on 503 measures focusing on or containing subscales designed to measure empathy and/or compassion. For each measure, we identified the type of measure, construct being measured, in what context or population it was validated, response set, sample items, and how many different types of psychometrics had been assessed for that measure. We provide tables summarizing these data, as well as an open-source online interactive data visualization allowing viewers to search for measures of empathy and compassion, review their basic qualities, and access original citations containing more detail. Finally, we provide a rubric to help readers determine which measure(s) might best fit their context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the article "Specialties Differ in Which Aspects of Doctor Communication Predict Overall Physician Ratings" by D.D. Quigley and colleagues which focuses on the relationship between physicians and patients. Topics discussed include survey data from the organization Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, interventional radiology as the specialty for which showing respect was not predictive of overall ratings and medical ethics as patients' autonomy.

The author discusses the qualitative study which investigates how to overcome challenges to teamwork in National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)-recognized patient-centered medical homes PCMHS. Topics discussed include fee-for-service (FFS) arrangements, funding of the PCMH to hire part-time care manager, and enhancement of patient-centered care. Also mentioned are primary care practices, revenue, and hospitals.

The true incidence and comprehensive characteristics of Long Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) are currently unknown. This is the first population-based outreach study of Long COVID within an entire health system, conducted to determine operational needs to care for patients with Long COVID. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Decision support interventions (DESIs) provide a mechanism to translate comparative effectiveness research results into clinical care so that patients are able to make informed decisions. Patient decision support interventions for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to promote informed decision making and reduce PSA testing in efficacy trials, but their impact in real world settings is not clear. OBJECTIVE: We performed an effectiveness trial of PSA decision support interventions in primary care. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial of three distribution strategies was compared to a control. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 2,550 men eligible for PSA testing (76.6 % of the eligible population) and 2001 survey respondents (60.1 % survey response rate). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention groups were: 1) mailed the DESI in DVD format, 2) offered a shared medical appointment (SMA) to view the DESI with other men and discuss, and 3) both options. MAIN MEASURES: We measured PSA testing identified via electronic medical record at 12 months and DESI use by self-report 4 months after the intervention mailing. KEY RESULTS: We found no differences in PSA testing across the three distribution strategies over a year-long follow-up period: 21 %, 24 %, 22 % in the DESI, SMA, and combined group respectively, compared to 21 % in the control group ( p = 0.51). Self-reported DESI use was low across all strategies at 4 months: 16 % in the mailed DESI group, 6 % in the SMA group, and 15 % in the combined group ( p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Mailing PSA decision support interventions or inviting men to shared medical appointments unrelated to a primary care office visit do not appear to promote informed decision making, or change PSA testing behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Collabo RATE is a brief patient survey focused on shared decision making. This paper aims to (i) provide insight on facilitators and challenges to implementing a real-time patient survey and (ii) evaluate Collabo RATE scores and response rates across multiple clinical settings with varied patient populations. Method All adult patients at three United States primary care practices were eligible to complete Collabo RATE post-visit. To inform key learnings, we aggregated all mentions of unanticipated decisions, problems and administration errors from field notes and email communications. Mixed-effects logistic regression evaluated the impact of site, clinician, patient age and patient gender on the Collabo RATE score. Results While Collabo RATE score increased only slightly with increasing patient age ( OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.014-1.021), female patient gender was associated with significantly higher Collabo RATE scores ( OR 1.224, 95% CI 1.073-1.397). Clinician also predicts Collabo RATE score (random effect variance 0.146). Site-specific factors such as clinical workflow and checkout procedures play a key role in successful in-clinic implementation and are significantly related to Collabo RATE scores, with Site 3 scoring significantly higher than Site 1 ( OR 1.759, 95% CI 1.216 to 2.545) or Site 2 (z=−2.71, 95% CI −1.114 to −0.178). Discussion This study demonstrates that Collabo RATE can be used in diverse primary care settings. A clinic's workflow plays a crucial role in implementation. Patient experience measurement risks becoming a burden to both patients and administrators. Episodic use of short measurement tools could reduce this burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Team-based chronic care models have not been widely adopted in community settings, partly due to their varying effectiveness in randomized control trials, implementation challenges, and concerns about physician acceptance. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation designed and implemented "Champion," a novel team-based model that includes new standard work (e.g. proactive patient outreach, pre-visit schedule grooming, depression screening, care planning, health coaching) to support patients' self-management of hypertension and diabetes. We investigated whether Champion improved clinical outcomes.Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental study comparing the Champion clinic-level intervention (n = 38 physicians) with a usual care clinic (n = 37 physicians) in Northern California. The primary outcomes, blood pressure and glycohemoglobin (A1c), were analyzed using a piecewise linear growth curve model for patients exposed to a Champion physician visit (n = 3156) or usual care visit (n = 8034) in the two years prior and one year post implementation. Secondary outcomes were provider experience, compared at baseline and 12 months in both the intervention and usual care clinics using multi-level ordered logistic modeling, and electronic health record based fidelity measures.Results: Compared to usual care, in the first 6 months after a Champion physician visit, diabetes patients aged 18-75 experienced an additional -1.13 mm Hg (95% CI: -2.23 to -0.04) decline in diastolic blood pressure and -0.47 (95% CI: -0.61 to -0.33) decline in A1c. There were no additional improvements in blood pressure or A1c 6 to 12 months post physician visit. At 12 months, Champion physicians reported improved experience with managing chronic care patients in 6 of 7 survey items (p < 0.05), but compared to usual, this difference was only statistically significant for one item (p < 0.05). Fidelity to standard work was uneven; depression screening was the most commonly documented element (85% of patients), while care plans were the least (30.8% of patients).Conclusions: Champion standard work improved glycemic control over the first 6 months and physicians' experience with managing chronic care; changes in blood pressure were not clinically meaningful. Our results suggest the need to understand the relationship between the intervention, the contextual features of implementation, and fidelity to further improve chronic disease outcomes. This study was retrospectively registered with the ISRCTN Registry on March 15, 2017 (ISRCTN11341906). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The growing number of primary care physicians (PCPs) reducing their clinical work hours has raised concerns about meeting the future demand for services and fulfilling the continuity and access mandates for patient-centered care. However, the patient's experience of care with part-time physicians is relatively unknown, and may be mediated by continuity and access to care outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the relationships between a physicians' clinical full-time equivalent (FTE), continuity of care, access to care, and patient satisfaction with the physician. DESIGN: We used a multi-level structural equation estimation, with continuity and access modeled as mediators, for a cross-section in 2010. PARTICIPANTS: The study included family medicine ( n = 104) and internal medicine ( n = 101) physicians in a multi-specialty group practice, along with their patient satisfaction survey responses ( n = 12,688). MAIN MEASURES: Physician level FTE, continuity of care received by patients, continuity of care provided by physician, and a Press Ganey patient satisfaction with the physician score, on a 0-100 % scale, were measured. Access to care was measured as days to the third next-available appointment. KEY RESULTS: Physician FTE was directly associated with better continuity of care received (0.172 % per FTE, p < 0.001), better continuity of care provided (0.108 % per FTE, p < 0.001), and better access to care (−0.033 days per FTE, p < 0.01), but worse patient satisfaction scores (−0.080 % per FTE, p = 0.03). The continuity of care provided was a significant mediator (0.016 % per FTE, p < 0.01) of the relationship between FTE and patient satisfaction; but overall, reduced clinical work hours were associated with better patient satisfaction (−0.053 % per FTE, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that PCPs who choose to work fewer clinical hours may have worse continuity and access, but they may provide a better patient experience. Physician workforce planning should consider these care attributes when considering the role of part-time PCPs in practice redesign efforts and initiatives to meet the demand for primary care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study involving the medical group's motivation for seeking recognition from the U.S. National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). It indicates that PCMH principles were consistent with the culture and mission of the organization. It reveals that some PCMH components were viewed as part of the patient-centered culture of the organization, whereas others helped the practice compete in its local market.

Background: Many older adults who die by suicide have had recent contact with a primary care physician. As the risk-assessment and referral process for suicide is not readily comparable to procedures for other high-risk behaviors, it is important to identify areas in need of quality improvement (QI).Objective: Identify patterns in physician-patient communication regarding suicide to inform QI interventions.Design: Qualitative thematic analysis of video-taped clinical encounters in which suicide was discussed.Participants: Adult primary care patients (n = 385) 65 years and older and their primary care physicians.Results: Mental health was discussed in 22% of encounters (n = 85), with suicide content found in less than 2% (n = 6). Three patterns of conversation were characterized: (1) Arguing that "Life's Not That Bad." In this scenario, the physician strives to convince the patient that suicide is unwarranted, which results in mutual fatigue and discouragement. (2) "Engaging in Chitchat." Here the physician addresses psychosocial matters in a seemingly aimless manner with no clear therapeutic goal. This results in a superficial and misleading connection that buries meaningful risk assessment amidst small talk. (3) "Identify, assess, and…?" This pattern is characterized by acknowledging distress, communicating concern, eliciting information, and making treatment suggestions, but lacks clearly articulated treatment planning or structured follow-up.Conclusions: The physicians in this sample recognized and implicitly acknowledged suicide risk in their older patients, but all seemed unable to go beyond mere assessment. The absence of clearly articulated treatment plans may reflect a lack of a coherent framework for managing suicide risk, insufficient clinical skills, and availability of mental health specialty support required to address suicide risk effectively. To respond to suicide's numerous challenges to the primary care delivery system, QI strategies will require changes to physician education and may require enhancing practice support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors.Methods: Fourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context.Results: The most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context.Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]