Search

Although much attention has been focused on individual-level drivers of burnout in primary care settings, examining the structural and cultural factors of practice environments with no burnout could identify solutions. In this cross-sectional analysis of survey data from 715 small-to-medium-size primary care practices in the United States participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's EvidenceNOW initiative, we found that zero-burnout practices had higher levels of psychological safety and adaptive reserve, a measure of practice capacity for learning and development. Compared with high-burnout practices, zero-burnout practices also reported using more quality improvement strategies, more commonly were solo and clinician owned, and less commonly had participated in accountable care organizations or other demonstration projects. Efforts to prevent burnout in primary care may benefit from focusing on enhancing organization and practice culture, including promoting leadership development and fostering practice agency.

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.

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 (

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.

Purpose To identify associations among patient fall risk factors, perceptions, and daily activities to improve patient engagement with fall prevention among hospitalized older adults. Background The risk of falling increases for older patients but few researchers have reported patient-centered measures on this topic. Methods Surveys and chart reviews of inpatients aged ≥ 65 with Morse Falls Scale scores of ≥ 45. Measurements included validated tools and the modified Fall Behavioral Scale-Inpatient (FaB-I). Results A fall within 3 months before hospitalization was associated with an increased level of importance to preventing falls and higher FaB-I score (more fall prevention behaviors) but decreased level of confidence related to preventing falls ( p r = 0.52; patient activation: r = 0.46) were positively associated with FaB-I ( p Conclusions Addressing patient-centered measures such as perceptions of and daily activities for fall prevention could add value to existing fall prevention programs.

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: 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: 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.

Little is known about how health care organizations are developing tools for identifying/addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDH). We describe the processes recently used by 6 organizations to develop SDH screening tools for ambulatory care and the barriers they faced during those efforts. Common processes included reviewing literature and consulting primary care staff. The organizations prioritized avoiding redundant data collection, integrating SDH screening into existing workflows, and addressing diverse clinic needs. This article provides suggestions for others hoping to develop similar tools/strategies for identifying patients' SDH needs in ambulatory care settings, with recommendations for further research.

Engaging primary care practices in initiatives designed to enhance quality, reduce costs, and promote safety is challenging as practices are already participating in numerous projects and mandated programs designed to improve care delivery and quality. Recruiters must expand their recruitment tools to engage today’s practices in quality improvement. Using grant proposals, online diaries, observational site visits, and interviews with key stakeholders, the authors identify successful practice recruitment strategies in the EvidenceNOW initiative, which aimed to recruit approximately 1500 small- to medium-sized primary care practices. Recruiters learned they needed to articulate how participation in EvidenceNOW aligned with other initiatives and could help practices succeed with federal and state initiatives, recognition programs, and existing or future payment requirements. Recruiters, initiative leaders, and funders must now consider how their efforts align with ongoing initiatives to successfully recruit and engage practices, ease practice burden, and encourage participation in efforts that support practice transformation.

BACKGROUND Overweight and obese body mass index (BMI) status affects an increasing number of children in the United States. The school setting has been identified as a focus area to implement obesity prevention programs. METHODS A database search of PubMed, Education Search Complete, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) was conducted for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2005 and December 2015 pertaining to programs offered in the school setting to grades K-12 in the United States with a nutrition education component and measured BMI percentile or BMI z-score as an outcome. RESULTS Seven studies focused on elementary (K-5) populations and 2 studies focused on grades 6-8. Among the 9 identified studies, those with long-term (greater than 1 year) implementation showed more pronounced results with positive impact on reducing overweight/obese BMI measures. CONCLUSIONS This set of studies suggests that long-term nutrition education delivered in the school setting can provide children with tools to attain a healthy weight status. Additional studies examining participants' BMI status years after the initial study, and studies examining programs in grades 9-12 are needed to determine the most effective delivery time and methods.

Background Integrating behavioral health and primary care is beneficial to patients and health systems. However, for integration to be widely adopted, studies demonstrating its benefits in community practices are needed. The objective of this study was to evaluate effect of integrated care, adapted to local contexts, on depression severity and patients' experience of care. Methods This study used a convergent mixed-methods design, merging findings from a quasi-experimental study with patient interviews conducted as part of Advancing Care Together, a community demonstration project that created an innovation incubator for practices implementing evidence-based integration strategies. The study included 475 patients with a 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score ≥10 at baseline, from 5 practices. Results Statistically significant reductions in mean PHQ-9 scores were observed in all practices, ranging from 2.72 to 6.46 points. Clinically, 50% of patients had a ≥5-point reduction in PHQ-9 score and 32% had a ≥50% reduction. This finding was corroborated by patient interviews that demonstrated positive experiences with behavioral health clinicians and acquiring new skills to cope with adverse situations at work and home. Conclusions Integrating behavioral health and primary care, when adapted to fit into community practices, reduced depression severity and enhanced patients' experience of care. Integration is a worthwhile investment; clinical leaders, policymakers, and payers should support integration in their communities.

Introduction A practice embarks on a radical reformulation of how care is designed and delivered when it decides to integrate medical and behavioral health care for its patients and success depends on managing complex change in a complex system. We examined the ways change is managed when integrating behavioral health and medical care. Method Observational cross-case comparative study of 19 primary care and community mental health practices. We collected mixed methods data through practice surveys, observation, and semistructured interviews. We analyzed data using a data-driven, emergent approach. Results The change management strategies that leadership employed to manage the changes of integrating behavioral health and medical care included: (a) advocating for a mission and vision focused on integrated care; (b) fostering collaboration, with a focus on population care and a team-based approaches; (c) attending to learning, which includes viewing the change process as continuous, and creating a culture that promoted reflection and continual improvement; (d) using data to manage change, and (e) developing approaches to finance integration. Discussion This paper reports the change management strategies employed by practice leaders making changes to integrate care, as observed by independent investigators. We offer an empirically based set of actionable recommendations that are relevant to a range of leaders (policymakers, medical directors) and practice members who wish to effectively manage the complex changes associated with integrated primary care. (PsycINFO Database Record

The study of healthcare disparities in Latino immigrants is underdeveloped and limited by risk to participants. To validate an electronic health record (EHR)-based algorithm that could serve as a safe proxy for self-reported immigration status for health services researchers. Primary collection/analysis of interview data and secondary analysis of electronic health record data. We developed an EHR algorithm to classify a population of patients as likely undocumented or recent Latino immigrants and validated this algorithm by conducting semi-structured interviews of staff whose main role entails asking about immigration status. We presented them with a list of patients (masked to the interviewer) with whom they had worked, and asked them to indicate patient’s immigration status, if they recalled it. We analyzed the correspondence between staff knowledge and our EHR algorithm. Staff described routine conversations with patients about immigration status. The EHR algorithm had fair agreement (66.2%, 95% CI 57.3–74.2) with staff knowledge. When the staff were more confident of their assessment, agreement increased (77.6%, 95% CI 63.4–88.2). The EHR has potential for studying immigration status in health services research, although more study is needed to determine the accuracy and utility of EHRs for this purpose.

Objectives This article describes a method for developing electronic health record (EHR) tools for use in primary care settings. Methods The “Translating Research into Agile Development” (TRIAD) method relies on the close collaboration of researchers, end users, and development teams. This five-step method for designing a tailored EHR tool includes (1) assessment, observation, and documentation; (2) structured engagement for collaboration and iterative data collection; (3) data distillation; (4) developmental feedback from clinical team members on high-priority EHR needs and input on design prototypes and EHR functionality; and (5) agile scrum sprint cycles for prototype development. Results The TRIAD method was used to modify an existing EHR for behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) embedded with primary care teams, called the BH e-Suite. The structured engagement processes stimulated discussions on how best to automate BHC screening tools and provide goal tracking functionality over time. Data distillation procedures rendered technical documents, with information on workflow steps, tasks, and associated challenges. In the developmental feedback phase, BHCs gave input on screening assessments, scoring needs, and other functionality to inform prototype feature development. Six 2-week sprint cycles were conducted to address three domains of prototype development: assessment and documentation needs, information retrieval, and monitoring and tracking. The BH e-Suite tool resulted with eight new EHR features to accommodate BHCs' needs. Conclusion The TRIAD method can be used to develop EHR functionality to address the evolving needs of health professionals in primary care and other settings. The BH e-Suite was developed through TRIAD and was found to be acceptable, easy to use, and improved care delivery during pilot testing. The BH e-Suite was later adopted by OCHIN Inc., which provided the tool to its 640 community health centers. This suggests that the TRIAD method is a promising research and development approach.

Background The use of implementation strategies is an active and purposive approach to translate research findings into routine clinical care. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) identified and defined discrete implementation strategies, and Proctor and colleagues have made recommendations for specifying operationalization of each strategy. We use empirical data to test how the ERIC taxonomy applies to a large dissemination and implementation initiative aimed at taking cardiac prevention to scale in primary care practice. Methods EvidenceNOW is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality initiative that funded seven cooperatives across seven regions in the USA. Cooperatives implemented multi-component interventions to improve heart health and build quality improvement capacity, and used a range of implementation strategies to foster practice change. We used ERIC to identify cooperatives’ implementation strategies and specified the actor, action, target, dose, temporality, justification, and expected outcome for each. We mapped and compiled a matrix of the specified ERIC strategies across the cooperatives, and used consensus to resolve mapping differences. We then grouped implementation strategies by outcomes and justifications, which led to insights regarding the use of and linkages between ERIC strategies in real-world scale-up efforts. Results Thirty-three ERIC strategies were used by cooperatives. We identified a range of revisions to the ERIC taxonomy to improve the practical application of these strategies. These proposed changes include revisions to four strategy names and 12 definitions. We suggest adding three new strategies because they encapsulate distinct actions that were not described in the existing ERIC taxonomy. In addition, we organized ERIC implementation strategies into four functional groupings based on the way we observed them being applied in practice. These groupings show how ERIC strategies are, out of necessity, interconnected, to achieve the work involved in rapidly taking evidence to scale. Conclusions Findings of our work suggest revisions to the ERIC implementation strategies to reflect their utilization in real-work dissemination and implementation efforts. The functional groupings of the ERIC implementation strategies that emerged from on-the-ground implementers will help guide others in choosing among and linking multiple implementation strategies when planning small- and large-scale implementation efforts. Trial registration Registered as Observational Study at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02560428). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0876-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In the current 3-month, two arm, unblinded, single site, pilot randomized controlled trial, 120 high fall risk hospitalized older adults (age ≥65) were contacted, and 67 participants were enrolled. The intervention arm received a brief motivational interviewing (MI) intervention. Both arms received routine hospital fall prevention protocols. Measurements were conducted at baseline, 2 days, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. MI intervention took approximately 21 minutes and was provided at beginning proficiency level. Approximately 66% of participants completed 3-month data collection. The intervention group reported a greater decrease in fear of falling after the intervention than the control arm (β = −0.856 vs. β = −0.236) and maintained fall prevention behaviors at 3 months (β = 0.001 vs. β = −0.083) ( p < 0.05). The current study found brief MI for fall prevention in acute settings feasible and provided preliminary evidence for a positive impact of MI [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 45 (9), 19–29.].

The growing numbers of cancer survivors challenge delivery of high-quality survivorship care by healthcare systems. Innovative ways to improve care coordination for patients with cancer and multiple chronic conditions (“complex cancer survivors”) are needed to achieve better care outcomes, improve patient experience of care, and lower cost. Our study, Project CONNECT, will adapt and implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies, shown to be effective for primary care conditions, among complex cancer survivors. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to: 1) Implement a system-level EHR-driven intervention for 500 complex cancer survivors at Parkland; 2) Test effectiveness of the strategies on system- and patient-level outcomes measured before and after implementation; and 3) Elucidate system and patient factors that facilitate or hinder implementation and result in differences in experiences of care coordination between complex patients with and without cancer. Project CONNECT is a quasi-experimental implementation study among 500 breast and colorectal cancer survivors with at least one of the following chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart disease. We will implement three evidence-based care coordination strategies in a large, county integrated safety-net health system: 1) an EHR-driven registry to facilitate patient transitions between primary and oncology care; 2) co-locating a nurse practitioner trained in care coordination within a complex care team; 3) and enhancing teamwork through coaching. Segmented regression analysis will evaluate change in system-level (i.e. composite care quality score) and patient-level outcomes (i.e. self-reported care coordination). To evaluate implementation, we will merge quantitative findings with structured observations and physician and patient interviews. This study will result in an evaluation toolkit identifying key model elements, barriers, and facilitators that can be used to guide care coordination interventions in other safety-net settings. Because Parkland is a vanguard of safety-net healthcare nationally, findings will be widely applicable as other safety-nets move toward increased integration, enhanced EHR capability, and experience with growing patient diversity. Our proposal recognizes the complexity of interventions and scaffolds evidence-based strategies together to meet the needs of complex patients, systems of care, and service integration. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02943265 . Registered 24 October 2016.

BACKGROUND: Integrating primary care and behavioral health is an important focus of health system transformation. METHOD: Cross-case comparative analysis of 19 practices in the U.S. describing integrated care clinical workflows. Surveys, observation visits, and key informant interviews analyzed using immersion-crystallization. RESULTS: Staff performed tasks and behaviors – guided by protocols or scripts – to support four workflow phases: (1) Identifying; (2) Engaging/transitioning; (3) Providing treatment; and (4) Monitoring/adjusting care. Shared electronic health records (EHR) and accessible staffing/scheduling facilitated workflows. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders should consider these workflow phases, address structural features, and utilize a developmental approach as they operationalize integrated care delivery.

The objective of this study was to empirically demonstrate the use of a new framework for describing the strategies used to implement quality improvement interventions and provide an example that others may follow. Implementation strategies are the specific approaches, methods, structures, and resources used to introduce and encourage uptake of a given intervention's components. Such strategies have not been regularly reported in descriptions of interventions' effectiveness, or in assessments of how proven interventions are implemented in new settings. This lack of reporting may hinder efforts to successfully translate effective interventions into "real-world" practice. A recently published framework was designed to standardize reporting on implementation strategies in the implementation science literature. We applied this framework to describe the strategies used to implement a single intervention in its original commercial care setting, and when implemented in community health centers from September 2010 through May 2015. Per this framework, the target (clinic staff) and outcome (prescribing rates) remained the same across settings; the actor , action , temporality , and dose were adapted to fit local context. The framework proved helpful in articulating which of the implementation strategies were kept constant and which were tailored to fit diverse settings, and simplified our reporting of their effects. Researchers should consider consistently reporting this information, which could be crucial to the success or failure of implementing proven interventions effectively across diverse care settings. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02299791.

Objectives. Clinician communication with patients regarding worrisome findings in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) may influence patient responses and subsequent care. The authors studied the range of approaches clinicians report when communicating with patients in this situation and how practice policies and procedures may influence this communication. Design. Qualitative interviews of clinician PDMP users. Setting: Oregon registrants in the state’s PDMP. Subjects. Thirty-three clinicians practicing in pain management, emergency medicine, primary care, psychiatry, dentistry, and surgery. Methods. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone with clinicians who routinely used the PDMP. A multidisciplinary team used a grounded theory approach to identify ways clinicians reported using information from the PDMP when communicating with patients, and policies that influenced that communication. Results. Clinicians reported using a range of approaches for communicating about PDMP results, from openly sharing, to questioning patients without disclosing access to the PDMP, to avoiding the conversation. Clinicians also reported practice policies and procedures that influenced communication with their patients about prescribing and ongoing care, including policies that normalized use of the PDMP with all patients and those that facilitated difficult conversations by providing a rationale not to prescribe in certain circumstances. Conclusion. Clinicians’ self-reported approaches to sharing PDMP findings and communicating prescribing decisions with patients vary and may be facilitated by appropriate practice policies. Such communication may have implications for patient engagement and alliance building. More research is needed to identify best practices and potential guidelines for effectively communicating about PDMP findings, as this may enhance health outcomes.

Background: Care coordinators are increasingly featured in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) projects, yet little research examines how coordinators themselves define and experience their role. This is the first study describing experiences of care coordinators across the US from their own perspectives. Methods: This qualitative study used a 5-month private, online discussion forum to gather data from 25 care coordinators from PCMH practices representing diversity in practice size, setting, and type. Participants answered questions and interacted with one another, creating an online social learning collaborative while allowing for data collection for research. Results: Coordinators identified barriers and facilitators in their work at the organization/system level, the interpersonal level, and the individual level. Some factors emerged as both barriers and facilitators, including the functionality of clinical information technology; the availability of community resources; interactions with clinicians and other health care facilities; interactions with patients; and self-care practices for mental health and wellness. Colocation and full integration into practices were other key facilitators, whereas excessive case loads and data management responsibilities were felt to be important barriers. Conclusions: While all the barriers and facilitators were important to performing coordinators9 roles, relationship building materialized as key to effective care coordination, whether with clinicians, patients, or outside organizations. We discuss implications for practice and provide suggestions for further research.

Strategies to engage patients to improve and enhance research and clinical care are increasingly being implemented in the United States, yet little is known about best practices for or the impacts of meaningful patient engagement.We describe and reflect on our patient stakeholder groups, engagement framework, experiences, and lessons learned in engaging patients in research, from generating proposal ideas to disseminating findings.The ADVANCE (Accelerating Data Value Across a National Community Health Center Network) clinical data research network is the nation's largest clinical dataset on the safety net, with outpatient clinical data from 122 health systems (1109 clinics) in 23 states.Patients stakeholders codeveloped the ADVANCE engagement framework and its implementation in partnership with network leaders. In phase I of ADVANCE, patients were involved with designing studies (input on primary outcome measures and methods) and usability testing (of the patient portal). In phase II, the network is prioritizing research training, dissemination opportunities, an "ambassador" program to pair more experienced patient stakeholders with those less experienced, and evaluation of engagement activities and impacts.The ADVANCE framework for patient engagement has successfully involved a diverse group of patients in the design, implementation, and interpretation of comparative effectiveness research. Our experience and framework can be used by other organizations and research networks to support patient engagement activities.

Background Children with health insurance have increased access to healthcare and receive higher quality care. However, despite recent initiatives expanding children’s coverage, many remain uninsured. New technologies present opportunities for helping clinics provide enrollment support for patients. We developed and tested electronic health record (EHR)-based tools to help clinics provide children’s insurance assistance. Methods We used mixed methods to understand tool adoption, and to assess impact of tool use on insurance coverage, healthcare utilization, and receipt of recommended care. We conducted intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses comparing pediatric patients in 4 intervention clinics (n = 15,024) to those at 4 matched control clinics (n = 12,227). We conducted effect-of-treatment-on-the-treated (ETOT) analyses comparing intervention clinic patients with tool use (n = 2240) to intervention clinic patients without tool use (n = 12,784). Results Tools were used for only 15% of eligible patients. Qualitative data indicated that tool adoption was limited by: (1) concurrent initiatives that duplicated the work associated with the tools, and (2) inability to obtain accurate insurance coverage data and end dates. The ITT analyses showed that intervention clinic patients had higher odds of gaining insurance coverage (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.14–1.51) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.68–0.88), compared to control clinic patients. Similarly, ETOT findings showed that intervention clinic patients with tool use had higher odds of gaining insurance (aOR = 1.83, 95%CI 1.64–2.04) and lower odds of losing coverage (aOR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.53–0.91), compared to patients without tool use. The ETOT analyses also showed higher rates of receipt of return visits, well-child visits, and several immunizations among patients for whom the tools were used. Conclusions This pragmatic trial, the first to evaluate EHR-based insurance assistance tools, suggests that it is feasible to create and implement tools that help clinics provide insurance enrollment support to pediatric patients. While ITT findings were limited by low rates of tool use, ITT and ETOT findings suggest tool use was associated with better odds of gaining and keeping coverage. Further, ETOT findings suggest that use of such tools may positively impact healthcare utilization and quality of pediatric care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02298361; retrospectively registered on November 5, 2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3159-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Federal value-based payment programs require primary care practices to conduct quality improvement activities, informed by the electronic reports on clinical quality measures that their electronic health records (EHRs) generate. To determine whether EHRs produce reports adequate to the task, we examined survey responses from 1,492 practices across twelve states, supplemented with qualitative data. Meaningful-use participation, which requires the use of a federally certified EHR, was associated with the ability to generate reports—but the reports did not necessarily support quality improvement initiatives. Practices reported numerous challenges in generating adequate reports, such as difficulty manipulating and aligning measurement time frames with quality improvement needs, lack of functionality for generating reports on electronic clinical quality measures at different levels, discordance between clinical guidelines and measures available in reports, questionable data quality, and vendors that were unreceptive to changing EHR configuration beyond federal requirements. The current state of EHR measurement functionality may be insufficient to support federal initiatives that tie payment to clinical quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015–6/19/2017. SETTING: Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS: 10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE: Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS: Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10–1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2–5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35–2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16–1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03–1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-018-4679-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Failed diffusion of innovations may be linked to an inability to use and apply data, information, and knowledge to change perceptions of current practice and motivate change. Using qualitative and quantitative data from three large-scale health care delivery innovations-accountable care organizations, advanced primary care practice, and EvidenceNOW-we assessed where data-driven innovation is occurring and where challenges lie. We found that implementation of some technological components of innovation (for example, electronic health records) has occurred among health care organizations, but core functions needed to use data to drive innovation are lacking. Deficits include the inability to extract and aggregate data from the records; gaps in sharing data; and challenges in adopting advanced data functions, particularly those related to timely reporting of performance data. The unexpectedly high costs and burden incurred during implementation of the innovations have limited organizations' ability to address these and other deficits. Solutions that could help speed progress in data-driven innovation include facilitating peer-to-peer technical assistance, providing tailored feedback reports to providers from data aggregators, and using practice facilitators skilled in using data technology for quality improvement to help practices transform. Policy efforts that promote these solutions may enable more rapid uptake of and successful participation in innovative delivery system reforms.

Health care extension is an approach to providing external support to primary care practices with the aim of diffusing innovation. EvidenceNOW was launched to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular preventive care in the primary care setting. Seven regional grantee cooperatives provided the foundational elements of health care extension-technological and quality improvement support, practice capacity building, and linking with community resources-to more than two hundred primary care practices in each region. This article describes how the cooperatives varied in their approaches to extension and provides early empirical evidence that health care extension is a feasible and potentially useful approach for providing quality improvement support to primary care practices. With investment, health care extension may be an effective platform for federal and state quality improvement efforts to create economies of scale and provide practices with more robust and coordinated support services.

BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are a key tool for primary care practice. However, the EHR functionality is not keeping pace with the evolving informational and decision-support needs of behavioural health clinicians (BHCs) working on integrated teams.ObjectiveDescribe the workflows and tasks of integrated BHCs working with adult patients identify their health information technology (health IT) needs and develop EHR tools to address them.MethodA mixed-methods, comparative case study of six community health centres (CHCs) in Oregon, each with at least one BHC integrated into their primary care team. We observed clinical work and conducted interviews to understand workflows and clinical tasks, aiming to identify how effectively current EHRs supported integrated care delivery, including transitions, documentation, information sharing and decision-making. We analysed these data and employed a user-centred design process to develop EHR tools addressing the identified needs.ResultsBHCs used the primary care EHR for documentation and communication with other team members, but the EHR lacked the functionality to fully support integrated care. Needs include the ability to: (1) automate and track paper-based screening; (2) document behavioural health history; (3) access patient social and medical history relevant to behavioural health issues and (4) rapidly document and track progress on goals. To meet these needs, we engaged users and developed a set of EHR tools called the Behavioural Health e-Suite (BH e-Suite).ConclusionUS-based integrated primary care teams, and particularly BHCs working with adult populations, have unique information needs, workflows and tasks. These needs can be met and supported by the EHR with a moderate level of modification.

Objective The pharmacist’s role and responsibilities in addressing the opioid epidemic have yet to be clearly defined, particularly from the patient’s point of view. This qualitative study explores the pharmacist’s role in promoting opioid safety from the perspective of pharmacists and patients. Design Focus groups. Setting Patient groups were held in person, and pharmacist groups were held online. Subjects Oregon pharmacists (N = 19, Mage = 39.0 years, range = 26–57 years, 58% female) and patients (N = 18, Mage = 60.1 years, range = 30–77 years, 71% female) with current experience dispensing or receiving opioid medications. Methods Pharmacists were asked about the challenges and opportunities for opioid safety monitoring and prescription dispensing. Patients were asked about their experiences accessing care, medications, and safety information. Focus group data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary team using an immersion-crystallization approach. Results Pharmacists and patients agreed that pharmacists are responsible for medication safety. Pharmacists expressed discomfort filling potentially high-risk opioid prescriptions and noted barriers such as lack of clinical information and discomfort policing high-risk prescribing. Patients were concerned about pharmacists potentially overstepping their professional responsibilities by interfering with prescribers’ clinical decisions. Conclusions Feedback from both pharmacists and patient participants suggests that there is uncertainty in the degree to which pharmacists can and should confront the prescription opioid epidemic directly. Ambiguities in the pharmacist’s role may be best clarified through structured training promoting enhanced between-party communication.

Alternative payment models have been proposed as a way to facilitate patient-centered medical home model implementation, yet little is known about how payment reform translates into changes in care delivery. We conducted site visits, observed operations, and conducted interviews within 3 Federally Qualified Health Center organizations that were part of Oregon’s Alternative Payment Methodology demonstration project. Data were analyzed using an immersion-crystallization approach. We identified several care delivery changes during the early stages of implementation, as well as challenges associated with this new model of payment. Future research is needed to further understand the implications of these changes.

Background Intervention toolkits are common products of grant-funded research in public health and primary care settings. Toolkits are designed to address the knowledge translation gap by speeding implementation and dissemination of research into practice. However, few studies describe characteristics of effective intervention toolkits and their implementation. Therefore, we conducted this study to explore what clinic and community-based users want in intervention toolkits and to identify the factors that support application in practice. Methods In this qualitative descriptive study we conducted focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of community health coalition members, public health experts, and primary care professionals between November 2010 and January 2012. The transdisciplinary research team used thematic analysis to identify themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant role and toolkit experience. Results Ninety six participants representing primary care ( n = 54, 56%) and community settings ( n = 42, 44%) participated in 18 sessions (13 focus groups, five key informant interviews). Participants ranged from those naive through expert in toolkit development; many reported limited application of toolkits in actual practice. Participants wanted toolkits targeted at the right audience and demonstrated to be effective. Well organized toolkits, often with a quick start guide, with tools that were easy to tailor and apply were desired. Irrespective of perceived quality, participants experienced with practice change emphasized that leadership, staff buy-in, and facilitative support was essential for intervention toolkits to be translated into changes in clinic or public -health practice. Conclusions Given the emphasis on toolkits in supporting implementation and dissemination of research and clinical guidelines, studies are warranted to determine when and how toolkits are used. Funders, policy makers, researchers, and leaders in primary care and public health are encouraged to allocate resources to foster both toolkit development and implementation. Support, through practice facilitation and organizational leadership, are critical for translating knowledge from intervention toolkits into practice.

Background: Changes in health insurance policies have increased coverage opportunities, but enrollees are required to annually reapply for benefits which, if not managed appropriately, can lead to insurance gaps. Electronic health records (EHRs) can automate processes for assisting patients with health insurance enrollment and re-enrollment. Objective: We describe community health centers' (CHC) workflow, documentation, and tracking needs for assisting families with insurance application processes, and the health information technology (IT) tool components that were developed to meet those needs. Method: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and observation of clinic operations and insurance application assistance processes. Data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We diagramed workflows and shared information with a team of developers who built the EHR-based tools. Results: Four steps to the insurance assistance workflow were common among CHCs: 1) Identifying patients for public health insurance application assistance; 2) Completing and submitting the public health insurance application when clinic staff met with patients to collect requisite information and helped them apply for benefits; 3) Tracking public health insurance approval to monitor for decisions; and 4) assisting with annual health insurance reapplication. We developed EHR-based tools to support clinical staff with each of these steps. Conclusion: CHCs are uniquely positioned to help patients and families with public health insurance applications. CHCs have invested in staff to assist patients with insurance applications and help prevent coverage gaps. To best assist patients and to foster efficiency, EHR based insurance tools need comprehensive, timely, and accurate health insurance information.

In 2012 Oregon initiated an ambitious delivery system reform, moving the majority of its Medicaid enrollees into sixteen coordinated care organizations, a type of Medicaid accountable care organization. Using claims data, we assessed measures of access, appropriateness of care, utilization, and expenditures for five service areas (evaluation and management, imaging, procedures, tests, and inpatient facility care), comparing Oregon to the neighboring state of Washington. Overall, the transformation into coordinated care organizations was associated with a 7 percent relative reduction in expenditures across the sum of these services, attributable primarily to reductions in inpatient utilization. The change to coordinated care organizations also demonstrated reductions in avoidable emergency department visits and improvements in some measures of appropriateness of care, but also exhibited reductions in primary care visits, a potential area of concern. Oregon's coordinated care organizations could provide lessons for controlling health care spending for other state Medicaid programs.

Introduction Brief smoking-cessation interventions in primary care settings are effective, but delivery of these services remains low. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Meaningful Use (MU) of Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program could increase rates of smoking assessment and cessation assistance among vulnerable populations. This study examined whether smoking status assessment, cessation assistance, and odds of being a current smoker changed after Stage 1 MU implementation. Methods EHR data were extracted from 26 community health centers with an EHR in place by June 15, 2009. AORs were computed for each binary outcome (smoking status assessment, counseling given, smoking-cessation medications ordered/discussed, current smoking status), comparing 2010 (pre-MU), 2012 (MU preparation), and 2014 (MU fully implemented) for pregnant and non-pregnant patients. Results Non-pregnant patients had decreased odds of current smoking over time; odds for all other outcomes increased except for medication orders from 2010 to 2012. Among pregnant patients, odds of assessment and counseling increased across all years. Odds of discussing or ordering of cessation medications increased from 2010 compared with the other 2 study years; however, medication orders alone did not change over time, and current smoking only decreased from 2010 to 2012. Compared with non-pregnant patients, a lower percentage of pregnant patients were provided counseling. Conclusions Findings suggest that incentives for MU of EHRs increase the odds of smoking assessment and cessation assistance, which could lead to decreased smoking rates among vulnerable populations. Continued efforts for provision of cessation assistance among pregnant patients is warranted.

A1 Introduction to the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers1, Lisa Simpson2 1Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA; 2AcademyHealth, Washington, DC, 20036, USA For the second year in a row, we are pleased to be able to share the proceedings of the Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health, a large meeting reflecting the expanding and evolving research field that seeks to optimize the use of evidence, interventions, and tools from health research within the myriad of settings where people receive health care, make health-related decisions, and increase knowledge of influences on the health of the population. We once again benefitted from a strong partnership, co-led by AcademyHealth and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with co-sponsorship from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the WT Grant Foundation. In addition, we benefitted from the collaboration of staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). NIH and AcademyHealth again co-led the program planning committee, which focused on the development of the plenary sessions, and convened a scientific advisory panel to suggest speakers and advise on the overall conference development. The planning committee identified four key areas around which to focus the plenary panels and keynote address. Dr. America Bracho, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Director of Latino Health Access in Orange County, California, spoke about the opportunities for implementation science to inform efforts to improve community health and engage underserved populations. The three plenary panels each focused on a significant future direction for dissemination and implementation (D & I) research: the interface between D&I science and population health, emerging opportunities for global implementation science, and the challenges around implementation of precision medicine. The plenary sessions were complemented by facilitated lunchtime discussions on the same three topics, which offered participants an opportunity to identify key research questions for each and brainstorm next steps. Synopses of the lunchtime discussions are included in this supplement. Given the overwhelming success of the 2014 conference and the large number of abstracts received in 2014 (660), the program planning committee identified eight program tracks for abstract submitters to respond to, and through which the concurrent sessions of the conference would be organized. These tracks—Behavioral Health, Big Data and Technology for Dissemination and Implementation Research, Clinical Care Settings, Global Dissemination and Implementation, Promoting Health Equity and Eliminating Disparities, Health Policy Dissemination and Implementation, Prevention and Public Health, and Models, Measures and Methods— were designed to enable conference participants to follow a consistent theme across the multiple sessions of the conference and form the structure of this supplement. The call for abstracts, including individual paper presentations, individual posters and panel presentations, resulted in 515 submissions, spread across the eight thematic tracks. Over one hundred reviewers devoted their time to ensuring a comprehensive and expert review, and reviews were conducted within each track and coordinated by the track leads. For the final program, 64 oral presentations, 12 panels, and 263 posters were presented over the two-day meeting. Slides for the oral presentations and panels (with the agreement of the authors) were posted on the conference website (http://diconference.academyhealth.org/archives/2015archives) and all abstracts were included on the conference webapp (https://academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2015di/meetingapp.cgi). This supplement has compiled the abstracts for presented papers, panel sessions, and lunchtime discussions from the 8th Annual Meeting on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health: Optimizing Personal and Population Health. We are pleased to have the abstracts from the conference together in one volume once again, and look forward to the 9th Annual meeting, scheduled for December in Washington, D.C.

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