Search

Background: Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) from electronic health records (EHRs) are a key component of quality improvement (QI) initiatives in small-to-medium size primary care practices, but using eCQMs for QI can be challenging. Organizational strategies are needed to effectively operationalize eCQMs for QI in these practice settings., Objective: This study aimed to characterize strategies that seven regional cooperatives participating in the EvidenceNOW initiative developed to generate and report EHR-based eCQMs for QI in small-to-medium size practices., Methods: A qualitative study comprised of 17 interviews with representatives from all seven EvidenceNOW cooperatives was conducted. Interviewees included administrators were with both strategic and cooperative-level operational responsibilities and external practice facilitators were with hands-on experience helping practices use EHRs and eCQMs. A subteam conducted 1-hour semistructured telephone interviews with administrators and practice facilitators, then analyzed interview transcripts using immersion crystallization. The analysis and a conceptual model were vetted and approved by the larger group of coauthors., Results: Cooperative strategies consisted of efforts in four key domains. First, cooperative adaptation shaped overall strategies for calculating eCQMs whether using EHRs, a centralized source, or a "hybrid strategy" of the two. Second, the eCQM generation described how EHR data were extracted, validated, and reported for calculating eCQMs. Third, practice facilitation characterized how facilitators with backgrounds in health information technology (IT) delivered services and solutions for data capture and quality and practice support. Fourth, performance reporting strategies and tools informed QI efforts and how cooperatives could alter their approaches to eCQMs., Conclusion: Cooperatives ultimately generated and reported eCQMs using hybrid strategies because they determined neither EHRs alone nor centralized sources alone could operationalize eCQMs for QI. This required cooperatives to devise solutions and utilize resources that often are unavailable to typical small-to-medium-sized practices. The experiences from EvidenceNOW cooperatives provide insights into how organizations can plan for challenges and operationalize EHR-based eCQMs., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a key tool for primary care practice. However, EHR functionality is not keeping pace with the evolving informational and decision-support needs of behavioral health clinicians (BHCs) working on integrated teams., Objective: Describe workflows and tasks of BHCs working with integrated teams, identify their health information technology needs, and develop EHR tools to address them., Method: A mixed-methods, comparative-case study of six community health centers (CHCs) in Oregon, each with at least one BHC integrated in 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 analyzed these data and employed a user-centered design process to develop EHR tools addressing the identified needs., Results: BHCs 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 behavioral health history; (3) access patient social and medical history relevant to behavioral 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 BH e-Suite., Conclusion: Integrated primary care teams, and particularly BHCs, have unique information needs, workflows and tasks. These needs can be met and supported by the EHR with a moderate level of modification.

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

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.

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.

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 practices' 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 Quality's 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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

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.

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., (Copyright © 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Purpose: This article describes the electronic health record (EHR)-related experiences of practices striving to integrate behavioral health and primary care using tailored, evidenced-based strategies from 2012 to 2014; and the challenges, workarounds and initial health information technology (HIT) solutions that emerged during implementation., Methods: This was an observational, cross-case comparative study of 11 diverse practices, including 8 primary care clinics and 3 community mental health centers focused on the implementation of integrated care. Practice characteristics (eg, practice ownership, federal designation, geographic area, provider composition, EHR system, and patient panel characteristics) were collected using a practice information survey and analyzed to report descriptive information. A multidisciplinary team used a grounded theory approach to analyze program documents, field notes from practice observation visits, online diaries, and semistructured interviews., Results: Eight primary care practices used a single EHR and 3 practices used 2 different EHRs, 1 to document behavioral health and 1 to document primary care information. Practices experienced common challenges with their EHRs' capabilities to 1) document and track relevant behavioral health and physical health information, 2) support communication and coordination of care among integrated teams, and 3) exchange information with tablet devices and other EHRs. Practices developed workarounds in response to these challenges: double documentation and duplicate data entry, scanning and transporting documents, reliance on patient or clinician recall for inaccessible EHR information, and use of freestanding tracking systems. As practices gained experience with integration, they began to move beyond workarounds to more permanent HIT solutions ranging in complexity from customized EHR templates, EHR upgrades, and unified EHRs., Conclusion: Integrating behavioral health and primary care further burdens EHRs. Vendors, in cooperation with clinicians, should intentionally design EHR products that support integrated care delivery functions, such as data documentation and reporting to support tracking patients with emotional and behavioral problems over time and settings, integrated teams working from shared care plans, template-driven documentation for common behavioral health conditions such as depression, and improved registry functionality and interoperability. This work will require financial support and cooperative efforts among clinicians, EHR vendors, practice assistance organizations, regulators, standards setters, and workforce educators., (© Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS., Methods: We conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them., Results: The groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues., Conclusions: The three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential.

Objective: Examine how the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and its related systems support or inhibit provider collaboration., Background: Health care systems in the US are simultaneously implementing EHRs and transitioning to more collaborative delivery systems; this study examines the interaction between these two changes., Methods: This qualitative study of five US EHR implementations included 49 interviews and over 60 hours of provider observation. We examined the role of the EHR in building relationships, communicating, coordinating, and collaborative decision-making., Results: The EHR plays four roles in collaboration: a repository, a messenger, an orchestrator, and a monitor. While EHR performance varied, common themes were decreased trust due to poor quality documentation, incomplete communication, potential for increased effectiveness through better coordination, and the emerging role of the EHR in identifying performance gaps., Conclusion: Both organizational and technical innovations are needed if the EHR is to truly support collaborative behaviors.

Objective: Electronic health record (EHR) use in ambulatory care can improve safety and quality; however, problems with design, implementation, and poor interface with other systems lead users to develop 'workarounds', or behaviors users adopt to overcome perceived limitations in a technical system. We documented workarounds used in independent, community-based primary care practices, and developed a typology of their key features., Materials and Methods: Comparative case study of EHR use in seven independent primary care practices. Field researchers spent approximately 1 month in each practice to observe EHR use, conduct patient pathways, and interview clinicians and staff., Results: We observed workarounds addressing a wide range of EHR-related problems, including: user interface issues (eg, insufficient data fields, limited templates), barriers to electronic health information exchange with external organizations, and struggles incorporating new technologies into existing office space. We analyzed the observed workarounds inductively to develop a typology that cuts across specific clinical or administrative processes to highlight the following key formal features of workarounds in general: temporary/routinized, which captures whether the workaround is taken for granted as part of daily workflow or is understood as a short-term solution; avoidable/unavoidable, referring to the extent to which the workaround is within the practice's power to eliminate; and deliberately chosen/unplanned, which differentiates strategically chosen adaptations from less thoughtful workarounds., Conclusions: This workaround typology provides a framework for EHR users to identify and address workarounds in their own practices, and for researchers to examine the effect of different types of EHR workarounds on patient safety, care quality, and efficiency.

Background: The use of electronic health records (EHR) is widely recommended as a means to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of US healthcare. Relatively little is known, however, about how implementation and use of this technology affects the work of clinicians and support staff who provide primary health care in small, independent practices., Objective: To study the impact of EHR use on clinician and staff work burden in small, community-based primary care practices., Design: We conducted in-depth field research in seven community-based primary care practices. A team of field researchers spent 9-14 days over a 4-8 week period observing work in each practice, following patients through the practices, conducting interviews with key informants, and collecting documents and photographs. Field research data were coded and analyzed by a multidisciplinary research team, using a grounded theory approach., Participants: All practice members and selected patients in seven community-based primary care practices in the Northeastern US., Key Results: The impact of EHR use on work burden differed for clinicians compared to support staff. EHR use reduced both clerical and clinical staff work burden by improving how they check in and room patients, how they chart their work, and how they communicate with both patients and providers. In contrast, EHR use reduced some clinician work (i.e., prescribing, some lab-related tasks, and communication within the office), while increasing other work (i.e., charting, chronic disease and preventive care tasks, and some lab-related tasks). Thoughtful implementation and strategic workflow redesign can mitigate the disproportionate EHR-related work burden for clinicians, as well as facilitate population-based care., Conclusions: The complex needs of the primary care clinician should be understood and considered as the next iteration of EHR systems are developed and implemented.

Purpose: Recent efforts to encourage meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) assume that widespread adoption will improve the quality of ambulatory care, especially for complex clinical conditions such as diabetes. Cross-sectional studies of typical uses of commercially available ambulatory EHRs provide conflicting evidence for an association between EHR use and improved care, and effects of longer-term EHR use in community-based primary care settings on the quality of care are not well understood., Methods: We analyzed data from 16 EHR-using and 26 non-EHR-using practices in 2 northeastern states participating in a group-randomized quality improvement trial. Measures of care were assessed for 798 patients with diabetes. We used hierarchical linear models to examine the relationship between EHR use and adherence to evidence-based diabetes care guidelines, and hierarchical logistic models to compare rates of improvement over 3 years., Results: EHR use was not associated with better adherence to care guidelines or a more rapid improvement in adherence. In fact, patients in practices that did not use an EHR were more likely than those in practices that used an EHR to meet all of 3 intermediate outcomes targets for hemoglobin A(1c), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure at the 2-year follow-up (odds ratio = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12-2.51). Although the quality of care improved across all practices, rates of improvement did not differ between the 2 groups., Conclusions: Consistent use of an EHR over 3 years does not ensure successful use for improving the quality of diabetes care. Ongoing efforts to encourage adoption and meaningful use of EHRs in primary care should focus on ensuring that use succeeds in improving care. These efforts will need to include provision of assistance to longer-term EHR users.

The adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) in ambulatory settings has been widely recommended. It is hoped that EMRs will improve care; however, little is known about the effect of EMR use on care quality in this setting. This study compares EMR versus paper medical record documentation of basic health history and preventive service indicators in 47 community-based practices. Differences in practice-level documentation rates between practices that did and did not use an EMR were examined using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test and robust regression, adjusting for practice-level covariates. Frequency of documentation of health history and preventive service indicator items were similar in the 2 groups of practices. Although EMRs provide the capacity for more robust record keeping, the community-based practices here do not use EMRs to their full capacity. EMR usage does not guarantee more systematic record keeping and thus may not lead to improved quality in the community practice setting.

Background: The Covid Connected Care Center (C4), a low-barrier telephone nurse hotline, was developed at an academic medical center to increase access to healthcare information and services across the state of Oregon, including to those without a usual source of care. Other studies have demonstrated that telephone triage services can positively influence health behaviors, but it is not known how this effect is maintained across racial/ethnic groups. The objective of this study was to show that the C4 reached throughout the state of Oregon, was valuable to callers, and that recommendations given affected callers' subsequent health-related behaviors. Methods: This mixed-methods study, informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Addoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework, assessed caller demographics and clinical care from March 30 2020 until September 8, 2021. Descriptive statistics, multivariable risk models and Zou's modified Poisson modeling were applied to electronic health record and call system data; An inductive approach was used for patient and staff experience surveys and semi-structured interviews. Approval was obtained from the OHSU Institutional Review Board (Study 00021413). Results: 145,537 telephone calls and 92,100 text-based contacts (61% and 39%, respectively) were included. Callers tended to not have a usual source of primary care and utilized recommended services. Emergency department utilization was minimal (1.5%). Racial or ethnic disparities were not detected in the recommendations, but Black (RR 0.92, CI 0.86–0.98) and Multiracial (RR 0.90 CI 0.81–0.99) callers were less likely than non-Hispanic white callers to receive a COVID-19 test. Participants in the post-call survey (n = 50) would recommend this service to friends or family. Interviews with callers (n = 9) revealed this was because they valued assistance translating general recommendations into a personalized care plan. C4 staff interviewed (n = 9) valued the opportunity to serve the public. The C4 was a trusted resource to the public and reached the intended audiences. However, disparities in access to COVID-19 testing persisted. Conclusions: Nursing triage hotlines can guide caller behavior and be an effective part of a robust public health information infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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.

ObjectiveExamine how the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and its related systems support or inhibit provider collaboration.BackgroundHealth care systems in the US are simultaneously implementing EHRs and transitioning to more collaborative delivery systems; this study examines the interaction between these two changes.MethodsThis qualitative study of five US EHR implementations included 49 interviews and over 60 hours of provider observation. We examined the role of the EHR in building relationships, communicating, coordinating, and collaborative decision-making.ResultsThe EHR plays four roles in collaboration: a repository, a messenger, an orchestrator, and a monitor. While EHR performance varied, common themes were decreased trust due to poor quality documentation, incomplete communication, potential for increased effectiveness through better coordination, and the emerging role of the EHR in identifying performance gaps.ConclusionBoth organizational and technical innovations are needed if the EHR is to truly support collaborative behaviors.

Integrating primary care and behavioral health is an important focus of health system transformation. Cross-case comparative analysis of 19 practices in the United States describing integrated care clinical workflows. Surveys, observation visits, and key informant interviews analyzed using immersion-crystallization. Staff performed tasks and behaviors--guided by protocols or scripts--to support 4 workflow phases: (1) identifying; (2) engaging/transitioning; (3) providing treatment; and (4) monitoring/adjusting care. Shared electronic health records and accessible staffing/scheduling facilitated workflows. Stakeholders should consider these workflow phases, address structural features, and utilize a developmental approach as they operationalize integrated care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

In the Point article, Steven W. Howard et al. argue that the Oregon Health Authority's coordinated care organizations (CCOs) are different from traditional Medicaid managed care organizations in ways designed to improve care coordination and transparency, incorporate greater collaborative governance and community accountability, and reform payment and delivery of care. Although the Point article notes specific challenges to implementing reforms, this Counterpoint article identifies the progress and successes of Oregon's CCOs in each of the aforementioned areas on the basis of empirical research, which suggests that CCOs appear to be viable innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across the United States, primary care practices are engaged in demonstration projects and quality improvement efforts aimed at integrating behavioral health and primary care. Efforts to make sustainable changes at the frontline of care have identified new research and evaluation needs. These efforts enable clinics and larger health care communities to learn from demonstration projects regarding what works and what does not when integrating mental health, substance use, and primary care under realistic circumstances. To do this, implementers need to measure their successes and failures to inform local improvement processes, including the efforts of those working on integration in separate but similar settings. We review how new research approaches, beyond the contributions of traditional controlled trials, are needed to inform integrated behavioral health. Illustrating with research examples from the field, we describe how research traditions can be extended to meet these new research and learning needs of frontline implementers. We further suggest that a shared language and set of definitions for the field (not just for a particular study) are critical for the aggregation of knowledge and learning across practices and for policymaking and business modeling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs).Methods: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs' EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes.Results: Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes.Conclusions: Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics' ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), can be administered within primary care; however, little is known about characteristics associated with retention on buprenorphine in these settings. This study examines patient correlates of buprenorphine retention and whether an integrated, interdisciplinary treatment model (buprenorphine and behavioral health) is associated with higher odds of buprenorphine retention than a primarily medication-only treatment model.Methods: Electronic health record data from adult patients with an OUD, ≥1 buprenorphine order and ≥1 visit to either of two primary care clinics between 9/2/2014-6/27/2018 were extracted (N = 494 patients). Two research team members reviewed the medication start and stop dates for each buprenorphine order and classified as retained (≥6 months of orders) or not retained (<6 months of orders). Logistic regressions estimated the odds of retention on buprenorphine by 1) patient characteristics and 2) timing of patient's engagement in buprenorphine treatment (pre- or post-implementation of an integrated treatment model).Results: Of the study sample, 53% had ≥6 months of buprenorphine orders. Almost two times higher odds of retention were found among patients with ≥1 psychiatric comorbidity (versus none) and among those with buprenorphine orders in the post- versus pre-period.Conclusions: An integrated, interdisciplinary model of OUD treatment was associated with ≥6 months of buprenorphine orders among our study population. Continued research is needed in real-world primary care settings to understand the impact of OUD treatment models on patient outcomes. A more nuanced examination of the associations between psychiatric diagnoses and buprenorphine treatment retention is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]