Search

Background. In the United States, patients referred to as high-need, high-cost (HNHC) constitute a very small percentage of the patient population but account for a disproportionally high level of healthcare use and cost. Payers, health systems, and providers would like to improve the quality of care and health outcomes for HNHC patients and reduce their costly use of potentially preventable or modifiable healthcare services, including emergency department (ED) and hospital visits. Methods. We assessed evidence of criteria that identify HNHC patients (best fit framework synthesis); developed program theories on the relationship among contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes of interventions intended to change HNHC patient behaviors (realist review); and assessed the effectiveness of interventions (systematic review). We searched databases, gray literature, and other sources for evidence available from January 1, 2000, to March 4, 2021. We included quantitative and qualitative studies of HNHC patients (high healthcare use or cost) age 18 and over who received intervention services in a variety of settings. Results. We included 110 studies (117 articles). Consistent with our best fit framework, characteristics associated with HNHC include patient chronic clinical conditions, behavioral health factors including depression and substance use disorder, and social risk factors including homelessness and poverty. We also identified prior healthcare use and race as important predictors. We found limited evidence of approaches for distinguishing potentially preventable or modifiable high use from all high use. To understand how and why interventions work, we developed three program theories in our realist review that explain (1) targeting HNHC patients, (2) engaging HNHC patients, and (3) engaging care providers in these interventions. Theories identify the need for individualizing and tailoring services for HNHC patients and the importance of building trusting relationships. For our systematic review, we categorized evidence based on primary setting. We found that ED-, primary care–, and home-based care models result in reduced use of healthcare services (moderate to low strength of evidence [SOE]); ED, ambulatory intensive caring unit, and primary care-based models result in reduced costs (low SOE); and system-level transformation and telephonic/mail models do not result in changes in use or costs (low SOE). Conclusions. Patient characteristics can be used to identify patients who are potentially HNHC. Evidence focusing specifically on potentially preventable or modifiable high use was limited. Based on our program theories, we conclude that individualized and tailored patient engagement and resources to support care providers are critical to the success of interventions. Although we found evidence of intervention effectiveness in relation to cost and use, the studies identified in this review reported little information for determining why individual programs work, for whom, and when.

Preventive medicine (PM) physicians promote population-based approaches to health care with training that emphasizes public health, epidemiology, and policy. PM physicians use these skills in varied, often nonclinical, practice settings. PM career diversity challenges educators when designing residency curricula. Input from PM physicians about workforce environments is needed to ensure that residency requirements match skills needed post-residency. Graduates of one PM residency were sent a cross-sectional survey in 2016. Questions included professional experience, importance of 18 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education sub-competencies and 13 leadership/management skills to current position, and residency training adequacy in those sub-competencies/skills. Responses were rated on 3-point Likert scales. Analyses were completed in 2017. Pearson's chi-square tests examined relationships between position type (academic/government) and perception of competencies' importance and training adequacy. Eighty PM physicians responded (46%): 44% worked in academia and 25% in federal/state/local government. Half (53%) were PM board certified. A total of 88% completed clinical residency prior to PM. Thirteen of 18 competencies were important to work, and respondents felt well trained in 16 of 18 competencies. Respondents did not feel well trained in emergency preparedness and surveillance systems during residency and their opinions about the importance of these sub-competencies varied based on where they worked. Respondents rated all 13 leadership/management skills as important, but reported inadequate residency training. In conclusion, respondents rated most Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education sub-competencies as important to current work and felt well trained, indicating good alignment between residency training and professional needs. Respondents also reported leadership/management training deficiencies. PM residencies might consider incorporating formal leadership training into curricula.

Context The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim is rooted in improving population health and therefore requires a focus on prevention as well as management of disease. Preventive medicine (PM) physicians are uniquely trained in clinical medicine as well as health care delivery and systems-based practice, thus potentially positioning them to lead population health and contribute to the Triple Aim. Objective The objectives of this study were to (1) describe PM physicians' contributions related to the Triple Aim and (2) describe PM physician satisfaction with these activities. Design A survey was administered to physicians graduating from a single Preventive Medicine Residency program between 1975 and 2015. Physicians were asked about work in 3 specific emerging areas that relate to the Triple Aim's focus on population health improvement: population health; health system transformation; and integration between primary care and public health. PM physicians were also asked about their job, career, and specialty satisfaction. Results Most respondents (74%) practiced population health, with the majority (63%) defining this as improving the health of the population at large versus for a defined clinical population (37%). Approximately half (59%) of PM physicians are involved in health system transformation leadership. Most respondents practice both public health and primary care, but only 32% report having had positions that involve integration of these activities. PM physicians reported high specialty satisfaction levels, particularly among those involved in population health and health care transformation. Conclusion PM physicians already make substantial contributions to population health and lead work related to the Triple Aim. High satisfaction among PM physicians suggests that they can contribute to a stable and sustainable population health workforce.

Background and Objectives: The growing prevalence of obesity in the United States and globally highlights the need for innovative strategies to provide obesity treatment in primary care settings. This report describes and evaluates the Weight Management Program (WMP), an interprofessional program in an academic family medicine clinic delivering intensive behavioral therapy (IBT) following evidenced-based guidelines. Methods: We extracted WMP participant health data from the electronic health record and evaluated retrospectively. Eligible participants completed at least four WMP visits and had a baseline weight, blood pressure, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) recorded within 1 year prior to their first visit. Paired t tests were used to assess changes in, weight, HbA1c and systolic and diastolic blood pressures from baseline. Results: WMP counseled 673 patients over 3,895 visits from September 2015 to June 2019. Of these, 186 met eligibility criteria (at least four visits), with a median of eight visits (mean=11.3, SD=8.1). Participants saw an average weight decrease during program participation of 9.7 lbs (P5%) at 18 months. The program has become financially sustainable through billing for preventive counseling services and a $125 out-of-pocket enrollment fee. Conclusions: WMP provides one model for primary care practices to develop a financially sustainable and evidence-based behavioral therapy weight management program for their patients with obesity. Future work will include assessment of longer-term program benefits, quality metrics, and health care costs.

Introduction Healthcare organizations are transitioning from fee-for-service, volume-based care toward value-based care and the Triple Aim. Physicians have critical roles as leaders and practitioners in this emerging field of population health management; however, the competencies required of these physicians are not well described. The purpose of this study is to explore the approaches of healthcare systems to population health–related functions, the competencies needed, and the characteristics of physicians who lead or staff these functions. Methods Investigators conducted semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of 14 healthcare executives and 15 Preventive Medicine physicians and a focus group with 9 healthcare executives. Interviews and the focus group were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes and notable quotes were identified. Data were collected and analyzed in 2019. Results Population health was variously defined by the healthcare executives, often naming specific components or activities. The typical population health activities described by healthcare executives (e.g., quality measurement and process improvement) were reported along with the skills of physicians performing these functions (e.g., data analysis, informatics, leadership, business acumen). A total of 2 types of population health physicians were described: the clinician leader and the population health specialist. Conclusions This exploratory study identified several useful competencies for population health physicians in healthcare systems. Findings point to opportunities to promote a more systematic approach to population health and to prepare Preventive Medicine and other physicians for population health management positions.

Objectives. We conducted a literature review and environmental scan to develop a framework for interventions that utilize linkages between clinical practices and community organizations for the delivery of preventive services, and to identify and characterize these efforts. Methods. We searched 4 major health services and social science electronic databases and conducted an Internet search to identify examples of linkage interventions in the areas of tobacco cessation, obesity, nutrition, and physical activity. Results. We identified 49 interventions, of which 18 examples described their evaluation methods or reported any intervention outcomes. Few conducted evaluations that were rigorous enough to capture changes in intermediate or long-term health outcomes. Outcomes in these evaluations were primarily patient-focused and did not include organizational or linkage characteristics. Conclusions. An attractive option to increase the delivery of preventive services is to link primary care practices to community organizations; evidence is not yet conclusive, however, that such linkage interventions are effective. Findings provide recommendations to researchers and organizations that fund research, and call for a framework and metrics to study linkage interventions.

Context A literature review and environmental scan were conducted to develop a framework for interventions that utilize linkages between clinical practices and community organizations for the delivery of preventive services, and to identify and characterize these efforts. Evidence acquistion A search was made of four major health services and social science electronic databases and an Internet search was conducted to identify examples of linkage interventions in the areas of tobacco cessation, obesity, nutrition, and physical activity. Evidence synthesis In all, 49 interventions were identified, of which 18 examples described their evaluation methods or reported any intervention outcomes. Few conducted evaluations that were rigorous enough to capture changes in intermediate or long-term health outcomes. Outcomes in these evaluations were primarily patient-focused and did not include organizational or linkage characteristics. Conclusions An attractive option to increase the delivery of preventive services is to link primary care practices to community organizations; evidence is not yet conclusive, however, that such linkage interventions are effective. Findings provide recommendations to researchers and organizations that fund research, and call for a framework and metrics to study linkage interventions.

Objective To (1) conduct an in-depth assessment of the content of comprehensive cancer control plans and (2) obtain data that can be used to provide guidance to grantees supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) as they refine their plans, and to other health professionals as similar planning is done. Design Through an iterative development process, a workgroup of subject matter experts from NCCCP and Research Triangle Institute International (RTI International) identified 11 core or essential components that should be considered in cancer plans on the basis of their professional experience and expertise. They also developed a tool, the Cancer Plan Index (CPI), to assess the extent to which cancer plans addressed the 11 core components. Setting Sixty-five comprehensive cancer control programs in states, tribes, territories, and jurisdictions funded by the NCCCP. Data source Raters reviewed and abstracted all available cancer plans (n = 66), which included plans from 62 funded programs and 4 states of the Federated States of Micronesia funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a subcontractor of one funded program. Of the 66 plans, 3 plans were used to pilot test the CPI and the remaining 63 plans were subsequently reviewed and abstracted. Main outcome measure(s) The primary outcome measures are national-level component scores for 11 defined domains (global involvement of stakeholders, developing the plan, presentation of data on disease burden, goals, objectives, strategies, reduction of cancer disparities, implementation, funds for implementation of plan, evaluation, usability of plan), which represent an average of the component scores across all available cancer plans. Results To aid in the interpretation and usability of findings, the components were segmented into 3 tiers, representing a range high (average score = 2.01-4.00), moderate (average score = 1.01-2.00), and low (average score = 0-1.00) levels of description of the component. Programs overall provided relatively comprehensive descriptions of goals, objectives, and strategies; moderate description of the plan development process, presentation of data on disease burden, and plans on the reduction of cancer disparities; and little to no description of stakeholder involvement plans for implementation, funds for implementation, and evaluation of the plan. Conclusions Areas of the CPI with low average component scores should stimulate technical assistance to the funded programs, either to increase program activities or to increase discussion of key activities in the plan.

Background In 2005, CDC began the Diabetes Primary Prevention Initiative Interventions Focus Area (DPPI-IFA), which funded five state Diabetes Prevention and Control Programs (DPCPs) to translate diabetes primary prevention trials into real-world settings by developing and implementing a framework for state-level diabetes primary prevention. Purpose The purpose of this case study, conducted in 2007, was to describe DPPI-IFA implementation, including facilitators and challenges to the initiative. Methods Case studies of the five DPCPs in the DPPI-IFA involving site visits with key informant interviews of state staff and partners and archival record collection. Results Partners recruited for DPPI-IFA activities included local or state public health agencies (three of five DPCPs); regional or state nonprofit organizations (five DPCPs); businesses or employers (three DPCPs); and healthcare organizations (four DPCPs). The DPCPs implemented a variety of interventions in three main domains: diabetes primary prevention and prediabetes awareness, screening activities and lifestyle interventions, and prediabetes-related health policy efforts. Preliminary outcomes are described at the individual and organization/partnership levels. Results suggest the importance of utilizing preexisting partnerships to extend work into diabetes prevention, providing even small amounts of funding to partners, and prior program planning for diabetes prevention. Challenges for the DPPI-IFA included recruiting participants, establishing links with providers to obtain diagnostic testing for people screened for prediabetes, and offering a lifestyle intervention. Conclusions The DPPI-IFA represents a unique effort by state public health programs in the translation of diabetes primary prevention trials into real-world settings. The experiences of the DPPI-IFA programs offer valuable lessons for future community-based diabetes prevention initiatives, especially regarding the need to strengthen clinical–community partnerships for referral of people with prediabetes to evidence-based lifestyle programs.

Integration among health care professionals, health care systems, and public health organizations to improve population health has recently emerged as a policy priority for federal health and public health agencies. A large gap exists, however, between current policy and program implementation efforts and the existing evidence for integration interventions. The challenges of research into integration effectiveness include lack of a standardized definition of integration and lack of a taxonomy to allow grouping of similar interventions that helps to facilitate an understanding of their effectiveness. We address these challenges and advance research into integration. Drawing from prior evidence syntheses of integration interventions, we provide a recommended definition and a classification scheme for describing and grouping like interventions. Our work can benefit researchers engaged in generating evidence for integration interventions and policy makers; it will help to ensure that the integration policy promoted by health and public health agencies is supported by science.

OBJECTIVE—We compared quality of care for uninsured patients with diabetes in private physician offices and community/migrant health centers (C/MHCs). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We conducted a cross-sectional medical record review in a convenience sample of eight physician offices and three C/MHC sites in rural North Carolina. Billing systems generated lists of self-pay patients with diabetes. Abstraction of the medical records (n = 142) yielded data on process and intermediate outcome measures of diabetes care, which were derived from the Diabetes Quality Improvement Project. RESULTS—Medical records of patients in C/MHCs demonstrated higher rates on four of six process measures of quality of care, including measurement of HbA1c (98 vs. 75%; P < 0.001), cholesterol (82 vs. 51%; P < 0.001), and urine protein (90 vs. 25%; P < 0.001). Nonsignificant trends in documented eye examinations and the intermediate outcome of blood pressure control were found in medical records of C/MHC patients. No differences were seen in the intermediate outcomes of glucose or lipid control. Notable differences in provider type, time since training, and use of flow sheets were found. CONCLUSIONS—In our sample, uninsured patients with diabetes in C/MHCs had higher quality of care as suggested by higher rates of processes of care. Outcomes were similar in the two settings and well below targets. Further work is required to replicate these findings and to understand which features of C/MHCs may facilitate quality care for the uninsured and are replicable in other settings.

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in India, accounting for 17% of all cancer deaths among women aged 30 to 69 years. At current incidence rates, the annual burden of new cases in India is projected to increase to 225,000 by 2025, but there are few large-scale, organized cervical cancer prevention programs in the country. We conducted a review of the cervical cancer prevention research literature and programmatic experiences in India to summarize the current state of knowledge and practices and recommend research priorities to address the gap in services. We found that research and programs in India have demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of cervical cancer prevention efforts and that screening strategies requiring minimal additional human resources and laboratory infrastructure can reduce morbidity and mortality. However, additional evidence generated through implementation science research is needed to ensure that cervical cancer prevention efforts have the desired impact and are cost-effective. Specifically, implementation science research is needed to understand individual- and community-level barriers to screening and diagnostic and treatment services; to improve health care worker performance; to strengthen links among screening, diagnosis, and treatment; and to determine optimal program design, outcomes, and costs. With a quarter of the global burden of cervical cancer in India, there is no better time than now to translate research findings to practice. Implementation science can help ensure that investments in cervical cancer prevention and control result in the greatest impact.

Article-at-a-Glance Background The Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) adopted a collaborative approach that used the Chronic Care Model and quality improvement methods. The North Carolina Diabetes Prevention and Control Branch has partnered with the 12 participating community health centers since early 2000. Methods Team leaders of the first four centers that participated in the collaboratives were interviewed. Information obtained included previous diabetes efforts, benefits of the collaborative, success factors, and barriers to sustainability. Case Study In one of two case studies, a nonprofit community health center made Chronic Care Model-based changes to the organization of health care, clinical information systems, and delivery system design. Results Centers tracked used the electronic registry to establish a baseline, trend key process and outcome measures, and raise the standard of care. Success factors included senior leadership support, physician champions, multidisciplinary teams, and priority of collaborative activities. Barriers included staff turnover and low priority in strategic planning. Glycohemoglobin (A1C) values from aggregated reports demonstrated improvement. Discussion Useful strategies for future collaboratives may include providing provider-specific data, imparting vision to new team members, ensuring that leadership provides collaborative structure and resources, and pairing veteran and new participating sites.

Undertreatment of cancer pain remains a major health-care problem. We utilized focus groups of hospice and home-health nurses and patients to elucidate factors contributing to inadequate pain management and to generate solutions for closing the gap between the current reality and optimal pain management. Focus groups were conducted among hospice and home-health-care nurses (two groups; n=22) and patients (six groups; n=54) using a standardized question guide. Audiotapes were transcribed and analyzed using NUD*IST software. Themes discovered among patients and nurses were analyzed for similarities and differences. Of 22 participants in the two home-health and hospice nurses focus groups, all were white women, the average age was 43 (range 29–64) years, and the average number of years in nursing was 21 (range 8–47) years. Of 54 participants in the six cancer patient focus groups, 80% were women, the average age was 54 (range 25–76) years, and 76% were white. Fifty-four percent of patients reported a history of pain associated with their cancer, and almost 30% had pain that they rated as 8 or higher on the pain scale. Barriers to adequate pain management fell into four categories: fears; attitudes, beliefs, and values; patient and provider behaviors; and structural barriers. Patients and nurses reported similar barriers to pain management; however, patients identified more barriers related to provider behavior and structure of the health care system. This study identified several barriers to cancer pain control not previously identified in the literature. Strategies to improve cancer pain control are suggested.