Search

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: For many patients, primary care is an appropriate setting for advance care planning (ACP). ACP focuses on what matters most to patients and ensuring health care supports patient-defined goals. ACP may involve interactions between a clinician and a patient, but for seriously ill patients ACP could be managed by a team. Methods: We are conducting a cluster randomized trial comparing team-based to clinician-focused ACP using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in 42 practices recruited from 7 practice-based research networks (PBRNs). Practices were randomized to one of the two models. Patients are referred to the study after engaging in ACP in primary care. Our target enrollment is 1260 subjects. Patient data are collected at enrollment, six months and one year. Primary outcomes are patient-reported goal-concordant care and days at home. Secondary outcomes include additional patient measures, clinician/team experience, and practice-level measures of SICP implementation. Study Implementation: This trial was designed and is conducted by the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC), a consortium of PBRNs focused on integrating engagement with patients, families, and other stakeholders into primary care research and practice. The trial pairs a comparative effectiveness study with implementation of a new program and is designed to balance fidelity to the assigned model with flexibility to allow each practice to adapt implementation to their environment and priorities. Our dissemination will report the results of comparing the two models and the implementation experience of the practices to create guidance for the spread of ACP in primary care.

Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act triggered 2 successive grant initiatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, allowing for the evolution of health extension models among 20 states, not limited to support for in-clinic primary care practice transformation, but also including a broader concept incorporating technical assistance for practices and their communities to address social determinants of health. Five states stand out in stretching the boundaries of health extension: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. Their stories reveal lessons learned regarding the successes and challenges, including the importance of building sustained relationships with practices and community coalitions; of documenting success in broad terms as well as achieving diverse outcomes of meaning to different stakeholders; of understanding that health extension is a function that can be carried out by an individual or group depending on resources; and of being prepared for political struggles over "turf" and ownership of extension. All states saw the need for long-term, sustained fundraising beyond grants in an environment expecting a short-term return on investment, and they were challenged operating in a shifting health system landscape where the creativity and personal relationships built with small primary care practices was hindered when these practices were purchased by larger health delivery systems., (© 2019 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Purpose: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance., Methods: Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach., Results: Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76)., Conclusions: Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation., (© 2019 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Healthy Hearts Northwest (H2N) is a study of external support strategies to build quality improvement (QI) capacity in primary care with a focus on cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation., Methods: To guide practice facilitator support, experts in practice transformation identified seven domains of QI capacity and mapped items from a previously validated medical home assessment tool to them. A practice facilitator (PF) met with clinicians and staff in each practice to discuss each item on the Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA) resulting in a practice-level response to each item. We examined the association between the QICA total and sub-scale scores, practice characteristics, a measure of prior experience with managing practice change, and performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for the three cardiovascular risk factors., Results: The QICA score was associated with prior experience managing change and moderately associated with two of the three CQMs: aspirin use (r = 0.16, p = 0.049) and blood pressure control (r = 0.18, p = 0.013). Rural practices and those with 2-5 clinicians had lower QICA scores.., Conclusions: The QICA is useful for assessing QI capacity within a practice and may serve as a guide for both facilitators and primary care practices in efforts to build this capacity and improve measures of clinical quality., Trial Registration: This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier# NCT02839382, retrospectively registered on July 21, 2016.

Objectives: To test the effectiveness of a comprehensive team-based intervention to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination completion rates and reduce missed opportunities to vaccinate in rural Oregon., Design: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial., Participants: Forty family physicians and pediatricians who are members of the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network., Intervention: Tailored to individual practice needs, components will include (1) practice facilitation with clinicians, nurses, front office staff, and others who have patient contact to redesign patient care and communication strategies to optimize HPV vaccine series completion; (2) workflow mapping adapted to practice context to support HPV vaccine delivery; (3) a practice improvement model designed to firmly establish reminder and recall systems and then standing orders; (4) education for patients and parents that underscores HPV vaccination is safe, effective, and an important approach for reducing cancer risk; and (5) partnering with community organizations to plan and implement a social marketing campaign on HPV vaccination., Main Outcome Measures: Initiation and completion of the HPV vaccine series as well as reduction in rates of missed opportunities to vaccinate derived from Oregon Immunization Program data., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govPRS, NCT03604393 : .Trial was registered on July 11, 2018. The first participant was enrolled on September 11, 2018.

Background: Little is known about the burden of atopic dermatitis (AD) encountered in US primary care practices and the frequency and type of skin care practices routinely used in children., Objective: To estimate the prevalence of AD in children 0 to 5 years attending primary care practices in the United States and to describe routine skin care practices used in this population., Design: A cross-sectional survey study of a convenience sample of children under the age of 5 attending primary care practices for any reason., Setting: Ten primary care practices in 5 US states., Results: Among 652 children attending primary care practices, the estimated prevalence of ever having AD was 24% (95% CI, 21-28) ranging from 15% among those under the age of 1 to 38% among those aged 4 to 5 years. The prevalence of comorbid asthma was higher among AD participants compared to those with no AD, namely, 12% and 4%, respectively ( P < .001). Moisturizers with high water:oil ratios were most commonly used (ie, lotions) in the non-AD population, whereas moisturizers with low water:oil content (ie, ointments) were most common when AD was present., Conclusions: Our study found a large burden of AD in the primary care practice setting in the US. The majority of households reported skin care practices that may be detrimental to the skin barrier, such as frequent bathing and the routine use of moisturizers with high water: oil ratios. Clinical trials are needed to identify which skin care practices are optimal for reducing the significant burden of AD in the community., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared.

Purpose: The methods and costs to enroll small primary care practices in large, regional quality improvement initiatives are unknown. We describe the recruitment approach, cost, and resources required to recruit and enroll 500 practices in the Northwest and Midwest regional cooperatives participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded initiative, EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care., Methods: The project management team of each cooperative tracked data on recruitment methods used for identifying and connecting with practices. We developed a cost-of-recruitment template and used it to record personnel time and associated costs of travel and communication materials., Results: A total of 3,669 practices were contacted during the 14- to 18-month recruitment period, resulting in 484 enrolled practices across the 6 states served by the 2 cooperatives. The average number of interactions per enrolled practice was 7, with a total of 29,100 hours and a total cost of $2.675 million, or $5,529 per enrolled practice. Prior partnerships predicted recruiting almost 1 in 3 of these practices as contrasted to 1 in 20 practices without a previous relationship or warm hand-off., Conclusions: Recruitment of practices for large-scale practice quality improvement transformation initiatives is difficult and costly. The cost of recruiting practices without existing partnerships is expensive, costing 7 times more than reaching out to familiar practices. Investigators initiating and studying practice quality improvement initiatives should budget adequate funds to support high-touch recruitment strategies, including building trusted relationships over a long time frame, for a year or more., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: authors report none., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Little attention has been paid to quality improvement (QI) capacity within smaller primary care practices which comprise nearly half of all primary care settings. Strategies for external support to build such capacity include practice facilitation (PF), shared learning opportunities, and educational outreach. Although PF has proven effectiveness, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of combining these strategies. Here, we describe the protocol of the "Healthy Hearts Northwest" (H2N) study, a randomized trial designed to address these questions while improving risk factors for cardiovascular disease., Methods/design: The targeted enrollment is 250 smaller primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The study is utilizing a two-by-two factorial design to assess four different combinations of practice support: PF alone, PF with educational outreach, PF with shared learning opportunities, or PF with both. A mixed methods approach is being used for evaluation and will include data from (1) baseline and follow-up practice and staff surveys; (2) baseline and quarterly clinical performance measurement from each practice on four cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, lipid management and smoking cessation support; and (3) a quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey used by external practice facilitators to guide improvement efforts., Discussion: Results from this study will inform future large-scale practice improvement initiatives by providing comparisons of promising external practice support strategies and advance our understanding of how to build QI capacity in primary care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02839382.

In this commentary, we propose that practice-based research networks (PBRNs) engage with funders and policymakers by applying the same engagement strategies they have successfully used to build relationships with community stakeholders. A community engagement approach to achieve new funding streams for PBRNs should include a strategy to engage key stakeholders from the communities of funders, thought leaders, and policymakers using collaborative principles and methods. PBRNs that implement this strategy would build a robust network of engaged partners at the community level, across networks, and would reach state and federal policymakers, academic family medicine departments, funding bodies, and national thought leaders in the redesign of health care delivery., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Using peer learning strategies, seven experienced PBRNs working in collaborative teams articulated procedures for PBRN Research Good Practices (PRGPs). The PRGPs is a PBRN-specific resource to facilitate PBRN management and staff training, to promote adherence to study protocols, and to increase validity and generalizability of study findings. This paper describes the team science processes which culminated in the PRGPs. Skilled facilitators used team science strategies and methods from the Technology of Participation (ToP®), and the Consensus Workshop Method to support teams to codify diverse research expertise in practice-based research. The participatory nature of "sense-making" moved through identifiable stages. Lessons learned include (1) team input into the scope of the final outcome proved vital to project relevance; (2) PBRNs with diverse domains of research expertise contributed broad knowledge on each topic; and (3) ToP® structured facilitation techniques were critical for establishing trust and clarifying the "sense-making" process., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Responding to quality metrics is an accepted and expected component of the current health care environment. Little is known about which measures physicians identify as a priority when reporting the quality of care to their patients, especially the care of children in rural settings. The objective of this study is for physicians caring for children in rural communities to identify which of the initial core sets of 24 child health quality measures are useful and are a priority for reporting and improving care., Methods: A survey was sent to rural Oregon physicians who provide care to children., Results: Of 955 eligible physicians, 172 (18%) completed the survey. The majority of respondents were family physicians (84%), and most respondents (58%) were in private practice. The child health measures stratified into 3 priority tiers: high, medium, and low priority. The top-tier priority measures included childhood immunization status, well-child visits, adolescent immunization status, body mass index assessment, and developmental screening. Dental treatment services, adequate prenatal care, and lower-birth-weight infants were among the lower-tier measures., Conclusions: The priority measures identified by rural family physicians reflect the relevance of the selected measures to their daily practice responsibilities, with missed opportunities to improve community health., (© Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: Remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) may improve the quality of care, reduce access barriers, and help control medical costs. Despite the role of primary care clinicians as potential key users of RMTs, few studies explore their views. This study explores rural primary care clinician interest and the resources necessary to incorporate RMTs into routine practice., Methods: We conducted 15 in-depth interviews with rural primary care clinician members of the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) from November 2011 to April 2012. Our multidisciplinary team used thematic analysis to identify emergent themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant and practice characteristics., Results: Clinicians expressed interest in RMTs most relevant to their clinical practice, such as supporting chronic disease management, noting benefits to patients of all ages. They expressed concern about the quantity of data, patient motivation to utilize equipment, and potential changes to the patient-clinician encounter. Direct data transfer into the clinic's electronic health record (EHR), availability in multiple formats, and review by ancillary staff could facilitate implementation. Although participants acknowledged the potential system-level benefits of using RMTs, adoption would be difficult without payment reform., Conclusions: Adoption of RMTs by rural primary care clinicians may be influenced by equipment purpose and functionality, implementation resources, and payment. Clinician and staff engagement will be critical to actualize RMT use in routine primary care., (Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background: The current study was performed to determine, in rural settings, the relation between the type and status of insurance coverage and being up-to-date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening., Methods: Four primary care practices in 2 rural Oregon communities participated. Medical chart reviews that were conducted between October 2008 and August 2009 assessed insurance coverage and up-to-date status for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Inclusion criteria involved having at least 1 health care visit within the past 5 years and being aged ≥ 55 years., Results: The majority of patients were women aged 55 years to 70 years, employed or retired, and who had private health insurance and an average of 2.5 comorbid conditions. The overall percentage of eligible women who were up-to-date for cervical cancer screening was 30%; approximately 27% of women were up-to-date for clinical breast examination, 37% were up-to-date for mammography, and 19% were up-to-date for both mammography and clinical breast examination. Approximately 38% of men and 35% of women were up-to-date for colorectal cancer screening using any test at appropriate screening intervals. In general, having any insurance versus being uninsured was associated with undergoing cancer screening. For each type of screening, patients who had at least 1 health maintenance visit were significantly more likely to be up-to-date compared with those with no health maintenance visits. A significant interaction was found between having health maintenance visits, having any health insurance, and being up-to-date for cancer screening tests., Conclusions: Overall, the percentage of patients who were up-to-date for any cancer screening, especially cervical cancer screening, was found to be very low in rural Oregon. Patients with some form of health insurance were more likely to have had a health maintenance visit within the previous 2 years and to be up-to-date for breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer screening., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)

Context: Little is known about rural clinicians' perspectives regarding early childhood immunization delivery, their adherence to recommended best immunization practices, or the specific barriers they confront., Purpose: To examine immunization practices, beliefs, and barriers among rural primary care clinicians for children in Oregon and compare those who deliver all recommended immunizations in their practices with those who do not., Methods: A mailed questionnaire was sent to all physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants practicing primary care in rural communities throughout Oregon., Findings: While 39% of rural clinicians reported delivering all childhood immunizations in their clinic, 43% of clinicians reported that they refer patients elsewhere for some vaccinations, and 18% provided no immunizations in the clinic whatsoever. Leading reasons for referral include inadequate reimbursement, parental request, and storage and stocking difficulties. Nearly a third of respondents reported that they had some level of concern about the safety of immunizations, and 14% reported that concerns about safety were a specific reason for referring. Clinicians who delivered only some of the recommended immunizations were less likely than nonreferring clinicians to have adopted evidence-based best immunization practices., Conclusions: This study of rural clinicians in Oregon demonstrates the prevalence of barriers to primary care based immunization delivery in rural regions. While some barriers may be difficult to overcome, others may be amenable to educational outreach and support. Thus, efforts to improve population immunization rates should focus on promoting immunization "best practices" and enhancing the capacity of practices to provide immunizations and ensuring that any alternative means of delivering immunizations are effective., (© 2011 National Rural Health Association.)

This study sought to understand the acceptability and feasibility of office-based nurse care management in medium to large rural primary care practices. A qualitative assessment of Care Management Plus (a focused medical home model for complex patients) implementation was conducted using semistructured interviews with 4 staff cohorts. Cohorts included clinician champions, clinician partners, practice administrators, and nurse care managers. Seven key implementation attributes were: a proven care coordination program; adequate staffing; practice buy-in; adequate time; measurement; practice facilitation; and functional information technology. Although staff was positive about the care coordination concept, model acceptability was varied and additional study is required to determine sustainability.

Purpose: In this study, we developed and field tested the Medication Error and Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (MEADERS)-an easy-to-use, Web-based reporting system designed for busy office practices., Methods: We conducted a 10-week field test of MEADERS in which 220 physicians and office staff from 24 practices reported medication errors and adverse drug events they observed during usual clinical care. The main outcomes were (1) use and acceptability of MEADERS measured with a postreporting survey and interviews with office managers and lead physicians, and (2) distributions of characteristics of the medication event reports., Results: A total of 507 anonymous event reports were submitted. The mean reporting time was 4.3 minutes. Of these reports, 357 (70%) included medication errors only, 138 (27%) involved adverse drug events only, and 12 (2.4%) included both. Medication errors were roughly equally divided among ordering medications, implementing prescription orders, errors by patients receiving the medications, and documentation errors. The most frequent contributors to the medication errors and adverse drug events were communication problems (41%) and knowledge deficits (22%). Eight (1.6%) of the reported events led to hospitalization. Reporting raised staff and physician awareness of the kinds of errors that occur in office medication management; however, 36% agreed or strongly agreed that the event reporting "has increased the fear of repercussion in the practice." Time pressure was the main barrier to reporting., Conclusions: It is feasible for primary care clinicians and office staff to report medication errors and adverse drug events to a Web-based reporting system. Time pressures and a punitive culture are barriers to event reporting that must be overcome. Further testing of MEADERS as a quality improvement tool is warranted.

Purpose: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) provide an important approach to implementing primary care research at the community level, thus increasing the relevance and utility of research findings for routine primary care practices. PBRNs expend considerable time and energy in the recruitment, engagement, and retention of network clinicians and practices to establish this community-based primary care research laboratory. This study assessed factors motivating PBRN clinicians to participate and stay involved in practice-based research in their primary care office setting., Methods: We invited practicing clinicians across the United States who are affiliated with a PBRN to share their stories regarding motivations to participate in practice-based research. Using qualitative methods, we categorized the stories into the main motivation for participation and the perceived impact of participation., Results: We collected 37 stories from clinicians affiliated with 12 PBRNS located in 14 states. Motivations for participation in practice-based research included themes associated with personal satisfaction, improving local clinic-based care, and contributing to community- and system-level improvements. Sources of personal satisfaction corresponded to the 3 psychological needs postulated by Deci's and Ryan's Self-Determination Theory: competence, autonomy, and relatedness., Conclusions: These stories from PBRN clinicians describe the values, motivations, and unique paths that clinicians took as they chose to participate and stay active in a PBRN. Their voices have the potential to influence others to participate in practice-based research.

Objectives: In seeking to identify modifiable, system-level factors affecting emergency department (ED) use, we used a statewide Medicaid database to study community variation in ED use and ascertain community characteristics associated with higher use., Methods: This historical cohort study used administrative data from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004. Residence ZIP codes were used to assign all 555,219 Medicaid enrollees to 130 primary care service areas (PCSAs). PCSA characteristics studied included rural/urban status, presence of hospital(s), driving time to hospital, and several measures of primary care capacity. Statistical analyses used a 2-stage model. In the first stage (enrollee level), ED utilization rates adjusted for enrollee demographics and medical conditions were calculated for each PCSA. In the second stage (community level), a mixed effects linear model was used to determine the association between PCSA characteristics and ED use., Results: ED utilization rates varied more than 20-fold among the PCSAs. Compared with PCSAs with primary care capacity less than need, PCSAs with capacity 1 to 2 times the need had 0.12 (95% CI: -0.044, -0.20) fewer ED visits/person/yr. Compared with PCSAs with the nearest hospital accessible within 10 minutes, PCSAs with the nearest hospital >30 minutes' drive had 0.26 (95% CI: -0.38, -0.13) fewer ED visits/person/yr., Conclusions: Within this Medicaid population, ED utilization was determined not only by patient characteristics but by community characteristics. Better understanding of system-level factors affecting ED use can enable communities to improve their health care delivery systems-augmenting access to care and reducing reliance on EDs.

Objective: To present the survey methods and instruments used to characterize a geographically and professionally diverse rural practice-based research network (PBRN)., Methods: A cross-sectional study of Oregon PBRN (ORPRN) member practices and clinicians using a 3-part survey including a survey of the practices, of clinician members, and an anonymous survey of clinician satisfaction., Results: A total of 31 of 32 (97%) participating ORPRN practices completed the practice survey, 96 of 129 (74%) clinicians within these practices completed the clinician member survey, and 81 of 129 (63%) clinicians completed an anonymous survey of clinician satisfaction. The survey provided a detailed description of the structure of member practices, patient and clinician demographics, services provided by the practices, and access to specialty and ancillary services., Conclusions: Survey tools that describe the network practices and individual clinician characteristics contribute to an understanding of the research capacity of an individual PBRN.

Context: Little is known about rural clinicians' perspectives regarding early childhood immunization delivery, their adherence to recommended best immunization practices, or the specific barriers they confront. Purpose: To examine immunization practices, beliefs, and barriers among rural primary care clinicians for children in Oregon and compare those who deliver all recommended immunizations in their practices with those who do not. Methods: A mailed questionnaire was sent to all physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants practicing primary care in rural communities throughout Oregon. Findings: While 39% of rural clinicians reported delivering all childhood immunizations in their clinic, 43% of clinicians reported that they refer patients elsewhere for some vaccinations, and 18% provided no immunizations in the clinic whatsoever. Leading reasons for referral include inadequate reimbursement, parental request, and storage and stocking difficulties. Nearly a third of respondents reported that they had some level of concern about the safety of immunizations, and 14% reported that concerns about safety were a specific reason for referring. Clinicians who delivered only some of the recommended immunizations were less likely than nonreferring clinicians to have adopted evidence-based best immunization practices. Conclusions: This study of rural clinicians in Oregon demonstrates the prevalence of barriers to primary care based immunization delivery in rural regions. While some barriers may be difficult to overcome, others may be amenable to educational outreach and support. Thus, efforts to improve population immunization rates should focus on promoting immunization "best practices" and enhancing the capacity of practices to provide immunizations and ensuring that any alternative means of delivering immunizations are effective.

Context: In rural areas of the United States, emergency departments (EDs) are often staffed by primary care physicians, as contrasted to urban and suburban hospitals where ED coverage is usually provided by physicians who are residency-trained in emergency medicine. Purpose: This study examines the reasons and incentives for rural Oregon primary care physicians to cover the ED and their reported measures of confidence and priorities for additional training. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians in rural Oregon who are members of the Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network (ORPRN). The survey was sent to 70 primary care physicians in 27 rural Oregon practices. Findings: Fifty-two of 70 (74%) ORPRN physicians representing 24 practices returned the questionnaire. Nineteen of the 52 responding physicians reported covering the ED. The majority (75%) of physicians covering the ED did so as a requirement for practice employment and/or hospital privileges. Physicians covering the ED reported low confidence in pediatric emergencies and expressed the need for additional training in pediatric emergencies as their top priority. Conclusions: Almost two fifths of surveyed primary care physicians in a rural practice-based research network provide ED coverage. Based on these physicians' low levels of confidence and desire for additional training in pediatric emergencies, effective education models are needed for physicians covering the ED at their rural hospitals.

Introduction/Objectives: With growing vaccination misinformation and mistrust, strategies to improve vaccination communication across community-based settings are needed. Methods: The Rural Adolescent Vaccine Enterprise (RAVE), a 5-year (2018-2022) stepped-wedge cluster randomized study, tested a clinic-based practice facilitation intervention designed to improve HPV vaccination. An exploratory aim sought to explore the use of partnerships between primary care clinics and a community partner of their choosing, to implement a social marketing campaign related to HPV immunization. We assessed perceptions about the value and success of the partnership, and barriers and facilitators to its implementation using a 29-item community partner survey, key informant interviews, and field notes from practice facilitators. Results: Of the initial 45 clinics participating in RAVE, 9 were unable to either start or complete the study, and 36 participants (80.0%) were actively engaged. Of these, 16/36 clinics (44.4%) reported establishing successful partnerships, 10 reported attempting to develop partnerships (27.8%), and another 10 reported not developing a partnership (27.8%), which were often caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common partnership was with public health departments at 27.3%. Other partnerships involved libraries, school districts, and local businesses. More than half (63.7%) reported that creating messages regarding getting HPV vaccination was moderately to very challenging. Just under half reported (45.5%) that messaging was hard because of a lack of understanding about the seriousness of diseases caused by HPV, parents being against vaccines because of safety concerns, and religious values that result in a lack of openness to HPV vaccines. Community partners' health priorities changed as a result of RAVE, with 80% prioritizing childhood immunizations as a result of the RAVE partnership. Conclusions: Community groups want to partner with primary care organizations to serve their patients and populations. More research is needed on how best to bring these groups together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection contributes to vaccine‐preventable malignancies. Rural populations experience lower HPV vaccination rates despite similar rates of other childhood vaccinations. Individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics likely contribute to this disparity, but little is known about the separate roles of each. We compared clinic‐level HPV vaccination rates among rural versus urban primary care clinics, identified factors associated with HPV vaccination, and separately assessed the impact of individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics on rural disparities in HPV vaccination. Methods: This cross‐sectional study included 537 Oregon primary care clinics participating in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program during 2019. Vaccination status was assessed using Oregon's ALERT Immunization Information System and included HPV vaccine ≥ 1 dose for ages 11 and 12; HPV vaccination up to date (UTD) for ages 13‐17, and coadministration with tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap). Rural versus urban clinic‐level outcomes were assessed using negative binomial regression. Findings: Participating clinics were 24.5% rural and 75.6% urban. Family medicine clinics comprised 71.1%; pediatrics, 16.9%; and mixed, 12.1%. Across clinics, the average proportion of patients qualifying for VFC was 43%, and non‐White patients were 14.1%. The mean rate of HPV vaccine ≥1 dose was lower among rural clinics (46.9% vs 51.1%, P =.039), as was vaccination UTD (40.5% vs 49.9%, P <.001). Adjusting for differences in individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics, rural disparities were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: Both individual‐ and clinic‐level characteristics play a role in rural disparities in HPV vaccination, and modifiable clinic‐level differences may be opportune targets to address these disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease.Methods: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance.Results: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA.Conclusion: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in recent history as radically and forcefully changing healthcare delivery. Practice facilitators, who often use tools of improvement science, have long played a critical role in supporting routine primary care practice transformation when healthcare system and policy changes occur. However, current events have taken many healthcare systems to the brink of collapse. Our practice facilitation team, which has a long history of sustained primary care partnerships in rural under-resourced settings, is finding creative solutions to carry forward work in research and quality improvement, and the tools of improvement science are well-suited to address rapidly changing demands of primary care during such a crisis. We reflect here on practice facilitation through the pandemic—the value of applied improvement science, and the critical necessity of strong relationships, flexibility, and creativity to support ongoing primary care partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 naïve 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Academic detailing is an interactive, convenient, and user-friendly approach to delivering non-commercial education to healthcare clinicians. While evidence suggests academic detailing is associated with improvements in prescribing behavior, uncertainty exists about generalizability and scalability in diverse settings. Our study evaluates different models of delivering academic detailing in a rural family medicine setting. Methods: We conducted a pilot project to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and satisfaction with academic detailing delivered face-to-face as compared to a modified approach using distance-learning technology. The recipients were four family medicine clinics within the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN). Two clinics were allocated to receive face-to-face detailing and two received outreach through video conferencing or asynchronous web-based outreach. Surveys at midpoint and completion were used to assess effectiveness and satisfaction. Results: Each clinic received four outreach visits over an eight month period. Topics included treatment-resistant depression, management of atypical antipsychotics, drugs for insomnia, and benzodiazepine tapering. Overall, 90% of participating clinicians were satisfied with the program. Respondents who received in person detailing reported a higher likelihood of changing their behavior compared to respondents in the distance detailing group for five of seven content areas. While 90%-100% of respondents indicated they would continue to participate if the program were continued, the likelihood of participation declined if only distance approaches were offered. Conclusions: We found strong support and satisfaction for the program among participating clinicians. Participants favored in-person approaches to distance interactions. Future efforts will be directed at quantitative methods for evaluating the economic and clinical effectiveness of detailing in rural family practice settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]