Search

Background: Engaging patients and community members in healthcare implementation, research and evaluation has become more popular over the past two decades. Despite the growing interest in patient engagement, there is scant evidence of its impact and importance. Boot Camp Translation (BCT) is one evidence-based method of engaging communities in research. The purpose of this report is to describe the uptake by primary care practices of cardiovascular disease prevention materials produced through four different local community engagement efforts using BCT., Methods: EvidenceNOW Southwest (ENSW) was a randomized trial to increase cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in primary care practices. Because of its study design, Four BCTs were conducted, and the materials created were made available to participating practices in the "enhanced" study arm. As a result, ENSW offered one of the first opportunities to explore the impact of the BCT method by describing the uptake by primary care practices of health messages and materials created locally using the BCT process. Analysis compared uptake of locally translated BCT products vs. all other products among practices based on geography, type of practice, and local BCT., Results: Within the enhanced arm of the study that included BCT, 69 urban and 13 rural practices participated with 9 being federally qualified community health centers, 14 hospital owned and 59 clinician owned. Sixty-three practices had 5 or fewer clinicians. Two hundred and ten separate orders for materials were placed by 43 of the 82 practices. While practices ordered a wide variety of BCT products, they were more likely to order materials developed by their local BCT., Conclusions: In this study, patients and community members generated common and unique messages and materials for cardiovascular disease prevention relevant to their regional and community culture. Primary care practices preferred the materials created in their region. The greater uptake of locally created materials over non-local materials supports the use of patient engagement methods such as BCT to increase the implementation and delivery of guideline-based care. Yes, patient and community engagement matters., Trial Registration and Irb: Trial registration was prospectively registered on July 31, 2015 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02515578, protocol identifier 15-0403). The project was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board and the University of New Mexico Human Research Protections Office., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.)

Importance: The capability and capacity of primary care practices to report electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) are questionable., Objective: To determine how quickly primary care practices can report eCQMs and the practice characteristics associated with faster reporting., Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study examined an initiative (EvidenceNOW Southwest) to enhance primary care practices' ability to adopt evidence-based cardiovascular care approaches: aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation (ABCS). A total of 211 primary care practices in Colorado and New Mexico participating in EvidenceNOW Southwest between February 2015 and December 2017 were included., Interventions: Practices were instructed on eCQM specifications that could be produced by an electronic health record, a registry, or a third-party platform. Practices received 9 months of support from a practice facilitator, a clinical health information technology advisor, and the research team. Practices were instructed to report their baseline ABCS eCQMs as soon as possible., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was time to report the ABCS eCQMs. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine practice characteristics associated with time to reporting., Results: Practices were predominantly clinician owned (48%) and in urban or suburban areas (71%). Practices required a median (interquartile range) of 8.2 (4.6-11.9) months to report any ABCS eCQM. Time to report differed by eCQM: practices reported blood pressure management the fastest (median [interquartile range], 7.8 [3.5-10.4] months) and cholesterol management the slowest (median [interquartile range], 10.5 [6.6 to >12] months) (log-rank P < .001). In multivariable models, the blood pressure eCQM was reported more quickly by practices that participated in accountable care organizations (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.40-2.53; P < .001) or participated in a quality demonstration program (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.14-2.18; P = .006). The cholesterol eCQM was reported more quickly by practices that used clinical guidelines for cardiovascular disease management (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-1.53; P < .001). Compared with Federally Qualified Health Centers, hospital-owned practices had greater ability to report blood pressure eCQMs (HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 95% CI, 1.73-4.09; P < .001), and clinician-owned practices had less ability to report cholesterol eCQMs (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35-0.76; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, time to report eCQMs varied by measure and practice type, with very few practices reporting quickly. Practices took longer to report a new cholesterol measure than other measures. Programs that require eCQM reporting should consider the time and effort practices must exert to produce reports. Practices may benefit from additional support to succeed in new programs that require eCQM reporting.

Background and Objectives: Our objective was to describe the results of a 6-year patient-centered medical home (PCMH) transformation program in 11 Colorado primary care residency practices., Methods: We used a parallel qualitative and quantitative evaluation including cross-sectional surveys of practice staff and clinicians, group and individual interviews, meeting notes, and longitudinal practice facilitator field notes. Survey analyses assessed change over time, adjusting for practice-level random effects. Qualitative data analysis used iterative template coding and matrix analyses to synthesize data over time and across cases., Results: There were significant improvements in clinicians' self-reported routine delivery of patient-centered care, team-based care, self-management support, and use of information systems (P&lt;.0001). Clinicians and staff reported significant gains in practice change culture (P=.001). Self-reported practice-level assessments pointed to additional significant improvements in quality improvement (QI) processes, continuity of care, self-management support/care coordination, and the use of data and population management (P≤.0215). Practices and their practice facilitators reported important changes in how practices operated, significantly improving their QI processes, shared leadership, change culture, and achieving Level III PCMH NCQA Recognition. Important barriers to further progress remain, including inadequate payment models, inflexible staff roles, and difficult access to clinical data., Conclusions: The success of these 11 primary care residency practices in making significant improvements in their delivery of patient-centered care, team-based care, self-management support, and use of information systems took time, effort, and external support. Further practice redesign for advanced primary care models will take sustained sources of well-aligned support, flexibility, shared leadership, and partnerships across residency programs for collaborative learning to assist in their transformation efforts.

Purpose: The purpose of this project was to evaluate the real-world usability and usefulness of a revised version of the published Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality "Improving Your Office Testing Process" toolkit, designed to help primary care practices standardize and systematize laboratory testing processes., Method: We used a multiple case study approach to evaluate toolkit implementation in 2 primary care practices with existing quality improvement (QI) infrastructure. We collected qualitative data at baseline, midpoint (3 to 4 weeks), and follow-up (7 to 8 weeks postimplementation). Data included key informant interviews and practice site observations. Nineteen clinicians and staff participated in the interviews. Thematic analysis was used to summarize (1) how practices used the toolkit for guiding lab testing process improvement (usefulness), and (2) ease of use and practice experience with using the toolkit (usability)., Results: The toolkit was perceived as easy to use and easy to follow step by step. Two components of the toolkit were particularly useful: guidance on data gathering to inform quality improvement and tools for effective practice-patient communication. The toolkit's practice and patient assessments facilitated practice-specific insights into the lab processes considered most harmful to patients and informed improvement activities., Conclusion: The usability and usefulness of the toolkit were related to the characteristics of the toolkit itself (adaptability, simplicity, and design quality and packaging, and guidance in planning) and practice processes (presence of practice champions and implementation teams). In a set of 2 practices in which laboratory testing process improvement was a high priority and where well-established QI infrastructure exists, the toolkit was easy to use with little technical assistance., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: The purpose of this project was to: (1) develop a strategy for primary care quality measurement using an environmental scan and interviews to identify best practices and candidate measures; (2) present recommendations to facilitate successful measurement., Methods: Following stakeholder interviews and review of existing measures, we created a three-tiered recommendation system for selecting and implementing measures. We also developed a framework for reviewing and prioritizing measures and prepared a detailed project report., Results: Interviews provided a broader perspective on measuring quality, including implementing measures, measuring value, and identifying measurement gaps. Our recommendations fall into three tiers: Tier 1 measures can be implemented quickly and include clinical processes and outcomes for preventive care and disease states. Tier 2 measures require modifications to electronic health record, workflows, and/or staff preparation. Tier 3 (Strategic Vision) addresses topics that should be incorporated in the future to ensure high-quality primary care (adherence, patient activation, patient experience, teamness, staff satisfaction, and value), and infrastructure development to support ongoing quality measurement., Conclusions: Implementing a quality measurement strategy is challenging and labor-intensive but is necessary to improve healthcare quality. Our work demonstrates the effort and investment required to progress quality measurement and offers recommendations for successfully undertaking this type of endeavor.

Introduction: Family medicine and internal medicine physicians order diagnostic laboratory tests for nearly one-third of patient encounters in an average week, yet among medical errors in primary care, an estimated 15% to 54% are attributed to laboratory testing processes. From a practice improvement perspective, we (1) describe the need for laboratory testing process quality improvements from the perspective of primary care practices, and (2) describe the approaches and resources needed to implement laboratory testing process quality improvements in practice., Methods: We applied practice observations, process mapping, and interviews with primary care practices in the Shared Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP)-affiliated practice-based research networks that field-tested in 2013 a laboratory testing process improvement toolkit., Results: From the data collected in each of the 22 participating practices, common testing quality issues included, but were not limited to, 3 main testing process steps: laboratory test preparation, test tracking, and patient notification. Three overarching qualitative themes emerged: practices readily acknowledge multiple laboratory testing process problems; practices know that they need help addressing the issues; and practices face challenges with finding patient-centered solutions compatible with practice priorities and available resources., Conclusion: While practices were able to get started with guidance and a toolkit to improve laboratory testing processes, most did not seem able to achieve their quality improvement aims unassisted. Providing specific guidance tools with practice facilitation or other rapid-cycle quality improvement support may be an effective approach to improve common laboratory testing issues in primary care., (© Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: This study reports REACH (the extent to which an intervention or program was delivered to the identified target population) of interventions integrating primary care and behavioral health implemented by real-world practices., Methods: Eleven practices implementing integrated care interventions provided data to calculate REACH as follows: 1) Screening REACH defined as proportion of target patients assessed for integrated care, and 2) Integrated care services REACH-defined as proportion of patients receiving integrated services of those who met specific criteria. Difference in mean REACH between practices was evaluated using t test., Results: Overall, 26.2% of target patients (n = 24,906) were assessed for integrated care and 41% (n = 836) of eligible patients received integration services. Practices that implemented systematic protocols to identify patients needing integrated care had a significantly higher screening REACH (mean, 70%; 95% CI [confidence interval], 46.6-93.4%) compared with practices that used clinicians' discretion (mean, 7.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-15.1; P = .0014). Integrated care services REACH was higher among practices that used clinicians' discretion compared with those that assessed patients systematically (mean, 95.8 vs 53.8%; P = .03)., Conclusion: REACH of integrated care interventions differed by practices' method of assessing patients. Measuring REACH is important to evaluate the extent to which integration efforts affect patient care and can help demonstrate the impact of integrated care to payers and policy makers., (© Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

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.)

Purpose: To examine the interrelationship among behavioral health clinician (BHC) staffing, scheduling, and a primary care practice's approach to delivering integrated care., Methods: Observational cross-case comparative analysis of 17 primary care practices in the United States focused on implementation of integrated care. Practices varied in size, ownership, geographic location, and integrated care experience. A multidisciplinary team analyzed documents, practice surveys, field notes from observation visits, implementation diaries, and semistructured interviews using a grounded theory approach., Results: Across the 17 practices, staffing ratios ranged from 1 BHC covering 0.3 to 36.5 primary care clinicians (PCCs). BHC scheduling varied from 50-minute prescheduled appointments to open, flexible schedules slotted in 15-minute increments. However, staffing and scheduling patterns generally clustered in 2 ways and enabled BHCs to be engaged by referral or warm handoff. Five practices predominantly used warm handoffs to engage BHCs and had higher BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios; multiple BHCs on staff; and shorter, more flexible BHC appointment schedules. Staffing and scheduling structures that enabled warm handoffs supported BHC engagement with patients concurrent with the identification of behavioral health needs. Twelve practices primarily used referrals to engage BHCs and had lower BHC-to-PCC staffing ratios and BHC schedules prefilled with visits. This enabled some BHCs to bill for services, but also made them less accessible to PCCs in when patients presented with behavioral health needs during a clinical encounter. Three of these practices were experimenting with open scheduling and briefer BHC visits to enable real-time access while managing resources., Conclusion: Practices' approaches to PCC-BHC staffing, scheduling, and delivery of integrated care mutually influenced each other and were shaped by the local context. Practice leaders, educators, clinicians, funders, researchers, and policy makers must consider these factors as they seek to optimize integrated systems of care., (© Copyright 2015 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: Following anecdotal reports of unexpected patient and/or clinician behavior change in the primary care encounter in a previous study, we conducted this study to learn more about the short- and long-term effects on clinician and/or patient behavior from participation in a practice-based research network (PBRN) study., Methods: Clinicians in two PBRN studies of Acanthosis nigricans were surveyed and interviewed 3 to 6 months following one study and surveyed 3 to 5 years following a second study. We gathered data on clinicians' reports of behavior change in the encounter, the persistence of those changes, and the likely causes of reported changes., Results: Eighty-six percent of clinicians in the short-term and 79% in the long-term samples reported more frequent diagnostic efforts, and 68% and 54%, respectively, reported more frequent preventive counseling after participation in the studies. Interview data suggested that several factors contributed to this reported behavior change: increased clinician knowledge, availability of a feasible tool to support counseling, change in patient receptivity/motivation, and creation of a new context for counseling., Conclusions: Reports of behavior change in the primary care encounter associated with a PBRN study suggest that PBRNs may be effective vehicles for education, translation, and practice change in addition to their value in research.

Objective: To present a novel examination of how error cascades are stopped (ameliorated) before they affect patients., Design: Qualitative analysis of reported errors in primary care., Setting: Over a three-year period, clinicians and staff in two practice-based research networks voluntarily reported medical errors to a primary care patient safety reporting system, Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS). The authors found a number of reports where the error was corrected before it had an adverse impact on the patient., Results: Of 754 codeable reported events, 60 were classified as ameliorated events. In these events, a participant stopped the progression of the event before it reached or affected the patient. Ameliorators included doctors, nurses, pharmacists, diagnostic laboratories and office staff. Additionally, patients or family members may be ameliorators by recognising the error and taking action. Ameliorating an event after an initial error requires an opportunity to catch the error by systems, chance or attentiveness. Correcting the error before it affects the patient requires action either directed by protocols and systems or by vigilance, power to change course and perseverance on the part of the ameliorator., Conclusion: Despite numerous individual and systematic methods to prevent errors, a system to prevent all potential errors is not feasible. However, a more pervasive culture of safety that builds on simple acts in addition to more costly and complex electronic systems may improve patient outcomes. Medical staff and patients who are encouraged to be vigilant, ask questions and seek solutions may correct otherwise inevitable wrongs.

Introduction: Prescription errors threaten patient safety and pharmacists often contact providers for prescription clarification. This study describes the principal reasons pharmacies call primary care practices to clarify prescriptions and subsequent implications for quality and patient safety improvement., Methods: A cross-sectional study of 22 primary care practices participating in a patient safety study was performed. Callbacks from pharmacies were logged for 2 weeks to determine reasons for callbacks, most frequently involved drug classes, whether issues were resolved on the same day of the call, and variability of callbacks among practice types. Analyses were performed using frequencies, t tests, and chi(2) tests., Results: Practices recorded 567 clarification calls, most frequently for prior authorization issues (n = 209; 37%), formulary issues (n = 148; 26%), and unclear/missing prescription dosages (n = 117; 21%). Drug classes most frequently requiring clarifications were gastrointestinal (n = 122; 21.7%), cardiovascular (n = 278; 13.9%), and analgesic/anesthetic (n = 74; 13.2%) agents. Issues were resolved on the same day 62% of the time. Residency practices averaged more issues per call (P < .001)., Conclusions: Clarification calls made to primary care practices involve administrative and clinical issues, potentially impacting patient safety. Pharmacy callback data can identify potential prescription concerns, thereby helping practices develop interventions aimed at reducing errors and improving patient safety.

Background: Medical students participate in a longitudinal (3-year) primary care preceptorship to assist them in developing skills in interviewing and examining patients in an ambulatory care setting., Purpose: To identify from a student's perspective important context and process issues in a longitudinal preceptorship., Methods: The investigators used an "editing" style of analysis to identify significant themes across 24 medical student focus groups held between October 1995 and December 1997., Results: Significant themes emerged from the data analysis that describe important features of what makes the preceptorship work for students. The main themes are active teaching, active learning, a trusting relationship, sufficient time, and a shared understanding of preceptorship objectives. The potential benefits to students in an enhanced learning environment are comfort, confidence, responsibility, skills, knowledge, reinforcement, learning opportunities, teaching opportunities, and models for practice., Conclusions: We offer recommendations for enhancing longitudinal preceptorships for preceptors, students, and leaders in medical education.