Search

Importance: Many people use cannabis for medical reasons despite limited evidence of therapeutic benefit and potential risks. Little is known about medical practitioners' documentation of medical cannabis use or clinical characteristics of patients with documented medical cannabis use., Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of past-year medical cannabis use documented in electronic health records (EHRs) and to describe patients with EHR-documented medical cannabis use, EHR-documented cannabis use without evidence of medical use (other cannabis use), and no EHR-documented cannabis use., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed adult primary care patients who completed a cannabis screen during a visit between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018, at a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in a US state with legal medical and recreational cannabis use., Exposures: Three mutually exclusive categories of EHR-documented cannabis use (medical, other, and no use) based on practitioner documentation of medical cannabis use in the EHR and patient report of past-year cannabis use at screening., Main Outcomes and Measures: Health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits or risks were defined based on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's review. The adjusted prevalence of conditions diagnosed in the prior year were estimated across 3 categories of EHR-documented cannabis use with logistic regression., Results: A total of 185 565 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.0 [18.1] years; 59% female, 73% White, 94% non-Hispanic, and 61% commercially insured) were screened for cannabis use in a primary care visit during the study period. Among these patients, 3551 (2%) had EHR-documented medical cannabis use, 36 599 (20%) had EHR-documented other cannabis use, and 145 415 (78%) had no documented cannabis use. Patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential benefits (49.8%; 95% CI, 48.3%-51.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (39.9%; 95% CI, 39.4%-40.3%) or no cannabis use (40.0%; 95% CI, 39.8%-40.2%). In addition, patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential risks (60.7%; 95% CI, 59.0%-62.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (50.5%; 95% CI, 50.0%-51.0%) or no cannabis use (42.7%; 95% CI, 42.4%-42.9%)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, primary care patients with documented medical cannabis use had a high prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits, yet a higher prevalence of conditions with potential risks from cannabis use. These findings suggest that practitioners should be prepared to discuss potential risks and benefits of cannabis use with patients.

Policy Points An onslaught of policies from the federal government, states, the insurance industry, and professional organizations continually requires primary care practices to make substantial changes; however, ineffective leadership at the practice level can impede the dissemination and scale-up of these policies. The inability of primary care practice leadership to respond to ongoing policy demands has resulted in moral distress and clinician burnout. Investments are needed to develop interventions and educational opportunities that target a broad array of leadership attributes., Context: Over the past several decades, health care in the United States has undergone substantial and rapid change. At the heart of this change is an assumption that a more robust primary care infrastructure helps achieve the quadruple aim of improved care, better patient experience, reduced cost, and improved work life of health care providers. Practice-level leadership is essential to succeed in this rapidly changing environment. Complex adaptive systems theory offers a lens for understanding important leadership attributes., Methods: A review of the literature on leadership from a complex adaptive system perspective identified nine leadership attributes hypothesized to support practice change: motivating others to engage in change, managing abuse of power and social influence, assuring psychological safety, enhancing communication and information sharing, generating a learning organization, instilling a collective mind, cultivating teamwork, fostering emergent leaders, and encouraging boundary spanning. Through a secondary qualitative analysis, we applied these attributes to nine practices ranking high on both a practice learning and leadership scale from the Learning from Effective Ambulatory Practice (LEAP) project to see if and how these attributes manifest in high-performing innovative practices., Findings: We found all nine attributes identified from the literature were evident and seemed important during a time of change and innovation. We identified two additional attributes-anticipating the future and developing formal processes-that we found to be important. Complexity science suggests a hypothesized developmental model in which some attributes are foundational and necessary for the emergence of others., Conclusions: Successful primary care practices exhibit a diversity of strong local leadership attributes. To meet the realities of a rapidly changing health care environment, training of current and future primary care leaders needs to be more comprehensive and move beyond motivating others and developing effective teams., (© 2020 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

This study examines attributes of a high-functioning primary care team by creating a survey measuring staff perceptions of team culture in primary care practices with innovative team-based workforce models. Survey data from a national study of 30 exemplar primary care practices with innovative team-based workforce models was used. Staff and clinicians (n = 943) at the 30 primary care sites completed a 31-item survey online. Survey items came from previous surveys of adaptive reserve and team culture. Factor analysis, reliability and validity were examined for the survey. Case summaries from site visits and survey comments were compared for high and low scoring sites to establish validity. Three core attributes of a high-functioning team were identified: joy in practice (4 items), personal growth (3 items), and leadership and learning (20 items). Four items did not measure any attribute. Using item correlations, the 20 items for leadership and learning were reduced to 7 items. All three attribute subscales had good reliability and validity. The final 14-item survey measuring joy in practice, personal growth and leadership and learning may be useful in clinical practice as a practical tool to gauge progress in developing a high-functioning team. Further research is needed to determine the sensitivity of this instrument to change over time with interventions designed to improve team functioning in primary care.

Background: Interest is growing in interventions to address social needs in clinical settings. However, little is known about patients' perceptions and experiences with these interventions., Objective: To evaluate patients' experiences and patient-reported outcomes of a primary care-based intervention to help patients connect with community resources using trained volunteer advocates., Design: Qualitative telephone interviews with patients who had worked with the volunteer advocates. Sample and recruitment targets were equally distributed between patients who had at least one reported success in meeting an identified need and those who had no reported needs met, based on the database used to document patient encounters., Participants: One hundred two patients., Interventions: Patients at the study clinic were periodically screened for social needs. If needs were identified, they were referred to a trained volunteer advocate who further assessed their needs, provided them with resource referrals, and followed up with them on whether their need was met., Approach: Thematic analysis was used to code the data., Key Results: Interviewed patients appreciated the services offered, especially the follow-up. Patients' ability to access the resource to which they were referred was enhanced by assistance with filling out forms, calling community resources, and other types of navigation. Patients also reported that interacting with the advocates made them feel listened to and cared for, which they perceived as noteworthy in their lives., Conclusions: This patient-reported information provides key insights into a human-centered intervention in a clinical environment. Our findings highlight what works in clinical interventions addressing social needs and provide outcomes that are difficult to measure using existing quantitative metrics. Patients experienced the intervention as a therapeutic relationship/working alliance, a type of care that correlates with positive outcomes such as treatment adherence and quality of life. These insights will help design more patient-centered approaches to providing holistic patient care.

Teams are increasingly used to deliver high-quality, accessible primary care, yet few leadership programs support the development of team-based care leadership capabilities. The 12-month Emerging Leaders program presents a prototype for how interdisciplinary training targeting frontline staff might be implemented. Emerging Leaders training included didactic content, mentorship, applied peer-to-peer learning, and personal leadership development components delivered in person and virtually. Attendance at training events was high. Nominators and Emerging Leaders noted improvements in knowledge, skills, and attitudes of program participants. Forty percent of participants went on to promotions or new jobs.

Objective: Recognition is growing that to create truly patient-centred care, health-care organizations need to partner with patients around care design. More research into the benefits of engaging patients and the most effective ways of partnering with them is needed., Methods: This study assessed the process and impact of a collaborative effort to design a new clinic service that balanced the number of patient and clinical provider/staff codesigners involved and recruited patients to represent diverse perspectives. Data sources included interviews with participants, event observation and participant surveys., Results: Our evaluation found that including patients as equal partners improved the design process by infusing a real-world, patient perspective. The pre-event orientation and interactive methods used in the event fostered positive collaboration, as well as personal growth for the patient codesigners., Conclusion: This study demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of including a roughly equal number of patients and clinical providers/staff in design events and ensuring that the patients represent diverse perspectives., (© 2019 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.

Objective: To support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trial's implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model., Design: Our logic model-driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources., Setting: This study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back stratified care approach. This was the first formal test of the strategy in a US setting., Methods: Data collection included observation of implementation activities, staff/provider interviews, and post-training evaluation questionnaires. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire data., Results: We found that both primary care teams and physical therapists at intervention clinics gave the training high scores on evaluation questionnaires and reported in the interviews that they found the training engaging and useful. However, there was significant variation in the extent to which the risk stratification strategy was incorporated into care. Some primary care providers reported that the intervention changed their conversations with patients and increased their confidence in working with patients with back pain. Providers using the STarT Back tool did not change referral rates for recommended matched treatments., Conclusions: These insights provide guidance for future efforts to adapt and implement the STarT Back strategy and other complex practice change interventions. They emphasize the need for primary care-based interventions to minimize complexity and the need for ongoing monitoring and feedback., (© 2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Context: Patient- and family-centered care (PFCC) literature is growing, but few reports present patient, caregiver, and practitioner perspectives about care coordination in a team-based model., Objective: To understand the patient's, caregiver's, and physician's ideal forms of PFCC, we investigated the function of the medical team quarterback, who coordinates and advocates for appropriate care, and probed to understand how the quarterback works with a team to contribute to ideal PFCC., Design and Main Outcome Measures: Nine focus groups with 92 participants were held in 3 major cities. Patients (n = 35) and family members (n = 36) were recruited through market research groups. Physicians (n = 21) were recruited by the American College of Physicians. Focus group transcripts were analyzed and coded using inductive analysis., Results: The quarterback emerged as an important function for addressing care gaps and improving the care experience. We identified 6 themes articulated by participants that defined the role of a medical team quarterback: Overseeing care; coordinating diagnoses, tests, and treatments; advocating for patients; identifying and respecting patient values; proactively communicating; and solving problems. Patients and family members in our sample were open to different members of the care team acting as quarterback in coordination with the physician., Conclusion: Medical team quarterbacks were perceived as enhancing team-based care by facilitating the coordination/communication that is critical to PFCC. Patients and family members acknowledged that PFCC can be delivered by different members of the medical team if the care felt organized and coordinated with the primary care physician.

Introduction: Behavioral health (BH) integration has been proposed as an important strategy to help primary care practices meet the needs of their patient population, but there is little research on the ways in which practices are integrating BH services. This article describes the goals for BH integration at 30 high-performing primary care practices and strategies to operationalize these goals., Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of BH integration at 30 US primary care practices that had been selected for the Learning from Effective Ambulatory Practices (LEAP) project following an interview-based assessment and rating process. Data collection included formal and informal interviews with practice leaders and staff, as well as observations of clinical encounters. We used a template analysis approach to thematically analyze data., Results: Most LEAP practices looked to BH integration to help them provide timely BH care for all patients, share the work of providing BH-related care, meet the full spectrum of patient needs, and improve the capacity and functioning of care teams. Practices operationalized these goals in various ways, including universal BH screening and involving BH specialists in chronic illness care. As they worked toward their BH integration goals, LEAP practices faced common challenges related to staffing, health information technology, funding, and community resources., Discussion: High-performing primary care practices share common goals for BH integration, as well as common challenges operationalizing these goals. As US residents increasingly receive BH services in primary care, it is critical to remove barriers to BH integration and support primary care practices in meeting a full spectrum of patient needs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England., Objective: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting., Design: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls., Participants: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later., Interventions: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training., Main Measures: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization., Key Results: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use., Conclusions: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use., Trial Registration: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

Community health workers have potential to enhance primary care access and quality, but remain underutilized. To provide guidance on their integration, we characterized roles and functions of community health workers in primary care through a literature review and synthesis. Analysis of 30 studies identified 12 functions (ie, care coordination, health coaching, social support, health assessment, resource linking, case management, medication management, remote care, follow-up, administration, health education, and literacy support) and 3 prominent roles representing clusters of functions: clinical services, community resource connections, and health education and coaching. We discuss implications for community health worker training and clinical support in primary care., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: authors report none., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

The years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act have seen substantial changes in the organization and delivery of primary care. These changes have emphasized greater team involvement in care and expansion of the roles of each team member including registered nurses (RNs). This study examined the roles of RNs in 30 exemplary primary care practices. We identified the emergence of new roles and activities for RNs characterized by greater involvement in face-to-face patient care and care management, their own daily schedule of patient visits and contacts, and considerable autonomy in the care of their patients.

Background: Team-based care is now recognized as an essential feature of high quality primary care, but there is limited empiric evidence to guide practice transformation. The purpose of this paper is to describe advances in the configuration and deployment of practice teams based on in-depth study of 30 primary care practices viewed as innovators in team-based care., Methods: As part of LEAP, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, primary care experts nominated 227 innovative primary care practices. We selected 30 practices for intensive study through review of practice descriptive and performance data. Each practice hosted a 3-day site visit between August, 2012 and September, 2013, where specific advances in team configuration and roles were noted. Advances were identified by site visitors and confirmed at a meeting involving representatives from each of the 30 practices., Results: LEAP practices have expanded the roles of existing staff and added new personnel to provide the person power and skills needed to perform the tasks and functions expected of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). LEAP practice teams generally include a rich array of staff, especially registered nurses (RNs), behavioral health specialists, and lay health workers. Most LEAP practices organize their staff into core teams, which are built around partnerships between providers and specific Medical Assistants (MAs), and often include registered nurses (RNs) and others such as health coaches or receptionists. MAs, RNs, and other staff are heavily involved in the planning and delivery of preventive and chronic illness care. The care of more complex patients is supported by behavioral health specialists, RN care managers, and pharmacists. Standing orders and protocols enable staff to act independently., Conclusions: The 30 LEAP practices engage health professional and lay staff in patient care to the maximum extent, which enables the practices to meet the expectations of a PCMH and helps free up providers to focus on tasks that only they can perform.

Background: The challenge of responding to prescription opioid overuse within the United States has fallen disproportionately on the primary care clinic setting. Here we describe a framework comprised of 6 Building Blocks to guide efforts within this setting to address the use of opioids for chronic pain., Methods: Investigators conducted site visits to thirty primary care clinics across the United States selected for their use of team-based workforce innovations. Site visits included interviews with leadership, clinic tours, observations of clinic processes and team meetings, and interviews with staff and clinicians. Data were reviewed to identify common attributes of clinic system changes around chronic opioid therapy (COT) management. These concepts were reviewed to develop narrative descriptions of key components of changes made to improve COT use., Results: Twenty of the thirty sites had addressed improvements in COT prescribing. Across these sites a common set of 6 Building Blocks were identified: 1) providing leadership support; 2) revising and aligning clinic policies, patient agreements (contracts) and workflows; 3) implementing a registry tracking system; 4) conducting planned, patient-centered visits; 5) identifying resources for complex patients; and 6) measuring progress toward achieving clinic objectives. Common components of clinic policies, patient agreements and data tracked in registries to assess progress are described., Conclusions: In response to prescription opioid overuse and the resulting epidemic of overdose and addiction, primary care clinics are making improvements driven by a common set of best practices that address complex challenges of managing COT patients in primary care settings., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

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.

Background: Despite numerous options for treating back pain and the increasing healthcare resources devoted to this problem, the prevalence and impact of back pain-related disability has not improved. It is now recognized that psychosocial factors, as well as physical factors, are important predictors of poor outcomes for back pain. A promising new approach that matches treatments to the physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery, the STarT Back risk stratification approach, improved patients' physical function while reducing costs of care in the United Kingdom (UK). This trial evaluates implementation of this strategy in a United States (US) healthcare setting., Methods: Six large primary care clinics in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State were block-randomized, three to receive an intensive quality improvement intervention for back pain and three to serve as controls for secular trends. The intervention included 6 one-hour training sessions for physicians, 5 days of training for physical therapists, individualized and group coaching of clinicians, and integration of the STarT Back tool into the electronic health record. This prognostic tool uses 9 questions to categorize patients at low, medium or high risk of persistent disabling pain with recommendations about evidence-based treatment options appropriate for each subgroup. Patients at least 18 years of age, receiving primary care for non-specific low back pain, were invited to provide data 1-3 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 months and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. The primary outcomes are back-related physical function and pain severity. Using an intention to treat approach, intervention effects on patient outcomes will be estimated by comparing mean changes at the 2 and 6 month follow-up between the pre- and post-implementation periods. The inclusion of control clinics permits adjustment for secular trends. Differences in change scores by intervention group and time period will be estimated using linear mixed models with random effects. Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization and adherence to clinical guidelines., Discussion: This trial will provide the first randomized trial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of implementing risk stratification with matched treatment options for low back pain in a United States health care delivery system., Trial Registration: NCT02286141. Registered November 5, 2014.

The patient-centered medical home model relies on team-based care for meaningful practice transformation. This article adds to the literature on the importance of teams in primary care by exploring the barriers and facilitators to establishing high functioning teams during a patient-centered medical home transformation process.

Many primary care practices are changing the roles played by the members of their health care teams. The purpose of this article is to describe some of these new roles, using the authors' preliminary observations from 25 site visits to high-performing primary care practices across the United States in 2012-2013. These sites visits, to practices using their workforce creatively, were part of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded initiative, The Primary Care Team: Learning From Effective Ambulatory Practices.Examples of these new roles that the authors observed on their site visits include medical assistants reviewing patient records before visits to identify care gaps, ordering and administering immunizations using protocols, making outreach calls to patients, leading team huddles, and coaching patients to set self-management goals. The registered nurse role has evolved from an emphasis on triage to a focus on uncomplicated acute care, chronic care management, and hospital-to-home transitions. Behavioral health providers (licensed clinical social workers, psychologists, or licensed counselors) were colocated and integrated within practices and were readily available for immediate consults and brief interventions. Physicians have shifted from lone to shared responsibility for patient panels, with other team members empowered to provide significant portions of chronic and preventive care.An innovative team-based primary care workforce is emerging. Spreading and sustaining these changes will require training both health professionals and nonprofessionals in new ways. Without clinical experiences that model this new team-based care and role models who practice it, trainees will not be prepared to practice as a team.

Purpose: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is being rapidly deployed in many settings to strengthen US primary care, improve quality, and control costs; however, evidence supporting this transformation is still lacking. We describe the Group Health experience in attempting to replicate the effects on health care use seen in a PCMH prototype clinic via a systemwide spread using Lean as the change strategy., Methods: We used an interrupted time series analysis with a patient-month unit of analysis over a 4-year period that included baseline, implementation, and stabilization periods for 412,943 patients. To account for secular trends across these periods, we compared changes in use of face-to-face primary care visits, emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions with those of a nonequivalent comparison group of patients served by community network practices., Results: After accounting for secular trends among network patients, patients empaneled to the PCMH clinics had 5.1% and 6.7% declines in primary care office visits in early and later stabilization years, respectively, after the implementation year. This trend was accompanied by a 123% increase in the use of secure electronic message threads and a 20% increase in telephone encounters. Declines were also seen in emergency department visits at 1 and 2 years (13.7% and 18.5%) compared with what would be expected based on secular trends in network practices. No statistically significant changes were found for hospital admissions., Conclusions: The Group Health experience shows it is possible to reduce emergency department use with PCMH transformation across a diverse set of clinics using a clear change strategy (Lean) and sufficient resources and supports.

Purpose: We aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors., Methods: Fourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context., Results: The most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context., Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research.

Purpose: To assess the impact on health care cost and quality among seniors of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) pilot at Group Health Cooperative, an integrated health care system in Washington State., Design and Methods: A prospective before-and-after evaluation of the experience of seniors receiving primary care services at 1 pilot clinic compared with seniors enrolled at the remaining 19 primary care clinics owned and operated by Group Health. Analyses of secondary data on quality and cost were conducted for 1,947 seniors in the PCMH clinic and 39,396 seniors in the 19 control clinics. Patient experience with care was based on survey data collected from 487 seniors in the PCMH clinic and of 668 in 2 specific control clinics that were selected for their similarities in organization and patient composition to the pilot clinic., Results: After adjusting for baseline, seniors in the PCMH clinic reported higher ratings than controls on 3 of 7 patient experience scales. Seniors in the PCMH clinic had significantly greater quality outcomes over time, but this difference was not significant relative to control. PCMH patients used more e-mail, phone, and specialist visits but fewer emergency services and inpatient admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. At 1 and 2 years, the PCMH and control clinics did not differ significantly in overall costs., Implications: A PCMH redesign can be associated with improvements in patient experience and quality without increasing overall cost.

Health care leaders and policymakers are turning to the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model to contain costs, improve the quality of care, and create a more positive primary care work environment. We describe how Group Health, an integrated delivery system, developed and implemented a PCMH intervention that included standardized structural and practice level changes. This intervention was spread to a diverse set of 26 primary care practices in 14 months using Lean Management principles. Group Health's experience provides valuable insights that can be used to improve the design and implementation of future PCMH models.

Purpose: We studied the openness of patients and clinicians to introducing a broader range of healing options into primary care., Methods: Focus groups were conducted with primary care patients (4 groups) and clinicians (3 groups) from an integrated medical care system in 2008. Transcripts of discussions were analyzed using an immersion/crystallization approach., Results: Both patients (n = 44) and clinicians (n = 32) were open to including a wider variety of healing options in primary care. Patients desired some evidence of effectiveness, although there was wide variation in the type of evidence required. Many patients believed that the clinician's personal and practice experience was an important form of evidence. Patients wanted to share in the decision to refer and the choice of options. Clinicians were most concerned with safety of specific treatments, including some of the herbs and dietary supplements. They also believed they lacked adequate information about the nature, benefits, and risks of many alternatives, and they were not aware of local practitioners and resources to whom they could confidently refer their patients. Both patients and clinicians were concerned that services recommended be covered by insurance or be affordable to patients., Conclusions: Integrating additional healing options into primary care may be feasible and desirable, as well as help meet the needs of patients with conditions that have not been responsive to standard medical treatments.

As the patient-centered medical home model emerges as a key vehicle to improve the quality of health care and to control costs, the experience of Seattle-based Group Health Cooperative with its medical home pilot takes on added importance. This paper examines the effects of the medical home prototype on patients' experiences, quality, burnout of clinicians, and total costs at twenty-one to twenty-four months after implementation. The results show improvements in patients' experiences, quality, and clinician burnout through two years. Compared to other Group Health clinics, patients in the medical home experienced 29 percent fewer emergency visits and 6 percent fewer hospitalizations. We estimate total savings of $10.3 per patient per month twenty-one months into the pilot. We offer an operational blueprint and policy recommendations for adoption in other health care settings.

Purpose: We wanted to understand the views of patients and clinicians on the central concept of healing and to identify major facilitators of and barriers to promoting healing in primary care., Methods: We undertook a qualitative analysis of focus group discussions. Participants were drawn from primary care clinics of a large, integrated, health care system in Washington State in 2005. Nine focus groups included 84 participants: 28 patients, 23 primary care physicians (19 family physicians), 20 registered nurses, 11 licensed practical nurses, and 2 medical assistants. Randomly sampled established patients were aged from 21 to 65 years; 71% were female., Results: We found remarkable concordance across focus groups and among types of participants in the definition of healing: Healing is a dynamic process of recovering from a trauma or illness by working toward realistic goals, restoring function, and regaining a personal sense of balance and peace. Healing is a multidimensional process with physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. The key themes are as follows: (1) healing is multidimensional and holistic; (2) healing is a process, a journey; (3) the goal of healing is recovery or restoration; (4) healing requires the person to reach a place of personal balance and acceptance; and (5) relationships are essential to healing. Factors that facilitate healing help build relationships, improve communication, and share responsibility between the patient and clinician. Major barriers are logistical factors that limit high-quality time with healing professionals., Conclusions: Patients and health care team members share a vision of healing and agree on ways to enhance the process in primary care.

PurposeWe aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors.MethodsFourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context.ResultsThe most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research.

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]

Background: Interest is growing in interventions to address social needs in clinical settings. However, little is known about patients' perceptions and experiences with these interventions.Objective: To evaluate patients' experiences and patient-reported outcomes of a primary care-based intervention to help patients connect with community resources using trained volunteer advocates.Design: Qualitative telephone interviews with patients who had worked with the volunteer advocates. Sample and recruitment targets were equally distributed between patients who had at least one reported success in meeting an identified need and those who had no reported needs met, based on the database used to document patient encounters.Participants: One hundred two patients.Interventions: Patients at the study clinic were periodically screened for social needs. If needs were identified, they were referred to a trained volunteer advocate who further assessed their needs, provided them with resource referrals, and followed up with them on whether their need was met.Approach: Thematic analysis was used to code the data.Key Results: Interviewed patients appreciated the services offered, especially the follow-up. Patients' ability to access the resource to which they were referred was enhanced by assistance with filling out forms, calling community resources, and other types of navigation. Patients also reported that interacting with the advocates made them feel listened to and cared for, which they perceived as noteworthy in their lives.Conclusions: This patient-reported information provides key insights into a human-centered intervention in a clinical environment. Our findings highlight what works in clinical interventions addressing social needs and provide outcomes that are difficult to measure using existing quantitative metrics. Patients experienced the intervention as a therapeutic relationship/working alliance, a type of care that correlates with positive outcomes such as treatment adherence and quality of life. These insights will help design more patient-centered approaches to providing holistic patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]