Search

Introduction: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care., Methods: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable : Cooperatives's experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices' performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach., Results: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04 ), and made greater improvements in practices' QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001 ) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003 ). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes., Discussion: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to report., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: Practice facilitation is an evidence-informed implementation strategy to support quality improvement (QI) and aid practices in aligning with best evidence. Few studies, particularly of this size and scope, identify strategies that contribute to facilitator effectiveness., Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed methods study, analyzing data from EvidenceNOW, a large-scale QI initiative. Seven regional cooperatives employed 162 facilitators to work with 1,630 small or medium-sized primary care practices. Main analyses were based on facilitators who worked with at least 4 practices. Facilitators were defined as more effective if at least 75% of their practices improved on at least 1 outcome measure-aspirin use, blood pressure control, smoking cessation counseling (ABS), or practice change capacity, measured using Change Process Capability Questionnaire-from baseline to follow-up. Facilitators were defined as less effective if less than 50% of their practices improved on these outcomes. Using an immersion crystallization and comparative approach, we analyzed observational and interview data to identify strategies associated with more effective facilitators., Results: Practices working with more effective facilitators had a 3.6% greater change in the mean percentage of patients meeting the composite ABS measure compared with practices working with less effective facilitators ( P <.001). More effective facilitators cultivated motivation by tailoring QI work and addressing resistance, guided practices to think critically, and provided accountability to support change, using these strategies in combination. They were able to describe their work in detail. In contrast, less effective facilitators seldom used these strategies and described their work in general terms. Facilitator background, experience, and work on documentation did not differentiate between more and less effective facilitators., Conclusions: Facilitation strategies that differentiate more and less effective facilitators have implications for enhancing facilitator development and training, and can assist all facilitators to more effectively support practice changes., (© 2022 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Facilitation is an implementation strategy that can help primary care practices improve healthcare quality and build quality improvement (QI) capacity when delivered in a flexible manner by trained professionals. Practice ownership is associated with use of QI. However, little is known about how practices of different ownership participate in external facilitation, and this could inform future initiatives., Objective: Using data from EvidenceNOW, we examined how practice ownership influences participation in external facilitation., Study Design: We used an iterative mixed-methods design., Participants, Approach, and Measures: We collected data from practices on practice characteristics (e.g., location, size, payer mix) and ownership type via surveys and from facilitators on the number of hours, encounters, and months each practice had with a facilitator via facilitation logs. Using multivariable linear regression, we examined the association between facilitation and ownership (n = 1117 practices). We conducted semi-structured interviews with EvidenceNOW leadership (n = 12) and facilitators (n = 51) and observed facilitators in a subset of practices (n = 64); we analyzed this qualitative data for patterns of facilitation., Key Results: In the fully adjusted model, differences by ownership were non-significant; FQHCs, however, had significantly less participation in facilitation than clinician-owned practices across two measures (unadjusted difference: - 2.83, p < 0.01 for number of encounters, and - 2.04, p < 0.01 for number of months with encounters). Qualitative data showed that Health System and FQHC ownership influenced types of practices enrolled in EvidenceNOW, and suggested that in these practices lower autonomy and greater complexity compared to clinician-owned ownership influenced facilitation participation patterns., Conclusions: Practice ownership shaped how but not how much practices participated in external facilitation. This finding highlights the importance of tailoring facilitation approaches based on ownership-related characteristics in future QI initiatives., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Disruptions in primary care practices, like ownership change, clinician turnover, and electronic health record system implementation, can stall quality improvement (QI) efforts. However, little is known about the relationship between these disruptions and practice participation in facilitated QI., Methods: We explore this relationship using data collected from EvidenceNOW in a mixed-methods convergent design. EvidenceNOW was a large-scale facilitation-based QI initiative in small and medium primary care practices. Data included practice surveys, facilitator time logs, site visit field notes, and interviews with facilitators and practices. Using multivariate regression, we examined associations between disruptions during interventions and practice participation in facilitation, measured by in-person facilitator hours in 987 practices. We analyzed qualitative data on 40 practices that described disruptions. Qualitative and quantitative teams iterated analyses based on each other's emergent findings., Results: Many practices (51%) reported experiencing 1 or more disruptions during the 3- to 15-month interventions. Loss of clinicians (31.6%) was most prevalent. In adjusted analyses, disruptions were not significantly associated with participation in facilitation. Qualitative data revealed that practices that continued active participation were motivated, had some QI infrastructure, and found value in working with their facilitators. Facilitators enabled practice participation by doing EHR-related work for practices, adapting work for available staff, and helping address needs beyond the explicit aims of EvidenceNOW., Conclusions: Disruptions are prevalent in primary care, but practices can continue participating in QI interventions, particularly when supported by a facilitator. Facilitators may benefit from additional training in approaches for helping practices attenuate the effects of disruptions and adapting strategies to help interventions work to continue building QI capacity., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in producing and submitting this manuscript for publication. Parts of this early manuscript were presented at the North American Primary Care Research Group, 48th Annual Meeting, November 20, 2020., (© Copyright 2022 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: We undertook a study to identify conditions and operational changes linked to improvements in smoking and blood pressure (BP) outcomes in primary care., Methods: We purposively sampled and interviewed practice staff (eg, office managers, clinicians) from a subset of 104 practices participating in EvidenceNOW-a multisite cardiovascular disease prevention initiative. We calculated Clinical Quality Measure improvements, with targets of 10-point or greater absolute improvements in the proportion of patients with smoking screening and, if relevant, counseling and in the proportion of hypertensive patients with adequately controlled BP. We analyzed interview data to identify operational changes, transforming these into numeric data. We used Configurational Comparative Methods to assess the joint effects of multiple factors on outcomes., Results: In clinician-owned practices, implementing a workflow to routinely screen, counsel, and connect patients to smoking cessation resources, or implementing a documentation change or a referral to a resource alone led to an improvement of at least 10 points in the smoking outcome with a moderate level of facilitation support. These patterns did not manifest in health- or hospital system-owned practices or in Federally Qualified Health Centers, however. The BP outcome improved by at least 10 points among solo practices after medical assistants were trained to take an accurate BP. Among larger, clinician-owned practices, BP outcomes improved when practices implemented a second BP measurement when the first was elevated, and when staff learned where to document this information in the electronic health record. With 50 hours or more of facilitation, BP outcomes improved among larger and health- and hospital system-owned practices that implemented these operational changes., Conclusions: There was no magic bullet for improving smoking or BP outcomes. Multiple combinations of operational changes led to improvements, but only in specific contexts of practice size and ownership, or dose of external facilitation., (© 2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

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.)

Primary care practices often engage in quality improvement (QI) in order to stay current and meet quality benchmarks, but the extent to which turnover affects practices' QI ability is not well described. The authors examined qualitative data from practice staff and external facilitators participating in a large-scale QI initiative to understand the relationship between turnover and QI efforts. The examination found turnover can limit practices' ability to engage in QI activities in various ways. When a staff member leaves, remaining staff often absorb additional responsibilities, and QI momentum slows as new staff are trained or existing staff are reengaged. Turnover alters staff dynamics and can create barriers to constructive working relationships and team building. When key practice members leave, they can take with them institutional memory about QI purpose, processes, and long-term vision. Understanding how turnover affects QI may help practices, and those helping them with QI, manage the disruptive effects of turnover.

Purpose: We assessed differences in structural characteristics, quality improvement processes, and cardiovascular preventive care by ownership type among 989 small to medium primary care practices., Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used electronic health record and survey data collected between September 2015 and April 2017 as part of an evaluation of the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care Initiative by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. We compared physician-owned practices, health system or medical group practices, and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) by using 15 survey-based practice characteristic measures, 9 survey-based quality improvement process measures, and 4 electronic health record-based cardiovascular disease prevention quality measures, namely, aspirin prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation support (ABCS)., Results: Physician-owned practices were more likely to be solo (45.0% compared with 8.1%, P < .001 for health system practices and 12.8%, P = .009 for FQHCs) and less likely to have experienced a major change (eg, moved to a new location) in the last year (43.1% vs 65.4%, P = .01 and 72.1%, P = .001, respectively). FQHCs reported the highest use of quality improvement processes, followed by health system practices. ABCS performance was similar across ownership type, with the exception of smoking cessation support (51.0% for physician-owned practices vs 67.3%, P = .004 for health system practices and 69.3%, P = .004 for FQHCs)., Conclusions: Primary care practice ownership was associated with differences in quality improvement process measures, with FQHCs reporting the highest use of such quality-improvement strategies. ABCS were mostly unrelated to ownership, suggesting a complex path between quality improvement strategies and outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: Practice facilitators ("facilitators") can play an important role in supporting primary care practices in performing quality improvement (QI), but they need complete and accurate clinical performance data from practices' electronic health records (EHR) to help them set improvement priorities, guide clinical change, and monitor progress. Here, we describe the strategies facilitators use to help practices perform QI when complete or accurate performance data are not available., Methods: Seven regional cooperatives enrolled approximately 1500 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices and 136 facilitators in EvidenceNOW, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's initiative to improve cardiovascular preventive services. The national evaluation team analyzed qualitative data from online diaries, site visit field notes, and interviews to discover how facilitators worked with practices on EHR data challenges to obtain and use data for QI., Results: We found facilitators faced practice-level EHR data challenges, such as a lack of clinical performance data, partial or incomplete clinical performance data, and inaccurate clinical performance data. We found that facilitators responded to these challenges, respectively, by using other data sources or tools to fill in for missing data, approximating performance reports and generating patient lists, and teaching practices how to document care and confirm performance measures. In addition, facilitators helped practices communicate with EHR vendors or health systems in requesting data they needed. Overall, facilitators tailored strategies to fit the individual practice and helped build data skills and trust., Conclusion: Facilitators can use a range of strategies to help practices perform data-driven QI when performance data are inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. Support is necessary to help practices, particularly those with EHR data challenges, build their capacity for conducting data-driven QI that is required of them for participating in practice transformation and performance-based payment programs. It is questionable how practices with data challenges will perform in programs without this kind of support., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Engaging primary care practices in initiatives designed to enhance quality, reduce costs, and promote safety is challenging as practices are already participating in numerous projects and mandated programs designed to improve care delivery and quality. Recruiters must expand their recruitment tools to engage today's practices in quality improvement. Using grant proposals, online diaries, observational site visits, and interviews with key stakeholders, the authors identify successful practice recruitment strategies in the EvidenceNOW initiative, which aimed to recruit approximately 1500 small- to medium-sized primary care practices. Recruiters learned they needed to articulate how participation in EvidenceNOW aligned with other initiatives and could help practices succeed with federal and state initiatives, recognition programs, and existing or future payment requirements. Recruiters, initiative leaders, and funders must now consider how their efforts align with ongoing initiatives to successfully recruit and engage practices, ease practice burden, and encourage participation in efforts that support practice transformation.

Federal value-based payment programs require primary care practices to conduct quality improvement activities, informed by the electronic reports on clinical quality measures that their electronic health records (EHRs) generate. To determine whether EHRs produce reports adequate to the task, we examined survey responses from 1,492 practices across twelve states, supplemented with qualitative data. Meaningful-use participation, which requires the use of a federally certified EHR, was associated with the ability to generate reports-but the reports did not necessarily support quality improvement initiatives. Practices reported numerous challenges in generating adequate reports, such as difficulty manipulating and aligning measurement time frames with quality improvement needs, lack of functionality for generating reports on electronic clinical quality measures at different levels, discordance between clinical guidelines and measures available in reports, questionable data quality, and vendors that were unreceptive to changing EHR configuration beyond federal requirements. The current state of EHR measurement functionality may be insufficient to support federal initiatives that tie payment to clinical quality measures.

Study Objective: Emergency department (ED) crowding and patient boarding are associated with increased mortality and decreased patient satisfaction. This study uses a positive deviance methodology to identify strategies among high-performing, low-performing, and high-performance improving hospitals to reduce ED crowding., Methods: In this mixed-methods comparative case study, we purposively selected and recruited hospitals that were within the top and bottom 5% of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services case-mix-adjusted ED length of stay and boarding times for admitted patients for 2012. We also recruited hospitals that showed the highest performance improvement in metrics between 2012 and 2013. Interviews were conducted with 60 key leaders (physicians, nurses, quality improvement specialists, and administrators)., Results: We engaged 4 high-performing, 4 low-performing, and 4 high-performing improving hospitals, matched on hospital characteristics including geographic designation (urban versus rural), region, hospital occupancy, and ED volume. Across all hospitals, ED crowding was recognized as a hospitalwide issue. The strategies for addressing ED crowding varied widely. No specific interventions were associated with performance in length-of-stay metrics. The presence of 4 organizational domains was associated with hospital performance: executive leadership involvement, hospitalwide coordinated strategies, data-driven management, and performance accountability., Conclusion: There are organizational characteristics associated with ED decreased length of stay. Specific interventions targeted to reduce ED crowding were more likely to be successfully executed at hospitals with these characteristics. These organizational domains represent identifiable and actionable changes that other hospitals may incorporate to build awareness of ED crowding., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Improving primary care quality is a national priority, but little is known about the extent to which small to medium-size practices use quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve care. We examined variations in use of QI strategies among 1,181 small to medium-size primary care practices engaged in a national initiative spanning 12 US states to improve quality of care for heart health and assessed factors associated with those variations., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, practice characteristics were assessed by surveying practice leaders. Practice use of QI strategies was measured by the validated Change Process Capability Questionnaire (CPCQ) Strategies Scale (scores range from -28 to 28, with higher scores indicating more use of QI strategies). Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between practice characteristics and the CPCQ strategies score., Results: The mean CPCQ strategies score was 9.1 (SD = 12.2). Practices that participated in accountable care organizations and those that had someone in the practice to configure clinical quality reports from electronic health records (EHRs), had produced quality reports, or had discussed clinical quality data during meetings had higher CPCQ strategies scores. Health system-owned practices and those experiencing major disruptive changes, such as implementing a new EHR system or clinician turnover, had lower CPCQ strategies scores., Conclusion: There is substantial variation in the use of QI strategies among small to medium-size primary care practices across 12 US states. Findings suggest that practices may need external support to strengthen their ability to do QI and to be prepared for new payment and delivery models., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: authors report none., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Health care extension is an approach to providing external support to primary care practices with the aim of diffusing innovation. EvidenceNOW was launched to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular preventive care in the primary care setting. Seven regional grantee cooperatives provided the foundational elements of health care extension-technological and quality improvement support, practice capacity building, and linking with community resources-to more than two hundred primary care practices in each region. This article describes how the cooperatives varied in their approaches to extension and provides early empirical evidence that health care extension is a feasible and potentially useful approach for providing quality improvement support to primary care practices. With investment, health care extension may be an effective platform for federal and state quality improvement efforts to create economies of scale and provide practices with more robust and coordinated support services.

Unlabelled: The objective of this study was to empirically demonstrate the use of a new framework for describing the strategies used to implement quality improvement interventions and provide an example that others may follow. Implementation strategies are the specific approaches, methods, structures, and resources used to introduce and encourage uptake of a given intervention's components. Such strategies have not been regularly reported in descriptions of interventions' effectiveness, or in assessments of how proven interventions are implemented in new settings. This lack of reporting may hinder efforts to successfully translate effective interventions into "real-world" practice. A recently published framework was designed to standardize reporting on implementation strategies in the implementation science literature. We applied this framework to describe the strategies used to implement a single intervention in its original commercial care setting, and when implemented in community health centers from September 2010 through May 2015. Per this framework, the target (clinic staff) and outcome (prescribing rates) remained the same across settings; the actor, action, temporality, and dose were adapted to fit local context. The framework proved helpful in articulating which of the implementation strategies were kept constant and which were tailored to fit diverse settings, and simplified our reporting of their effects. Researchers should consider consistently reporting this information, which could be crucial to the success or failure of implementing proven interventions effectively across diverse care settings., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02299791., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In healthcare change interventions, on-the-ground learning about the implementation process is often lost because of a primary focus on outcome improvements. This paper describes the Learning Evaluation, a methodological approach that blends quality improvement and implementation research methods to study healthcare innovations., Methods: Learning Evaluation is an approach to multi-organization assessment. Qualitative and quantitative data are collected to conduct real-time assessment of implementation processes while also assessing changes in context, facilitating quality improvement using run charts and audit and feedback, and generating transportable lessons. Five principles are the foundation of this approach: (1) gather data to describe changes made by healthcare organizations and how changes are implemented; (2) collect process and outcome data relevant to healthcare organizations and to the research team; (3) assess multi-level contextual factors that affect implementation, process, outcome, and transportability; (4) assist healthcare organizations in using data for continuous quality improvement; and (5) operationalize common measurement strategies to generate transportable results., Results: Learning Evaluation principles are applied across organizations by the following: (1) establishing a detailed understanding of the baseline implementation plan; (2) identifying target populations and tracking relevant process measures; (3) collecting and analyzing real-time quantitative and qualitative data on important contextual factors; (4) synthesizing data and emerging findings and sharing with stakeholders on an ongoing basis; and (5) harmonizing and fostering learning from process and outcome data. Application to a multi-site program focused on primary care and behavioral health integration shows the feasibility and utility of Learning Evaluation for generating real-time insights into evolving implementation processes., Conclusions: Learning Evaluation generates systematic and rigorous cross-organizational findings about implementing healthcare innovations while also enhancing organizational capacity and accelerating translation of findings by facilitating continuous learning within individual sites. Researchers evaluating change initiatives and healthcare organizations implementing improvement initiatives may benefit from a Learning Evaluation approach.

Background: Facilitation is an implementation strategy that can help primary care practices improve healthcare quality and build quality improvement (QI) capacity when delivered in a flexible manner by trained professionals. Practice ownership is associated with use of QI. However, little is known about how practices of different ownership participate in external facilitation, and this could inform future initiatives.Objective: Using data from EvidenceNOW, we examined how practice ownership influences participation in external facilitation.Study Design: We used an iterative mixed-methods design.Participants, Approach, and Measures: We collected data from practices on practice characteristics (e.g., location, size, payer mix) and ownership type via surveys and from facilitators on the number of hours, encounters, and months each practice had with a facilitator via facilitation logs. Using multivariable linear regression, we examined the association between facilitation and ownership (n = 1117 practices). We conducted semi-structured interviews with EvidenceNOW leadership (n = 12) and facilitators (n = 51) and observed facilitators in a subset of practices (n = 64); we analyzed this qualitative data for patterns of facilitation.Key Results: In the fully adjusted model, differences by ownership were non-significant; FQHCs, however, had significantly less participation in facilitation than clinician-owned practices across two measures (unadjusted difference: - 2.83, p < 0.01 for number of encounters, and - 2.04, p < 0.01 for number of months with encounters). Qualitative data showed that Health System and FQHC ownership influenced types of practices enrolled in EvidenceNOW, and suggested that in these practices lower autonomy and greater complexity compared to clinician-owned ownership influenced facilitation participation patterns.Conclusions: Practice ownership shaped how but not how much practices participated in external facilitation. This finding highlights the importance of tailoring facilitation approaches based on ownership-related characteristics in future QI initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Practice transformation, organizational change, innovation, quality improvement, professional practice, health extension, outreach, practice facilitation, primary care, burnout, health information technology, practice-based research. [Extracted from the article]

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

The article presents a study which examines the implementation of coordinated care to address health behavior change needs of patients in primary care. Data from the site visit, documents, interviews, and online implementation diaries from practice-based research networks (PBRNs) were collected and a cross-case comparative analysis was conducted. Results show that in-practice health risk assessment (HRA) and brief counseling, coupled with referral and outreach are the best counseling approach.

The article focuses on a team-based change management strategy in primary care through Using Learning Teams for Reflective Adaptation (ULTRA) study. It states that study used facilitated reflective adaptive process (RAP) teams to enhance communication and decision making. It states that there were improved practicewide communication in 12 of these practices.

Background: This study aimed to elucidate how clinical preventive services are delivered in family practices and how this information might inform improvement efforts.Methods: We used a comparative case study design to observe clinical preventive service delivery in 18 purposefully selected Midwestern family medicine offices from 1997 to 1999. Medical records, observation of outpatient encounters, and patient exit cards were used to calculate practice-level rates of delivery of clinical preventive services. Field notes from direct observation of clinical encounters and prolonged observation of the practice and transcripts from in-depth interviews of practice staff and physicians were systematically examined to identify approaches to delivering clinical preventive services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force.Results: Practices developed individualized approaches for delivering clinical preventive services, with no one approach being successful across practices. Clinicians acknowledged a 3-fold mission of providing acute care, managing chronic problems, and prevention, but only some made prevention a priority. The clinical encounter was a central focus for preventive service delivery in all practices. Preventive services delivery rates often appeared to be influenced by competing demands within the clinical encounter (including between different preventive services), having a physician champion who prioritized prevention, and economic concerns.Conclusions: Practice quality improvement efforts that assume there is an optimal approach for delivering clinical preventive services fail to account for practices' propensity to optimize care processes to meet local contexts. Interventions to enhance clinical preventive service delivery should be tailored to meet the local needs of practices and their patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]