Search

Background: The Covid Connected Care Center (C4), a low-barrier telephone nurse hotline, was developed at an academic medical center to increase access to healthcare information and services across the state of Oregon, including to those without a usual source of care. Other studies have demonstrated that telephone triage services can positively influence health behaviors, but it is not known how this effect is maintained across racial/ethnic groups. The objective of this study was to show that the C4 reached throughout the state of Oregon, was valuable to callers, and that recommendations given affected callers' subsequent health-related behaviors. Methods: This mixed-methods study, informed by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Addoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework, assessed caller demographics and clinical care from March 30 2020 until September 8, 2021. Descriptive statistics, multivariable risk models and Zou's modified Poisson modeling were applied to electronic health record and call system data; An inductive approach was used for patient and staff experience surveys and semi-structured interviews. Approval was obtained from the OHSU Institutional Review Board (Study 00021413). Results: 145,537 telephone calls and 92,100 text-based contacts (61% and 39%, respectively) were included. Callers tended to not have a usual source of primary care and utilized recommended services. Emergency department utilization was minimal (1.5%). Racial or ethnic disparities were not detected in the recommendations, but Black (RR 0.92, CI 0.86–0.98) and Multiracial (RR 0.90 CI 0.81–0.99) callers were less likely than non-Hispanic white callers to receive a COVID-19 test. Participants in the post-call survey (n = 50) would recommend this service to friends or family. Interviews with callers (n = 9) revealed this was because they valued assistance translating general recommendations into a personalized care plan. C4 staff interviewed (n = 9) valued the opportunity to serve the public. The C4 was a trusted resource to the public and reached the intended audiences. However, disparities in access to COVID-19 testing persisted. Conclusions: Nursing triage hotlines can guide caller behavior and be an effective part of a robust public health information infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alternative payment models have been proposed as a way to facilitate patient-centered medical home model implementation, yet little is known about how payment reform translates into changes in care delivery. We conducted site visits, observed operations, and conducted interviews within 3 Federally Qualified Health Center organizations that were part of Oregon's Alternative Payment Methodology demonstration project. Data were analyzed using an immersion-crystallization approach. We identified several care delivery changes during the early stages of implementation, as well as challenges associated with this new model of payment. Future research is needed to further understand the implications of these changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Clinician communication with patients regarding worrisome findings in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) may influence patient responses and subsequent care. The authors studied the range of approaches clinicians report when communicating with patients in this situation and how practice policies and procedures may influence this communication. Design. Qualitative interviews of clinician PDMP users. Setting: Oregon registrants in the state's PDMP. Subjects. Thirty-three clinicians practicing in pain management, emergency medicine, primary care, psychiatry, dentistry, and surgery. Methods. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone with clinicians who routinely used the PDMP. A multidisciplinary team used a grounded theory approach to identify ways clinicians reported using information from the PDMP when communicating with patients, and policies that influenced that communication. Results. Clinicians reported using a range of approaches for communicating about PDMP results, from openly sharing, to questioning patients without disclosing access to the PDMP, to avoiding the conversation. Clinicians also reported practice policies and procedures that influenced communication with their patients about prescribing and ongoing care, including policies that normalized use of the PDMP with all patients and those that facilitated difficult conversations by providing a rationale not to prescribe in certain circumstances. Conclusion. Clinicians' self-reported approaches to sharing PDMP findings and communicating prescribing decisions with patients vary and may be facilitated by appropriate practice policies. Such communication may have implications for patient engagement and alliance building. More research is needed to identify best practices and potential guidelines for effectively communicating about PDMP findings, as this may enhance health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Point article, Steven W. Howard et al. argue that the Oregon Health Authority's coordinated care organizations (CCOs) are different from traditional Medicaid managed care organizations in ways designed to improve care coordination and transparency, incorporate greater collaborative governance and community accountability, and reform payment and delivery of care. Although the Point article notes specific challenges to implementing reforms, this Counterpoint article identifies the progress and successes of Oregon's CCOs in each of the aforementioned areas on the basis of empirical research, which suggests that CCOs appear to be viable innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2012 Oregon initiated an ambitious delivery system reform, moving the majority of its Medicaid enrollees into sixteen coordinated care organizations, a type of Medicaid accountable care organization. Using claims data, we assessed measures of access, appropriateness of care, utilization, and expenditures for five service areas (evaluation and management, imaging, procedures, tests, and inpatient facility care), comparing Oregon to the neighboring state of Washington. Overall, the transformation into coordinated care organizations was associated with a 7 percent relative reduction in expenditures across the sum of these services, attributable primarily to reductions in inpatient utilization. The change to coordinated care organizations also demonstrated reductions in avoidable emergency department visits and improvements in some measures of appropriateness of care, but also exhibited reductions in primary care visits, a potential area of concern. Oregon's coordinated care organizations could provide lessons for controlling health care spending for other state Medicaid programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and recover from its aftermath, primary care teams will face waves of overwhelming demand for information and the need to significantly transform care delivery., Innovation: Oregon Health & Science University's primary care team envisioned and implemented the COVID-19 Connected Care Center, a statewide telephone "hotline" service., Results: The hotline has taken more than 5825 calls from patients in 33 of Oregon's 36 counties in less than 3 months. In preliminary survey data, 86% of patients said their questions were answered during the call, 90% would recommend this service, and 70% reported a reduction in stress levels about coronavirus. In qualitative interviews, patients reported their questions answered, short wait times, nurses spent time as needed, and appropriate follow-up was arranged., Conclusion: Academic health centers may have the capacity to leverage their extensive resources to rapidly launch a multiphased pandemic response that meets peoples' need for information and access to primary care, while minimizing risk of infection and emergency department use and rapidly supporting primary care teams to make the necessary operational changes to do the same in their communities. Such efforts require external funding in a fee-for-service payment model., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: Primary care risk stratification (RS) has been shown to help practices better understand their patient populations' needs and may improve health outcomes and reduce expenditures by targeting and tailoring care to high-need patients. This study aims to understand key considerations practices faced and practice experiences as they began to implement RS models., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews about experiences in RS with 34 stakeholders from 15 primary care practices in Oregon and Colorado and qualitatively analyzed the data., Results: Three decisions were important in shaping practices' experiences with RS: choosing established versus self-created algorithms or heuristics, clinical intuition, or a combination; selecting mechanisms for assigning risk scores; determining how to integrate RS approaches into care delivery. Practices using clinical intuition found stratification time-consuming and difficult to incorporate into existing workflows, but trusted risk scores more than those using algorithms. Trust in risk scores was influenced by data extraction capabilities; practices often lacked sufficient data to calculate their perceived optimal risk score. Displaying the scores to the care team was a major issue. Finally, obtaining buy-in from care team members was challenging, requiring repeated cycles of improvement and workflow integration., Discussion: Practices used iterative approaches to RS implementation. As a result, procedural and algorithmic changes were introduced and were influenced by practices' health IT, staffing, and resource capacities. Practices were most successful when able to make iterative changes to their approaches, incorporated both automation and human process in RS, educated staff on the importance of RS, and had readily accessible risk scores., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)