Search

Background: Care coordination is a critical component of managing high-risk patients, who tend to have complex and multiple medical and psychosocial problems and are typically at high risk for increased hospitalization and incur high health care expenditures. Primary care models such as the patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are designed to improve care coordination and reduce care fragmentation. However, little is known about how the burden of care coordination for high-risk patients influences PCMH team members' stress.Objective: To evaluate the relationship between provider stress and care coordination time in high-risk patient care and whether availability of help is associated with reduced stress.Study Design: Multivariable regression analysis of a cross-sectional survey of PCMH primary care providers (PCPs) and nurses.Participants: A total of 164 PCPs and 272 nurses in primary care practices at five geographically diverse Veteran Health Administration (VA) medical center health systems.Main Measures: The main outcome variable was provider stress due to high-risk patient care. Independent variables were the reported proportion of high-risk patients in PCP/nurse patient panels, time spent coordinating care for these patients, and provider satisfaction with help received in caring for them.Key Results: The response rate was 44%. Spending more than 8 h per week coordinating care was significantly associated with a 0.21-point increase in reported provider stress compared to spending 8 h or less per week (95% CI: 0.04-0.39; p = 0.015). The magnitude of the association between stress and care coordination time was diminished when provider satisfaction with help received was included in the model.Conclusions: Perceived provider stress from care of high-risk patients may arise from challenges related to coordinating their care. Our findings suggest that the perception of receiving help for high-risk patient care may be valuable in reducing provider stress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a primary care delivery model predicated on shared responsibility for patient care among members of an interprofessional team. Effective task sharing may reduce burnout among primary care providers (PCPs). However, little is known about the extent to which PCPs share these responsibilities, and which, if any, of the primary care tasks performed independently by the PCPs (vs. shared with the team) are particularly associated with PCP burnout. A better understanding of the relationship between these tasks and their effects on PCP burnout may help guide focused efforts aimed at reducing burnout.Objective: To investigate (1) the extent to which PCPs share responsibility for 14 discrete primary care tasks with other team members, and (2) which, if any, of the primary care tasks performed by the PCPs (without reliance on team members) are associated with PCP burnout.Design: Secondary data analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) survey data from two time periods.Participants: 327 providers from 23 VA primary care practices within one VHA regional network.Main Measures: The dependent variable was PCP report of burnout. Independent variables included PCP report of the extent to which they performed 14 discrete primary care tasks without reliance on team members; team functioning; and PCP-, clinic-, and system-level variables.Key Results: In adjusted models, PCP reports of intervening on patient lifestyle factors and educating patients about disease-specific self-care activities, without reliance on their teams, were significantly associated with burnout (intervening on lifestyle: b = 4.11, 95% CI = 0.39, 7.83, p = 0.03; educating patients: b = 3.83, 95% CI = 0.33, 7.32, p = 0.03).Conclusions: Performing behavioral counseling and self-management education tasks without relying on other team members for assistance was associated with PCP burnout. Expanding the roles of nurses and other healthcare professionals to assume responsibility for these tasks may ease PCP burden and reduce burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a team-based, comprehensive model of primary care. When effectively implemented, PCMH is associated with higher patient satisfaction, lower staff burnout, and lower hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions. However, less is known about what factors contribute to (or hinder) PCMH implementation. We explored the associations of specific facilitators and barriers reported by primary care employees with a previously validated, clinic-level measure of PCMH implementation, the Patient Aligned Care Team Implementation Progress Index (Pi(2)).Methods: We used a 2012 survey of primary care employees in the Veterans Health Administration to perform cross-sectional, respondent-level multinomial regressions. The dependent variable was the Pi(2) categorized as high implementation (top decile, 54 clinics, 235 respondents), medium implementation (middle eight deciles, 547 clinics, 4537 respondents), and low implementation (lowest decile, 42 clinics, 297 respondents) among primary care clinics. The independent variables were ordinal survey items rating 19 barriers to patient-centered care and 10 facilitators of PCMH implementation. For facilitators, we explored clinic Pi(2) score decile both as a function of respondent-reported availability of facilitators and of rating of facilitator helpfulness.Results: The availability of five facilitators was associated with higher odds of a respondent's clinic's Pi(2) scores being in the highest versus lowest decile: teamlet huddles (OR = 3.91), measurement tools (OR = 3.47), regular team meetings (OR = 2.88), information systems (OR = 2.42), and disease registries (OR = 2.01). The helpfulness of four facilitators was associated with higher odds of a respondent's clinic's Pi(2) scores being in the highest versus lowest decile. Six barriers were associated with significantly higher odds of a respondent's clinic's Pi(2) scores being in the lowest versus highest decile, with the strongest associations for the difficulty recruiting and retaining providers (OR = 2.37) and non-provider clinicians (OR = 2.17). Results for medium versus low Pi(2) score clinics were similar, with fewer, smaller significant associations, all in the expected direction.Conclusions: A number of specific barriers and facilitators were associated with PCMH implementation, notably recruitment and retention of clinicians, team huddles, and local education. These findings can guide future research, and may help healthcare policy makers and leaders decide where to focus attention and limited resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common problem in primary care. Although effective treatments are available, little is known about whether such treatments are effective within the context of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that serve as national "safety nets" for providing primary care for low income and underinsured patients. The Violence and Stress Assessment (ViStA) study is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the impact of a care management intervention for treating PTSD in FQHCs. To develop a PTSD management intervention appropriate for lower resource FQHCs and the predominantly Latino patients they serve, formative work was conducted through a collaborative effort between researchers and an FQHC practice-based research network. This article describes how FQHC stakeholders were convened to review, assess, and prioritize evidence-based strategies for addressing patient, clinician, and system-level barriers to care. This multi-component care management intervention incorporates diagnosis with feedback, patient education and activation; navigation and linkage to community resources; clinician education and medication guidance; and structured cross-disciplinary communication and continuity of care, all facilitated by care managers with FQHC experience. We also describe the evaluation design of this five-year RCT and the characteristics of the 404 English or Spanish speaking patients enrolled in the study and randomized to either the intervention or to usual care. Patients are assessed at baseline, six months, and 12 months to examine intervention effectiveness on PTSD, other mental health symptoms, health-related quality-of-life, health care service use; and perceived barriers to care and satisfaction with care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed health care workers at unprecedented risk of stress, burnout, and moral injury. This paper describes the design of an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of Stress First Aid (SFA) to Usual Care (UC) in protecting the well-being of frontline health care workers. We plan to recruit a diverse set of hospitals and health centers (eight matched pairs of hospitals and six pairs of centers), with a goal of approximately 50 HCW per health center and 170 per hospital. Participating sites in each pair are randomly assigned to SFA or UC (i.e., whatever psychosocial support is currently being received by HCW). Each site identified a leader to provide organizational support of the study; SFA sites also identified at least one champion to be trained in the intervention. Using a "train the trainer" model, champions in turn trained their peers in selected HCW teams or units to implement SFA over an eight-week period. We surveyed HCW before and after the implementation period. The primary outcomes are posttraumatic stress disorder and general psychological distress; secondary outcomes include depression and anxiety symptoms, sleep problems, social functioning problems, burnout, moral distress, and resilience. In addition, through in-depth qualitative interviews with leaders, champions, and HCW, we assessed the implementation of SFA, including acceptability, feasibility, and uptake. Results from this study will provide initial evidence for the application of SFA to support HCW well-being during a pandemic. Trial registration: (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04723576). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The advent of clinical practice guidelines for the management of depression increases the importance of understanding variation across clinician specialty groups in treatment styles for depression and the role of medical comorbidities. Methods: Data are reported by clinicians (N=470) and patients (N=2545). Multiple regression was used to compare the treatment styles (counseling and prescribing antidepressants) of family physicians with those of psychiatrists, medical subspecialists, internists, psychologists, and other therapists for depressed patients with different medical comorbidities. Results: Relative to other primary care specialists, family physicians had the strongest preferences for both counseling and prescribing antidepressants for depressed patients. Family physicians reported preferences for treating with antidepressants that were similar to those of psychiatrists. However, in actual practice, medication use was higher among the patients of psychiatrists than those of family physicians. Mental health care specialists reported the strongest counseling preferences and provided the most counseling in actual practice, compared with general medicine physicians. Internists and subspecialists had similar preferences for prescribing antidepressants, but, compared with internists, subspecialists had lower preferences for counseling. Clinician preferences for counseling were similar for depressed patients with or without medical comorbidities, but preferences for prescribing antidepressants were lowest for patients with depression and myocardial infaretion, compared with other patient groups. Conclusions: Measures of clinician treatment style for depression are good proxies for counseling but not for prescribing practices. Among general medical physicians, family physicians have the strongest reported preferences in treating depression but, especially in terms of medication therapy, do not always follow those preferences. Preferred treatments of patients with and without medical comorbidities were simflar. Findings have implications for improving the quality of treatment of depressed patients. (1994;3:1065-1072) Lisa S. Meredith et al, RAND, 1700 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 904017-2138.

Background: Routine numeric screening for pain is widely recommended, but its association with overall quality of pain care is unclear.Objective: To assess adherence to measures of pain management quality and identify associated patient and provider factors.Design: A cross-sectional visit-based study.Participants: One hundred and forty adult VA outpatient primary care clinic patients reporting a numeric rating scale (NRS) of moderate to severe pain (four or more on a zero to ten scale). Seventy-seven providers completed a baseline survey regarding general pain management attitudes and a post-visit survey regarding management of 112 participating patients.Measurement and Main Results: We used chart review to determine adherence to four validated process quality indicators (QIs) including noting pain presence, pain character, and pain control, and intensifying pharmacological intervention. The average NRS was 6.7. Seventy-three percent of charts noted the presence of pain, 13.9% the character, 23.6% the degree of control, and 15.3% increased pain medication prescription. Charts were more likely to include documentation of pain presence if providers agreed that "patients want me to ask about pain" and "pain can have negative consequences on patient's functioning". Charts were more likely to document character of pain if providers agreed that "patients are able to rate their pain". Patients with musculoskeletal pain were less likely to have chart documentation of character of pain.Conclusions: Despite routine pain screening in VA, providers seldom documented elements considered important to evaluation and treatment of pain. Improving pain care may require attention to all aspects of pain management, not just screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses on the implementation and maintenance of quality improvement for treating depression in primary care. Despite many challenges the Depression Breakthrough Series Collaborative team had found a significant improvements in care which associated with delivering depression care particularly in clinics where it is an underserved area.

Purpose: To describe the well-being supports provided to health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in health centers and hospitals. Design: Cross-sectional qualitative interviews before and after implementation of a peer-based support intervention. Setting: Purposively sampled hospitals and health centers across the US. Participants: 28 site leaders and 56 HCWs sampled from 16 hospitals and 12 health centers. Method: Site leaders and HCWs were asked to describe supports available to HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thematic and content coding and analysis of interview responses were conducted using Dedoose. Results: Both site leaders and HCWs identified a range of support resources available. Communication resources were the most frequently cited in both groups. Health care workers reported bi-directional communication, while one-way communication was emphasized by site leaders. Hospitals highlighted counseling support, particularly Employee Assistance Programs (EAP), while health centers prioritized community support. Wellness activities were more prevalent in hospital settings, while health centers offered specific workplace-provided training for HCWs. Health care workers encountered barriers when accessing support, including limited time, fear of stigma, and disruptions to their existing support networks attributable to the pandemic. Conclusion: While there are resources for HCWs, the available supports may not align with their needs and barriers to access may limit the effectiveness of these supports. Continued engagement between leaders and HCWs could help better align resources with needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]