Search

Abstract Background Practice facilitators (PFs) coach practices through quality improvement (QI) initiatives aimed at enhancing patient outcomes and operational efficiencies. Practice facilitation is a dynamic intervention that, by design, is tailored to practices’ unique needs and contexts. Little research has explored the amount of time PFs spend with practices on QI activities. This short report expands on previously published work that detailed a 12-month practice facilitation intervention as part of the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control (SEC) trial, which focused on improving hypertension control among people living in rural settings in the southeastern USA. This report analyzes data on the time PFs spent to guide 32 primary care practices in implementing QI activities to support enhanced outcomes in patients with high blood pressure. Methods The SEC trial employed four certified PFs across all practice sites, who documented time spent: (1) driving to support practices; (2) working on-site with staff and clinicians; and (3) communicating remotely (phone, email, or video conference) with practice members. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics to help understand time devoted to individual and aggregated tasks. Additionally, we explored correlations between practice characteristics and time spent with PFs. Results In aggregate, the PFs completed 416 visits to practices and spent an average of 130 (SD 65) min per visit driving to and from practices. The average time spent on-site per visit with practices was 87 (SD 37) min, while an average of 17 (SD 12) min was spent on individual remote communications. During the 12-month intervention, 1131 remote communications were conducted with practices. PFs spent most of their time with clinical staff members (n = 886 instances) or with practice managers alone (n = 670 instances) while relatively few on-site visits were conducted with primary care providers alone (n = 15). In 19 practices, no communications were solely with providers. No significant correlations were found between time spent on PF activities and a practices’ percent of Medicaid and uninsured patients, staff-provider ratio, or federally qualified health center (FQHC) status. Conclusions PFs working with practices serving rural patients with hypertension devote substantial time to driving, highlighting the importance of optimizing a balance between time spent on-site vs. communicating remotely. Most time spent was with clinical staff, not primary care providers. These findings may be useful to researchers and business leaders who design, test, and implement efficient facilitation services. Trial registration NIH ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02866669 . Registered on 15 August 2016. NHLBI AWARD number: PCS-1UH3HL130691.

Objective: Worse neighborhood socioeconomic environment (NSEE) may contribute to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We examined whether the relationship between NSEE and T2D differs by sex and age in three study populations. Research design and methods: We conducted a harmonized analysis using data from three independent longitudinal study samples in the US: 1) the Veteran Administration Diabetes Risk (VADR) cohort, 2) the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort, and 3) a case-control study of Geisinger electronic health records in Pennsylvania. We measured NSEE with a z-score sum of six census tract indicators within strata of community type (higher density urban, lower density urban, suburban/small town, and rural). Community type-stratified models evaluated the likelihood of new diagnoses of T2D in each study sample using restricted cubic splines and quartiles of NSEE. Results: Across study samples, worse NSEE was associated with higher risk of T2D. We observed significant effect modification by sex and age, though evidence of effect modification varied by site and community type. Largely, stronger associations between worse NSEE and diabetes risk were found among women relative to men and among those less than age 45 in the VADR cohort. Similar modification by age group results were observed in the Geisinger sample in small town/suburban communities only and similar modification by sex was observed in REGARDS in lower density urban communities. Conclusions: The impact of NSEE on T2D risk may differ for males and females and by age group within different community types.

Background Ambulatory follow‐up for all patients with heart failure (HF) is recommended within 7 to 14 days after hospital discharge to improve HF outcomes. We examined postdischarge ambulatory follow‐up of patients with comorbid diabetes and HF from a low‐income population in primary and specialty care. Methods and Results Adults with diabetes and first hospitalizations for HF, covered by Alabama Medicaid in 2010 to 2019, were included and the claims analyzed for ambulatory care use (any, primary care, cardiology, or endocrinology) within 60 days after discharge using restricted mean survival time regression and negative binomial regression. Among 9859 Medicaid‐covered adults with diabetes and first hospitalization for HF (mean age, 53.7 years; SD, 9.2 years; 47.3% Black; 41.8% non‐Hispanic White; 10.9% Hispanic/Other [Other included non‐White Hispanic, American Indian, Pacific Islander and Asian adults]; 65.4% women, 34.6% men), 26.7% had an ambulatory visit within 0 to 7 days, 15.2% within 8 to 14 days, 31.3% within 15 to 60 days, and 26.8% had no visit; 71% saw a primary care physician and 12% a cardiology physician. Black and Hispanic/Other adults were less likely to have any postdischarge ambulatory visit (P

Background: Racial disparities related to hypertension prevalence and control persist, with Black persons continuing to have both high prevalence and suboptimal control. The Black Belt region of the US Southeast is characterized by multiple critical priority populations: rural, low-income, and minority (Black). Methods: In a cluster-randomized, controlled, pragmatic implementation trial, the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control evaluated two multi-component, multi-level functional interventions – peer coaching (PC) and practice facilitation (PF) (separately and combined) – as adjuncts to usual care to improve blood pressure control in the Black Belt. The overall goal was to randomize 80 primary care practices (later reduced to 69 practices) in Alabama and North Carolina to one of four interventions: 1) enhanced usual care (EUC); 2) EUC plus PC; 3) EUC plus PF; or 4) EUC plus both PC and PF. Several measures to facilitate recruitment and retention of practices were employed, including practice readiness assessment. Results: Contact was initiated with 248 practices during the study enrollment period. Of these, 99 declined participation, 39 were ineligible, and 41 were being evaluated for inclusion when the target number of practices was reached. The remaining 69 practices eventually were enrolled, with 18 practices randomized to EUC, 19 to PC, 16 to PF, and 16 to PC plus PF. Only two practices (2.9%) were withdrawn during the study. Several facilitators of and barriers to practice recruitment and retention were identified. Conclusion: Our findings underscore the importance of a structured approach to recruiting primary care practices in a pragmatic implementation trial.ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02866669

Temporary closures of outpatient health facilities and transitions to virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the care of millions of patients with diabetes contributing to worsening psychosocial factors and enhanced difficulty in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus. We explored associations between COVID time period and self-reported diabetes distress on self-reported health among a sample of Alabama Medicaid-covered adults with diabetes pre-COVID (2017-2019) and during-COVID (2020-2021).MethodIn this cross-sectional study, we surveyed a population-based sample of adults with type 2 diabetes covered by the Alabama Medicaid Agency. Participants were dichotomized into pre-COVID (March 2017 to October 2019) vs during-COVID (October 2020 to May 2021) groups. Participants with missing data were removed from analyses. We assessed diabetes related stress by the Diabetes Distress Scale. We measured self-reported health using a single item with a 5-point Likert scale. We ran logistic regressions modeling COVID time period on self-reported poor health controlling for demographics, severity of diabetes, and diabetes distress.ResultsIn this sample of 1822 individuals, median age was 54, 74.5% were female and 59.4% were Black. Compared to pre-COVID participants, participants surveyed during COVID were younger, more likely to be Black (64.1% VS 58.2%, p=0.01) and female (81.8% VS 72.5%, p

Abstract Background Most studies among Hispanics have focused on individual risk factors of obesity, with less attention on interpersonal, community and environmental determinants. Conducting community based surveys to study these determinants must ensure representativeness of disparate populations. We describe the use of a novel Geographic Information System (GIS)-based population based sampling to minimize selection bias in a rural community based study. Methods We conducted a community based survey to collect and examine social determinants of health and their association with obesity prevalence among a sample of Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites living in a rural community in the Southeastern United States. To ensure a balanced sample of both ethnic groups, we designed an area stratified random sampling procedure involving three stages: (1) division of the sampling area into non-overlapping strata based on Hispanic household proportion using GIS software; (2) random selection of the designated number of Census blocks from each stratum; and (3) random selection of the designated number of housing units (i.e., survey participants) from each Census block. Results The proposed sample included 109 Hispanic and 107 non-Hispanic participants to be recruited from 44 Census blocks. The final sample included 106 Hispanic and 111 non-Hispanic participants. The proportion of Hispanic surveys completed per strata matched our proposed distribution: 7% for strata 1, 30% for strata 2, 58% for strata 3 and 83% for strata 4. Conclusion Utilizing a standardized area based randomized sampling approach allowed us to successfully recruit an ethnically balanced sample while conducting door to door surveys in a rural, community based study. The integration of area based randomized sampling using tools such as GIS in future community-based research should be considered, particularly when trying to reach disparate populations.

Background Depressive symptoms are risk factors for several forms of cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease (CHD). However, it is unclear whether depressive symptoms are associated with incident heart failure (HF), including hospitalization for HF overall or by subtype: HF with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and Results Among 26 268 HF‐free participants in the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke) study, a prospective biracial cohort of US community‐dwelling adults ≥45 years, baseline depressive symptoms were defined as a score ≥4 on the 4‐item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale. Incident HF hospitalizations were expert‐adjudicated and categorized as HFpEF (EF ≥50%) and HFrEF, including mid‐range EF (EF

Abstract Background Patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA), defined as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The frequency of screening and treatment of hyperlipidemia, a modifiable CVD risk factor, is low in these patients. The reasons for low screening and treatment rates in this population are poorly understood. Our objective was to elicit the barriers and facilitators for screening and treatment of hyperlipidemia from the perspective of patients with IA. Methods We conducted a qualitative study using focus groups of patients with IA, guided by Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory. We recruited patients with IA aged 40 years and older from a single academic center. Data were analyzed thematically. Results We conducted three focus groups with 17 participants whose mean age was 56 (range 45–81) years; 15 were women. Four themes emerged as barriers: 1) need for more information about arthritis, prognosis, and IA medications prior to discussing additional topics like CVD risk; 2) lack of knowledge about how IA increases CVD risk; 3) lifestyle changes to reduce overall CVD risk rather than medications; and 4) the need to improve doctor-patient communication about IA, medications, and CVD risk. One theme emerged as a facilitator: 5) potential for peer coaches (patients with IA who are trained about concepts of CVD risk and IA) to help overcome barriers to screening and treatment of hyperlipidemia to lower CVD risk. Conclusion Patients with IA identified educational needs about IA, increased CVD risk in IA and the need for improved doctor-patient communication about screening for hyperlipidemia and its treatment. Patients were receptive to working with peer coaches to facilitate achievement of these goals.

Abstract Background Despite high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, screening and treatment of hyperlipidemia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is suboptimal. We asked primary care physicians (PCPs) and rheumatologists to identify barriers to screening and treatment for hyperlipidemia among patients with RA. Methods We recruited rheumatologists and PCPs nationally to participate in separate moderated structured group teleconference discussions using the nominal group technique. Participants in each group generated lists of barriers to screening and treatment for hyperlipidemia in patients with RA, then each selected the three most important barriers from this list. The resulting barriers were organized into physician-, patient- and system-level barriers, informed by the socioecological framework. Results Twenty-seven rheumatologists participated in a total of 3 groups (group size ranged from 7 to 11) and twenty PCPs participated in a total of 3 groups (group size ranged from 4 to 9). Rheumatologists prioritized physician level barriers (e.g. ‘ownership’ of hyperlipidemia screening and treatment), whereas PCPs prioritized patient-level barriers (e.g. complexity of RA and its treatments). Conclusion Rheumatologists were conflicted about whether treatment of CVD risk among patients with RA should fall within the role of the rheumatologist or the PCP. All participating PCPs agreed that CVD risk reduction was within their role. Factors that influenced PCPs’ decisions for screening and treatment for CVD risk in patients with RA were mainly related to their concern about how treatment for CVD risk could influence RA symptomatology (myalgia from statins) or how inflammation from RA and RA medications influences lipid profiles.

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aid in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management, but it is not well understood which measures would be most relevant to the rheumatologists for making treatment decisions. Methods We recruited rheumatologists nationally to participate in moderated structured group teleconference discussions using the nominal group technique. Participants in each group generated lists of the elements from patient’s history and signs that they use to make treatment recommendations for RA. Each participant then selected the three most important elements from the generated list. The results of each group were then combined and summarized. Results Twenty-five rheumatologists participated in 4 groups (group size ranged from 4 to 8) and 150 available ranking votes across all groups. The statements generated across the 4 groups were categorized into 13 topics (including symptoms, physical function, comorbidities, social aspects, physical findings, response to treatment, treatment adherence, pain management, side effects, tests, access to care, contraception, and organ involvement), 10 of which received ranking votes. Symptoms received the highest ranking (46% of votes), followed by physical function (16%), and physical findings (13%). Among the unranked topics, social aspects had the highest number of statements (8 statements). Conclusion Rheumatologists highly valued patient-reported RA symptoms and physical function to inform their treatment decisions, even above objective data such as physical findings and test results. These results can guide the selection of validated PRO measures to assess these domains to inform the clinical care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Abstract BackgroundAdverse social determinants of health (SDoH) have been associated with cardiometabolic disease; however, disparities in cardiometabolic outcomes are rarely the result of a single risk factor. ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and characterize SDoH phenotypes based on patient-reported and neighborhood-level data from the institutional electronic medical record and evaluate the prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and other cardiometabolic diseases by phenotype status. MethodsPatient-reported SDoH were collected (January to December 2020) and neighborhood-level social vulnerability, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and rurality were linked via census tract to geocoded patient addresses. Diabetes status was coded in the electronic medical record using International Classification of Diseases2 ResultsComplete data were available for analysis for 2380 patients (mean age 53, SD 16 years; n=1405, 59% female; n=1198, 50% non-White). Roughly 8% (n=179) reported housing insecurity, 30% (n=710) reported resource needs (food, health care, or utilities), and 49% (n=1158) lived in a high-vulnerability census tract. We identified 3 patient SDoH phenotypes: (1) high social risk, defined largely by self-reported SDoH (n=217, 9%); (2) adverse neighborhood SDoH (n=1353, 56%), defined largely by adverse neighborhood-level measures; and (3) low social risk (n=810, 34%), defined as low individual- and neighborhood-level risks. Patients with an adverse neighborhood SDoH phenotype had higher prevalence of diagnosed type 2 diabetes (PR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06‐1.33), hypertension (PR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02‐1.27), peripheral vascular disease (PR 1.46, 95% CI 1.09‐1.97), and heart failure (PR 1.46, 95% CI 1.20‐1.79). ConclusionsPatients with the adverse neighborhood SDoH phenotype had higher prevalence of poor cardiometabolic conditions compared to phenotypes determined by individual-level characteristics, suggesting that neighborhood environment plays a role, even if individual measures of socioeconomic status are not suboptimal.

Objective To describe the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in a racially diverse sample from the US Southeast and examine the association of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor use with COVID-19 outcome.Design, Setting, Participants This study is a retrospective cohort of 1024 patients with reverse-transcriptase PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection, admitted to a 1242-bed teaching hospital in Alabama. Data on RAAS inhibitors use, demographics and comorbidities were extracted from hospital medical records.Primary outcomes In-hospital mortality, a need of intensive care unit, respiratory failure, defined as invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and 90-day same-hospital readmissions.Results Among 1024 patients (mean (SD) age, 57 (18.8) years), 532 (52.0%) were African Americans, 514 (50.2%) male, 493 (48.1%) had hypertension, 365 (36%) were taking RAAS inhibitors. During index hospitalisation (median length of stay of 7 (IQR (4–15) days) 137 (13.4%) patients died; 170 (19.2%) of survivors were readmitted. RAAS inhibitor use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 95% CI (0.56, (0.36 to 0.88), p=0.01) and no effect modification by race was observed (p for interaction=0.81). Among patients with hypertension, baseline RAAS use was associated with reduced risk of iMV, adjusted OR, 95% CI (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.95, p=0.03). Patients with heart failure were twice as likely to die from COVID-19, compared with patients without heart failure.Conclusions In a retrospespective study of racially diverse patients, hospitalised with COVID-19, prehospitalisation use of RAAS inhibitors was associated with 40% reduction in mortality irrespective of race.

Background: Patients with co-occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder (OUD) have unique needs that may present challenges for clinicians and health care systems. Primary care providers’ (PCPs) capacity to deliver high quality, research-informed care for this population is unknown. The objective of this study was to develop and test a questionnaire of factors influencing PCP capacity to treat co-occurring chronic pain and OUD. Methods: Capacity to Treat Co-Occurring Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder (CAP-POD) questionnaire items were developed over a 2-year process including literature review, semi-structured interviews, and expert panel review. In 2018, a national sample of 509 PCPs was recruited through email to complete a questionnaire including the initial 44-item draft CAP-POD questionnaire. CAP-POD items were analyzed for dimensionality, inter-item reliability, and construct validity. Results: Principal component analysis resulted in a 22-item questionnaire. Twelve more items were removed for parsimony, resulting in a final 10-item questionnaire with the following 4 scales: (1) Motivation to Treat patients with chronic pain and OUD (α = .87), (2) Trust in Evidence (α = .87), (3) Assessing Risk (α = .82), and (4) Patient Access to therapies (α = .79). These scales were associated with evidence-based practice attitudes, knowledge of pain management, and self-reported behavioral adherence to best practice recommendations. Conclusion: We developed a brief, 10-item questionnaire that assesses factors influencing the capacity of PCPs to implement best practice recommendations for the treatment of co-occurring chronic pain and OUD. The questionnaire demonstrated good reliability and initial evidence of validity, and may prove useful in future research as well as clinical settings. Plain language abstract Patients with co-occurring chronic pain and opioid use disorder (OUD) have unique needs that may present challenges for clinicians and health care systems. Primary care providers’ (PCPs) ability to deliver high quality, research-informed care for this population is unknown. There are no validated instruments to assess factors influencing PCP capacity to implement best practices for treating these patients. The objective of this study was to develop and test a questionnaire of factors influencing PCP capacity to treat co-occurring chronic pain and OUD. We recruited 509 PCPs to participate in an online questionnaire that included 44 potential items that assess PCP capacity. Analyses resulted in a 10-item questionnaire that assesses factors influencing capacity to implement best practice recommendations for the treatment of co-occurring chronic pain and OUD. PCPs reported moderately high confidence in the strength and quality of evidence for best practices, and in their ability to identify patients at risk. However, PCPs reported low motivation to treat co-occurring chronic pain and OUD, and perceived patients’ access to relevant services as suboptimal, highlighting two areas that should be targeted with tailored implementation strategies. The 10-item Capacity to Treat Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder (CAP-POD) questionnaire can be used for two purposes: (1) to assess factors influencing PCP capacity before implementation and identify areas that may require improvement for implementation and (2) to evaluate implementation interventions aimed at increasing PCP capacity to treat this population.

Objectives: We qualitatively assessed patients' perceptions of discrimination and patient satisfaction in the health care setting specific to interactions with nonphysician health care staff., Methods: We conducted 12 focus-group interviews with African American and European American participants, stratified by race and gender, from June to November 2008. We used a topic guide to facilitate discussion and identify factors contributing to perceived discrimination and analyzed transcripts for relevant themes using a codebook., Results: We enrolled 92 participants: 55 African Americans and 37 European Americans, all of whom reported perceived discrimination and lower patient satisfaction as a result of interactions with nonphysician health care staff. Perceived discrimination was associated with 2 main characteristics: insurance or socioeconomic status and race. Both verbal and nonverbal communication style on the part of nonphysician health care staff were related to individuals' perceptions of how they were treated., Conclusions: The behaviors of nonphysician health care staff in the clinical setting can potentially contribute to patients' perceptions of discrimination and lowered patient satisfaction. Future interventions to reduce health care discrimination should include a focus on staff cultural competence and customer service skills.