Search

Purpose: Evidence shows the value of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in hypertension management. Questions exist about how to effectively incorporate these readings into BP follow-up visits. We developed and implemented a tool that combines clinical and home BP readings into an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated visualization tool. We examined how this tool was used during primary care visits and its effect on physician-patient communication and decision making about hypertension management, comparing it with home BP readings on paper.Methods: We video recorded the hypertension follow-up visits of 73 patients with 15 primary care physicians between July 2018 and April 2019. During visits, physicians reviewed home BP readings with patients, either directly from paper or as entered into the EHR visualization tool. We used conversation analysis to analyze the recordings.Results: Home BP readings were viewed on paper for 26 patients and in the visualization tool for 47 patients. Access to home BP readings during hypertension management visits, regardless of viewing mode, positioned the physician and patient to assess BP management and make decisions about treatment modification, if needed. Length of BP discussion with the visualization tool was similar to or shorter than that with paper. Advantages of the visualization tool included ease of use, and enhanced and faster sense making and decision making. Successful use of the tool required patients' ability to obtain their BP readings and enter them into the EHR via a portal, and an examination room configuration that allowed for screen sharing.Conclusions: Reviewing home BP readings using a visualization tool is feasible and enhances sense making and patient engagement in decision making. Practices and their patients need appropriate infrastructure to realize these benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Objective: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Design: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Participants: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Approach: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Key Results: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes.Conclusions: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a chronic condition that requires regular visits and care continuity. Telehealth implementation has created multiple visit modalities for OUD care. There is limited knowledge of patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions and experiences related to multi-modality care and when different modalities might be best employed.To identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with multiple visit modalities for OUD treatment in primary care.Comparative case study, using video- and telephone-based semi-structured interviews.Patients being treated for OUD (n = 19) and clinicians who provided OUD care (n = 15) from two primary care clinics within the same healthcare system.Using an inductive approach, interviews were analyzed to identify patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with receiving/delivering OUD care via different visit modalities. Clinicians’ and patients’ experiences were compared using a group analytical process.Patients and clinicians valued having multiple modalities available for care, with flexibility identified as a key benefit. Patients highlighted the decreased burden of travel and less social anxiety with telehealth visits. Similarly, clinicians reported that telehealth decreased medical intrusion into the lives of patients stable in recovery. Patients and clinicians saw the value of in-person visits when establishing care and for patients needing additional support. In-person visits allowed the ability to conduct urine drug testing, and to foster relationships and trust building, which were more difficult, but not impossible via a telehealth visit. Patients preferred telephone over video visits, as these were more private and more convenient. Clinicians identified benefits of video, including being able to both hear and see the patient, but often deferred to patient preference.Considerations for utilization of visit modalities for OUD care were identified based on patients’ needs and preferences, which often changed over the course of treatment. Continued research is needed determine how visit modalities impact patient outcomes. [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]

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 (ERs) generate. To determine whether ERs 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 HER, 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 HER configuration beyond federal requirements. The current state of HER measurement functionality may be insufficient to support federal initiatives that tie payment to clinical quality measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failed diffusion of innovations may be linked to an inability to use and apply data, information, and knowledge to change perceptions of current practice and motivate change. Using qualitative and quantitative data from three large-scale health care delivery innovations--accountable care organizations, advanced primary care practice, and EvidenceNOW--we assessed where data-driven innovation is occurring and where challenges lie. We found that implementation of some technological components of innovation (for example, electronic health records) has occurred among health care organizations, but core functions needed to use data to drive innovation are lacking. Deficits include the inability to extract and aggregate data from the records; gaps in sharing data; and challenges in adopting advanced data functions, particularly those related to timely reporting of performance data. The unexpectedly high costs and burden incurred during implementation of the innovations have limited organizations' ability to address these and other deficits. Solutions that could help speed progress in data-driven innovation include facilitating peer-to-peer technical assistance, providing tailored feedback reports to providers from data aggregators, and using practice facilitators skilled in using data technology for quality improvement to help practices transform. Policy efforts that promote these solutions may enable more rapid uptake of and successful participation in innovative delivery system reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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. [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]

Objectives Prescription drug monitoring programs ( PDMPs) are now active in most states to assist clinicians in identifying potential controlled drug misuse, diversion, or excessive prescribing. Little is still known about the ways in which they are incorporated into workflow and clinical decision making, what barriers continue to exist, and how clinicians are sharing PDMP results with their patients. Design Qualitative data were collected through online focus groups and telephone interviews. Setting Clinicians from pain management, emergency and family medicine, psychiatry/behavioral health, rehabilitation medicine, internal medicine and dentistry participated. Patients Thirty-five clinicians from nine states participated. Methods We conducted two online focus groups and seven telephone interviews. A multidisciplinary team then used a grounded theory approach coupled with an immersion-crystallization strategy for identifying key themes in the resulting transcripts. Results Some participants, mainly from pain clinics, reported checking the PDMP with every patient, every time. Others checked only for new patients, for new opioid prescriptions, or for patients for whom they suspected abuse. Participants described varied approaches to sharing PDMP information with patients, including openly discussing potential addiction or safety concerns, avoiding discussion altogether, and approaching discussion confrontationally. Participants described patient anger or denial as a common response and noted the role of patient satisfaction surveys as an influence on prescribing. Conclusion Routines for accessing PDMP data and how clinicians respond to it vary widely. As PDMP use becomes more widespread, it will be important to understand what approaches are most effective for identifying and addressing unsafe medication use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across the United States, primary care practices are engaged in demonstration projects and quality improvement efforts aimed at integrating behavioral health and primary care. Efforts to make sustainable changes at the frontline of care have identified new research and evaluation needs. These efforts enable clinics and larger health care communities to learn from demonstration projects regarding what works and what does not when integrating mental health, substance use, and primary care under realistic circumstances. To do this, implementers need to measure their successes and failures to inform local improvement processes, including the efforts of those working on integration in separate but similar settings. We review how new research approaches, beyond the contributions of traditional controlled trials, are needed to inform integrated behavioral health. Illustrating with research examples from the field, we describe how research traditions can be extended to meet these new research and learning needs of frontline implementers. We further suggest that a shared language and set of definitions for the field (not just for a particular study) are critical for the aggregation of knowledge and learning across practices and for policymaking and business modeling. [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 presents a study in the U.S. which aims to develop a set of evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care. The study identified several criteria for good qualitative research including the conduct of ethical research, importance of the study and clarity and coherence of the research report. Moreover, the study stressed that health care researchers should be educated on the appropriate criteria that most manuscript and grant reviewers are likely to embrace.

Interactive online diaries are a novel approach for evaluating project implementation and provide real-time communication between evaluation staff members and those implementing a program. Evaluation teams can guide the lines of inquiry and ensure that data are captured as implementation develops. When used together with conventional evaluation strategies, interactive online diaries allow for an in depth understanding of project implementation, as well as the challenges program staff members confront and the solutions they develop. Interactive online diaries also can help evaluators address challenges such as self-reporting bias, documenting project evolution, and capturing implementers' ongoing insights as they develop. These insights might otherwise be lost to the evaluation process. The authors describe the development and use of this online approach in the evaluation of a foundation-sponsored program to improve the provision of preventive care in physicians offices. The program included 17 practice-based research networks and their participating primary care practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Our objective was to identify themes that emerged from the evaluation of 17 interventions funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Prescription for Health that aimed to enhance adherence to healthy behaviors in the primary care setting. METHODS We performed a content analysis of diary data from this 16-month initiative. Other data sources used to complement this analysis include funded grant applications and field notes from interviews with investigative teams and a limited number of site visits. Participants were 17 practice-based research networks (PBRNs) that had projects funded during Round 1 of Prescription for Health. RESULTS Five themes emerged regarding implementation of health behavior change: (1) health behavior change resources are enthusiastically received by practices and patients, and when given a choice, patients prefer methods of assistance that involve personal contact; (2) practice extenders require extensive training, as well as careful case management and support, in order to function fully and avoid burnout; (3) integrating behavior change tools into the primary care setting requires time, effort, and often specialized expertise; (4) even simple interventions require practice change, and use of a practice change model to guide implementation efforts is crucial; and (5) research philosophy and project management approaches vary across PBRNs and have implications for the potential sustainability of an intervention. CONCLUSIONS A more versatile, multifaceted solution involving new tools, technologies, and multidisciplinary care teams is needed in order to integrate health behavior change into everyday primary care routines. Even the best interventions require a model to articulate how to integrate an innovation into practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Profiles the Teatro la Fragua, a theater group in El Progreso, Honduras founded and directed by Jesuit missionary Jack Warner. Focus of performances on adaptations of biblical parables and Central American stories; Additional repertoire; Sources of operating budget; History of the group; Political conditions in Honduras at the time of the founding of Teatro la Fragua. INSET: From Advanced is the Night..

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including patients' perceptions about the duration of their cough, the cognitive processes that make a physician concerned about patients' use of alcohol, and cognitive strategies of clinicians.

Background: Following the ACA, millions of people gained Medicaid insurance. Most electronic health record (EHR) tools to date provide clinical-decision support and tracking of clinical biomarkers, we developed an EHR tool to support community health center (CHC) staff in assisting patients with health insurance enrollment documents and tracking insurance application steps. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of the health insurance support tool in (1) assisting uninsured patients gaining insurance coverage, (2) ensuring insurance continuity for patients with Medicaid insurance (preventing coverage gaps between visits); and (3) improving receipt of cancer preventive care.Methods: In this quasi-experimental study, twenty-three clinics received the intervention (EHR-based insurance support tool) and were matched to 23 comparison clinics. CHCs were recruited from the OCHIN network. EHR data were linked to Medicaid enrollment data. The primary outcomes were rates of uninsured and Medicaid visits. The secondary outcomes were receipt of recommended breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings. A comparative interrupted time-series using Poisson generalized estimated equation (GEE) modeling was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EHR-based tool on the primary and secondary outcomes.Results: Immediately following implementation of the enrollment tool, the uninsured visit rate decreased by 21.0% (Adjusted Rate Ratio [RR] = 0.790, 95% CI = 0.621-1.005, p = .055) while Medicaid-insured visits increased by 4.5% (ARR = 1.045, 95% CI = 1.013-1.079) in the intervention group relative to comparison group. Cervical cancer preventive ratio increased 5.0% (ARR = 1.050, 95% CI = 1.009-1.093) immediately following implementation of the enrollment tool in the intervention group relative to comparison group. Among patients with a tool use, 81% were enrolled in Medicaid 12 months after tool use. For the 19% who were never enrolled in Medicaid following tool use, most were uninsured (44%) at the time of tool use.Conclusions: A health insurance support tool embedded within the EHR can effectively support clinic staff in assisting patients in maintaining their Medicaid coverage. Such tools may also have an indirect impact on evidence-based practice interventions, such as cancer screening.Trial Registration: This study was retrospectively registered on February 4th, 2015 with Clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT02355262). The registry record can be found at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02355262 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the organizational mission and vision statements of family medicine organization American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) in the U.S. The family medicine organization envision for the principles of redesign of health information technology (IT) which supports health and health care services in the country. The organization also cites its services on providing data visualization technology and technology integration for health system.

Evidence-based strategies to decrease fall rates are well established. However, little is understood about how older people engage in fall prevention strategies. Motivational Interviewing (MI) sessions aimed to facilitate individuals' engagement in fall prevention can be analyzed to learn what it means for older people to engage in fall prevention. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how older people describe their engagement in fall prevention. Participants in our parent project, MI for Fall Prevention (MI-FP), who received MI sessions were purposively selected for maximum variation in age, sex, fall risks, and MI specialist assigned. The first (of 8) MI sessions from 16 participants were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Three researchers first deductively analyzed fall prevention strategies that participants described using an evidence-based fall prevention guideline as a reference. Then, we inductively analyzed the characteristics of these strategies and how participants engaged in them. Finally, we used the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior (COM-B) model to organize our results about factors influencing engagement. We found (1) older adults engage in unique combinations of fall prevention strategies and (2) decisions about engagement in fall prevention strategies were influenced by multiple factors that were personal (e.g., who I am, capability, motivation, and opportunities). This study highlighted how fall prevention can be a life-long lifestyle decision for older people. Understanding older people's perspectives about engaging in fall prevention is essential to develop interventions to promote evidence-based fall prevention strategies in real-world settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P = .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article dicusses several innovations presented at the American Academy of Family Physicians Residency Leadership Summit's annual Innovation Showcase. It mentions that these innovations include integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion into a family medicine curriculum, using milestone data and open-source software for program improvement and bias identification, and requiring resident capstone projects within a four-year curriculum.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a marked increase in telehealth for the provision of primary care-based opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment. This mixed methods study examines characteristics associated with having the majority of OUD-related visits via telehealth versus in-person, and changes in mode of delivery (in-person, telephone, video) over time. Methods: Logistic regression was performed using electronic health record data from patients with ≥1 visit with an OUD diagnosis to ≥1 of the two study clinics (Rural Health Clinic; urban Federally Qualified Health Center) and ≥1 OUD medication ordered from 3/8/2020-9/1/2021, with >50% of OUD visits via telehealth (vs. >50% in-person) as the dependent variable and patient characteristics as independent variables. Changes in visit type over time were also examined. Inductive coding was used to analyze data from interviews with clinical team members (n = 10) who provide OUD care to understand decision-making around visit type. Results: New patients (vs. returning; OR = 0.47;95%CI:0.27-0.83), those with ≥1 psychiatric diagnosis (vs. none; OR = 0.49,95%CI:0.29-0.82), and rural clinic patients (vs. urban; OR = 0.05; 95%CI:0.03-0.08) had lower odds of having the majority of visits via telehealth than in-person. Patterns of visit type varied over time by clinic, with the majority of telehealth visits delivered via telephone. Team members described flexibility for patients as a key telehealth benefit, but described in-person visits as more conducive to building rapport with new patients and those with increased psychological burden. Conclusion: Understanding how and why telehealth is used for OUD treatment is critical for ensuring access to care and informing OUD-related policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the impacts of a transition to an "integrated managed care" model, wherein Medicaid managed care organizations moved from a "carve‐out" model to a "carve‐in" model integrating the financing of behavioral and physical health care. Data Sources/Study Setting: Medicaid claims data from Washington State, 2014–2019, supplemented with structured interviews with key stakeholders. Study Design: This mixed‐methods study used difference‐in‐differences models to compare changes in two counties that transitioned to financial integration in 2016 to 10 comparison counties maintaining carve‐out models, combined with qualitative analyses of 15 key informant interviews. Quantitative outcomes included binary measures of access to outpatient mental health care, primary care, the emergency department (ED), and inpatient care for mental health conditions. Data Collection: Medicaid claims were collected administratively, and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Principal Findings: The transition to financially integrated care was initially disruptive for behavioral health providers and was associated with a temporary decline in access to outpatient mental health services among enrollees with serious mental illness (SMI), but there were no statistically significant or sustained differences after the first year. Enrollees with SMI also experienced a slight increase in access to primary care (1.8%, 95% CI 1.0%–2.6%), but no sustained statistically significant changes in the use of ED or inpatient services for mental health care. The transition to financially integrated care had relatively little impact on primary care providers, with few changes for enrollees with mild, moderate, or no mental illness. Conclusions: Financial integration of behavioral and physical health in Medicaid managed care did not appear to drive clinical transformation and was disruptive to behavioral health providers. States moving towards "carve‐in" models may need to incorporate support for practice transformation or financial incentives to achieve the benefits of coordinated mental and physical health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editor discusses various reports published within the issue including one by Bodenheimer on his personal experience with chronic foot pain, one by Jones and Reis on mentoring, and one by Nordin on access and care continuity in patients.

The article discusses various studies published within the issue, including one by Charles P. Mouton and colleagues on the effects of physical and verbal abuse in postmenopausal women, one by Ngaire Kerse and colleagues on the home-based activity program for older people with depressive symptoms, and one by John Furler and colleagues on the management of depression amid the Ethnic communities.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Situations with potential to motivate positive change in unhealthy behavior have been called ‘teachable moments’. Little is known about how they occur in the primary care setting. Methods: Cross-sectional observational design. Audio-recordings collected during 811 physician–patient interactions for 28 physicians and their adult patients were analyzed using conversation analysis. Results: Teachable moments were observed in 9.8% of the cases, and share three features: (1) the presence of a concern that is salient to the patient that is either obviously relevant to an unhealthy behavior, or through conversation comes to be seen as relevant; (2) a link that is made between the patient''s salient concern and a health behavior that attempts to motivate the patient toward change; and (3) a patient response indicating a willingness to discuss and commit to behavior change. Additionally, we describe phenomena related to, but not teachable moments, including teachable moment attempts, missed opportunities, and health behavior advice. Conclusions: Success of the teachable moment rests on the physician''s ability to identify and explore the salience of patient concerns and recognize opportunities to link them with unhealthy behaviors. Practice implications: The skills necessary for accomplishing teachable moments are well within the grasp of primary care physicians. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Primary care practices able to create linkages with community resources may be more successful at helping patients to make and sustain health behavior changes. Methods: Health behavior-change interventions in eight practice-based research networks were examined. Data were collected July 2005–October 2007. A comparative analysis of the data was conducted to identify and understand strategies used for linking primary care practices with community resources. Results: Intervention practices developed three strategies to initiate and/or implement linkages with community resources: pre-identified resource options, referral guides, and people external to the practice who offered support and connection to resources. To initiate linkages, practices required the capacity to identify patients, make referrals, and know area resources. Linkage implementation could still be defeated if resources were not available, accessible, affordable, and perceived as valuable. Linkages were facilitated by boundary-spanning strategies that compensated for the lack of infrastructure between practices and resources, and by brokering strategies that identified interested community partners and aided mutually beneficial connections with them. Linkages were stronger when they incorporated practice or resource abilities to motivate the patient, such as brief counseling or postreferral outreach. Further, data suggested that sustaining linkages requires continuous attention and ongoing communication between practices and resources. Conclusions: Creating linkages between primary care practices and community resources has the potential to benefit both patients and clinicians and to lessen the burden on the U.S. healthcare system resulting from poor health behaviors. Infrastructure support and communication systems must be developed to foster sustainable linkages between practices and local resources. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: There is little empirical evidence to show that a practice-level approach that includes identifying patients in need of health behavior advice and linking them to counseling resources either in the practice or in the community results in improvements in patients'' behaviors. This study examined whether patients in primary care practices that had practice-level approaches for physical activity and healthy-diet counseling were more likely to have healthier behaviors than patients in practices without practice-level approaches. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 54 primary care practices was conducted from July 2005 to January 2007. Practices were categorized into four groups depending on whether they had both identification tools (health risk assessment, registry) and linking strategies (within practice or to community resources); identification tools but no linking strategies; linking strategies but no identification tools; or neither identification tools nor linking strategies. Results: Controlling for patient and practice characteristics, practices that had both identification tools and linking strategies for physical activity counseling were 80% more likely (95% CI=1.25, 2.59) to have patients who reported exercising regularly compared to practices that lacked both. Also, practices that had either identification tools or linking strategies but not both were approximately 50% more likely to have patients who reported exercising regularly. The use of a greater number of practice-level approaches for physical activity counseling was associated with higher odds of patients'' reporting exercising regularly (p for trend=0.0002). Use of identification tools and linking strategies for healthy-eating counseling was not associated with patients'' reports of healthy diets. Conclusions: This study suggests that practice-level approaches may enable primary care practices to help patients improve physical activity. However, these approaches may have different effects on different behaviors, and merit further research to determine if causal pathways exist and, if so, how they should be applied. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Understanding the process by which research is translated into practice is limited. This study sought to examine how interventions change during implementation. Methods: Data were collected from July 2005 to September 2007. A real-time and cross-case comparison was conducted, examining ten interventions designed to improve health promotion in primary care practices in practice-based research networks. An iterative group process was used to analyze qualitative data (survey data, interviews, site visits, and project diary entries made by grantees approximately every 2 weeks) and to identify intervention adaptations reported during implementation. Results: All interventions required changes as they were integrated into practice. Modifications differed by project and by practice, and were often unanticipated. Three broad categories of changes were identified and include modifications undertaken to accommodate practices'' and patients'' circumstances as well as personnel costs. In addition, research teams played a crucial role in fostering intervention uptake through their use of personal influence and by providing motivation, retraining, and instrumental assistance to practices. These efforts by the research teams, although rarely considered an essential component of the intervention, were an active ingredient in successful implementation and translation. Conclusions: Changes are common when interventions are implemented into practice settings. The translation of evidence into practice will be improved when research design and reporting standards are modified to help quality-improvement teams understand both these adaptations and the effort required to implement interventions in practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease preventive services (aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support) are crucial to controlling cardiovascular diseases. This study draws from 1,248 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices participating in the EvidenceNOW Initiative from 2015-2016 across 12 states to provide practice-level aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support estimates; report the percentage of practices that meet Million Hearts targets; and identify the practice characteristics associated with better performance.Methods: This cross-sectional study utilized linear regression modeling (analyzed in 2020-2021) to examine the association of aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance with practice characteristics that included structural attributes (e.g., size, ownership, rurality), practice capacity and contextual characteristics, health information technology, and patient panel demographics.Results: On average, practice performance on aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality measures was 64% for aspirin, 63% for blood pressure, and 62% for smoking-cessation support. The 2012 Million Hearts goal of achieving the rates of 70% was achieved by 52% (aspirin), 32% (blood pressure), and 54% (smoking) of practices. Practice characteristics associated with aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support performance included ownership (hospital/health system-owned practices had 11% higher aspirin performance than clinician-owned practices [p=0.001]), rurality (rural practices had lower performance than urban practices in all aspirin use, blood pressure control, and smoking-cessation support quality metrics [difference in aspirin=11.1%, p=0.001; blood pressure=4.2%, p=0.022; smoking=14.4%, p=0.009]), and disruptions (practices that experienced >1 major disruption showed lower aspirin performance [-7.1%, p<0.001]).Conclusions: Achieving the Million Hearts targets may be assisted by collecting and reporting practice-level performance, which can promote change at the practice level and identify areas where additional support is needed to achieve initiative goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary care is a key setting for the delivery of parent-focused behavioral interventions. Various methods of intervention show promising efficacy but fail to engage adequate parental participation. This study used a sequential-explanatory mixed-method design to understand factors underlying parents' attitudes toward the content, sources, and delivery methods of behavioral guidance in primary care. Fifteen parents who previously participated in a larger survey study participated in interviews about their experiences and attitudes toward integrated primary care. Qualitative data were analyzed and sorted by quantitative data of interest to identify demographic, child, and parental factors that shape attitudes toward integrated care. Parents emphasized a need for tailored behavioral guidance, and multiple interconnected factors (e.g., trust of providers, perceived convenience of delivery modalities, stigma associated with behavioral health services) drove parents' attitudes toward behavioral primary care. These attitudes varied based on socioeconomic status, child behavior symptoms, and reported use of corporal punishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The article presents a study that investigates the efficacy of electronic health record (EHR) adoption in improving ambulatory care quality in the U.S. Researchers did a study on 798 diabetic patients found in 16 EHR. They found that EHR enhancement is not sure that it will boost the quality of EHR for diabetes care.

Purpose: We wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria.Methods: We identified published journal articles discussing criteria for rigorous research using standard search strategies then examined reference sections of relevant journal articles to identify books and book chapters on this topic. A cross-publication content analysis allowed us to identify criteria and understand the beliefs that shape them.Results: Seven criteria for good qualitative research emerged: (1) carrying out ethical research; (2) importance of the research; (3) clarity and coherence of the research report; (4) use of appropriate and rigorous methods; (5) importance of reflexivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verification or reliability. General agreement was observed across publications on the first 4 quality dimensions. On the last 3, important divergent perspectives were observed in how these criteria should be applied to qualitative research, with differences based on the paradigm embraced by the authors.Conclusion: Qualitative research is not a unified field. Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts and are likely to embrace a generic set of criteria rather than those relevant to the particular qualitative approach proposed or reported. Reviewers and researchers need to be aware of this tendency and educate health care researchers about the criteria appropriate for evaluating qualitative research from within the theoretical and methodological framework from which it emerges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two primary care clinics implemented an opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment program that integrates behavioral health counseling with buprenorphine treatment and uses tiers. This project aimed to understand how patients moved through tiers in this program. Method: We purposively sampled 20 patients with at least 10 OUD-related treatment visits; we documented tier changes at all visits between September 1, 2016 and December 31, 2018 using a standard data collection instrument. These data were used to construct run-charts. Results: About 45% of sampled patients had at least one relapse noted and 60% of patients dropped in tier during the study. Reductions in tier often happened when the patient was navigating difficult psychosocial situations in their life, whereas increases in tier often accompanied positive life events. We also found variation in use of the tiers. Discussion: OUD treatment from two clinics by tier illustrates that recovery is an individualized process based on patient need that can fluctuate due to psychosocial triggers and significant life events. Having tiers can guide treatment and provide both clinicians and patients with information about what to expect during treatment while still allowing the flexibility to meet patients where they are. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a cross-sectional study on the cultural and structural features of zero-burnout primary care practices in the U.S. In the study, the practices of small-to-medium-size primary care clinics taking part in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's EvidenceNOW program were analyzed. Other topics include the potential strategies to prevent burnout like promoting leadership development and fostering practice agency.

Background: Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Evidence demonstrates that screening for unhealthy alcohol use and providing persons engaged in risky drinking with brief behavioral and counseling interventions improves health outcomes, collectively termed screening and brief interventions. Medication assisted therapy (MAT) is another effective method for treatment of moderate or severe alcohol use disorder. Yet, primary care clinicians are not regularly screening for or treating unhealthy alcohol use. Methods and analysis: We are initiating a clinic-level randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate how primary care clinicians can impact unhealthy alcohol use through screening, counseling, and MAT. One hundred and 25 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) will be engaged; each will receive practice facilitation to promote screening, counseling, and MAT either at the beginning of the trial or at a 6-month control period start date. For each practice, the intervention includes provision of a practice facilitator, learning collaboratives with three practice champions, and clinic-wide information sessions. Clinics will be enrolled for 6–12 months. After completion of the intervention, we will conduct a mixed methods analysis to identify changes in screening rates, increase in provision of brief counseling and interventions as well as MAT, and the reduction of alcohol intake for patients after practices receive practice facilitation. Discussion: This study offers a systematic process for dissemination and implementation of the evidence-based practice of screening, counseling, and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. Practices will be asked to implement a process for screening, counseling, and treatment based on their practice characteristics, patient population, and workflow. We propose practice facilitation as a robust and feasible intervention to assist in making changes within the practice. We believe that the process can be replicated and used in a broad range of clinical settings; we anticipate this will be supported by our evaluation of this approach. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023, Registered 5 February 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown.Objective: To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices.Design: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017.Setting: Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services.Participants: 10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices.Main Measure: Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure.Key Results: Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff.Conclusions: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Brief smoking-cessation interventions in primary care settings are effective, but delivery of these services remains low. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Meaningful Use (MU) of Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program could increase rates of smoking assessment and cessation assistance among vulnerable populations. This study examined whether smoking status assessment, cessation assistance, and odds of being a current smoker changed after Stage 1 MU implementation.Methods: EHR data were extracted from 26 community health centers with an EHR in place by June 15, 2009. AORs were computed for each binary outcome (smoking status assessment, counseling given, smoking-cessation medications ordered/discussed, current smoking status), comparing 2010 (pre-MU), 2012 (MU preparation), and 2014 (MU fully implemented) for pregnant and non-pregnant patients.Results: Non-pregnant patients had decreased odds of current smoking over time; odds for all other outcomes increased except for medication orders from 2010 to 2012. Among pregnant patients, odds of assessment and counseling increased across all years. Odds of discussing or ordering of cessation medications increased from 2010 compared with the other 2 study years; however, medication orders alone did not change over time, and current smoking only decreased from 2010 to 2012. Compared with non-pregnant patients, a lower percentage of pregnant patients were provided counseling.Conclusions: Findings suggest that incentives for MU of EHRs increase the odds of smoking assessment and cessation assistance, which could lead to decreased smoking rates among vulnerable populations. Continued efforts for provision of cessation assistance among pregnant patients is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intervention toolkits are common products of grant-funded research in public health and primary care settings. Toolkits are designed to address the knowledge translation gap by speeding implementation and dissemination of research into practice. However, few studies describe characteristics of effective intervention toolkits and their implementation. Therefore, we conducted this study to explore what clinic and community-based users want in intervention toolkits and to identify the factors that support application in practice.Methods: In this qualitative descriptive study we conducted focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of community health coalition members, public health experts, and primary care professionals between November 2010 and January 2012. The transdisciplinary research team used thematic analysis to identify themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to explore variation by participant role and toolkit experience.Results: Ninety six participants representing primary care (n = 54, 56%) and community settings (n = 42, 44%) participated in 18 sessions (13 focus groups, five key informant interviews). Participants ranged from those naïve through expert in toolkit development; many reported limited application of toolkits in actual practice. Participants wanted toolkits targeted at the right audience and demonstrated to be effective. Well organized toolkits, often with a quick start guide, with tools that were easy to tailor and apply were desired. Irrespective of perceived quality, participants experienced with practice change emphasized that leadership, staff buy-in, and facilitative support was essential for intervention toolkits to be translated into changes in clinic or public -health practice.Conclusions: Given the emphasis on toolkits in supporting implementation and dissemination of research and clinical guidelines, studies are warranted to determine when and how toolkits are used. Funders, policy makers, researchers, and leaders in primary care and public health are encouraged to allocate resources to foster both toolkit development and implementation. Support, through practice facilitation and organizational leadership, are critical for translating knowledge from intervention toolkits into practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Little is known about clinicians' use of prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) profiles in decision-making. The objective of this qualitative study was to understand how clinicians use, interpret, and integrate PDMP profiles with other information in making clinical decisions. Design. Qualitative interviews of clinician PDMP users. Setting. Oregon registrants in the state's PDMP. Subjects. Thirty-three clinicians practicing in primary care, emergency medicine, pain management, psychiatry, dentistry, and surgery. Methods. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with PDMP users. A multidisciplinary team used a grounded theory approach to identify patterns of PDMP use and how PDMP profiles influence clinical decisions. Results. PDMP use varied from consistent monitoring to checking the PDMP only on suspicion of misuse, with inconsistent use reported particularly among short-term prescribers. Primary care clinicians reported less routine use with existing pain patients than with new patients. In response to worrisome PDMP profiles with new patients, participants reported declining to prescribe, except in the case of acute, verifiable conditions. Long-term prescribers reported sometimes continuing prescriptions for existing patients depending on perceived patient intent, honesty, and opioid misuse risk. Some long-term prescribers reported discharging patients from their practices due to worrisome PDMP profiles; others expressed strong ethical grounds for retaining patients but discontinuing controlled substances. Conclusion. Greater consistency is needed in use of PDMP in monitoring existing patients and in conformity to guidelines against discharging patients from practice. Research is needed to determine optimal approaches to interpreting PDMP profiles in relation to clinical judgment, patient screeners, and other information. [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]

Introduction: A practice embarks on a radical reformulation of how care is designed and delivered when it decides to integrate medical and behavioral health care for its patients and success depends on managing complex change in a complex system. We examined the ways change is managed when integrating behavioral health and medical care.Method: Observational cross-case comparative study of 19 primary care and community mental health practices. We collected mixed methods data through practice surveys, observation, and semistructured interviews. We analyzed data using a data-driven, emergent approach.Results: The change management strategies that leadership employed to manage the changes of integrating behavioral health and medical care included: (a) advocating for a mission and vision focused on integrated care; (b) fostering collaboration, with a focus on population care and a team-based approaches; (c) attending to learning, which includes viewing the change process as continuous, and creating a culture that promoted reflection and continual improvement; (d) using data to manage change, and (e) developing approaches to finance integration.Discussion: This paper reports the change management strategies employed by practice leaders making changes to integrate care, as observed by independent investigators. We offer an empirically based set of actionable recommendations that are relevant to a range of leaders (policymakers, medical directors) and practice members who wish to effectively manage the complex changes associated with integrated primary care. (PsycINFO Database Record [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]