Search

Guidelines for managing and preventing chronic disease tend to be well-known. Yet, translation of this evidence into practice is inconsistent. We identify a combination of factors that are connected to guideline concordant delivery of evidence-informed chronic disease care in primary care.Cross-sectional observational study; purposively selected 22 practices to vary on size, ownership and geographic location, using National Quality Forum metrics to ensure practices had a ≥ 70% quality level for at least 2 of the following: aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol and diabetes management. Interviewed 2 professionals (eg, medical director, practice manager) per practice (n = 44) to understand staffing and clinical operations. Analyzed data using an iterative and inductive approach.Community Health Centers (CHCs) employed interdisciplinary clinical teams that included a variety of professionals as compared with hospital-health systems (HHS) and clinician-owned practices. Despite this difference, practice members consistently reported a number of functions that may be connected to clinical chronic care quality, including: having engaged leadership; a culture of teamwork; engaging in team-based care; using data to inform quality improvement; empaneling patients; and managing the care of patient panels, with a focus on continuity and comprehensiveness, as well as having a commitment to the community.There are mutable organizational attributes connected-guideline concordant chronic disease care in primary care. Research and policy reform are needed to promote and study how to achieve widespread adoption of these functions and organizational attributes that may be central to achieving equity and improving chronic disease prevention.

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.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.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 experienced1 major disruption showed lower aspirin performance [-7.1%, p0.001]).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.

Primary care practices in underserved and/or rural areas have limited access to mental health specialty resources for their patients. Telemedicine can help address this issue, but little is known about how patients and clinicians experience telemental health care.This pragmatic randomized effectiveness trial compared telepsychiatry collaborative care, where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to primary care teams, to a referral approach, where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment. Twelve Federally Qualified Health Centers in rural and/or underserved areas in 3 states participated.Patients and clinicians reported that both interventions alleviated barriers to accessing mental health care, provided quality treatment, and offered improvements over usual care. Telepsychiatry collaborative care was identified as better for patients with difficulty developing trust with new providers. This approach also required more primary care involvement than referral care, creating more opportunities for clinician learning related to mental health diagnosis and treatment. The referral approach was identified as better suited for patients with higher complexity or desiring specific psychotherapies.Both approaches addressed patient needs and provided access to specialty mental health care. Each approach better aligned with different patients' needs, suggesting that having both approaches available to practices is optimal for supporting patient-centered care.

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

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Structures (context of care delivery) and processes (actions aimed at delivery care) are posited to drive patient outcomes. Despite decades of primary care research, there remains a lack of evidence connecting specific structures/processes to patient outcomes to determine which of the numerous recommended structures/processes to prioritize for implementation. The objective of this study was to identify structures/processes most commonly present in high-performing primary care practices for chronic care management and prevention. We conducted key informant interviews with a national sample of 22 high-performing primary care practices. We identified the 10 most commonly present structures/processes in these practices, which largely enable 2 core functions: mobilizing staff to conduct patient outreach and helping practices avoid gaps in care. Given the costs of implementing and maintaining numerous structures/processes, our study provides a starting list for providers to prioritize and for researchers to investigate further for specific effects on patient outcomes.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder are common in primary care. Evidence supports collaborative care in primary care settings to treat depression and anxiety, and recent studies have evaluated its effectiveness in treating complex conditions such as PTSD and bipolar disorder. This study aimed to examine how primary care clinicians experience collaborative care for patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders.The authors conducted semistructured interviews with 22 primary care clinicians participating in a pragmatic trial that included telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC) to treat patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder in rural or underserved areas. Analysis utilized a constant comparative method to identify recurring themes.Clinicians reported that TCC improved their confidence in managing medications for patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder and supported their ongoing learning and skill development. Clinicians also reported improvements in patient engagement in care. Care managers were crucial to realizing these benefits by fostering communication within the clinical team while engaging patients through regular outreach. Clinicians valued TCC because it included and supported them in improving the care of patients' mental health conditions, which opened opportunities for clinicians to enhance care and address co-occurring general medical conditions. Overall, benefits of the TCC model outweighed its minimal burdens.Clinicians found that TCC supported their care of patients with PTSD or bipolar disorder. This approach has the potential to extend the reach of specialty mental health care and to support primary care clinicians treating patients with these more complex psychiatric disorders.

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).

Although much attention has been focused on individual-level drivers of burnout in primary care settings, examining the structural and cultural factors of practice environments with no burnout could identify solutions. In this cross-sectional analysis of survey data from 715 small-to-medium-size primary care practices in the United States participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's EvidenceNOW initiative, we found that zero-burnout practices had higher levels of psychological safety and adaptive reserve, a measure of practice capacity for learning and development. Compared with high-burnout practices, zero-burnout practices also reported using more quality improvement strategies, more commonly were solo and clinician owned, and less commonly had participated in accountable care organizations or other demonstration projects. Efforts to prevent burnout in primary care may benefit from focusing on enhancing organization and practice culture, including promoting leadership development and fostering practice agency.

Background Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) from electronic health records (EHRs) are a key component of quality improvement (QI) initiatives in small-to-medium size primary care practices, but using eCQMs for QI can be challenging. Organizational strategies are needed to effectively operationalize eCQMs for QI in these practice settings. Objective This study aimed to characterize strategies that seven regional cooperatives participating in the EvidenceNOW initiative developed to generate and report EHR-based eCQMs for QI in small-to-medium size practices. Methods A qualitative study comprised of 17 interviews with representatives from all seven EvidenceNOW cooperatives was conducted. Interviewees included administrators were with both strategic and cooperative-level operational responsibilities and external practice facilitators were with hands-on experience helping practices use EHRs and eCQMs. A subteam conducted 1-hour semistructured telephone interviews with administrators and practice facilitators, then analyzed interview transcripts using immersion crystallization. The analysis and a conceptual model were vetted and approved by the larger group of coauthors. Results Cooperative strategies consisted of efforts in four key domains. First, cooperative adaptation shaped overall strategies for calculating eCQMs whether using EHRs, a centralized source, or a “hybrid strategy” of the two. Second, the eCQM generation described how EHR data were extracted, validated, and reported for calculating eCQMs. Third, practice facilitation characterized how facilitators with backgrounds in health information technology (IT) delivered services and solutions for data capture and quality and practice support. Fourth, performance reporting strategies and tools informed QI efforts and how cooperatives could alter their approaches to eCQMs. Conclusion Cooperatives ultimately generated and reported eCQMs using hybrid strategies because they determined neither EHRs alone nor centralized sources alone could operationalize eCQMs for QI. This required cooperatives to devise solutions and utilize resources that often are unavailable to typical small-to-medium-sized practices. The experiences from EvidenceNOW cooperatives provide insights into how organizations can plan for challenges and operationalize EHR-based eCQMs.

ImportanceWork environments and practice structural features are associated with both burnout and the ability of practices to enhance quality of care.ObjectiveTo characterize factors associated with primary care practices successfully improving quality scores without increasing clinician and staff burnout.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study assessed small- to medium-sized primary care practices that participated in the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative using surveys that were administered at baseline (September 2015 to April 2017) and after the intervention (January 2017 to October 2018). Data were analyzed from February 2022 to January 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome of being a quality and well-being positive deviant practice was defined as a practice with a stable or improved percentage of clinicians and staff reporting burnout over the study period and with practice-level improvement in all 3 cardiovascular quality measures: aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling.ResultsOf 727 practices with complete burnout and aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling data, 18.3% (n = 133) met the criteria to be considered quality and well-being positive deviant practices. In analyses adjusted for practice location, accountable care organization and demonstration project participation, and practice specialty composition, clinician-owned practices had greater odds of being a positive deviant practice (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.16-3.54) than practices owned by a hospital or health system.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, clinician-owned practices were more likely to achieve improvements in cardiovascular quality outcomes without increasing staff member burnout than were practices owned by a hospital or health system. Given increasing health care consolidation, our findings suggest the value of studying cultural features of clinician-owned practices that may be associated with positive quality and experience outcomes.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of the Primary Care Extension Program to ensure access to high-quality primary care in the US.

BackgroundThough the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers’ shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding.ResultsFive community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change.ConclusionThis analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care.Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720).Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours,Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

Objectives To identify the unmet information needs of clinical teams delivering care to patients with complex medical, social, and economic needs; and to propose principles for redesigning electronic health records (EHR) to address these needs. Materials and Methods In this observational study, we interviewed and observed care teams in 9 community health centers in Oregon and Washington to understand their use of the EHR when caring for patients with complex medical and socioeconomic needs. Data were analyzed using a comparative approach to identify EHR users’ information needs, which were then used to produce EHR design principles. Results Analyses of > 300 hours of observations and 51 interviews identified 4 major categories of information needs related to: consistency of social determinants of health (SDH) documentation; SDH information prioritization and changes to this prioritization; initiation and follow-up of community resource referrals; and timely communication of SDH information. Within these categories were 10 unmet information needs to be addressed by EHR designers. We propose the following EHR design principles to address these needs: enhance the flexibility of EHR documentation workflows; expand the ability to exchange information within teams and between systems; balance innovation and standardization of health information technology systems; organize and simplify information displays; and prioritize and reduce information. Conclusion Developing EHR tools that are simple, accessible, easy to use, and able to be updated by a range of professionals is critical. The identified information needs and design principles should inform developers and implementers working in community health centers and other settings where complex patients receive care.

OBJECTIVE: Early childhood parenting interventions are increasingly delivered in primary care, but parental engagement with those interventions is often suboptimal. We sought to better understand parents’ preferences for the content and delivery method of behavioral health guidance in pediatric primary care, and to determine the relationship of those preferences with demographic characteristics, child behavior problems, and parenting style. METHOD: Participants were 396 parents of young children recruited from primary care offices. We collected measures of parental preferences (including behavioral topics, intervention strategies, and methods of delivery) for behavioral intervention in primary care, child behavior symptoms, parenting style, and demographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to identify parents’ most preferred behavioral topics and intervention delivery methods. We used a hierarchical regression approach to determine whether parenting style predicted parents’ preferences beyond demographic and child-level factors. RESULTS: Nearly all parents (96%) endorsed a behavioral topic (e.g., aggression) as important. Most preferred to receive intervention during routine medical appointments. Child behavior problems correlated with parents’ overall interest in behavioral guidance, but clinically significant symptoms did not differentiate interest in any single topic. Socioeconomic factors and negative parenting practices predicted some parental preferences. Notably, lax parenting generally predicted higher interest in behavioral intervention, whereas hostile and physically controlling parenting predicted lower interest. CONCLUSION: Most parents are interested in behavioral guidance as part of primary care, but their preferences for the content and delivery of that guidance varies by known socioeconomic, child, and parenting risk factors. Tailoring intervention to parents’ preferences may increase engagement with available interventions.

Hypertension treatment and control prevent more cardiovascular events than management of other modifiable risk factors. Although the age-adjusted proportion of US adults with controlled blood pressure (BP) defined as

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as heart failure and stroke has been the top cause of death for over 90 years. The beneficial effects of four simple treatment options ‐‐ aspirin prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol management and smoking screening and cessation counseling (ABCS) ‐‐ in reducing mortality are well established. Yet, delivering the ABCS at optimal levels continues to be challenging for primary care practices, where the majority of patients receive care. In 2015, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care, a national, 110 million dollar initiative focused on providing external support interventions (e.g., practice facilitation or health information technology support) to 1500 small‐to‐medium sized primary care practices with over eight million patients. The research objective of this study was to estimate EvidenceNOW‐related reductions in the risk of experiencing an adverse CVD event. STUDY DESIGN: Study Design: We developed a new methodology to calculate CVD risk using (i) ABCS levels of EvidenceNOW practices; (ii) patient‐level information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES); and (iii) information about CVD risk over a 10‐year period developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. We estimated 10‐year CVD risk at baseline, just before EvidenceNOW started, and reductions to risk due to EvidenceNOW‐related improvements in the ABCS. POPULATION STUDIED: Primary care practices participating in EvidenceNOW and NHANES study participants. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The average 10‐year CVD risk at baseline was estimated to be 10.3 percent among patients of practices participating in the initiative. Improvements in the ABCS due to EvidenceNow reduced this risk by about 0.1 percentage points, or approximately 1.0 percent relative to baseline. Two patient populations had the biggest CVD risk reduction: those with hypertension and those with multiple comorbidities who have a high CVD risk. According to these estimates, EvidenceNOW prevented about 4000 CVD events at a cost of approximately $29,000 per event. CONCLUSIONS: EvidenceNOW successfully reduced CVD events among patients of practices participating in the initiative, although overall reductions were small. Risk reductions were stronger for high‐risk patients, such as those with multiple comorbidities. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: Preventive care efforts to reduce cardiovascular disease in primary care practices are cost effective even for a large patient population with moderate CVD risk and therefore should be implemented more widely. Targeting specific patient population can be a valuable policy to improve the health of high‐risk populations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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 towards 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 towards integrated primary care. Qualitative data were analyzed and sorted by quantitative data of interest to identify demographic, child, and parental factors that shape attitudes towards 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 towards behavioral primary care. These attitudes varied based on socioeconomic status, child behavior symptoms, and reported use of corporal punishment.

This Viewpoint discusses how the lack of a comprehensive national primary care approach creates gaps and confusion in federal policy and proposes solutions.

INTRODUCTION: Buprenorphine, a medication for opioid use disorder (OUD), can be administered within primary care; however, little is known about characteristics associated with retention on buprenorphine in these settings. This study examines patient correlates of buprenorphine retention and whether an integrated, interdisciplinary treatment model (buprenorphine and behavioral health) is associated with higher odds of buprenorphine retention than a primarily medication-only treatment model. METHODS: Electronic health record data from adult patients with an OUD, ≥1 buprenorphine order and ≥1 visit to either of two primary care clinics between 9/2/2014–6/27/2018 were extracted (N=494 patients). Two research team members reviewed the medication start and stop dates for each buprenorphine order and classified as retained (≥6 months of orders) or not retained (

Although much attention has been focused on individual-level drivers of burnout in primary care settings, examining the structural and cultural factors of practice environments with no burnout could identify solutions. In this cross-sectional analysis of survey data from 715 small-to-medium-size primary care practices in the United States participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's EvidenceNOW initiative, we found that zero-burnout practices had higher levels of psychological safety and adaptive reserve, a measure of practice capacity for learning and development. Compared with high-burnout practices, zero-burnout practices also reported using more quality improvement strategies, more commonly were solo and clinician owned, and less commonly had participated in accountable care organizations or other demonstration projects. Efforts to prevent burnout in primary care may benefit from focusing on enhancing organization and practice culture, including promoting leadership development and fostering practice agency.

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

Disruptions in primary care practices, like ownership change, clinician turnover, and electronic health record system implementation, can stall quality improvement (QI) efforts. However, little is known about the relationship between these disruptions and practice participation in facilitated QI.We explore this relationship using data collected from EvidenceNOW in a mixed-methods convergent design. EvidenceNOW was a large-scale facilitation-based QI initiative in small and medium primary care practices. Data included practice surveys, facilitator time logs, site visit field notes, and interviews with facilitators and practices. Using multivariate regression, we examined associations between disruptions during interventions and practice participation in facilitation, measured by in-person facilitator hours in 987 practices. We analyzed qualitative data on 40 practices that described disruptions. Qualitative and quantitative teams iterated analyses based on each other's emergent findings.Many practices (51%) reported experiencing 1 or more disruptions during the 3- to 15-month interventions. Loss of clinicians (31.6%) was most prevalent. In adjusted analyses, disruptions were not significantly associated with participation in facilitation. Qualitative data revealed that practices that continued active participation were motivated, had some QI infrastructure, and found value in working with their facilitators. Facilitators enabled practice participation by doing EHR-related work for practices, adapting work for available staff, and helping address needs beyond the explicit aims of EvidenceNOW.Disruptions are prevalent in primary care, but practices can continue participating in QI interventions, particularly when supported by a facilitator. Facilitators may benefit from additional training in approaches for helping practices attenuate the effects of disruptions and adapting strategies to help interventions work to continue building QI capacity.

INTRODUCTION: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) is underused in primary care. Little is known about patient demographics associated with MAT initiation, particularly among models with an interdisciplinary approach, including behavioral health integration. We hypothesize few disparities in MAT initiation by patient characteristics after implementing this model for OUD. METHODS: Electronic health record data were used to identify adults with ≥1 primary care visit in 1 of 2 study clinics in a Pacific Northwest academic health system between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2017 (n = 23,372). Rates of documented OUD diagnosis were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression estimated odds ratios of MAT initiation, defined as ≥1 electronic health record order for buprenorphine or naltrexone, by patient covariates. RESULTS: Seven percent of the study sample had an OUD diagnosis. Of those patients, 32% had ≥1 MAT order. Patients with documented psychiatric diagnoses or tobacco use had higher odds of initiating MAT (odds ratio [OR] = 1.62, P = .0003; OR = 2.46, P < .0001, respectively). Uninsured, Medicaid, and Medicare patients had lower odds than those commercially insured (OR = 0.53, 0.38, and 0.31, respectively; P < .0001). Patients who were older, of a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white, had documented diabetes, and had documented asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease showed lower odds of initiation. DISCUSSION: MAT initiation varied by patient characteristics, including disparities by insurance coverage and race/ethnicity. The addition of behavioral health did not eliminate disparities in care, but higher odds of initiation among those with a documented psychiatric diagnosis may suggest this model reaches some vulnerable populations. Additional research is needed to further examine these findings.

This supplement to the Annals of Family Medicine brings together early learning from multiple examples of health extension and practice transformation support, with the goal of informing future efforts to improve our health care system. As this supplement is published, 2 major federal investments

Introduction: Primary care risk stratification (RS) has been shown to help practices better understand their patient populations9 needs and may improve health outcomes and reduce expenditures by targeting and tailoring care to high-need patients. This study aims to understand key considerations practices faced and practice experiences as they began to implement RS models. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews about experiences in RS with 34 stakeholders from 15 primary care practices in Oregon and Colorado and qualitatively analyzed the data. Results: Three decisions were important in shaping practices9 experiences with RS: choosing established versus self-created algorithms or heuristics, clinical intuition, or a combination; selecting mechanisms for assigning risk scores; determining how to integrate RS approaches into care delivery. Practices using clinical intuition found stratification time-consuming and difficult to incorporate into existing workflows, but trusted risk scores more than those using algorithms. Trust in risk scores was influenced by data extraction capabilities; practices often lacked sufficient data to calculate their perceived optimal risk score. Displaying the scores to the care team was a major issue. Finally, obtaining buy-in from care team members was challenging, requiring repeated cycles of improvement and workflow integration. Discussion: Practices used iterative approaches to RS implementation. As a result, procedural and algorithmic changes were introduced and were influenced by practices9 health IT, staffing, and resource capacities. Practices were most successful when able to make iterative changes to their approaches, incorporated both automation and human process in RS, educated staff on the importance of RS, and had readily accessible risk scores.

Purpose To identify associations among patient fall risk factors, perceptions, and daily activities to improve patient engagement with fall prevention among hospitalized older adults. Background The risk of falling increases for older patients but few researchers have reported patient-centered measures on this topic. Methods Surveys and chart reviews of inpatients aged ≥ 65 with Morse Falls Scale scores of ≥ 45. Measurements included validated tools and the modified Fall Behavioral Scale-Inpatient (FaB-I). Results A fall within 3 months before hospitalization was associated with an increased level of importance to preventing falls and higher FaB-I score (more fall prevention behaviors) but decreased level of confidence related to preventing falls ( p r = 0.52; patient activation: r = 0.46) were positively associated with FaB-I ( p Conclusions Addressing patient-centered measures such as perceptions of and daily activities for fall prevention could add value to existing fall prevention programs.