Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for first responders (eg, police, fire, and emergency medical services) and nonmedical essential workers (eg, workers in food, transportation, and other industries). Health systems may be uniquely suited to support these workers given their medical expertise, and mobile apps can reach local communities despite social distancing requirements. Formal evaluation of real-world mobile app–based interventions is lacking. ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the adoption, acceptability, and appropriateness of an academic medical center–sponsored app-based intervention (COVID-19 Guide App) designed to support access of first responders and essential workers to COVID-19 information and testing services. We also sought to better understand the COVID-19–related needs of these workers early in the pandemic. MethodsTo understand overall community adoption, views and download data of the COVID-19 Guide App were described. To understand the adoption, appropriateness, and acceptability of the app and the unmet needs of workers, semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone, by video, and in person with first responders and essential workers in the San Francisco Bay Area who were recruited through purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interview transcripts and field notes were qualitatively analyzed and presented using an implementation outcomes framework. ResultsFrom its launch in April 2020 to September 2020, the app received 8262 views from unique devices and 6640 downloads (80.4% conversion rate, 0.61% adoption rate across the Bay Area). App acceptability was mixed among the 17 first responders interviewed and high among the 10 essential workers interviewed. Select themes included the need for personalized and accurate information, access to testing, and securing personal safety. First responders faced additional challenges related to interprofessional coordination and a “culture of heroism” that could both protect against and exacerbate health vulnerability. ConclusionsFirst responders and essential workers both reported challenges related to obtaining accurate information, testing services, and other resources. A mobile app intervention has the potential to combat these challenges through the provision of disease-specific information and access to testing services but may be most effective if delivered as part of a larger ecosystem of support. Differentiated interventions that acknowledge and address the divergent needs between first responders and non–first responder essential workers may optimize acceptance and adoption.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how a preexisting initiative to align health care, public health, and social services influenced COVID-19 pandemic response. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: In-depth interviews with administrators and frontline staff in health care, public health, and social services in Contra Costa County, California from October, 2020, to May, 2021. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews examined how COVID-19 response used resources developed for system alignment prior to the pandemic. DATA COLLECTION: We interviewed 31 informants including 14 managers in public health, health care, or social services and 17 social needs case managers who coordinated services across these sectors on behalf of patients. An inductive-deductive qualitative coding approach was used to systematically identify recurrent themes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified four distinct components of the countys system alignment capabilities that supported COVID-19 response, including (1) an organizational culture of adaptability fostered through earlier system alignment efforts, which included the ability and willingness to rapidly implement new organizational processes, (2) trusting relationships among organizations based on prior, positive experiences of cross-sector collaboration, (3) capacity to monitor population health of historically marginalized community members, including information infrastructures, data analytics, and population monitoring and outreach, and (4) frontline staff with flexible skills to support health and social care who had built relationships with the highest risk community members. CONCLUSIONS: Prior investments in aligning systems provided unanticipated benefits for organizational and community resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results illustrate a pathway for investment in system alignment efforts that build capacity within organizations and relationships between organizations to enhance resilience to crisis. Our findings suggest the usefulness of an integrated concept of organizational and community resilience that understands the resilience of systems of care as a vital resource for community resilience during crisis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify communication practices that clinicians can use to address racism faced by Black patients, build trusting relationships, and empower Black individuals in clinical care. DATA SOURCES: Qualitative data (N = 112 participants, August 2020-March 2021) collected in partnership with clinics primarily serving Black patients in Leeds, AL; Memphis, TN; Oakland, CA; and Rochester, NY. STUDY DESIGN: This multi-phased project was informed by human-centered design thinking and community-based participatory research principles. We mapped emergent communication and trust-building strategies to domains from the Presence 5 framework for fostering meaningful connection in clinical care. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Interviews and focus group discussions explored anti-racist communication and patient-clinician trust (n = 36 Black patients; n = 40 nonmedical professionals; and n = 24 clinicians of various races and ethnicities). The Presence 5 Virtual National Community Advisory Board guided analysis interpretation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The emergent Presence 5 for Racial Justice (P5RJ) practices include: (1) Prepare with intention by reflecting on identity, bias, and power dynamics; and creating structures to address bias and structural determinants of health; (2) Listen intently and completely without interruption and listen deeply for the potential impact of anti-Black racism on patient health and interactions with health care; (3) Agree on what matters most by having explicit conversations about patient goals, treatment comfort and consent, and referral planning; (4) Connect with the patients story, acknowledging socioeconomic factors influencing patient health and focusing on positive efforts; (5) Explore emotional cues by noticing and naming patient emotions, and considering how experiences with racism might influence emotions. CONCLUSION: P5RJ provides a framework with actionable communication practices to address pervasive racism experienced by Black patients. Effective implementation necessitates clinician self-reflection, personal commitment, and institutional support that offers time and resources to elicit a patients story and to address patient needs.

BackgroundHypertension is the most prevalent and important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, affecting nearly 50% of the US adult population; however, only 30% of these patients achieve controlled blood pressure (BP). Incorporating strategies into primary care that take into consideration individual patient needs, such as remote BP monitoring, may improve hypertension management.ObjectiveFrom March 2018 to December 2018, Stanford implemented a precision health pilot called Humanwide, which aimed to leverage high-technology and high-touch medicine to tailor individualized care for conditions such as hypertension. We examined multi-stakeholder perceptions of hypertension management in Humanwide to evaluate the program's acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 16 patients and 15 health professionals to assess their experiences with hypertension management in Humanwide. We transcribed and analyzed the interviews using a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive analysis to identify common themes around hypertension management and consensus methods to ensure reliability and validity.ResultsA total of 63% (10/16) of the patients and 40% (6/15) of the health professionals mentioned hypertension in the context of Humanwide. These participants reported that remote BP monitoring improved motivation, BP control, and overall clinic efficiency. The health professionals discussed feasibility challenges, including the time needed to analyze BP data and provide individualized feedback, integration of BP data, technological difficulties with the BP cuff, and decreased patient use of remote BP monitoring over time.ConclusionsRemote BP monitoring for hypertension management in Humanwide was acceptable to patients and health professionals and appropriate for care. Important challenges need to be addressed to improve the feasibility and sustainability of this approach by leveraging team-based care, engaging patients to sustain remote BP monitoring, standardizing electronic medical record integration of BP measurements, and finding more user-friendly BP cuffs.

BackgroundSocial needs case management programs are a strategy to coordinate social and medical care for high-risk patients. Despite widespread interest in social needs case management, not all interventions have shown effectiveness. A lack of evidence about the mechanisms through which these complex interventions benefit patients inhibits effective translation to new settings. The CommunityConnect social needs case management program in Contra Costa County, California recently demonstrated an ability to reduce inpatient hospital admissions by 11% in a randomized study. We sought to characterize the mechanisms through which the Community Connect social needs case management program was effective in helping patients access needed medical and social services and avoid hospitalization. An in-depth understanding of how this intervention worked can support effective replication elsewhere.MethodsUsing a case study design, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with case managers (n = 30) and patients enrolled in social needs case management (n = 31), along with field observations of patient visits (n = 31). Two researchers coded all interview transcripts and observation fieldnotes. Analysis focused on program elements identified by patients and staff as important to effectiveness.ResultsOur analyses uncovered three primary mechanisms through which case management impacted patient access to needed medical and social services: [1] Psychosocial work, defined as interpersonal and emotional support provided through the case manager-patient relationship, [2] System mediation work to navigate systems, coordinate resources, and communicate information and [3] Addressing social needs, or working to directly mitigate the impact of social conditions on patient health.ConclusionsThese findings highlight that the system mediation tasks which are the focus of many social needs assistance interventions offered by health care systems may be necessary but insufficient. Psychosocial support and direct assistance with social needs, enabled by a relationship-focused program, may also be necessary for effectiveness.

BackgroundHumanwide was precision health embedded in primary care aiming to leverage high-tech and high-touch medicine to promote wellness, predict and prevent illness, and tailor treatment to individual medical and psychosocial needs.MethodsWe conducted a study assessing implementation outcomes to inform spread and scale, using mixed methods of semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders and chart reviews. Humanwide included: 1) health coaching; 2) four digital health tools for blood-pressure, weight, glucose, and activity; 3) pharmacogenomic testing; and 4) genetic screening/testing. We examined implementation science constructs: reach/penetration, acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability. Chart reviews captured preliminary clinical outcomes.ResultsFifty of 69 patients (72%) invited by primary care providers participated in the Humanwide pilot. We performed chart reviews for the 50 participating patients. Participants were diverse overall (50% non-white, 66% female). Over half of the participants were obese and 58% had one or more major cardiovascular risk factor: dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes. Reach/penetration of Humanwide components varied: pharmacogenomics testing 94%, health coaching 80%, genetic testing 72%, and digital health 64%. Interview participants (n=27) included patients (n=16), providers (n=9), and the 2 staff who were allocated dedicated time for Humanwide patient intake and orientation. Patients and providers reported Humanwide was acceptable; it engaged patients holistically, supported faster medication titration, and strengthened patient-provider relationships. All patients benefited clinically from at least one Humanwide component. Feasibility challenges included: low provider self-efficacy for interpreting genetics and pharmacogenomics; difficulties with data integration; patient technology challenges; and additional staffing needs. Patient financial burden concerns surfaced with respect to sustainability.ConclusionThis is the first report of implementation of a multi-component precision health model embedded in team-based primary care. We found acceptance from both patients and providers; however, feasibility barriers must be overcome to enable broad spread and sustainability. We found that barriers to implementation of precision health in a team-based primary care clinic are mundane and straightforward, though not necessarily easy to overcome. Future implementation endeavors should invest in basics: education, workflow, and reflection/evaluation. Strengthening fundamentals will enable healthcare systems to more nimbly accept the responsibility of meeting patients at the crossroads of innovative science and routinized clinical systems.

PurposeAssess effectiveness of Primary Care 2.0: a team-based model that incorporates increased medical assistant (MA) to primary care physician (PCP) ratio, integration of advanced practice clinicians, expanded MA roles, and extended the interprofessional team.MethodsProspective, quasi-experimental evaluation of staff/clinician team development and wellness survey data, comparing Primary Care 2.0 to conventional clinics within our academic health care system. We surveyed before the model launch and every 6-9 months up to 24 months post implementation. Secondary outcomes (cost, quality metrics, patient satisfaction) were assessed via routinely collected operational data.ResultsTeam development significantly increased in the Primary Care 2.0 clinic, sustained across all 3 post implementation time points (+12.2, +8.5, + 10.1 respectively, vs baseline, on the 100-point Team Development Measure) relative to the comparison clinics. Among wellness domains, only "control of work" approached significant gains (+0.5 on a 5-point Likert scale, P = .05), but was not sustained. Burnout did not have statistically significant relative changes; the Primary Care 2.0 site showed a temporal trend of improvement at 9 and 15 months. Reversal of this trend at 2 years corresponded to contextual changes, specifically, reduced MA to PCP staffing ratio. Adjusted models confirmed an inverse relationship between team development and burnout (P

BackgroundCurrent evaluation methods are mismatched with the speed of health care innovation and needs of health care delivery partners. We introduce a qualitative approach called the lightning report method and its specific product-the "Lightning Report." We compare implementation evaluation results across four projects to explore report sensitivity and the potential depth and breadth of lightning report method findings.MethodsThe lightning report method was refined over 2.5 years across four projects: team-based primary care, cancer center transformation, precision health in primary care, and a national life-sustaining decisions initiative. The novelty of the lightning report method is the application of Plus/Delta/Insight debriefing to dynamic implementation evaluation. This analytic structure captures Plus ("what works"), Delta ("what needs to be changed"), and Insights (participant or evaluator insights, ideas, and recommendations). We used structured coding based on implementation science barriers and facilitators outlined in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied to 17 Lightning Reports from four projects.ResultsHealth care partners reported that Lighting Reports were valuable, easy to understand, and they implied reports supported "corrective action" for implementations. Comparative analysis revealed cross-project emphasis on the domains of Inner Setting and Intervention Characteristics, with themes of communication, resources/staffing, feedback/reflection, alignment with simultaneous interventions and traditional care, and team cohesion. In three of the four assessed projects, the largest proportion of coding was to the clinic-level domain of Inner Setting-ranging from 39% for the cancer center project to a high of 56% for the life-sustaining decisions project.ConclusionsThe lightning report method can fill a gap in rapid qualitative approaches and is generalizable with consistent but flexible core methods. Comparative analysis suggests it is a sensitive tool, capable of uncovering differences and insights in implementation across projects. The Lightning Report facilitates partnered evaluation and communication with stakeholders by providing real-time, actionable insights in dynamic health care implementations.

IntroductionThe Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a commonly used implementation science framework to facilitate design, evaluation, and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Its comprehensiveness is an asset for considering facilitators and barriers to implementation and also makes the framework cumbersome to use. We describe adaptations we made to CFIR to simplify its pragmatic application, for use in a learning health system context, in the evaluation of a complex patient-centered care transformation.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study and structured our evaluation questions, data collection methods, analysis, and reporting around CFIR. We collected qualitative data via semi-structured interviews and observations with key stakeholders throughout. We identified and documented adaptations to CFIR throughout the evaluation process.ResultsWe analyzed semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (n = 23) from clinical observations (n = 5). We made three key adaptations to CFIR: (a) promoted "patient needs and resources," a subconstruct of the outer setting, to its own domain within CFIR during data analysis; (b) divided the "inner setting" domain into three layers that account for the hierarchy of health care systems (i. pilot clinic, ii. peer clinics, and iii. overarching health care system); and (c) tailored several construct definitions to fit a patient-centered, primary care setting. Analysis yielded qualitative findings concentrated in the CFIR domains "intervention characteristics" and "outer setting," with a robust number of findings in the new domain "patient needs and resources."ConclusionsTo make CFIR more accessible and relevant for wider use in the context of patient-centered care transformations within a learning health system, a few adaptations are key. Specifically, we found success by teasing apart interactions across the inner layers of a health system, tailoring construct definitions, and placing additional focus on patient needs.

PurposeImplementing team-based care into existing primary care is challenging; understanding facilitators and barriers to implementation is critical. We assessed adoption and acceptability of new roles in the first 6 months of launching a team-based care model focused on preventive care, population health, and psychosocial support.MethodsWe conducted qualitative rapid ethnography at a community-based test clinic, including 74 hours of observations and 28 semi-structured interviews. We identified implementation themes related to team-based care and specifically the integration of three roles purposively designed to enhance coordination for better patient outcomes, including preventive screening and mental health: (1) medical assistants as care coordinators; (2) extended care team specialists, including clinical pharmacist and behavioral health professional; and (3) advanced practice providers (APPs)-ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants.ResultsAll stakeholders (ie, patients, providers, and staff) reported positive perceptions of care coordinators and extended care specialists; these roles were well defined and quickly implemented. Care coordinators effectively managed care between visits and established strong patient relationships. Specialist colocation facilitated patient access and well-supported diabetes services and mental health care. We also observed unanticipated value: Care coordinators relayed encounter-relevant chart information to providers while scribing; extended care specialists supported informal continuing medical education. In contrast, we observed uncertain definition and expectations of the APP role across stakeholders; accordingly, adoption and acceptability of the role varied.ConclusionsPractice redesign can redistribute responsibility and patient connection throughout a team but should emphasize well-defined roles. Ethnography, conducted early in implementation with multistakeholder perspectives, can provide rapid and actionable insights about where roles may need refinement or redefinition to support ultimate physical and mental health outcomes for patients.

In recent years, health care policy makers have focused increasingly on addressing social drivers of health as a strategy for improving health and health equity. Impacts of social, economic, and environmental conditions on health are well established. However, less is known about the implementation and impact of approaches used by health care providers and payers to address social drivers of health in clinical settings. This article reviews current efforts by US health care organizations and public payers such as Medicaid and Medicare to address social drivers of health at the individual and community levels. We summarize the limited available evidence regarding intervention impacts on health care utilization, costs, and integration of care and identify key lessons learned from current implementation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participatory approaches to implementation science (IS) offer an inclusive, collaborative, and iterative perspective on implementing and sustaining evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to advance health equity. This review provides guidance on the principles and practice of participatory IS, which enables academic researchers, community members, implementers, and other actors to collaboratively integrate practice-, community-, and research-based evidence into public health and health care services. With a foundational focus on supporting academics in coproducing knowledge and action, participatory IS seeks to improve health, reduce inequity, and create transformational change. The three main sections of this review provide (a) a rationale for participatory approaches to research in implementation science, (b) a framework for integrating participatory approaches in research utilizing IS theory and methods, and (c) critical considerations for optimizing the practice and impact of participatory IS. Ultimately, participatory approaches can move IS activities beyond efforts to make EBIs work within harmful systems toward transformative solutions that reshape these systems to center equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Melanoma mortality rates in the US are highest among older men, individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES), and people of color. To better understand these inequities, a qualitative exploratory study was conducted in Northern and Southern California to generate knowledge about barriers and facilitators of awareness, prevention, and early detection of melanoma in lower SES Latinx and non‐Latinx White (NLW) individuals living in urban and semi‐rural areas. Methods: Nineteen focus groups were conducted (N = 176 adult participants), stratified by race/ethnicity (Latinx, low‐income NLW), geography (semi‐rural, urban), and language (English and Spanish). Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was conducted, and the findings were organized using the socioecological model framework: individual, interpersonal, community, and health system/policy levels. Results: Four socioecological themes describe how key factors affect knowledge, perceived risk, preventive behaviors, and melanoma screening. Individual level findings revealed that many participants were not familiar with melanoma, yet were willing to learn through trusted sources. Having brown or darker skin tone was perceived as being associated with lower risk for skin cancer. Interpersonally, social relationships were important influences for skin cancer prevention practice. However, for several Latinx and semi‐rural participants, conversations about melanoma prevention did not occur with family and peers. At the community level, semi‐rural participants reported distance or lack of transportation to a clinic as challenges for accessing dermatology care. Healthcare systems barriers included burdens of additional healthcare costs for dermatology visits and obtaining referral. Conclusions: Varying factors influence the awareness levels, beliefs, and behaviors associated with knowledge, prevention, and early detection of melanoma among low‐income Latinx and NLW individuals and in semi‐rural areas. Results have implications for health education interventions. Navigation strategies that target individuals, families, and health care settings can promote improved prevention and early detection of melanoma in these communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]