Implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic family health history based risk assessment and impact on clinical disease prevention and surveillance activities.

BACKGROUND: Systematically assessing disease risk can improve population health by identifying those eligible for enhanced prevention/screening strategies. This study aims to determine the clinical impact of a systematic risk assessment in diverse primary care populations. METHODS: Hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of a family health history-based health risk assessment (HRA) tied to risk-based guideline recommendations enrolling from 2014-2017 with 12 months of post-intervention survey data and 24 months of electronic medical record (EMR) data capture. SETTING: 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse U.S. healthcare systems. PARTICIPANTS: any English or Spanish-speaking adult with an upcoming appointment at an enrolling clinic. METHODS: A personal and family health history based HRA with integrated guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) was completed by each participant prior to their appointment. Risk reports were provided to patients and providers to discuss at their clinical encounter. OUTCOMES: provider and patient discussion and provider uptake (i.e. ordering) and patient uptake (i.e. recommendation completion) of CDS recommendations. MEASURES: patient and provider surveys and EMR data. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred twenty nine participants (mean age 56.2 [SD13.9], 69.6% female) completed the HRA and had EMR data available for analysis. 762 (41.6%) received a recommendation (29.7% for genetic counseling (GC); 15.2% for enhanced breast/colon cancer screening). Those with recommendations frequently discussed disease risk with their provider (8.7%-38.2% varied by recommendation, p-values ≤ 0.004). In the GC subgroup, provider discussions increased referrals to counseling (44.4% with vs. 5.9% without, P < 0.001). Recommendation uptake was highest for colon cancer screening (provider = 67.9%; patient = 86.8%) and lowest for breast cancer chemoprevention (0%). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic health risk assessment revealed that almost half the population were at increased disease risk based on guidelines. Risk identification resulted in shared discussions between participants and providers but variable clinical action uptake depending upon the recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to uptake by both patients and providers will be essential for optimizing HRA tools and achieving their promise of improving population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Primary care clinicians' opinions before and after implementation of cancer screening and prevention clinical decision support in a clinic cluster-randomized control trial: a survey research study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical decision support (CDS) may impact primary care clinicians' (PCCs') clinical care opinions. As part of a clinic cluster-randomized control trial (RCT) testing a cancer prevention and screening CDS system with patient and PCC printouts (with or without shared decision-making tools [SDMT]) for patients due for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination compared to usual care (UC), we surveyed PCCs at study clinics pre- and post-CDS implementation. Our primary aim was to learn if PCCs' opinions changed over time within study arms. Secondary aims including examining whether PCCs' opinions in study arms differed both pre- and post-implementation, and gauging PCCs' opinions on the CDS in the two intervention arms. METHODS: This study was conducted within a healthcare system serving an upper Midwestern population. We administered pre-implementation (11/2/2017-1/24/2018) and post-implementation (2/2/2020-4/9/2020) cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs practicing within a RCT arm: UC; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Bivariate analyses compared responses between study arms at both time periods and longitudinally within study arms. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (53%, n = 166) and post-implementation (57%, n = 172) response rates were similar. No significant differences in PCC responses were seen between study arms on cancer prevention and screening questions pre-implementation, with few significant differences found between study arms post-implementation. However, significantly fewer intervention arm clinic PCCs reported being very comfortable with discussing breast cancer screening options with patients compared to UC post-implementation, as well as compared to the same intervention arms pre-implementation. Other significant differences were noted within arms longitudinally. For intervention arms, these differences related to CDS areas like EHR alerts, risk calculators, and ordering screening. Most intervention arm PCCs noted the CDS provided overdue screening alerts to which they were unaware. Few PCCs reported using the CDS, but most would recommend it to colleagues, expressed high CDS satisfaction rates, and thought patients liked the CDS's information and utility. CONCLUSIONS: While appreciated by PCCs with high satisfaction rates, the CDS may lower PCCs' confidence regarding discussing patients' breast cancer screening options and may be used irregularly. Future research will evaluate the impact of the CDS on cancer prevention and screening rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Assessing the implementation of a clinical decision support tool in primary care for diabetes prevention: a qualitative interview study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science.

BACKGROUND: In this paper we describe the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to study implementation of a web-based, point-of-care, EHR-linked clinical decision support (CDS) tool designed to identify and provide care recommendations for adults with prediabetes (Pre-D CDS). METHODS: As part of a large NIH-funded clinic-randomized trial, we identified a convenience sample of interview participants from 22 primary care clinics in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin that were randomly allocated to receive or not receive a web-based EHR-integrated prediabetes CDS intervention. Participants included 11 clinicians, 6 rooming staff, and 7 nurse or clinic managers recruited by study staff to participate in telephone interviews conducted by an expert in qualitative methods. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data analysis was conducted using a constructivist version of grounded theory. RESULTS: Implementing a prediabetes CDS tool into primary care clinics was useful and well received. The intervention was integrated with clinic workflows, supported primary care clinicians in clearly communicating prediabetes risk and management options with patients, and in identifying actionable care opportunities. The main barriers to CDS use were time and competing priorities. Finally, while the implementation process worked well, opportunities remain in engaging the care team more broadly in CDS use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CDS tools for engaging patients and providers in care improvement opportunities for prediabetes is a promising and potentially effective strategy in primary care settings. A workflow that incorporates the whole care team in the use of such tools may optimize the implementation of CDS tools like these in primary care settings. Trial registration Name of the registry: Clinicaltrial.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02759055. Date of registration: 05/03/2016. URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02759055 Prospectively registered.

Clinician perceptions of a clinical decision support system to reduce cardiovascular risk among prediabetes patients in a predominantly rural healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: The early detection and management of uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors among prediabetes patients can prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Prediabetes increases the risk of CVD, which is a leading cause of death in the United States. CVD clinical decision support (CDS) in primary care settings has the potential to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with prediabetes while potentially saving clinicians time. The objective of this study is to understand primary care clinician (PCC) perceptions of a CDS system designed to reduce CVD risk in adults with prediabetes. METHODS: We administered pre-CDS implementation (6/30/2016 to 8/25/2016) (n = 183, 61% response rate) and post-CDS implementation (6/12/2019 to 8/7/2019) (n = 131, 44.5% response rate) independent cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs at 36 randomized primary care clinics participating in a federally funded study of a CVD risk reduction CDS tool. Surveys assessed PCC demographics, experiences in delivering prediabetes care, perceptions of CDS impact on shared decision making, perception of CDS impact on control of major CVD risk factors, and overall perceptions of the CDS tool when managing cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: We found few significant differences when comparing pre- and post-implementation responses across CDS intervention and usual care (UC) clinics. A majority of PCCs felt well-prepared to discuss CVD risk factor control with patients both pre- and post-implementation. About 73% of PCCs at CDS intervention clinics agreed that the CDS helped improve risk control, 68% reported the CDS added value to patient clinic visits, and 72% reported they would recommend use of this CDS system to colleagues. However, most PCCs disagreed that the CDS saves time talking about preventing diabetes or CVD, and most PCCs also did not find the clinical domains useful, nor did PCCs believe that the clinical domains were useful in getting patients to take action. Finally, only about 38% reported they were satisfied with the CDS. CONCLUSIONS: These results improve our understanding of CDS user experience and can be used to guide iterative improvement of the CDS. While most PCCs agreed the CDS improves CVD and diabetes risk factor control, they were generally not satisfied with the CDS. Moreover, only 40-50% agreed that specific suggestions on clinical domains helped patients to take action. In spite of this, an overwhelming majority reported they would recommend the CDS to colleagues, pointing for the need to improve upon the current CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02759055 03/05/2016.

Family satisfaction in a neuro trauma ICU.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to evaluate satisfaction of family members of patients in a neuro trauma ICU (NTICU). METHODS: Adult patients (age 18+) admitted to the NTICU for at least 24 hours between June 2017 and November 2018 were identified. Near or at the time of discharge from the NTICU, the health unit coordinator or registered nurse identified the family member who was either the next-of-kin, surrogate decision-maker, or person who had been most frequently present at the patient's bedside. This person was provided a packet containing a letter of consent and the Critical Care Family Satisfaction Survey (CCFSS). RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 78 family members, the majority of whom were the wife of the patient (n = 35, 44%), 60 years and older (n = 48, 60.8%). Fifty-seven percent of patients (n = 45) were in the ICU less than 3 days and 59% (n = 47) of medical events were injury-related. Total CCFSS scores ranged from 69 to 100 (median 95). The item with the largest number of dissatisfied responses was "Noise level in the critical care unit" (n = 4, 5.3% not satisfied). Open-ended question comments were primarily positive (n = 60, 66%), with 32% (n = 29) representing areas for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this satisfaction survey have been disseminated to leadership and have been taken into consideration in the planning of a new hospital building currently being built, including ICU patient rooms that allow for more privacy and reduced noise, and more comfortable family rooms. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Family members are a very useful source of feedback for ICU care. Several concerns identified by family members in this study are likely to be relevant to other sites. These included: communication between health care providers and family about patient status, noise in the ICU, peaceful waiting areas for family, and slow transfers.

The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients' views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients' perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient's perceptions on cancer screening or prevention. METHODS: We mailed surveys (10/2018-1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents' answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. RESULTS: Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Evaluating our progress with trauma transfer imaging: repeat CT scans, incomplete imaging, and delayed definitive care.

PURPOSE: Many trauma patients present at non-trauma centers and require transfer. CT imaging obtained at the initial hospital (IH) may lead to delays in definitive trauma care, and previous studies have shown imaging is often repeated at the trauma center (TC). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all tier 1 trauma patients transferred to our TC between May 2018 and April 2019. Patients that did and did not undergo CT imaging at the IH were compared (n = 147). Of those with IH CT imaging (n = 68), we identified 4 imaging "inadequacies": (1) repeat CT scans: CT scan of the same body region performed at IH and at TC; (2) C-spine inadequacies: severely injured patients who underwent head CT without a C-spine CT; (3) incomplete chest-abdomen-pelvis (CAP): patients with partial CAP CT imaging at IH that underwent an additional portion of CAP imaging at TC; (4) CAP CT without IV contrast. RESULTS: IH time was significantly prolonged when CT imaging was obtained. Of those that had IH imaging, 13 patients (19%) required repeat CT, ten (15%) had a C-spine inadequacy, 11 (16%) had incomplete CAP, and 28 (41%) had one or more inadequacy. Patients with any inadequacy underwent more CT imaging. Most patients (76%) with imaging at the IH returned to the CT scan at the TC. CONCLUSION: In severely injured trauma patients transferred to our TC, we identified many continuing issues with IH CT imaging. The imaging inadequacies detailed above lead to delays in definitive care and subject patients to increased radiation.

At the intersection of precision medicine and population health: an implementation-effectiveness study of family health history based systematic risk assessment in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is a precision medicine technique that can be used to enhance population health when applied to prevention. Several barriers limit the uptake of risk assessment in health care systems; and little is known about the potential impact that adoption of systematic risk assessment for screening and prevention in the primary care population might have. Here we present results of a first of its kind multi-institutional study of a precision medicine tool for systematic risk assessment. METHODS: We undertook an implementation-effectiveness trial of systematic risk assessment of primary care patients in 19 primary care clinics at four geographically and culturally diverse healthcare systems. All adult English or Spanish speaking patients were invited to enter personal and family health history data into MeTree, a patient-facing family health history driven risk assessment program, for 27 medical conditions. Risk assessment recommendations followed evidence-based guidelines for identifying and managing those at increased disease risk. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred eighty-nine participants completed MeTree, entering information on N = 25,967 individuals. Mean relatives entered = 13.7 (SD 7.9), range 7-74. N = 1443 (76.4%) participants received increased risk recommendations: 597 (31.6%) for monogenic hereditary conditions, 508 (26.9%) for familial-level risk, and 1056 (56.1%) for risk of a common chronic disease. There were 6617 recommendations given across the 1443 participants. In multivariate analysis, only the total number of relatives entered was significantly associated with receiving a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of the general primary care population meet criteria for more intensive risk management. In particular 46% for monogenic hereditary and familial level disease risk. Adopting strategies to facilitate systematic risk assessment in primary care could have a significant impact on populations within the U.S. and even beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT01956773 , registered 10/8/2013.

Pre-implementation adaptation of primary care cancer prevention clinical decision support in a predominantly rural healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Primary care providers (PCPs) juggle patient cancer prevention and screening along with managing acute and chronic health problems. However, clinical decision support (CDS) may assist PCPs in addressing patients' cancer prevention and screening needs during short clinic visits. In this paper, we describe pre-implementation study design and cancer screening and prevention CDS changes made to maximize utilization and better fit a healthcare system's goals and culture. We employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), useful for evaluating the implementation of CDS interventions in primary care settings, in understanding barriers and facilitators that led to those changes. METHODS: In a three-arm, pragmatic, 36 clinic cluster-randomized control trial, we integrated cancer screening and prevention CDS and shared decision-making tools (SDMT) into an existing electronic medical record-linked cardiovascular risk management CDS system. The integrated CDS is currently being tested within a predominately rural upper Midwestern healthcare system. Prior to CDS implementation, we catalogued pre-implementation changes made from 2016 to 2018 based on: pre-implementation site engagement; key informant interviews with healthcare system rooming staff, providers, and leadership; and pilot testing. We identified influential barriers, facilitators, and changes made in response through qualitative content analysis of meeting minutes and supportive documents. We then coded pre-implementation changes made and associated barriers and facilitators using the CFIR. RESULTS: Based on our findings from system-wide pre-implementation engagement, pilot testing, and key informant interviews, we made changes to accommodate the needs of the healthcare system based on barriers and facilitators that fell within the Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, and Outer Setting CFIR domains. Changes included replacing the expansion of medical assistant roles in one intervention arm with targeted SDMT, as well as altering cancer prevention CDS and study design elements. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-implementation changes to CDS may help meet healthcare systems' evolving needs and optimize the intervention by being responsive to real-world implementation barriers and facilitators. Frameworks like the CFIR are useful tools for identifying areas where pre-implementation barriers and facilitators may result in design changes, both to research studies and CDS systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02986230.

Understanding Respiratory Rate Assessment by Emergency Nurses: A Health Care Improvement Project.

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory rate is the first sign of patient decline. Monitoring and recording respiratory rate are essential nursing competencies. However, health care system emergency nurses' ability to differentiate normal from abnormal respiratory rates was unknown. We conducted a health care improvement project to assess emergency nurses' accuracy in "spot" and "formal" assessments, understand assessment practices, and determine competency and training needs. METHODS: In an anonymous cross-sectional survey, 78 emergency nurses from 1 health care system viewed 3 "spot" and 3 "formal" mock patient videos and answered questions in REDCap (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN). Accuracy (abnormal/normal), systematic error (bias), and random error (imprecision) were assessed. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and qualitative content analysis of open-ended questions were reported. RESULTS: Most emergency nurses identified respiration as abnormal in spot and formal assessment videos. Accuracy was lowest for the video displaying 6 breaths per minute. Emergency nurses were more likely to identify abnormal breathing in all formal assessment videos (n = 59, 75.7%) than in all spot assessment videos (n = 41, 52.6%) (McNemar χ2 = 10.32, P = 0.001). Most emergency nurses reported a willingness to use formal assessments and thought that respiratory rate was a good indicator of a patient's condition. The barriers to accurate assessment included time limitations, prior training focusing on assessments lasting less than 30 seconds, and monitor and staff errors. DISCUSSION: Respiratory rate assessment may be best assessed formally, particularly for bradypnea, where formal checks may outperform spot checks. The results present areas for improving respiratory rate assessment training and clinical practice.

Implementation, adoption, and utility of family health history risk assessment in diverse care settings: evaluating implementation processes and impact with an implementation framework.

PURPOSE: This paper describes the implementation outcomes associated with integrating a family health history-based risk assessment and clinical decision support platform within primary care clinics at four diverse healthcare systems. METHODS: A type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. Uptake and implementation processes were evaluated using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. RESULTS: One hundred (58%) primary care providers and 2514 (7.8%) adult patients enrolled. Enrolled patients were 69% female, 22% minority, and 32% Medicare/Medicaid. Compared with their respective clinic's population, patient-participants were more likely to be female (69 vs. 59%), older (mean age 57 vs. 49), and Caucasian (88 vs. 69%) (all p values <0.001). Female (81.3% of females vs. 78.5% of males, p value = 0.018) and Caucasian (Caucasians 90.4% vs. minority 84.1%, p value = 0.02) patient-participants were more likely to complete the study once enrolled. Patient-participant survey responses indicated MeTree was easy to use (95%), and patient-participants would recommend it to family/friends (91%). Minorities and those with less education reported greatest benefit. Enrolled providers reflected demographics of underlying provider population. CONCLUSION: Family health history-based risk assessment can be effectively implemented in diverse primary care settings and can effectively engage patients and providers. Future research should focus on finding better ways to engage young adults, males, and minorities in preventive healthcare.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer prevention clinical decision support in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, primary care providers (PCPs) routinely balance acute, chronic, and preventive patient care delivery, including cancer prevention and screening, in time-limited visits. Clinical decision support (CDS) may help PCPs prioritize cancer prevention and screening with other patient needs. In a three-arm, pragmatic, clinic-randomized control trial, we are studying cancer prevention CDS in a large, upper Midwestern healthcare system. The web-based, electronic health record (EHR)-linked CDS integrates evidence-based primary and secondary cancer prevention and screening recommendations into an existing cardiovascular risk management CDS system. Our objective with this study was to identify adoption barriers and facilitators before implementation in primary care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) with 28 key informants employed by the healthcare organization in either leadership roles or the direct provision of clinical care. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: EHR, CDS workflow, CDS users (providers and patients), training, and organizational barriers and facilitators were identified related to Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals CFIR domains. CONCLUSION: Identifying and addressing key informant-identified barriers and facilitators before implementing cancer prevention CDS in primary care may support a successful implementation and sustained use. The CFIR is a useful framework for understanding pre-implementation barriers and facilitators. Based on our findings, the research team developed and instituted specialized training, pilot testing, implementation plans, and post-implementation efforts to maximize identified facilitators and address barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Understanding primary care providers' perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR's ability to help assess and manage patients' cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients. RESULTS: In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.

Understanding Primary Care Provider Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Diabetes Prevention in the Northern Midwest.

IN BRIEF We sought to fill critical gaps in understanding primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs regarding diabetes prevention and cardiovascular disease risk in the prediabetes population, including through comparison of attitudes between rural and non-rural PCPs. We used data from a 2016 cross-sectional survey sent to 299 PCPs practicing in 36 primary clinics that are part of a randomized control trial in a predominately rural northern Midwestern integrated health care system. Results showed a few significant, but clinically marginal, differences between rural and non-rural PCPs. Generally, PCPs agreed with the importance of screening for prediabetes and thoroughly and clearly discussing CV risk with high-risk patients.

Long-Term Experiences in Cash and Counseling for Young Adults with Intellectual Disabilities: Familial Programme Representative Descriptions.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to explore previously unknown long-term outcomes of self-directed personal care services for young adults with intellectual disabilities and limitations in activities of daily living. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present authors utilized participatory action research and qualitative content analysis in interviewing 11 unpaid familial programme representatives of young adults with intellectual disabilities, ages 23-34, who were eligible for income-based Medicaid and enrolled five or more years in a Cash and Counseling-based programme of self-direction in the United States. RESULTS: Young adults are represented as receiving services and supports in a supportive and stable environment, with previously identified short-term programme benefits evident over the long-term. Young adults are also transitioning to adulthood at home with their families as primary social support and caregivers, bridging a service gap. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that self-direction helps meet these young adults' personal care and community engagement needs over time.

The Long-Term Effects of Participant Direction of Supports and Services for People With Disabilities.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the short-term effectiveness of the Cash and Counseling model option of participant-directed home and community-based personal care service programs for Medicaideligible recipients with disabilities requiring long-term care. However, long-term experiences with participant-directed services have yet to be examined for these individuals. We addressed this gap in the literature through participatory action research and qualitative content analysis. Working together as coresearchers with members of the National Participant Network, a peer organization for people interested in or enrolled in participant-directed services, we interviewed 17 adults enrolled in one state's Cash and Counseling-based program. Participants' ages ranged from 40 to 83 years, had been enrolled for at least 5 years, and acted as their own representative within the program. Our major findings show (a) the program's flexibility allowed for adaptation to meet participants' changing needs over time and (b) that program attendants helped connect participants with community in multiple ways. In this article, we provide important policy and practice implications for participant-directed programs for people with disabilities.

Employee Dietary Initiative Improved Chronic Symptoms.

With the awareness that the Standard American Diet is a critical contributor to chronic diseases, this initiative aimed to assess the effects of a 28-day dietary challenge health care improvement project on health system employee energy level, sleep quality, gastrointestinal function, ability to concentrate, and aches/pains, including the impact of adherence level, during a period of restricted intake of gluten, dairy, and sugar offered annually from 2021 to 2023. A total of 754 employees completed the pre-challenge survey; analyses included 354 employees who completed both pre-challenge and post-challenge surveys in at least 1 year of this project. Wilcoxon signed rank tests compared presurvey and postsurvey responses to self-reported energy level, sleep quality, gastrointestinal function, ability to concentrate, and aches/pains. Analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference tests compared self-reported adherence level with change scores, with η2 representing effect size. In each challenge year, the mean rank levels of energy, sleep quality, gastrointestinal function, concentration, and aches/pains improved significantly between pre-surveys and post-surveys (all P<.001). Although an association between significant positive change and diet adherence level was found for all items in at least 1 challenge year, those who mostly or completely adhered to the challenge diet restrictions reported significantly greater positive change in energy levels and gastrointestinal symptoms than those who did not or minimally adhered in all challenge years, with small to medium effect sizes. In conclusion, Essentia Health's employee challenge appeared to improve self-reported outcomes in 5 symptom domains, with energy levels and gastrointestinal symptoms correlating most favorably to adherence to the challenge. These findings have health and cost implications, which could be confirmed by formal research in employee and other populations.

Physician and Advanced Practice Clinician Burnout in Rural and Urban Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Recruiting rural-practicing clinicians is a high priority. In this study, we explored burnout and contributing work conditions among rural, urban, and family practice physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in an Upper Midwestern health care system. METHODS: The Mini Z burnout reduction measure was administered by anonymous electronic survey in March 2022. We conducted bivariate analyses of study variables, then assessed relationships of study variables to burnout with multivariate binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1118 clinicians (63% response rate), 589 physicians and 496 APCs were included in this study (n = 1085). Most were female (56%), physicians (54%), and White (86%), while 21% were in family practice, 46% reported burnout, and 349 practiced rurally. Rural and urban clinician burnout rates were comparable (45% vs 47%). Part-time work protected against burnout for family practice and rural clinicians, but not urban clinicians. In multivariate models for rural clinicians, stress (OR: 8.53, 95% CI: 4.09 to 17.78, P < .001), lack of workload control (OR: 3.06, 95% CI: 1.47-6.36, P = .003), busy/chaotic environments (OR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.29-4.99, P = .007), and intent to leave (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.06-4.45, P = .033) increased burnout odds. In family practice clinicians, stress (OR: 13.43 95% CI: 4.90-36.79, P < .001) also significantly increased burnout odds. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout was comparable between rural and urban physicians and APCs. Part-time work was associated with decreased burnout in rural and family practice clinicians. Addressing burnout drivers (stress, workload control, chaos) may improve rural work environments, reduce turnover, and aid rural clinician recruitment. Addressing stress may be particularly impactful in family practice.

Scanning the aged to minimize missed injury: An EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high incidence of blunt trauma in older adults, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance for computed tomography (CT) imaging in this population. We aimed to identify an algorithm to guide use of a Pan-Scan (Head/C-spine/Torso) or a Selective Scan (Head/C-spine ± Torso). We hypothesized that a patient's initial history and exam could be used to guide imaging. METHODS: We prospectively studied blunt trauma patients aged 65+ at 18 Level I/II trauma centers. Patients presenting >24 h after injury or who died upon arrival were excluded. We collected history and physical elements and final injury diagnoses. Injury diagnoses were categorized into CT body regions of Head/C-spine or Torso (chest, abdomen/pelvis, and T/L spine). Using machine learning and regression modeling as well as a priori clinical algorithms based, we tested various decision rules against our dataset. Our priority was to identify a simple rule which could be applied at the bedside, maximizing sensitivity (Sens) and negative predictive value (NPV) to minimize missed injuries. RESULTS: We enrolled 5,498 patients with 3,082 injuries. Nearly half (47.1%, n = 2,587) had an injury within the defined CT body regions. No rule to guide a Pan-Scan could be identified with suitable Sens/NPV for clinical use. A clinical algorithm to identify patients for Pan-Scan, using a combination of physical exam findings and specific high-risk criteria, was identified and had a Sens of 0.94 and NPV of 0.86 This rule would have identified injuries in all but 90 patients (1.6%) and would theoretically spare 11.9% (655) of blunt trauma patients a torso CT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings advocate for Head/Cspine CT in all geriatric patients with the addition of torso CT in the setting of positive clinical findings and high-risk criteria. Prospective validation of this rule could lead to streamlined diagnostic care of this growing trauma population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2, Diagnostic Tests or Criteria.