A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

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

mHealth Intervention for Vietnamese Living With Diabetes: Protocol for a Stepped Wedge Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates participation in a diabetes self-management education and support program improves self-care behaviors and hemoglobin A1c. Language and cultural differences may be barriers to program participation resulting in ineffective self-management, but these factors can be addressed with appropriate interventions. Given the high health care costs associated with diabetes complications, we developed a multicomponent, culturally tailored Self-Management Mobile Health Intervention for US Vietnamese With Diabetes (SMart-D). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the SMart-D intervention's feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness with intentions to scale up the intervention in the future. This mixed methods study incorporates the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework to evaluate the intervention. METHODS: This stepped wedge randomized controlled pilot study will be conducted over 2 years in collaboration with primary care clinics. Eligible participants are patients with type 2 diabetes who are receiving health care from participating clinics. Clinics will be randomly assigned to an implementation date and will begin with patients enrolling in the control period while receiving standard care, then cross over to the intervention period where patients receive standard care plus the SMart-D intervention for over 12 weeks. Focus groups or interviews will be conducted with clinicians and patients after study completion. Qualitative data will be analyzed using NVivo. Outcomes on self-care behavior changes will be measured with the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities scale and clinical changes will be measured using laboratory tests. A generalized linear mixed-effect model will be used to compute time effect, clustering effect, and the interaction of the control and intervention periods using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute). RESULTS: We hypothesize that (1) at least 50% (n=5) of eligible clinics and 50% (n=40) of eligible patients who are invited will participate, and at least 70% (n=56) of patients will complete the program, and (2) patients who receive the intervention will have improved self-care behaviors and clinical test results with at least 75% (n=60) of the patients maintaining improved outcomes at follow-up visits compared with baseline, and participants will verbalize that the intervention is feasible and acceptable. As of August 2023, we enrolled 10 clinics and 60 patients. Baseline data results will be available by the end of 2023 and outcome data will be published in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first Vietnamese diabetes self-management education and support intervention that leverages mobile health technology to address the barriers of language and culture differences through collaboration with primary care clinics. This study will provide a better understanding of the implementation process, demonstrate the potential effectiveness of the intervention, accelerate the pace of moving evidence-based interventions to practice among the US Vietnamese population, and potentially provide a replicable implementation model that can be culturally adapted to other non-English speaking ethnic minorities. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48585.

Mobile Health Interventions to Improve Health Behaviors and Healthcare Services among Vietnamese Individuals: A Systematic Review.

The purpose of this review is to summarize the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of interventions that utilize mobile health (mHealth) technology to promote health behavior changes or improve healthcare services among the Vietnamese population. Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published from 2011-2022. Studies utilizing mHealth to promote behavior change and/or improve healthcare services among Vietnamese were included. Studies that included Vietnamese people among other Asians but did not analyze the Vietnamese group separately were excluded. Three independent researchers extracted data using Covidence following PRISMA guidelines. Measures of feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy were synthesized. The ROBINS-I and RoB2 tools were used to evaluate methodological quality. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria and included 5660 participants. Participants rated high satisfaction, usefulness, and efficacy of mHealth interventions. Short message service was most frequently used to provide health education, support smoking cessation, monitor chronic diseases, provide follow-up, and manage vaccination. Measures of feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy varied across studies; overall findings indicated that mHealth is promising for promoting lifestyle behavior change and improving healthcare services. Cost effectiveness and long-term outcomes of mHealth interventions among the Vietnamese population are unknown and merit further research. Recommendations to integrate mHealth interventions are provided to promote the health of Vietnamese people.

Econometric evaluation of implementing a behavioral health integration intervention in primary care settings.

Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 - 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions.

This study estimated the cost of implementing a program that helped 8 primary care practices transition from a co-located behavioral health services model to greater integration. Our study was part of a larger study across the United States. The authors found that the per-practice program implementation cost ranged between $12,381 and $60,427 and the median cost was $20,726. Leaders of healthcare organizations that participated in this study thought that these costs represented the work of program implementation and that they were reasonable and acceptable.

Primary Care Provider Familiarity and Compliance With Preferred Practice Patterns for Comprehensive Eye Examinations.

PURPOSE: To assess primary care practitioners' (PCPs) familiarity with American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern (PPP) guidelines on the frequency of comprehensive eye examinations (CEEs), and to explore their opinions and practices on counseling and referring patients for CEEs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Between February 1, 2019, and June 25, 2019, an anonymous survey was emailed to clinicians holding an MD, DO, PA, or NP degree, and residents at Brigham and Women's Hospital and the University of Oklahoma. Descriptive statistics of participants' responses were reported. RESULTS: Regarding patient counseling on CEEs, 15.4% of PCPs reported "always," 48.1% "usually," and 36.5% "seldom" or "never" doing so. Few PCPs (11.1%) reported being able to describe the guidelines, and 63.9% were unaware of their existence. A strong majority of PCPs (90.7%) correctly referred a type 2 diabetic patient at their time of diagnosis, but a similar majority (77.8%) prematurely referred a newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic patient. One in 7 PCPs (13.4%) would refer a patient with family history of glaucoma only upon developing visual/ocular symptoms. Compared to other providers, PAs/NPs were more likely to recommend unnecessary CEEs for low-risk individuals (P = .009), whereas residents counseled patients less frequently (P = .003), were less likely to be familiar with PPP guidelines (P = .026), and were less likely to recommend appropriate follow-ups for patients with family history of glaucoma (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' awareness of and familiarity with AAO CEE guidelines is variable and improves with provider age and experience. Efforts to improve PCP guideline awareness may be especially well suited to residents and mid-level practitioners.

Identifying Priorities and Strategies for Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in Tribal Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd most frequently diagnosed cancer and the 2nd leading cause of cancer death in the United States (US), and incidence and mortality rates in Oklahoma are higher for many American Indian (AI) populations than other populations. The AI CRC Screening Consortium addresses major regional CRC screening disparities among AIs with shared objectives to increase CRC screening delivery and uptake in AIs aged 50 to 75 years at average risk for CRC and to assess the effectiveness of implementations of the interventions. This manuscript reports environmental scan findings related to current practices and multi-stakeholder experiences with CRC screening in two Oklahoma Indian health care systems. METHOD: We conducted a mixed methods environmental scan across five clinical sites and with multiple stakeholders to determine the scope and scale of colorectal cancer screening in two separate AI health care delivery systems in Oklahoma. Data collection consisted of a mixture of individual interviews and group discussions at an urban site, and four clinical care sites within a tribal health system. RESULTS: Sixty-two individuals completed interviews. Data from these interviews will inform the development of evidence-based intervention strategies to increase provider delivery, community access to, and community priority for CRC screening in diverse AI health care delivery systems. Conversations with patients, providers, and clinical leadership point to individual and system-level opportunities for improvement at each site, shaped in part by differences in the delivery of services, structure of the health care system, and capacity to implement new intervention strategies. The thematic areas most central to the process of evidenced-based intervention development included: current practices, needs and recommendations, and CRC site priorities. CONCLUSION: Environmental scan data indicated clear opportunities for individual and system-level interventions to enhance CRC screening and was critical for understanding readiness for EBI implementation at each site.

A Review of 50 Years of International Literature on the External Environment of Building Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs).

BACKGROUND: This article is the second part of a novel scoping review of the international literature that presents those key elements that underpin the foundational activities of Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs). In this article, we examine the external environment and the intersection between the internal and external environment domains. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and SAGE for publications in English between 1/1/1965 and 9/15/2021. We also searched reference lists of selected publications, gray literature and other online sources. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to construct the main themes, subthemes, and key elements from a scoping review covering up to 10 years of reported experiences of each of the 98 PBRNs that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In this study we present 2 main themes: "Stakeholders at the Intersection Between the Internal and External Environment" and the "External Environment." The first is linked to the subthemes "Patient and Community Stakeholders" and "Other Healthcare Stakeholders" and 11 key elements. The second relates to the subthemes "National Health System," "Institutional/Governmental Support, National/State Policy and Regulatory Environment" "Professional Organizations," "Leveraging Previous Research and PBRN Experience and Interacting with Other Networks" and "Health Information Technology (HIT) and HIT Vendors" and 21 key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variations in geography, time, and healthcare context, PBRNs shared many similar developmental experiences over the past 5 decades. Their external environment contributed significantly to their developmental trajectories during the first 10 years of their operation.

Oncology and Primary Care Provider Views on Cancer Survivorship Care: Mind the Gap.

CONTEXT: Coordination between oncology and primary care practices in cancer survivorship is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To identify cancer care coordination perceptions, knowledge, and practices in a sample of Oklahoma oncology care providers (ONCs) and primary care providers (PCPs) regarding post-treatment care of adult cancer survivors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, statewide survey by mail/web link in 2014/5. SETTING: PCPs identified through a primary care research network, primary care organization membership lists; ONCs identified through www.Healthgrades.com. PARTICIPANTS: Contacts who were clinically active and seeing cancer patients were eligible. The final sample size included 101 ONCs and 58 PCPs who reported actively seeing cancer patients. MEASURES: Responses to predominately Likert scale or ranked-order questions derived from the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. ANALYSES: Chi square and t tests were performed to test bivariate associations between provider type and survey measures. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences (P < .05) between ONC and PCP perceptions were observed for several questions on communication between the 2 provider types, ONC perceptions of PCP ability to address survivorship care, and responsibilities for post-treatment care. CONCLUSIONS: Highly discrepant perspectives between ONCs and PCPs regarding communications and responsibilities for survivorship care may lead to adverse health outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving care coordination for cancer survivors should define each provider group's responsibilities in survivorship care, and create structures and processes that foster clear channels of communication between ONC and PCP practices.

Provider Communication: The Key to Care Coordination Between Tribal Primary Care and Community Oncology Providers.

PURPOSE: To explore tribal primary care providers' and community oncology providers' experiences of caring for individuals with cancer to inform intervention development and improve cancer care coordination in this high-need population. PARTICIPANTS & SETTING: 33 tribal primary care providers and 22 nontribal, community-based oncology providers. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: A qualitative, descriptive design was used, and 55 semistructured individual interviews were completed. Data were analyzed using conventional inductive content analysis to identify major themes. FINDINGS: Effective care coordination for individuals with cancer was characterized by timely communication. Providers in both settings identified unhindered communication between providers as a key element of care coordination. Identification of points of contact in each setting enhanced information exchange. As patient needs related to cancer care intensified, care coordination increased in complexity. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Evaluating strategies to enhance communication between tribal primary care providers and community oncology providers is an important next step in enhancing the coordination of care for tribal individuals with cancer.

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

Effect of Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations vs Usual Care on Patient Interest and Use of Recommendations: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: This randomized clinical trial examines the feasibility and acceptability of a decision-making tool for increasing patient interest in individualized recommendations for preventive care services. Objective: To pilot a tool to help patients compare life expectancy gains from evidence-based preventive services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial examined patient and physician responses to a pilot decision tool incorporating personalized risk factors at 3 US primary care clinics between 2017 and 2020. Eligible patients were between ages 45 to 70 years with 2 or more high-risk factors. Patients were followed-up after 1 year. Interventions: The gain in life expectancy associated with guideline adherence to each recommended preventive service was estimated. Personalized estimates incorporating risk factors in electronic health records were displayed in a physician-distributed visual aid. During development, physicians discussed individualized results with patients using shared decision-making (SDM). During the trial, patients were randomized to receive individualized recommendations or usual care (nonmasked, parallel, 1:1 ratio). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was patient interest in individualized recommendations, assessed by survey. Secondary outcomes were use of SDM, decisional comfort, readiness to change, and preventive services received within 1 year. Results: The study enrolled 104 patients (31 development, 39 intervention, 34 control), of whom 101 were included in analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [5.3] years; 73 [72.3%] women; 80 [79.2%] Black patients) and 20 physicians. Intervention patients found the tool helpful and wanted to use it again, rating it a median 9 of 10 (IQR, 8-10) and 10 of 10 (8-10), respectively. Compared with the control group, intervention patients more often correctly identified the service least likely (18 [46%] vs 0; P = .03) to improve their life expectancy. A greater number of patients also identified the service most likely to improve their life expectancy (26 [69%] vs 10 [30%]; P = .07), although this result was not statistically significant. Intervention patients reported greater mean [SD] improvement in SDM (4.7 [6.9] points) and near-term readiness to change (13.8 points for top-3-ranked recommendations). Point estimates indicated that patients in the intervention group experienced greater, although non-statistically significant, reductions in percentage of body weight (-2.96%; 95% CI, -8.18% to 2.28%), systolic blood pressure (-6.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -16.12 to 3.27 mm Hg), hemoglobin A1c (-0.68%; 95% CI, -1.82% to 0.45%), 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score (-1.20%; 95% CI, -3.65% to 1.26%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.46 mg/dL; 95% CI, -26.63 to 9.70 mg/dL) than the control group. Nineteen of 20 physicians wanted to continue using the decision tool in the future. Conclusions and Relevance: In this clinical trial, an individualized preventive care decision support tool improved patient understanding of primary prevention and demonstrated promise for improved shared decision-making and preventive care utilization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03023813.

A Review of 50-Years of International Literature on the Internal Environment of Building Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs).

PURPOSE: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have developed dynamically across the world, paralleling the emergence of the primary care discipline. While this review focuses on the internal environment of PBRNs, the complete framework will be presented incrementally in future publications. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the published and gray literature. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and SAGE Premier, were searched for publications between January 1, 1965 and December 31, 2020 for English-language articles. Rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria were implemented to identify relevant publications, and inductive thematic analysis was applied to elucidate key elements, subthemes, and themes. Social network theory was used to synthesize findings. RESULTS: A total of 229 publications described the establishment of 93 PBRNs in 15 countries that met the inclusion criteria. The overall framework yielded 3 main themes, 12 subthemes, and 57 key elements. Key PBRN activities included relationship building between academia and practitioners and development of a learning environment through multidirectional communication. CONCLUSIONS: PBRNs across many countries contributed significantly to shaping the landscape of primary health care and became an integral part of it. Many common features within the sphere of PBRNs can be identified that seem to promote their establishment across the world.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

A Taxonomy for External Support for Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: There is no commonly accepted comprehensive framework for describing the practical specifics of external support for practice change. Our goal was to develop such a taxonomy that could be used by both external groups or researchers and health care leaders. METHODS: The leaders of 8 grants from Agency for Research and Quality for the EvidenceNOW study of improving cardiovascular preventive services in over 1500 primary care practices nationwide worked collaboratively over 18 months to develop descriptions of key domains that might comprehensively characterize any external support intervention. Combining literature reviews with our practical experiences in this initiative and past work, we aimed to define these domains and recommend measures for them. RESULTS: The taxonomy includes 1 domain to specify the conceptual model(s) on which an intervention is built and another to specify the types of support strategies used. Another 5 domains provide specifics about the dose/mode of that support, the types of change process and care process changes that are encouraged, and the degree to which the strategies are prescriptive and standardized. A model was created to illustrate how the domains fit together and how they would respond to practice needs and reactions. CONCLUSIONS: This taxonomy and its use in more consistently documenting and characterizing external support interventions should facilitate communication and synergies between 3 areas (quality improvement, practice change research, and implementation science) that have historically tended to work independently. The taxonomy was designed to be as useful for practices or health systems managing change as it is for research.

A Sustainable Model for Preventive Services in Rural Counties: The Healthier Together Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Healthier Together study aimed to implement and evaluate a sustainable, rural community-based patient outreach model for preventive care provided through primary care practices located in 3 rural counties in Oklahoma. Community-based wellness coordinators (WCs) working with primary care practitioners, county health departments, local hospitals, and health information exchange (HIE) networks helped residents receive high-priority evidence-based preventive services. METHODS: The WCs used a wellness registry connected to electronic medical records and HIEs and called patients at the county level, based on primary care practitioner-preferred protocols. The registry flagged patient-level preventive care gaps, tracked outreach efforts, and documented the delivery of services throughout the community. Return on investment (ROI) in participating organizations was estimated by the study team. RESULTS: Forty-four of the 59 eligible clinician practices participated in the study. Two regional HIEs supplied periodic health data updates for 71,989 patients seen in the 3 implementation counties. A total of 45,862 outreach calls were made by 6 WCs, 100,896 high-priority recommendations were offered to patients based on care gaps and 14,043 additional services were delivered. Of all the patients reached, only 1917 (4.2%) were up to date on all prioritized services. Participating primary care practices significantly improved the delivery of preventive services (mean increase: 20.2% across 12 services; P < .001; range: 7% to 43%) and realized a mean ROI of 68%. Health systems that employed the WCs earned a mean revenue of $175,000, realizing a 75% ROI for the outreach program. CONCLUSIONS: Although health care is under-resourced and segmented in many rural counties, when stakeholder partnerships are established, they may be able to achieve and economically sustain community-wide health improvement by creating a win-win situation for all partners.

Validity of Medical Record Abstraction and Electronic Health Record-Generated Reports to Assess Performance on Cardiovascular Quality Measures in Primary Care.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. To improve cardiovascular outcomes, primary care must have valid methods of assessing performance on cardiovascular clinical quality measures, including aspirin use (aspirin measure), blood pressure control (BP measure), and smoking cessation counseling and intervention (smoking measure). Objective: To compare observed performance scores measured using 2 imperfect reference standard data sources (medical record abstraction [MRA] and electronic health record [EHR]-generated reports) with misclassification-adjusted performance scores obtained using bayesian latent class analysis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a subset of the 2016 aspirin, BP, and smoking performance data from the Healthy Hearts for Oklahoma Project. Each clinical quality measure was calculated for a subset of a practice's patient population who can benefit from recommended care (ie, the eligible population). A random sample of 380 eligible patients were included for the aspirin measure; 126, for the BP measure; and 115, for the smoking measure. Data were collected from 21 primary care practices belonging to a single large health care system from January 1 to December 31, 2018, and analyzed from February 21 to April 17, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes include performance scores for the aspirin, BP, and smoking measures using imperfect MRA and EHRs and estimated through bayesian latent class models. Results: A total of 621 eligible patients were included in the analysis. Based on MRA and EHR data, observed aspirin performance scores were 76.0% (95% bayesian credible interval [BCI], 71.5%-80.1%) and 74.9% (95% BCI, 70.4%-79.1%), respectively; observed BP performance scores, 80.6% (95% BCI, 73.2%-86.9%) and 75.1% (95% BCI, 67.2%-82.1%), respectively; and observed smoking performance scores, 85.7% (95% BCI, 78.6%-91.2%) and 75.4% (95% BCI, 67.0%-82.6%), respectively. Misclassification-adjusted estimates were 74.9% (95% BCI, 70.5%-79.1%) for the aspirin performance score, 75.0% (95% BCI, 66.6%-82.5%) for the BP performance score, and 83.0% (95% BCI, 74.4%-89.8%) for the smoking performance score. Conclusions and Relevance: Ensuring valid performance measurement is critical for value-based payment models and quality improvement activities in primary care. This study found that extracting information for the same individuals using different data sources generated different performance score estimates. Further research is required to identify the sources of these differences.

Physicians' Response to Patients' Quality-of-Life Goals.

PURPOSE: Patients are able to participate in quality-of-life (QOL) discussions, but clinicians struggle to incorporate this information into encounters and shared decision making. We designed a study to determine if a clinician-initiated prompt could make patient visits more goal directed. METHODS: Patients were given a previsit questionnaire that included QOL questions. Physicians in the control were given no further prompting. The intervention physicians were prompted to ask a QOL question: what things are you unable to do because of your health problems today? A 2-pronged design was used: 1 prepost group where 3 physicians participated in 5 control and 5 intervention encounters (n = 30) and a randomized group in which 11 physicians and their patients were randomly assigned to control or intervention groups (n = 30). Video recordings of the encounters were reviewed to determine if QOL goals were mentioned and if they were utilized in decision making. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (95%) of the 60 patients provided written answers to at least 1 of the QOL questions on the intake form. QOL goals were mentioned during intervention encounters more often than in control groups. QOL information was used in shared decision making in only 4 of the 30 (13%) intervention encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians were able to engage in QOL discussions with their patients, but did not translate that information to medical decision making. More research is needed to understand why clinicians opt not to use QOL information and how to make communication more goal directed.

Improving the Adoption of Advance Directives in Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: Oklahoma's Advance Directive completion rate is less than 10%. We compared the implementation performance of 2 advance directive forms to determine which form could be more successfully disseminated. METHODS: The implementation of the Oklahoma Advance Directive (OKAD) and the Five Wishes form were compared in an 8-month pair-matched cluster randomized study in 6 primary care practices. The outcomes measured during the 22-week implementation included form offering rate, acceptance/completion rate by patients, and documentation in the chart. Twenty semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians were conducted to assess intervention experience. RESULTS: A total of 2748 patient encounters were evaluated. OKAD was offered in 33% of eligible patient visits (493/1494) and accepted 54% of the time (266/493). Five Wishes was offered in 36% of eligible patient visits (450/1254) and accepted 82% of the time (369/450). Unadjusted analyses found no significant difference in offering of advance directive forms between groups. However, the odds of accepting Five Wishes were 3.89 times that of OKAD (95% CI, 2.88 to 5.24; P < .0001). Logistic regression models controlling for several confounders indicated that the acceptance of Five Wishes was favored significantly over OKAD (OR = 1.52; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.81; P < .0001). Qualitative analyses indicated a clear clinician and patient preference for Five Wishes. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that Five Wishes was more readable, understandable, appealing, and usable. It seemed to capture patient preferences for end-of-life care more effectively and it more readily facilitated patient-clinician conversations.