Hospital Capabilities Associated With Behavioral Health Integration Within Emergency Departments.

OBJECTIVES: To identify hospital capabilities associated with behavioral health (BH) processes in emergency departments (EDs). RESEARCH DESIGN: Six hundred two hospital responses to the 2017/2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems were linked to 2017 American Hospital Association Annual Survey data. Separate multivariable regressions estimated how hospital capabilities (the use of quality improvement methods, approaches to disseminate best patient-care practices, barriers to using care delivery innovations, and inpatient beds for psychiatric or substance use) were associated with each of 4 ED-based BH processes: mental health and substance use disorder screening, team-based approaches to BH, telepsychiatry, and direct referrals to community-based BH clinicians. Models controlled for hospital structural characteristics and area-level socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Most hospitals screened for BH conditions and provided direct referrals to community-based BH clinicians. Approximately half of the hospitals used a team approach to BH. A minority had implemented telepsychiatry. Each additional process used to disseminate best patient-care practices was associated with more screening for BH conditions (an increase of 4.07 points on the screening index, P <0.01) and greater likelihood of using a team approach to BH [4.41 percentage point ( P <0.01) increase]. Hospitals reporting more barriers to the use of care delivery innovations reported less screening and use of a team approach [a decrease of 0.15 points on the screening index ( P <0.01) and 0.28 percentage points reduction in likelihood of team approach use ( P <0.001) for 1-point increase in the barrier index]. CONCLUSIONS: Research and interventions focused on removing innovation barriers or adding processes to disseminate best practices offer a path to accelerate BH integration in hospital EDs.

Conceptualizing the effective mechanisms of a social needs case management program shown to reduce hospital use: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Social 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. METHODS: Using 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. RESULTS: Our 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. CONCLUSIONS: These 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.

Burnout and Health Care Workforce Turnover.

PURPOSE: Levels of burnout among primary care clinicians and staff are alarmingly high, and there is widespread belief that burnout and lack of employee engagement contribute to high turnover of the workforce. Scant research evidence exists to support this assertion, however. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study using survey data on burnout and employee engagement collected in 2013 and 2014 from 740 primary care clinicians and staff in 2 San Francisco health systems, matched to employment roster data from 2016. RESULTS: Prevalence of burnout, low engagement, and turnover were high, with 53% of both clinicians and staff reporting burnout, only 32% of clinicians and 35% of staff reporting high engagement, and 30% of clinicians and 41% of staff no longer working in primary care in the same system 2 to 3 years later. Burnout predicted clinician turnover (adjusted odds ratio = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.40); there was also a strong trend whereby low engagement predicted clinician turnover (adjusted odds ratio with high engagement = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.33-1.04). Neither measure significantly predicted turnover for staff. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of burnout and turnover in primary care are compelling problems. Our findings provide evidence that burnout contributes to turnover among primary care clinicians, but not among staff. Although reducing clinician burnout may help to decrease rates of turnover, health care organizations and policymakers concerned about employee turnover in primary care need to understand the multifactorial causes of turnover to develop effective retention strategies for clinicians and staff.

A Longitudinal Study of Trends in Burnout During Primary Care Transformation.

PURPOSE: The quadruple aim of primary care transformation includes promoting well-being among the primary care workforce. We longitudinally assessed burnout among clinicians and staff in 2 health delivery organizations engaged in primary care redesign guided by a shared transformation model. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive longitudinal study, using repeated cross-sectional measures from 6 waves of surveys of employed primary care clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) and staff conducted between 2012 to 2018 in the San Francisco Health Network and in UCSF Health. The 2018 wave had 613 respondents (response rate 88%). Outcome measures were scores on the Maslach Burnout Inventory emotional exhaustion and cynicism subscales. We used regression models to test for time trends in mean scores. RESULTS: Trends in burnout differed by system and occupation. In one system, mean clinician scores steadily improved for emotional exhaustion (P = .04) and cynicism (P = .07). In the other system, clinician burnout scores initially worsened and then returned to baseline levels. In both systems, burnout trends among staff tended to move in the opposite direction from trends among clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The divergent trends of steady reduction in clinician burnout in one system and clinician burnout getting worse before getting better in the other system suggest that the effects of primary care transformation are influenced by the organizational context. Moreover, practice changes that reduce clinician burnout may not decrease-and may potentially even worsen-burnout among staff. Primary care transformation requires continuing efforts to promote meaningful work and sustainable workloads among all members of the primary care team.

Capacity to Address Social Needs Affects Primary Care Clinician Burnout.

PURPOSE: Primary care clinicians disproportionately report symptoms of burnout, threatening workforce sustainability and quality of care. Recent surveys report that these symptoms are greater when clinicians perceive fewer clinic resources to address patients' social needs. We undertook this study to better understand the relationship between burnout and clinic capacity to address social needs. METHODS: We completed semistructured, in-person interviews and brief surveys with 29 primary care clinicians serving low-income populations. Interview and survey topics included burnout and clinic capacity to address social needs. We analyzed interviews using a modified grounded theory approach to qualitative research and used survey responses to contextualize our qualitative findings. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged from the interview analyses: (1) burnout can affect how clinicians evaluate their clinic's resources to address social needs, with clinicians reporting high emotional exhaustion perceiving low efficacy even in when such resources are available; (2) unmet social needs affect practice by influencing clinic flow, treatment planning, and clinician emotional wellness; (3) social services embedded in primary care clinics buffer against burnout by increasing efficiency, restoring clinicians' medical roles, and improving morale; and (4) clinicians view clinic-level interventions to address patients' social needs as a necessary but insufficient strategy to address burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians described multiple pathways whereby increased clinic capacity to address patients' social needs mitigates burnout symptoms. These findings may inform burnout prevention strategies that strengthen the capacity to address patients' social needs in primary care clinical settings.

Maslach Burnout Inventory and a Self-Defined, Single-Item Burnout Measure Produce Different Clinician and Staff Burnout Estimates.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare. OBJECTIVE: To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems. MAIN MEASURES: The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009). KEY RESULTS: Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

Correction to: The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that reference no. 4 be changed. The details of the correction are as follows.

Patient Engagement in Community Health Center Leadership: How Does it Happen?

Patient engagement in primary care leadership is an important means to involve community voices at community health centers. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to have patient representation within their governing boards, while practices seeking patient-centered medical home certification receive credit for implementing patient advisory councils (PACs). Our objective was to compare and contrast how community health centers engage patients in clinic management, decision-making and planning within governing boards versus PACs. Qualitative study conducted from August 2016 to June 2017 at community health centers in California, Arizona and Hawaii. We interviewed practice leaders of patient engagement programs at their site. Eligible clinics had patient representatives within their governing board, PAC, or both. We assessed patient demographics, roles and responsibilities of patients participating, and extent of involvement in quality improvement among governing boards versus PACs. We interviewed 19 sites, of which 17 were FQHCs that had governing boards. Of the 17 FQHCs, 11 had also implemented PACs. Two non-FQHC safety-net sites had PACs but did not have governing boards. Governing board members had formal, structured membership responsibilities such as finances and hiring personnel. PAC roles were more flexible, focusing on day-to-day clinic operations. Clinics tended to recruit governing board patient members for their skill set and professional experience; PAC member recruitment focused more on demographic representation of the clinic's patient population. Both groups worked on quality improvement, but governing boards tended to review clinic performance metrics, while PAC members were involved in specific project planning and implementation to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience. Patient involvement in clinic improvement in CHCs includes higher-level decision-making and governance through mechanisms such as governing boards, as well as engagement in day-to-day practice improvement through PACs. These roles offer differing, but valuable insights to clinic programs and policies.

The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient advisory councils are a way for healthcare organizations to promote patient engagement. Despite mandates to implement patient advisory councils through programs like the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), there is a paucity of data measuring the impact of patients functioning in advisory roles. Our objective is to investigate whether patient engagement in patient advisory councils is linked to improvements in clinical quality, patient safety or patient satisfaction. METHODS: We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Google Scholar for English language publications between November 2002 to August 2015, using a combination of "patient advisor" and "care outcomes" search terms. Article selection utilized dual screening facilitated by DistillerSR software, with group discussion to resolve discordance. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and case studies were included that described patients serving in an advisory role where primary outcomes were mentioned. Reference lists of included studies and grey literature searches were conducted. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize results. RESULTS: Database searching yielded 639 articles total after removing duplicates, with 129 articles meeting full text inclusion criteria. 32 articles were identified for final review, 16 of which were case studies. Advisory roles included patient advisory councils, ad-hoc patient committees, community advisory councils, experience-based co-design, and other. Four practice-based studies from one research group, involving community advisors in the design of public health interventions, found improved clinical outcomes. No prospective experimental studies assessed the impact of patient advisors on patient safety or patient satisfaction. One cluster-randomized RCT showed that patient advisors helped health care planning efforts identify priorities more aligned with the PCMH. Ten case studies reported anecdotal benefit to individual patient advisors. CONCLUSION: Five included studies demonstrate promising methods for evaluating patient engagement in healthcare delivery and describe impacts on clinical outcomes and priority setting. Based on the case studies found, patient advisors tend to contribute to patient-facing services that may affect clinical care but are not easily evaluated. As clinics and hospitals implement patient advisory councils, rigorous evaluation of their programs is needed to support the expansion of system-level patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database of the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (ID: 2015: CRD42015030020 ).

The Use of Enhanced Appointment Access Strategies by Medical Practices.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to enhance appointment access are being adopted by medical practices as part of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) implementation, but little is known about the use of these strategies nationally. OBJECTIVES: We examine practice use of open access scheduling and after-hours care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Data were analyzed from the Third National Study of Physician Organizations (NSPO3) to examine which enhanced appointment access strategies are more likely to be used by practices with more robust PCMH capabilities and with greater external incentives. Logistic regression estimated the effect of PCMH capabilities and external incentives on practice use of open access scheduling and after-hours care. SUBJECTS: Physician organizations with >20% primary care physicians (n=1106). MEASURES: PCMH capabilities included team-based care, health information technology capabilities, quality improvement orientation, and patient experience orientation. External incentives included public reporting, pay-for-performance (P4P), and accountable care organization participation. RESULTS: A low percentage of practices (19.8%) used same-day open access scheduling, while after-hours care (56.1%) was more common. In adjusted analyses, system-owned practices and practices with greater use of team-based care, health information technology capabilities, and public reporting were more likely to use open access scheduling. Accountable care organization-affiliated practices and practices with greater use of public reporting and P4P were more likely to provide after-hours care. CONCLUSIONS: Open access scheduling may be most effectively implemented by practices with robust PCMH capabilities. External incentives appear to influence practice adoption of after-hours care. Expanding open access scheduling and after-hours care will require distinct policies and supports.

As good as it gets? Managing risks of cardiovascular disease in California's top-performing physician organizations.

BACKGROUND: The California Right Care Initiative (RCI) accelerates the adoption of evidence-based guidelines and improved care management practices for conditions for which the gap between science and practice is significant, resulting in preventable disability and death. METHODS: Medical directors and quality improvement leaders from 11 of the 12 physician organizations that met the 2010 national 90th percentile performance benchmarks for control of hyperlipidemia and glycated hemoglobin in 2011 were interviewed in 2012. Interviews, as well as surveys, assessed performance reporting and feedback to individual physicians; medication management protocols; team-based care management; primary care team huddles; coordination of care between primary care clinicians and specialists; implementation of shared medical appointments; and telephone visits for high-risk patients. RESULTS: All but 1 of 11 organizations implemented electronic health records. Electronic information exchange between primary care physicians and specialists, however, was uncommon. Few organizations routinely used interdisciplinary team approaches, shared medical appointments, or telephonic strategies for managing cardiovascular risks among patients. Implementation barriers included physicians' resistance to change, limited resources and reimbursement for team approaches, and limited organizational capacity for change. Implementation facilitators included routine use of reliable data to guide improvement, leadership facilitation of change, physician buy-in, health information technology use, and financial incentives. CONCLUSION: To accelerate improvements in managing cardiovascular risks, physician organizations may need to implement strategies involving extensive practice reorganization and work flow redesign.

Innovation in public delivery systems: How one safety net hospital implemented new heart monitoring technology.

This case study examines how a public delivery system hospital implemented a heart monitoring patch in place of existing electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring by pursuing a holistic value proposition. For example, leaders identified opportunity costs embedded in the existing ECG monitoring staffing. Stakeholders also rallied around values such as patient safety, patient experience, and quality of care. Implementation also benefited from external philanthropic and industry partnerships, which facilitated a pilot period to implement new workflows, demonstrate proof-of-concept, and evaluate process improvements. Despite implementation success, ongoing procurement and reimbursement challenges demonstrate the messiness of innovation, even after reaching a "maintenance" phase. Availability of patient-facing material in multiple languages is one example of an implementation gap in safety net settings. New policies by health systems, payers, and others are needed to establish pathways for future high-value innovations.

Organizational and community resilience for COVID-19 and beyond: Leveraging a system for health and social services integration.

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 county's 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.

Between health care and social services: Boundary objects and cross-sector collaboration.

Health care systems throughout the United States are initiating collaborations with social services agencies. These cross-sector collaborations aim to address patients' social needs-such as housing, food, income, and transportation-in health care settings. However, such collaborations can be challenging as health care and social service sectors are composed of distinct missions, institutions, professional roles, and modes of distributing resources. This paper examines how the "high-risk" patient with both medical and social needs is constructed as a shared object of intervention across sectors. Using the concept of boundary object, we illustrate how the high-risk patient category aggregates and represents multiple types of information-medical, social, service utilization, and cost-in ways that facilitate its use across sectors. The high-risk patient category works as a boundary object, in part, by the differing interpretations of "risk" available to collaborators. During 2019-2021, we conducted 75 semi-structured interviews and 31 field observations to investigate a relatively large-scale, cross-sector collaboration effort in California known as CommunityConnect. This program uses a predictive algorithm and big data sets to assign risk scores to the population and directs integrated health care and social services to patients identified as high risk. While the high-risk patient category worked well to foster collaboration in administrative and policy contexts, we find that it was less useful for patient-level interactions, where frontline case managers were often hesitant or unable to communicate information about the risk-based eligibility process. We suggest that the predominance of health care utilization (and its impacts on costs) in constructing the high-risk patient category may be medicalizing social services, with the potential to deepen inequities.

Greater Covid-19 vaccine uptake among enrollees offered health and social needs case management: Results from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate Covid-19 vaccination as a potential secondary public health benefit of case management for Medicaid beneficiaries with health and social needs. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: The CommunityConnect case management program for Medicaid beneficiaries is run by Contra Costa Health, a county safety net health system in California. Program enrollment data were merged with comprehensive county vaccination records. STUDY DESIGN: Individuals with elevated risk of hospital and emergency department use were randomized each month to a case management intervention or usual care. Interdisciplinary case managers offered coaching, community referrals, healthcare connections, and other support based on enrollee interest and need. Using survival analysis with intent-to-treat assignment, we assessed rates of first-dose Covid-19 vaccination from December 2020 to September 2021. In exploratory sub-analyses we also examined effect heterogeneity by gender, race/ethnicity, age, and primary language. DATA COLLECTION AND EXTRACTION METHODS: Data were extracted from county and program records as of September 2021, totaling 12,866 interventions and 25,761 control enrollments. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Approximately 58% of enrollees were female and 41% were under age 35. Enrollees were 23% White, 12% Asian/Pacific Islander, 20% Black/African American, and 36% Hispanic/Latino, and 10% other/unknown. Approximately 35% of the intervention group engaged with their case manager. Approximately 56% of all intervention and control enrollees were vaccinated after 9 months of analysis time. Intervention enrollees had a higher vaccination rate compared to control enrollees (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.10). In sub-analyses, the intervention was associated with stronger likelihood of vaccination among males and individuals under age 35. CONCLUSIONS: Case management infrastructure modestly improved Covid-19 vaccine uptake in a population of Medicaid beneficiaries that over-represents social groups with barriers to early Covid-19 vaccination. Amidst mixed evidence on vaccination-specific incentives, leveraging trusted case managers and existing case management programs may be a valuable prevention strategy.

Defining case management success: a qualitative study of case manager perspectives from a large-scale health and social needs support program.

OBJECTIVE: Health systems are expanding efforts to address health and social risks, although the heterogeneity of early evidence indicates need for more nuanced exploration of how such programs work and how to holistically assess program success. This qualitative study aims to identify characteristics of success in a large-scale, health and social needs case management program from the perspective of interdisciplinary case managers. SETTING: Case management program for high-risk, complex patients run by an integrated, county-based public health system. PARTICIPANTS: 30 out of 70 case managers, purposively sampled to represent their interdisciplinary health and social work backgrounds. Interviews took place in March-November 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis intended to identify characteristics of success working with patients. RESULTS: Case managers described three characteristics of success working with patients: (1) establishing trust; (2) observing change in patients' mindset or initiative and (3) promoting stability and independence. Cross-cutting these characteristics, case managers emphasised the importance of patients defining their own success, often demonstrated through individualised, incremental progress. Thus, moments of success commonly contrasted with external perceptions and operational or productivity metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Themes emphasise the importance of compassion for complexity in patients' lives, and success as a step-by-step process that is built over longitudinal relationships.

Primary Care Clinician Burnout and Engagement Association With Clinical Quality and Patient Experience.

BACKGROUND: Burnout and engagement are commonly conceptualized as opposite ends of a spectrum, and there is concern that high clinician burnout and lack of engagement may adversely impact patient care. METHODS: We matched self-reported data on burnout and engagement for 182 primary care clinicians with data on clinical quality (cancer screenings, hypertension and diabetes control) and patient experience (Clinician and Group Survey-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CG-CAHPS] communication scores, overall rating, and likelihood to recommend the clinic). Multivariable linear regression models examined burnout, engagement, or burnout-engagement phenotype (eg, high burnout-low engagement) as predictors of quality and patient experience. RESULTS: One-third of clinicians in this sample did not fall along the spectrum of low burnout-high engagement to high burnout-low engagement. Neither burnout nor engagement on their own was associated with quality or patient experience measures. However, clinicians with high burnout who also were highly engaged had the highest average ratings for all 3 patient experience domains: clinician communication, overall rating of the clinician, and overall rating of the clinic. DISCUSSION: The results of our study challenge the assumptions that burnout and engagement are opposite ends of a spectrum and that burnout or low engagement adversely impact quality of care and patient experience. Greater understanding is needed of how best to support dedicated clinicians who may provide quality care at the expense of their personal well-being.

The Outpatient Training Gap: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Most family medicine residency training takes place in hospitals, which is not reflective of the outpatient care practiced by most primary care clinicians. This pilot study is an initial exploration of family medicine residency directors' opinions regarding this outpatient training gap. METHODS: The authors surveyed 11 California family medicine residency program directors in 2017-2018 about factors that influence decisions regarding allocation of residents' inpatient and outpatient time. Nine of the 11 program directors agreed to be interviewed. We analyzed the interviews for common themes. RESULTS: The participating program directors were generally satisfied with inpatient and outpatient balance in their residents' schedules. Factors identified as promoting inpatient training included the need for resident staffing of hospital services, the educational value of inpatient rotations, and a lack of capacity in continuity clinics. From the program directors' perspective, residency funding played no direct role in curriculum planning. Program directors also felt that the ACGME requirements prescribing 1,650 continuity clinic visits throughout residency inhibited the development of creative outpatient training opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine residency program directors participating in this exploratory study did not feel that their programs overly emphasized inpatient care and training.

Models of Faculty Involvement in Primary Care Residency Teaching Clinics.

Through site visits to 42 teaching clinics associated with family and internal medicine residency programs during 2013-2018, the authors observed a spectrum of faculty involvement. In this Perspective, they describe and share examples of the 3 faculty models they identified. Some programs have a small, focused faculty whose members spend at least 5 half-day sessions per week seeing patients or precepting residents in the clinic. Others have a large, dispersed faculty with many faculty physicians who spend 1 or 2 half-day sessions per week in the clinic. Some use a hybrid model with a small focused faculty group plus other faculty with little clinic time. The dispersed model was observed only in university-based residencies, and the focused faculty model was commonly seen in community-based residencies. While faculty in both settings must juggle multiple responsibilities, several studies have confirmed the value of having faculty committed to ambulatory care and teaching. In site visit interviews, clinic leaders indicated focused faculty play an important role in teaching clinics by championing clinic improvement, improving continuity of care, and enhancing the resident experience. Faculty physicians who spend substantial time in the clinic know the residents' patients, provide greater continuity of care, anchor clinic teams, and coordinate coverage for residents when they are on other rotations. Clinic and residency program leaders generally favored a shift toward a focused or hybrid model. The authors view the hybrid model as a practical way to balance the challenges of having a focused faculty with the multiple responsibilities facing university- and community-based faculty.