Shared Language for Shared Work in Population Health.

People working on behalf of population health, community health, or public health often experience confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of these and other common terms-the similarities and differences and how they bear on the tasks and division of labor for care delivery and public health. Shared language must be clear enough to help, not hinder people working together as they ultimately come to mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities, and actions in their joint work. Based on an iterative lexicon development process, the authors developed and propose a definitional framework as an aid to navigating among related population and community health terms. These terms are defined, similarities and differences clarified, and then organized into 3 categories that reflect goals, realities, and ways to get the job done. Goals include (a) health as well-being for persons, (b) population health as that goal expressed in measurable terms for groups, and (c) community health as population health for particular communities of interest, geography, or other defining characteristic-groups with shared identity and particular systemic influences on health. Realities are social determinants as influences, health disparities as effects, and health equity as both a goal and a design principle. Ways to get the job done include health care delivery systems for enrollees and public health in population-based civic activities-with a broad zone of collaboration where streams of effort converge in partnership with served communities. This map of terms can enable people to move forward together in a broad zone of collaboration for health with less confusion, ambiguity, and conflict.

A technology-based quality innovation to identify undiagnosed hypertension among active primary care patients.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to develop a technology-based strategy to identify patients with undiagnosed hypertension in 23 primary care practices and integrate this innovation into a continuous quality improvement initiative in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: In phase 1, we reviewed electronic health records (EHRs) using algorithms designed to identify patients at risk for undiagnosed hypertension. We then invited each at-risk patient to complete an automated office blood pressure (AOBP) protocol. In phase 2, we instituted a quality improvement process that included regular physician feedback and office-based computer alerts to evaluate at-risk patients not screened in phase 1. Study patients were observed for 24 additional months to determine rates of diagnostic resolution. RESULTS: Of the 1,432 patients targeted for inclusion in the study, 475 completed the AOBP protocol during the 6 months of phase 1. Of the 1,033 at-risk patients who remained active during phase 2, 740 (72%) were classified by the end of the follow-up period: 361 had hypertension diagnosed, 290 had either white-coat hypertension, prehypertension, or elevated blood pressure diagnosed, and 89 had normal blood pressure. By the end of the follow-up period, 293 patients (28%) had not been classified and remained at risk for undiagnosed hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Our technology-based innovation identified a large number of patients at risk for undiagnosed hypertension and successfully classified the majority, including many with hypertension. This innovation has been implemented as an ongoing quality improvement initiative in our medical group and continues to improve the accuracy of diagnosis of hypertension among primary care patients.

The association of English ability and glycemic control among Latinos with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Language barriers may be significant contributors to diabetes disparities. We sought to assess the association of English speaking ability with glycemic control among Latinos with diabetes. METHODS: We analyzed 167 Latinos from a cross-sectional survey of adults with type 2 diabetes. The main outcome was HbA1c > or =7.0%. The main predictor was self-reported English speaking ability. Adjusted analyses accounted for age, sex, education, annual income, health insurance status, duration of diabetes, birth in the United States, and years in the United States. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, point estimates for the odds of having a high HbAlc revealed a U-shaped curve with English speaking ability. Those who spoke English very well (OR=2.32, 95% CI, 1.00-5.41) or not at all (OR=4.11, 95% CI 1.35-12.54) had higher odds of having an elevated HbA1c than those who spoke English well, although this was only statistically significant for those who spoke no English. In adjusted analyses, the U-shaped curve persisted with the highest odds among those who spoke English very well (OR=3.20, 95% CI 1.05-9.79) or not at all (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.29-18.92). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between English speaking ability and diabetes management is more complex than previously described. Interventions aimed at improving diabetes outcomes may need to be tailored to specific subgroups within the Latino population.

Evolution and Evaluation of a Quality and Patient Safety Fellowship for Practicing Health Professionals.

Developing clinical quality champions is an important strategy for improving health care quality. The NorthShore Quality and Patient Safety Fellowship was a yearlong program for practicing physicians devoting 4 hours/wk to a didactic curriculum and quality practicum. Thirty-seven clinicians completed the Fellowship from 2011 to 2018. Sixty percent of graduates reported a significant impact on their quality-related career trajectory, with 44% of early graduates and 64% of recent graduates reporting a new quality role or responsibility as a result of the Fellowship. Fifty-four percent of practicum projects were adopted or adapted by the organization. The Fellowship has been an effective framework to identify and train future quality champions and has led to further quality leadership opportunities for many graduates. Evolution of the Fellowship aligned practicum projects with organizational quality priorities. This curricular framework may be useful for other organizations that seek to develop quality champions among practicing physicians.

Attitudes and Perceptions of Research Among US Family Medicine Department Chairs.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The capacity for research within family medicine has historically been low despite its importance. The aim of this study was to learn more about the perceptions of family medicine department chairs regarding research and its role in their departments and institutions. METHODS: We analyzed a 2016 cross-sectional survey with responses from 109/142 (77% response) US chairs of allopathic departments of family medicine (DFMs) regarding departmental research capacity, research experience, and perceptions of research in the department and institution. RESULTS: Most chairs agreed that research is important (91%, n=92) and raises the prestige of the DFM (90%, n=91), though perceptions differ by chair research experience and DFM capacity for research. The mean ideal focus on research (21%, 8% SD) is greater than the actual (12%, 8% SD). Compared to the mean of all departments, those in DFMs with a high capacity for research estimated a higher actual (76% vs 26% and 7%, P<.0001) and ideal (73% vs 30% and 18%, P<.0001) departmental focus on research, as well as a higher ideal institutional focus on research (69% vs 35% and 28%, P=.001), significantly more often than chairs in moderate or minimal capacity DFMs. Those in lower capacity DFMs estimated a greater ideal research focus for their departments than they perceived their institution have. CONCLUSIONS: Research is important to chairs of DFMs. DFMs that do not currently have major research enterprises may have the will and training required of their leader to grow. With the right support and resources, these DFMs may increase their research capacity, and subsequently their research productivity to support the needs of the discipline for more family medicine research.

Advancing bibliometric assessment of research productivity: an analysis of US Departments of Family Medicine.

INTRODUCTION Measurement of family medicine research productivity has lacked the replicable methodology needed to document progress. AIM In this study, we compared three methods: (1) faculty-to-publications; (2) publications-to-faculty; and (3) department-reported publications. METHODS In this cross-sectional analysis, publications in peer-reviewed, indexed journals for faculty in 13 US family medicine departments in 2015 were assessed. In the faculty-to-publications method, department websites to identify faculty and Web of Science to identify publications were used. For the publications-to-faculty method, PubMed's author affiliation field were used to identify publications, which were linked to faculty members. In the department-reported method, chairs provided lists of faculty and their publications. For each method, descriptive statistics to compare faculty and publication counts were calculated. RESULTS Overall, 750 faculty members with 1052 unique publications, using all three methods combined as the reference standard, were identified. The department-reported method revealed 878 publications (84%), compared to 616 (59%) for the faculty-to-publications method and 412 (39%) for the publication-to-faculty method. Across all departments, 32% of faculty had any publications, and the mean number of publications per faculty was 1.4 (mean of 4.4 per faculty among those who had published). Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors and Chairs accounted for 92% of all publications. DISCUSSION Online searches capture a fraction of publications, but also capture publications missed through self-report. The ideal methodology includes all three. Tracking publications is important for quantifying the return on our discipline's research investment.

Barriers to Achieving Optimal Success with Medical Cannabis: Opportunities for Quality Improvement.

This commentary describes the clinician experience of certifying patients for medical cannabis (MC) in a north suburban Chicago integrative family medicine practice. The physician and research assistant performed a comprehensive chart review of the first 166 MC patients certified in the practice. Based on this review, barriers and opportunities were elucidated to improve delivery of MC therapy in Illinois within the existing framework of regulation, licensing, certification, and distribution. The following factors have posed challenges for the Illinois Medical Cannabis Pilot Program. These factors are interrelated and include: (1) inadequate scientific knowledge regarding effectiveness, dosage, delivery mechanism, indications, and drug interactions in humans; (2) lack of educational standards for dispensary and medical staff training; (3) lack of communication and coordination of patient care; (4) complexity and inconsistent availability of dosing options; and (5) barriers to access for patients seeking this therapy.

The Scholarly Output of Faculty in Family Medicine Departments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While prior efforts have assessed the scope of family medicine research, the methods have differed, and the efforts have not been routinely repeated. The purpose of this analysis was to quantify publications, journals, citations, and funding of US family medicine faculty and identify factors associated with these outcomes. METHODS: We identified faculty in US departments of family medicine through website searches and performed a cross-sectional study. We included 2015 publications in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Web of Science (a database that aggregates a wide range of catalogs). We calculated descriptive statistics assessing the publications, journals, and citations for family medicine faculty. We conducted bivariate analyses by department region, department size, public/private status, faculty title, and faculty degree. RESULTS: We identified 6,738 faculty at 134 departments, with 15% of faculty having any publications. Family medicine faculty published 3,002 times (mean of 2.9 among those with any publications). The mean number of publications was highest for faculty in departments in the West (3.7), in the third quartile for size (3.6), with a professor title (4.0), and with combined MD or DO/PhD degrees (4.3). Faculty published 84% of the time in non-family medicine journals and were cited 13,548 times. Faculty listed federal funding for over half (52%) of the times they published. CONCLUSIONS: Publications from family medicine faculty are not concentrated in family medicine journals and are being referenced by others. These figures are larger than prior estimates and should be tracked over time.

The Current State of Research Capacity in US Family Medicine Departments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Capacity for conducting family medicine research has grown significantly since the specialty was founded. Many calls to increase this capacity have been published, but there has been no consistent, systematic, and longitudinal assessment. This survey was designed to gather baseline data with an easily replicable set of measures associated with research productivity that can guide and monitor the impact of efforts to build research capacity in US departments of family medicine (DFMs). METHODS: We surveyed family medicine department chairs regarding departmental research capacity using well-established empirical measures of capacity (trained research faculty, infrastructure, research leadership, and funding) and a self-assessment. We used bivariate analyses to assess correlation between the empirical measures and the self-assessed stage of research capacity. RESULTS: Self-assessed capacity was significantly associated with every empirical measure. High-capacity departments have more research-trained faculty, more faculty effort, utilize more research "laboratories," have more faculty serving on federal peer-review panels, more faculty as principal investigators, devote more internal funding to research, and garner larger amounts of funding from more external funding sources than moderate or minimal-capacity departments. CONCLUSIONS: US DFMs have made great strides over the past half century in building research capacity. However, much more capacity in family medicine and primary care research is needed to produce new knowledge necessary to improve the health and health care of the nation. Periodic measurement using the simple, replicable, and valid minimum measures of this study provides an opportunity to establish longitudinal tracking of change in research capacity in US DFMs.

Perspectives of Health-Care Providers Toward Advance Care Planning in Patients With Advanced Cancer and Congestive Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) discussions afford patients and physicians a chance to better understand patients' values and wishes regarding end-of-life care; however, these conversations typically take place late in the course of a disease. The goal of this study was to clarify attitudes of oncologists, cardiologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) toward ACP and to identify persistent barriers to timely ACP discussion following a quality improvement initiative at our health system geared at improvement in ACP implementation. METHODS: A 20-question, cross-sectional online survey was created and distributed to cardiologists, oncologists, PCPs, and cardiology and oncology support staff at the NorthShore University HealthSystem (NorthShore) from February to March 2015. A total of 117 individuals (46% of distributed) completed the surveys. The results were compiled using an online survey analysis tool (SurveyMonkey, Inc., Palo Alto, California, USA). RESULTS: Only 15% of cardiologists felt it was their responsibility to conduct ACP discussions with their patients having congestive heart failure (CHF). In contrast, 68% of oncologists accepted this discussion as their responsibility in patients with terminal cancer ( P < .01). These views were mirrored by PCPs, as 68% of PCPs felt personally responsible for ACP discussion with patients having CHF, while only 34% felt the same about patients with cancer. Reported documentation of these discussions in the electronic health record was inconsistent between specialties. Among all surveyed specialties, lack of time was the major barrier limiting ACP discussion. Perceived patient discomfort and discomfort of the patient's family toward these discussions were also significant reported barriers. CONCLUSION: Attitudes toward ACP implementation vary considerably by medical specialty and medical condition, with oncologists in this study tending to feel more personal responsibility for these discussions with patients having cancer than cardiologists with their patients having heart failure. Robust implementation of ACP across the spectrum of medical diagnoses is likely to require a true collaboration between office-based PCPs and specialists in both the inpatient and the ambulatory settings.

A Plan for Useful and Timely Family Medicine and Primary Care Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our nation's health care system is changing. Nowhere is this more evident than in primary care, where fundamental improvements are necessary if we are to achieve the Triple Aim. Such improvements are possible if we can put useful and timely information into the hands of stakeholders to enable practical decision-making. To do this, family medicine and primary care researchers need to (1) build on our substantial current research foundation, (2) increase the relevance and pace of our research, (3) reconceive the research workforce to engage new partners, (4) disseminate findings more rapidly into the hands of those who can take action, and (5) build a "question-ready" research infrastructure to make this possible. Family medicine researchers face exciting opportunities: technical capacity to generate and manage large amounts of data; clinic- and system-level networks for testing innovations; digital health technologies for real-time and asynchronous monitoring and management of risk factors and chronic diseases; the know-how to make fast, local improvements in our systems of care; partnerships beyond those traditionally engaged in research that can multiply our capacity to generate new knowledge; and new methods for creating generalizable knowledge from the study of local efforts. This is a historic time for family medicine research. Now is the time to build on our past work, accelerate the pace, and capitalize on emerging opportunities that open an incredibly bright future.

Child death review. The state of the nation.

BACKGROUND: Child death review (CDR) is a mechanism to more accurately describe the causes and circumstances of death among children. The number of states performing CDR has more than doubled since 1992, but little is known about the characteristics of these programs. The purpose of this study was to describe the current status of CDR in the United States and to document variability in program purpose, scope, organization, and process. METHODS: Investigators administered a written survey to CDR program representatives from 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC), followed by a telephone interview. RESULTS: All 50 states and DC participated; 48 states and DC have an active CDR program. A total of 94% of programs agreed that identifying the cause of and preventing future deaths are important purposes of CDR. Assistance with child maltreatment prosecution was cited as an important purpose by only 13 states (27%). Twenty-two states (45%) review deaths from all causes, while six states (12%) review only deaths due to child maltreatment. CDR legislation exists in 33 states. Fifty-three percent of the CDR programs were implemented since 1996, and 59% report no or inadequate funding. CDR contributes to the death investigation process in seven states (14%), but the majority (59%) of reviews are retrospective, occurring months to years after the child's death. CONCLUSIONS: CDR programs in the United States share commonalities in purpose and scope. Without national leadership, however, the wide variation in organization and process threatens to limit CDR effectiveness.

Multilevel selected primary prevention of child maltreatment.

Few treatment studies and even fewer primary prevention studies have demonstrated successful reduction of child maltreatment. Successful preventive interventions have often been lengthy and expensive; shorter programs have been didactic and ineffective. The present investigation relied on a 7-level model of successful parenting to mount a time-limited, "selected" prevention effort with high-risk mothers. This program included modeling, role-playing, Socratic dialogue, home practice, and home visits. The study demonstrated effective intervention at every level of the model, including improvements in (a) parenting skills, (b) developmentally appropriate interventions, (c) developmentally appropriate beliefs, (d) negative affect, (e) acceptance of a responsible parent role, (f) acceptance of a nurturing parent role, and (g) self-efficacy. Directions for future research are considered.

The parental daily diary. A sensitive measure of the process of change in a child maltreatment prevention program.

There is a substantial deficit of sensitive measures of parental discipline in the area of prevention, generally, and in child maltreatment prevention specifically, despite reports that over a million children experience maltreatment in the United States every year. Part of the challenge in locating such measures is the impossibility of obtaining accurate observational measures of the degree of harsh discipline, unless extremely large populations are used. The majority of studies on harsh discipline have dealt with this problem by using self-report instruments or proxy observation tasks (such as observing mother-child interactions in a compliance framework). The most well-known self-report instruments, such as the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (Milner, 1986), are constructed to measure parental pathology in maltreating parents rather than to identify parents who might benefit from preventive endeavors. In contrast, there are no well standardized measures of mother-child interaction that document a sensitivity to the presence of harsh discipline, possibly due to the clear pressure of social desirability problems. This paper outlines a daily self-observation measure of parental disciplinary behavior in the form of a diary. This self-monitoring instrument offered data on the overall feelings and disciplinary behaviors used daily following each session on parenting group interventions. The study showed a gradual decrease in physical punishment and a gradual increase in planned ignoring across treatment, as these were introduced as part of an ongoing curriculum. The use of an explicit technique, such as time-out, increased abruptly rather than gradually and effects were seen only after specific instruction. Advantages and future applications of this kind of ongoing self-observation measure of treatment progress are described.