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.

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.

Time to integrate oral health screening into medicine? A survey of primary care providers of older adults and an evidence-based rationale for integration.

OBJECTIVE: Primary care providers were assessed regarding their training and interest to screen oral conditions in patients ≥55 years old. BACKGROUND: Oral health (OH) is an essential component of overall health and can affect systemic health. Medical/dental integration in older adults is underdeveloped. METHODS: A brief survey assessed primary care providers' self-reported skills, practices and barriers towards integrating OH screening into adult primary care. Data were collected using Survey Monkey® . Respondents were physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) working at a large mid-western safety-net hospital. Descriptive statistics, T-tests and Chi-squared tests were reported. RESULTS: Eighty-two of 202 participants (41%) completed the survey. Most respondents were female (75%). A majority were physicians (68%); the remainder APPs. All providers (100%) reported OH was important or extremely important to overall health. More physicians (93%) reported not being well-trained to address adult OH issues and perceived less medical-oral health integration in their practice (16%) compared to APPs (P < .05). Time was more of a barrier with APPs (74%), compared to physicians (51%), to integrate OH screening activities (P < .05). Most providers reported other barriers such as inadequate OH training and insurance coverage. Providers endorsed that OH should be assessed frequently (56%) including providing referrals to dentists (77%) and educating patients on oral-systemic issues (63%). More female than male providers endorsed dental referrals and educating patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Primary care providers embraced greater medical/dental integration for older adults. Instituting OH activities appears to be supported. Future interventions that are feasible in primary care settings are examined.

Virtual Care Adoption-Challenges and Opportunities From the Lens of Academic Primary Care Practitioners.

Telehealth and virtual care quickly became important tools in caring for patients while the COVID-19 pandemic evolved. Telehealth implementation can increase affordability for patients, eliminate access barriers, and improve patient satisfaction. Multiple challenges to successful telehealth implementation have been documented in the literature and are generally categorized as structural barriers of the health system, clinical barriers of the provider, and patient-centered barriers. In this study, we sought to collect themes and observations about this rapid transition to telehealth from practicing primary care clinicians, with the goal of identifying opportunities to improve adoption of telehealth. Themes reported in this article emerged from physician and physician assistant fellows of 2 HRSA-funded grants: (1) Primary Care Training and Enhancement (PCTE) and (2) Primary Care Training and Enhancement Training Primary Care Champions (Champions). The PCTE participants consisted of 8 providers from The MetroHealth System (MHS). The Champions participants consisted of 20 providers from MHS and Federally Qualified Health Centers in Northeast Ohio and Michigan. Participants identified 5 major themes that affected telehealth delivery in an academic medical system: reimbursement and productivity; social determinants of health; privacy and environment of care concerns; teaching; and communication skills. Examples within each theme are provided along with an identified improvement opportunity. As we create solutions to address these challenges, our hope is to pool our experience with others so that we can collectively learn how to best evolve and improve the telehealth experience for all.

Panel Size, Clinician Time in Clinic, and Access to Appointments.

Large panel sizes are often held responsible for worse access to appointments in primary care. We evaluated the relationship between appointment backlog, panel size, and primary care clinician time in clinic, using Spearman correlation and multiple regression in a retrospective analysis. We found no independent association between panel size and days until third next available appointment, but larger panel size adjusted for clinician time in clinic was associated with worse access. Less clinician time in clinic was independently associated with longer backlogs for appointments. Our findings suggest that patients of part-time clinicians may be less likely to obtain timely appointments than patients of fulltime clinicians, regardless of panel size.

Factors Associated with Routine Recommendation of Mammography for Women Aged 40-49: Provider Characteristics and Screening Influences.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against screening mammography in women younger than 50 years, rates remain high, suggesting that screening recommendations may be motivated by other factors. The objective of this study was to understand provider-reported influences on screening recommendations for women 40 to 49 years old at average risk for breast cancer. METHODS: An online survey of primary care providers was conducted at four health centers in Cleveland, Ohio in 2015. Provider-reported routine recommendation of mammography for women aged 40 to 49 at average risk for breast cancer was the primary outcome. The independent measures included influence of electronic health records, national guidelines, institutional policy, patient preferences, concerns about overtreatment, concerns about false-positives, and interest in early detection on screening recommendations. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds of recommending screening by potential influences, controlling for provider characteristics and provider-assessed balance of harms and benefits of screening in this age group. RESULTS: Of 612 providers invited, 220 completed the survey (response rate 36%); 69% routinely recommended screening and 24% believed that the harms of screening in younger women outweighed the benefits. Being influenced by institutional policy was associated with higher odds of recommending screening (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-12.9), as was interest in early detection (OR 4.19, 95% CI 1.31-12.9). Conversely, strong influence of national guidelines was associated with a lower odds of recommending screening (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.71). The influence of patient preferences was not associated with screening recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Providers face competing influences on screening recommendations for younger patients, some of which may be at odds with their beliefs. Institutional policy change allowing individually tailored screening discussions may improve patient-centered care.

Physicians caring for physicians: the perspective of the primary care physician.

OBJECTIVES: How physicians provide longitudinal primary care to physician-patients (ie, physicians as patients) has not been well studied. The potential challenges of providing care to physician-patients include maintaining professional boundaries and adhering to practice guidelines. The objective was to explore the differences in identifying how physicians perceive caring for physicians-patients in the longitudinal setting versus caring for other patients in the general population. METHODS: The study consisted of focus groups, followed by quantitative survey. Participants were primary care physicians (internal medicine and family medicine) at an academic multispecialty group practice. Thematic analysis of focus groups informed the development of the survey. RESULTS: In focus groups, participants identified several benefits, challenges, and differences in caring for physician-patients versus the general population. When these findings were explored further by quantitative survey, participants noted differences in care regarding chart documentation protocols, communication of results, and accommodation of schedules. They agreed that there were benefits to providing care to physician-patients, such as believing their work was valued and discussing complex issues with greater ease. There also were challenges, including anxiety or self-doubt. Participants also agreed on the following strategies when caring for this population: make recommendations based on evidence-based medicine, follow routine assessment and examination protocols, follow routine scheduling and communication protocols, recommend the same follow-up visit schedule, and define boundaries of the relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceive caring for physician-patients as different and rewarding, although some find that it provokes anxiety. Many are willing to make concessions regarding scheduling and testing. With increasing experience, the anxiety decreased as did the need to follow protocols and maintain boundaries. Further investigation is needed to determine the impact of physician experience and training on the quality of care for physician-patients.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Dyspnea-Suspected Cardiac Origin (Ischemia Already Excluded): 2021 Update.

Dyspnea is the symptom of perceived breathing discomfort and is commonly encountered in a variety of clinical settings. Cardiac etiologies of dyspnea are an important consideration; among these, valvular heart disease (Variant 1), arrhythmia (Variant 2), and pericardial disease (Variant 3) are reviewed in this document. Imaging plays an important role in the clinical assessment of these suspected abnormalities, with usually appropriate procedures including resting transthoracic echocardiography in all three variants, radiography for Variants 1 and 3, MRI heart function and morphology in Variants 2 and 3, and CT heart function and morphology with intravenous contrast for Variant 3. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Differences in Occupational Burnout Among Primary Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Occupational burnout is a major concern for personal well-being and patient care. We examined burnout among primary care providers (PCPs), medical residents, behavioral health providers (BHPs), nurses, and other clinical and nonclinical primary care team members. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study, nested within a larger randomized trial. Participants completed a validated 9-item burnout measure with 3 domains: depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and personal accomplishment. Multivariable multilevel linear regression with a random intercept for each practice was used to determine mean differences in burnout across professional roles. RESULTS: Overall burnout rates varied by professional role: PCPs 70%, medical residents 89%, BHPs 59%, nurses 66%, other clinicians 68%, and nonclinical professionals 70%. Compared with nonclinical professionals, residents experienced more burnout in more domains, followed by PCPs. PCPs, residents, and nurses reported significantly worse depersonalization and exhaustion scores. Nonclinical professionals had worse accomplishment scores than all clinical professionals except for residents. This study revealed moderate-to-high levels of burnout among primary care professionals. DISCUSSION: Clinicians may be experiencing aspects of burnout more intensely than their nonclinical colleagues, and this may be most true for residents and PCPs. Based on these variations, interventions to mitigate burnout may need to be tailored by professional role.

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.

Primary Care Physician Factors Associated with Inbox Message Volume.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to better understand the relationship between panel size, full-time status, and estimated socioeconomic status of a patient panel with types and number of primary care clinician inbox messages. METHODS: The study used data from the Epic Signal database to examine inbox volume and types of messages for 86 primary care clinicians at 19 primary care sites. We measured correlations and performed multiple regression analysis to understand the relationship between inbox volume and types of messages and 3 factors: panel size, full-time status, and estimated socioeconomic status of patient panels. RESULTS: The study found positive correlation between the number of messages and panel size, full-time status, and estimated socioeconomic status of patient panels. The number of patient portal messages generated from patient panels with higher socioeconomic status accounted for the positive correlation in total inbox messages and that factor. DISCUSSION: These findings contribute to our understanding of primary care workload, specifically as it relates to panel size, full-time status, and patient panel socioeconomic status. Increase in clinical time or panel size needs to come with trained team members or additional time to address inbox messages.

Why Compensation Tied to Group Quality Metrics Makes Sense.

Incorporation of group quality metrics into an adult primary care compensation track facilitates team-based care and accountability for shared groups of patients. This article describes the reasoning behind group quality metrics and shares lessons learned and improvements in health outcomes as a result. Take-away points are as follows: 1) group quality metrics in a compensation plan help foster team-based care toward quality goals and shared accountability for the health outcomes of attributed patients; 2) definition of the work team is important and should include members who share responsibility for the same groups of patients; 3) information technology infrastructure and dashboards for performance and feedback are critical to the success of a quality incentive program; 4) inclusion of key stakeholders early in the process of designing team-based incentives is important for acceptance; and 5) ongoing education is needed to ensure continued focus on quality goals.

One Leader's Journey Toward Empanelment.

Empanelment is an important step toward managing population health. Achieving empanelment in a fee-for-service world necessitates organizational support for panel size measurement and creativity regarding use of panel size to inform access decisions. Empanelment efforts and access must be balanced to create sustainable, high-quality care models and to improve practitioner and patient experiences.

Are Providers Prepared to Engage Younger Women in Shared Decision-Making for Mammography?

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends providers engage women aged 40-49 years in shared decision-making (SDM) for mammography. This requires mammography knowledge, adequate time to discuss screening, and self-confidence in doing so. Yet, to date, no studies have assessed provider readiness to engage younger women in SDM. METHODS: An online survey of primary care providers was conducted in Cleveland in 2015. It inquired about knowledge of screening benefits and harms, including the impact of screening on mortality, risk of additional imaging, biopsy, overtreatment following screening, and likelihood of a true-positive result. Key knowledge was defined as accurate estimation of the impact of screening on mortality and risk of overtreatment. Respondents reported time typically spent with patients discussing mammography, self-assessed competence in engaging patients in screening discussions, and perspectives on SDM for mammography. RESULTS: Of 612 providers invited, 220 completed the survey (response rate: 36%). Knowledge of harms was low: 90% and 82% underestimated the risk of additional imaging or breast biopsy, respectively. Sixty-two percent correctly estimated screening's impact on mortality. The majority (83%) believed in SDM for mammography, yet, most (77%) spent less than 5 minutes with patients discussing screening. Of those who believed in SDM, only 10% had key mammography knowledge and also felt highly competent at engaging women in screening discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Most providers in our sample were inadequately equipped to engage women in SDM for mammography. Broad-based efforts are needed to increase the capacity of providers to engage younger women in decision-making.

Medication adherence, medical record accuracy, and medication exposure in real-world patients using comprehensive medication monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to medication regimens and medical record inconsistencies result in incomplete knowledge of medication therapy in polypharmacy patients. By quantitatively identifying medications in the blood of patients and reconciling detected medications with the medical record, we have defined the severity of this knowledge gap and created a path toward optimizing medication therapy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We validated a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay to detect and/or quantify 38 medications across a broad range of chronic diseases to obtain a comprehensive survey of patient adherence, medical record accuracy, and exposure variability in two patient populations. In a retrospectively tested 821-patient cohort representing U.S. adults, we found that 46% of medications assessed were detected in patients as prescribed in the medical record. Of the remaining medications, 23% were detected, but not listed in the medical record while 30% were prescribed to patients, but not detected in blood. To determine how often each detected medication fell within literature-derived reference ranges when taken as prescribed, we prospectively enrolled a cohort of 151 treatment-regimen adherent patients. In this cohort, we found that 53% of medications that were taken as prescribed, as determined using patient self-reporting, were not within the blood reference range. Of the medications not in range, 83% were below and 17% above the lower and upper range limits, respectively. Only 32% of out-of-range medications could be attributed to short oral half-lives, leaving extensive exposure variability to result from patient behavior, undefined drug interactions, genetics, and other characteristics that can affect medication exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess compliance, medical record accuracy, and exposure as determinants of real-world treatment and response. Variation in medication detection and exposure is greater than previously demonstrated, illustrating the scope of current therapy issues and opening avenues that warrant further investigation to optimize medication therapy.

Implementation of Clinical Pharmacogenomics within a Large Health System: From Electronic Health Record Decision Support to Consultation Services.

The number of clinically relevant gene-based guidelines and recommendations pertaining to drug prescribing continues to grow. Incorporating gene-drug interaction information into the drug-prescribing process can help optimize pharmacotherapy outcomes and improve patient safety. However, pharmacogenomic implementation barriers exist such as integration of pharmacogenomic results into electronic health records (EHRs), development and deployment of pharmacogenomic decision support tools to EHRs, and feasible models for establishing ambulatory pharmacogenomic clinics. We describe the development of pharmacist-managed pharmacogenomic services within a large health system. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for HLA-B*57:01-abacavir, HLA-B*15:02-carbamazepine, and TPMT-thiopurines (i.e., azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and thioguanine) were systematically integrated into patient care. Sixty-three custom rules and alerts (20 for TPMT-thiopurines, 8 for HLA-B*57:01-abacavir, and 35 for HLA-B*15:02-anticonvulsants) were developed and deployed to the EHR for the purpose of providing point-of-care pharmacogenomic decision support. In addition, a pharmacist and physician-geneticist collaboration established a pharmacogenomics ambulatory clinic. This clinic provides genetic testing when warranted, result interpretation along with pharmacotherapy recommendations, and patient education. Our processes for developing these pharmacogenomic services and solutions for addressing implementation barriers are presented.

A shift toward personalized healthcare: does the Affordable Care Act provide enough incentive for change?

Personalized healthcare, which uses individual characteristics to better predict and prevent disease and customize therapies, is a potential solution to our current healthcare crisis. Personalized care aims to improve quality of care and reduce overall healthcare costs. Despite its potential, adoption of personalized healthcare has been slow for several reasons, one of which is related to financial incentives toward change. This perspective piece discusses how the Affordable Care Act (ACA), through support for preventive care and comparative effectiveness research, begins to align the right incentives toward innovation around personalized risk prediction, innovation that is much needed as we aim to improve the health of individuals and communities.