Creating and Sustaining Care Teams in Primary Care: Perspectives From Innovative Patient-Centered Medical Homes.

OBJECTIVE: To learn from the experiences of innovative primary care practices that have successfully developed care teams. RESEARCH DESIGN: A 2½-day working conference was convened with representatives from 10 innovative primary care practices, content experts, and researchers to discuss experiences of developing care teams. Qualitative data included observation notes, transcripts of conference sessions and interviews, and narrative summaries of innovations. Case summaries of practices and an analysis matrix were created to identify common themes. PARTICIPANTS: Ten practices known nationally for innovations in team-based care participated in the conference represented by 1 to 2 practice members. RESULTS: Two domains emerged related to creating effective teams and funding them. Participants emphasized the importance of making practice values explicit and involving everyone in the change process, standardizing routine processes, and mitigating resistance. They also highlighted that team-based care adds comprehensiveness, not necessarily productivity. They, thus, highlighted the need for a long-term financial vision, including resourcefulness and alternate funding. CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care is possible and valuable in primary care. It is difficult to develop and sustain, however, and requires dedicated time and resources. The challenges these highly motivated practices described raise the question of feasibility for more average practices in the current funding environment.

Maximizing the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) by Choosing Words Wisely.

BACKGROUND: Culture is transmitted through language and reflects a group's values, yet much of the current language used to describe the new patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a carryover from the traditional, physician-centric model of care. This language creates a subtle yet powerful force that can perpetuate the status quo, despite transformation efforts. This article describes new terminology that some innovative primary care practices are using to support the transformational culture of the PCMH. METHODS: Data come from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded Working Conference for PCMH Innovation 2013, which convened 10 innovative practices and interdisciplinary content experts to discuss innovative practice redesign. Session and interview transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to identify patterns and explore their significance. RESULTS: Language innovations are used by 5 practices. Carefully selected terms facilitate creative reimagining of traditional roles and spaces through connotations that highlight practice goals. Participants felt that the language used was important for reinforcing substantive changes. CONCLUSIONS: Reworking well-established vernacular requires openness to change. True transformation does not, however, occur through a simple relabeling of old concepts. New terminology must represent values to which practices genuinely aspire, although caution is advised when using language to support cultural and clinical change.

Practice-based innovations: More relevant and transportable than NIH-funded studies.

In 2003, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) created a translational science funding stream to foster widespread, practice-based dissemination of scientific evidence. A decade later, our study of a national cohort of innovative practices suggests that effective dissemination continues to be prevented by the limited biomedical focus of funded research, conventional research strategies, and failure to report contextual factors.

National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) patient-centered medical home (PCMH) recognition is suboptimal even among innovative primary care practices.

The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) has promoted patient-centered medical home (PCMH) recognition among primary care practices since 2008 as a standard indicator of which practices have transformed into medical homes. A 40% PCMH adoption rate among a large national cohort of identified practices with innovative staffing (n = 131) calls into question whether the NCQA recognition process is truly transformative and patient-centered or simply another certificate to hang on the wall.

A typology of primary care workforce innovations in the United States since 2000.

PURPOSE: Innovative workforce models are being developed and implemented to meet the changing demands of primary care. A literature review was conducted to construct a typology of workforce models used by primary care practices. METHODS: Ovid Medline, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were used to identify published descriptions of the primary care workforce that deviated from what would be expected in the typical practice in the year 2000. Expert consultants identified additional articles that would not show up in a regular computerized search. Full texts of relevant articles were read and matrices for sorting articles were developed. Each article was reviewed and assigned to one of 18 cells in the matrices. Articles within each cell were then read again to identify patterns and develop an understanding of the full spectrum of workforce innovation within each category. RESULTS: This synthesis led to the development of a typology of workforce innovations represented in the literature. Many workforce innovations added personnel to existing practices, whereas others sought to retrain existing personnel or even develop roles outside the traditional practice. Most of these sought to minimize the impact on the existing practice roles and functions, particularly that of physicians. The synthesis also identified recent innovations which attempted to fundamentally transform the existing practice, with transformation being defined as a change in practice members' governing variables or values in regard to their workforce role. CONCLUSIONS: Most conceptualizations of the primary care workforce described in the literature do not reflect the level of innovation needed to meet the needs of the burgeoning numbers of patients with complex health issues, the necessity for roles and identities of physicians to change, and the call for fundamentally redesigned practices. However, we identified 5 key workforce innovation concepts that emerged from the literature: team care, population focus, additional resource support, creating workforce connections, and role change.

Brief intervention effective in reducing weight bias in medical students.

BACKGROUND: Medical students are exposed to a growing number of obese patients in clinical encounters. Many medical students harbor negative attitudes and stereotypes regarding obese patients, which lead to negative interpersonal behaviors. This study pilot tested the effectiveness of an educational intervention in reducing bias toward obese patients. METHODS: Second- and third-year medical students (n=64) watched a 17- minute video, "Weight Bias in Health Care," and participated in interactive discussion to share experiences with encountering obese patients. The Beliefs About Obese Persons (BAOP), Attitudes Toward Obese Persons (ATOP), and Fat Phobia Scales (FPS) were administered before and after intervention. Change in mean scores from before to after the intervention was tested for statistical significance using the paired samples t test. General linear models were used to examine associations of subject characteristics with mean scores for each scale. RESULTS: The intervention increased beliefs that genetic and environmental factors play an important role in the cause of obesity as opposed to lack of personal control (mean BAOP increased from 16.53 to 19.27). It also decreased students' negative stereotypes regarding obese patients (mean FPS decreased from 3.65 to 3.45). There were independent associations of subject characteristics with post-intervention ATOP scores, with more positive attitudes in younger, male, and white participants. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a short educational intervention was effective in improving medical students' beliefs and stereotypes regarding obese patients. This widely accessible and easily replicable program can serve as a model and springboard for further development of educational interventions to reduce weight bias among medical students.

Physician recommendation and patient adherence for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Physician recommendation is one of the strongest, most consistent predictors of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Little is known regarding characteristics associated with patient adherence to physician recommendations in community and academic based primary care settings. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 975 patients, aged ≥50 years, recruited from 25 primary care practices in New Jersey. Chi-square and generalized estimate equation analyses determined independent correlates of receipt of and adherence to physician recommendation for CRC. RESULTS: Patients reported high screening rates for CRC (59%). More than three fourths of patients reported either screening or having received a screening recommendation (82%). Men (P = .0425), nonsmokers (P = .0029), and patients who were highly educated (P = .0311) were more likely to receive a CRC screening recommendation. Patients more adhere to CRC screening recommendations were older adults (P < .0001), nonsmokers (P = .0005), those who were more highly educated (P = .0365), Hispanics (P = .0325), and those who were married (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Community and academic primary care clinicians appropriately recommended screening to high-risk patients with familial risk factors. However, they less frequently recommended screening to others (ie, women and smokers) also likely to benefit. To further increase CRC screening, clinicians must systematically recommend screening to all patients who may benefit.

Electronic medical records are not associated with improved documentation in community primary care practices.

The adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) in ambulatory settings has been widely recommended. It is hoped that EMRs will improve care; however, little is known about the effect of EMR use on care quality in this setting. This study compares EMR versus paper medical record documentation of basic health history and preventive service indicators in 47 community-based practices. Differences in practice-level documentation rates between practices that did and did not use an EMR were examined using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test and robust regression, adjusting for practice-level covariates. Frequency of documentation of health history and preventive service indicator items were similar in the 2 groups of practices. Although EMRs provide the capacity for more robust record keeping, the community-based practices here do not use EMRs to their full capacity. EMR usage does not guarantee more systematic record keeping and thus may not lead to improved quality in the community practice setting.

Breast, colorectal and prostate cancer screening for cancer survivors and non-cancer patients in community practices.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors have cancer surveillance and preventive screening needs that require monitoring. Little is known regarding their patterns of care in community primary care practices. METHODS: Secondary analysis of 750 baseline patient surveys and medical record audits for patients ages 50+ years in 25 community-based primary care practices (N = 109 survivors and 641 noncancer patients). RESULTS: Patient self-reported screening rates for breast cancer (72%), colorectal cancer (81%) and prostate cancer (77%) were higher for cancer survivors compared to noncancer patients (69%, 67%, 53%, respectively). Screening rates documented in the primary care records were lower for all cancers. Cancer survivors were more likely than others to report having been screened for colorectal cancer (P = 0.002) even after excluding colorectal cancer survivors from the analysis (P = 0.034). Male cancer survivors were more likely to report being screened for prostate cancer than those without cancer (P < 0.001), even after excluding prostate cancer survivors (P = 0.020). There were no significant differences in either self-reported or medical record report of breast cancer screening rates among cancer survivors and noncancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors were more likely to self-report receipt of cancer screening than noncancer patients. Medical record reports of cancer screening were lower than self-reports for cancer survivors and noncancer patients. Identifying factors that affect cancer screening among cancer survivors is important and has implications for intervention design.

Self-report versus medical records for assessing cancer-preventive services delivery.

Accurate measurement of cancer-preventive behaviors is important for quality improvement, research studies, and public health surveillance. Findings differ, however, depending on whether patient self-report or medical records are used as the data source. We evaluated concordance between patient self-report and medical records on risk factors, cancer screening, and behavioral counseling among primary care patients. Data from patient surveys and medical records were compared from 742 patients in 25 New Jersey primary care practices participating at baseline in SCOPE (supporting colorectal cancer outcomes through participatory enhancements), an intervention trial to improve colorectal cancer screening in primary care offices. Sensitivity, specificity, and rates of agreement describe concordance between self-report and medical records for risk factors (personal or family history of cancer, smoking), cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate), and counseling (cancer screening recommendations, diet or weight loss, exercise, smoking cessation). Rates of agreement ranged from 41% (smoking cessation counseling) to 96% (personal history of cancer). Cancer screening agreement ranged from 61% (Pap and prostate-specific antigen) to 83% (colorectal endoscopy) with self-report rates greater than medical record rates. Counseling was also reported more frequently by self-report (83% by patient self-report versus 34% by medical record for smoking cessation counseling). Deciding which data source to use will depend on the outcome of interest, whether the data is used for clinical decision making, performance tracking, or population surveillance; the availability of resources; and whether a false positive or a false negative is of more concern.

Diabetes flow sheet use associated with guideline adherence.

PURPOSE: Many intervention studies have found that flow sheet use improves patient care by drawing attention to a particular medical condition or needed preventive service and encouraging an immediate response from the health care professional; however, there are no studies examining how often flow sheets are used for diabetes in primary care practice. We assessed the relationship between diabetes flow sheet use and diabetes patient care outcomes in the everyday practice of primary care. METHODS: We abstracted the medical records of 1,016 patients with diabetes seen at 54 New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania family practices participating in a quality improvement trial. The use of diabetes flow sheets was noted for each medical record. Scores for adherence to evidence-based diabetes guidelines in terms of assessment, treatment, and target attainment were determined on 100-point scales, with higher scores indicating better adherence. Generalized linear models were used to determine associations between use of diabetes flow sheets and adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: Diabetes flow sheets were used in 23% of the medical records of patients with diabetes. Use of flow sheets was associated with better mean guideline adherence scores for the assessment of diabetes (55.38 vs 50.13, P = .02) and the treatment of diabetes (79.59 vs 74.71, P = .004), but not for the attainment of intermediate diabetes outcome targets (hemoglobin A(1c) level, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and blood pressure). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes flow sheets can be used to promote better adherence to guidelines when it comes to assessing and treating diabetes. Additional research is needed to explore patient and physician variables that mediate the relationship between use of diabetes flow sheets and intermediate outcome targets for diabetes.

Strategies for conducting complex clinical trials in diverse community practices.

BACKGROUND: Closing the gap between evidence and practice demands interventions targeting the whole practice. These system level interventions require more complex designs and require greater practice involvement. Current descriptions of trials use research designs that either limit practice involvement or make use of large health system resources. OBJECTIVE: To share insights on retention of practices in a complex clinical trial aimed at improving care of multiple chronic conditions in 60 diverse community primary care practices not supported by large health system resources. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative cross case analysis of field notes from meetings of a diverse research team. RESULTS: Five interrelated factors were found to be important to the success of the study implementation process: (1) developing structure and activities for relationship building; (2) attention to consistent communication; (3) timely information sharing; (4) evolution of a cross-functional research team; (5) provision of technical assistance. Specific strategies were identified to overcome challenges to study implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse community primary care practices without support from health system resources will complete participation in complex trials. Researchers need not avoid answering questions requiring complex study designs; however, successful implementation requires an individualized approach tailored to the needs and characteristics of each practice.

Electronic medical records and diabetes quality of care: results from a sample of family medicine practices.

PURPOSE: Care of patients with diabetes requires management of complex clinical information, which may be improved by the use of an electronic medical record (EMR); however, the actual relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care quality in primary care settings is not well understood. We assessed the relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care quality in a sample of family medicine practices. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from 50 practices participating in a practice improvement study. Between April 2003 and December 2004 chart auditors reviewed a random sample of medical records from patients with diabetes in each practice for adherence to guidelines for diabetes processes of care, treatment, and achievement of intermediate outcomes. Practice leaders provided medical record system information. We conducted multivariate analyses of the relationship between EMR usage and diabetes care adjusting for potential practice- and patient-level confounders and practice-level clustering. RESULTS: Diabetes care quality in all practices showed room for improvement; however, after adjustment, patient care in the 37 practices not using an EMR was more likely to meet guidelines for process (odds ratio [OR], 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-3.57) treatment (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07-2.60), and intermediate outcomes (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.49-4.82) than in the 13 practices using an EMR. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an EMR in primary care practices is insufficient for insuring high-quality diabetes care. Efforts to expand EMR use should focus not only on improving technology but also on developing methods for implementing and integrating this technology into practice reality.

Hyperlipidemia guideline adherence and association with patient gender.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) management have become increasingly apparent in recent years. Previous research has focused on inpatient disparities, but little is known about how patient gender affects assessment, treatment, and management of patients for hyperlipidemia and cardiovascular risk in primary care settings. Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and hyperlipidemia are at high risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity. We sought to examine the effect of patient gender on assessment, treatment, and target maintenance of hyperlipidemia among patients with CAD in a primary care setting. METHODS: Chart abstraction was done for 715 patients with CAD in 55 family practices in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania as part of the Using Learning Teams for Reflective Adaptation (ULTRA) project. Hyperlipidemia assessment, treatment, and target adherence scores were determined for those at-risk patients based on National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) recommended National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) ATP III guidelines. Generalized linear models were used to determine the association of hyperlipidemia guideline adherence with patient gender, using comorbidities and age as confounders. RESULTS: After controlling for comorbidities and age, women were less likely to be assessed for lipids (p = 0.0462). There was no difference in treatment (p = 0.1074) or target laboratory values (p = 0.3949). CONCLUSIONS: Women with CAD are less often assessed for lipids than men in primary care practices. More intensive efforts may be necessary to educate physicians and patients about cardiovascular risk for women.

Colorectal cancer screening among obese versus non-obese patients in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with increased colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Previous studies using telephone survey data showed that obese women were less likely to receive colorectal cancer screening. It is unknown if this is true among patients in primary care practices. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted in 2003-2004 of men and women in 22 suburban New Jersey and Pennsylvania primary care practices. Data from patients age 50 years and over (n=1297) were analyzed using hierarchical logistic regression. The outcome measure was receipt of colorectal cancer screening (fecal occult blood test within 1 year, sigmoidoscopy within 5 years, colonoscopy within 10 years, or barium enema within 5 years) among obese and non-obese patients. RESULTS: Overall, 39% of patients were obese and 29% received colorectal cancer screening. After controlling for age, gender, total number of co-morbidities, number of visits in the past 2 years, and number of years in the practice, obese patients had 25% decreased odds of being screened for colorectal cancer compared to non-obese patients (OR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.62-0.91). The relationship of obesity and colorectal cancer screening did not differ according to gender. Number of visits (OR 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) and male gender (OR 1.53, 95% CI, 1.19-1.97) was associated with increased odds of receiving colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Identification of physician and patient barriers to colorectal cancer screening is needed, particularly in obese patients, so that effective interventions may be developed to increase screening in this high-risk group.