Patients' Progress and Confidence Addressing Root Causes of Poor Health in Primary Care.

Context: Patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) may have unmet behavioral, mental, and social needs which can be difficult to address in primary care. Care planning provides a framework for patients to be screened, collaborate on a care plan, and access a patient navigator who can support them achieving their personal health goals. Objective: To compare patients' progress and confidence in addressing personal care plans for different topics. Study Design and Analysis: Clinician level randomized control trial and descriptive analyses. Dataset: My Own Health Report (MOHR) study and navigator field notes. Population Studied: As part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a feasible approach to patient care planning, 24 clinicians from 12 practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) in the Greater Richmond metro and the Northern Virginia areas participated in a care planning intervention. 91 patients in the intervention arm received support from a patient navigator for making and working on a goal. We focused on patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions that have complex needs. Intervention/Instrument: Community-clinical linkage support and navigator field notes in My Own Health Report (MOHR). Outcome Measures: We determined confidence and progress ratings (ranked by patients on 1-10 point scale), health risk assessment responses, and care plan topics selected by patients. Results: Patients feel more confident addressing nutrition than weight loss (mean = 8.07 vs 6.31, p=0.0031). Patients tended to report better prior progress on nutrition care plans (mean = 3.80) than physical activity (mean =2.95, p=0.0024) and weight loss (mean=2.93, p=0.004). Conclusions: Helping patients create care plans on topics they feel most comfortable addressing may better address root causes of poor health associated with chronic conditions. Connecting them with a patient navigator for the short-term may have long-term benefits for patients and care teams.

Feasibility of Patient Navigation for Care Planning in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: To help better control chronic conditions we need to address root causes of poor health like unhealthy behaviors, mental health, and social needs. However, addressing these needs in primary care is difficult. One solution may be connecting patients with a navigator for support creating a personal care goal. METHODS: As part of an RCT to evaluate a feasible approach to care planning, 24 clinicians from 12 practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) and 87 intervention patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions participated in a care planning intervention. We had a structured process to guide patients, train navigators, and adapt the navigation process to meet the needs of each practice. RESULTS: Only 1 practice had bandwidth for staff to serve as a patient navigator, even for extra pay. For the other 11 practices, a research team member needed to provide navigation services. On average, patients wanted 25 weeks of support to complete care plans. The average time patients needed to speak with navigators on the phone was 7 min and 3 s. In exit interviews, patients consistently shared how motivational it was to have a caring person check in on them, offer help, and hold them accountable. CONCLUSION: Patient navigation to address care plans should be feasible. The time commitment is minimal. It does not require intensive training, and primary care is already doing much of this work. Yet, given the burden and competing demands in primary care, this help cannot be offered without additional resources.

Using State All-Payer Claims Data to Identify the Active Primary Care Workforce: A Novel Study in Virginia.

PURPOSE: Primary care is the foundation of the health care workforce and the only part that extends life and improves health equity. Previous research on the geographic and specialty distribution of physicians has relied on the American Medical Association's Masterfile, but these data have limitations that overestimate the workforce. METHODS: We present a pragmatic, systematic, and more accurate method for identifying primary care physicians using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD). Between 2015 and 2019, we identified all Virginia physicians and their specialty through the NPPES. Active physicians were defined by at least 1 claim in the VA-APCD. Specialty was determined hierarchically by the NPPES. Wellness visits were used to identify non-family medicine physicians who were providing primary care. RESULTS: In 2019, there were 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, of whom 5,899 (28.1%) were classified as providing primary care. Of this primary care physician workforce, 52.4% were family medicine physicians; the remaining were internal medicine physicians (18.5%), pediatricians (16.8%), obstetricians and gynecologists (11.8%), and other specialists (0.5%). Over 5 years, the counts and relative percentages of the workforce made up by primary care physicians remained relatively stable. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel method of identifying active physicians with a primary care scope provides a realistic size of the primary care workforce in Virginia, smaller than some previous estimates. Although the method should be expanded to include advanced practice clinicians and to further delineate the scope of practice, this simple approach can be used by policy makers, payers, and planners to ensure adequate primary care capacity.

Patient Preferences for Discussing and Acting on Health-Related Needs in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Addressing social needs, health behaviors, and mental health may help patients more than traditional medical care. However, these root causes of poor health are difficult to address and the role of primary care is unclear. This qualitative study assesses patient's willingness and motivations to discuss and accept assistance for these needs from their primary care team. METHODS: In July and August of 2020, semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with family medicine patients (n = 6) and residents of low resource neighborhoods (n = 11) in Richmond, Virginia. Interviews were conducted over Zoom. We conducted a qualitative analysis of patient and resident interview transcripts. A rapid qualitative analysis approach and immersion-crystallization processes were used to identify themes and categories. RESULTS: Interviewees reported varying degrees of comfort discussing topics with their health care team. They were less comfortable discussing needs they considered outside the realm of "traditional primary care" including finances, transportation, and housing, but interviewees expressed willingness to discuss these needs under certain conditions. Important factors were a strong patient-clinician relationship to create a trusted and safe space for discussion, adequate time for discussion during visits, communication of practices' ability to provide resources to help patients, and ensuring appropriate high quality referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care provides opportunity for identifying and addressing needs that adversely impact health. Some needs are more sensitive for patients to work with their care team on, though, there was willingness to work on any need when a strong provider relationship and clinic structure for providing support were in place. This study highlights critical care delivery factors which may be used to enhance patient comfort accepting support for their needs and ultimately improve clinical care and chronic disease management.

The Distressed State of Primary Care in Virginia Pre-Medicaid Expansion and Pre-Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is crucial to the health of individuals and communities, but it faces numerous structural and systemic challenges. Our study assessed the state of primary care in Virginia to prepare for Medicaid expansion. It also provides insight into the frontline of health care prior to an unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We surveyed 1622 primary care practices to understand organizational characteristics, scope of care, capacity, and organizational stress. RESULTS: Practices (484) varied in type, ownership, location, and care for medically underserved and diverse patient populations. Most practices accepted uninsured and Medicaid patients. Practices reported a broad scope of care, including offering behavioral health and medication-assisted therapy for opioid addiction. Over half addressed social needs like transportation and unstable housing. One in three practices experienced a significant stress in 2019, prepandemic, and only 18.8% of practices anticipated a stress in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care serves as the foundation of our health care system and is an essential service, but it is severely stressed, under-resourced, and overburdened in the best of times. Primary care needs strategic workforce planning, adequate access to resources, and financial investment to sustain its value and innovation.

Understanding the Value of the Wellness Visit: A Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical preventive services can reduce mortality and morbidity, but Americans receive only half of the recommended care. Although wellness visits protect time for clinicians to review needs and discuss care with patients, studies have not shown that having a wellness visit improves health outcomes. This study seeks to understand the types of discussions and volume of care delivered during wellness visits. METHODS: Using a sample of 1,008 patients scheduled for a wellness visit from 22 primary care clinicians across 3 states from 2018 to 2019, electronic health records were reviewed, and a subset of visits was audio recorded. The discussion and delivery of clinical preventive services, as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, were measured, and new diagnoses were identified from the clinical preventive services. Analyses were completed in 2020. RESULTS: Even though patients were up to date with 80% of the recommended clinical preventive services 3 months after the visit, only 0.5% of patients were up to date with all the recommended clinical preventive services. On average, 6.9 clinical preventive service discussions occurred during each wellness visit on the basis of electronic health records review, and 7.7 clinical preventive services discussions occurred on the basis of audio recordings. An average of 0.4 new diagnoses was identified, including cancer diagnoses, cardiovascular risks, and infections. CONCLUSIONS: Wellness visits are an important time for patients and clinicians to discuss prevention strategies and to deliver recommended clinical preventive services, leading to the identification of previously unrecognized diagnoses. This will improve patients' health. Policies and incentives that promote wellness visits are important, and efforts are needed to deliver them to those most in need.

Diabetes Engagement and Activation Platform for Implementation and Effectiveness of Automated Virtual Type 2 Diabetes Self-Management Education: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes require recommendations for self-management education and support. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aim to design the Diabetes Engagement and Activation Platform (DEAP)-an automated patient education tool integrated into primary care workflow-and examine its implementation and effectiveness. METHODS: We invited patients aged 18-85 years with a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level ≥8 to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing DEAP with usual care. DEAP modules addressing type 2 diabetes self-management education and support domains were programmed into patient portals, each with self-guided educational readings, videos, and questions. Care teams received patient summaries and were alerted to patients with low confidence or requesting additional help. HbA1c, BMI, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were measured. RESULTS: Out of the 680 patients invited to participate, 337 (49.5%) agreed and were randomized. All of the 189 intervention patients accessed the first module, and 140 patients (74.1%) accessed all 9 modules. Postmodule knowledge and confidence scores were high. Only 18 patients requested additional help from the care team. BMI was lower for intervention patients than controls at 3 months (31.7 kg/m2 vs 32.1 kg/m2; P=.04) and 6 months (32.5 kg/m2 vs 33.0 kg/m2; P=.003); improvements were even greater for intervention patients completing at least one module. There were no differences in 3- or 6-month HbA1c or blood pressure levels in the intent-to-treat analysis. However, intervention patients completing at least one module compared with controls had a better HbA1c level (7.6% vs 8.2%; P=.03) and DBP (72.3 mm Hg vs 75.9 mm Hg; P=.01) at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study concluded that a significant proportion of patients will participate in an automated virtual diabetes self-management program embedded into patient portals and health systems show promise in helping patients manage their diabetes, weight, and blood pressure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02957721; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02957721.

Uptake of Statin Guidelines to Prevent and Treat Cardiovascular Disease.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2013, cholesterol treatment guidelines changed the approach to statin therapy by recommending fixed doses of low-, medium-, or high-intensity statins based on cardiovascular risk. We sought to evaluate the guideline's adoption in a diverse group of practices. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, we analyzed electronic health record data the year before and 2 years following guideline publication in 45 practices across 8 states. We examined associations based on patient, clinician, and practice characteristics and interviewed 24 clinicians and practice leaders to inform findings. RESULTS: The proportion of patients adherent with all recommendations 2 years after the guideline only increased from 18.5% to 20.3% (P < .01). There were clinically insignificant increases in statin use across risk strata (1.7% to 3.5%) and small increases in high-intensity statin use (2.6% to 4.6%). Only half of patients with cardiovascular disease (52.9%) were on any statin, not much different from patients at moderate (49.6% to 50.9%) or low (41.6% to 48.7%) risk. Multiple patient (risk, use of health care), clinician (age), and practice (type, rurality) factors were associated with statin use. Clinicians reported patient resistance to statins but liked having a risk calculator to guide discussions. CONCLUSION: Despite general agreement with statin benefit, the guideline was poorly implemented. Marginal differences in statin use between the highest and lower risk strata of patients is concerning. Rather than intensifying statin potency and recommending more patients take statins, guidelines may want to focus on ensuring that those who will benefit most get treatment.

Patient, Clinician, and Communication Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer is beneficial. Yet, screening remains suboptimal, and underserved populations are at greater risk for not being appropriately screened. Although many barriers to screening are understood, less is known about how the decision-making process on whether to receive colonoscopy or stool testing influences screening. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial to test engaging underserved populations in preventive care through online, personalized, educational material, 2417 patients aged 50 to 74 years were randomly selected from the 70,998 patients with an office visit the year prior and mailed a survey to assess decision-making for colorectal cancer screening. Twenty practices in practice-based research networks from 5 diverse states participated. Survey data were supplemented with electronic health record data. RESULTS: Among respondents, 64% were or became up to date with screening within 3 months of their office visit. The main factor associated with being up to date was the length of the patient-clinician relationship (<6 months vs 5+ years: odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80). Sharing the decision about screening options with the clinician was a predictor for being up to date compared with patients who made the decision for themselves (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.44). Only 36% of patients reported being given a choice about screening options. Traditional factors like race, employment, insurance, and education were not associated with screening. CONCLUSIONS: Having a long-term relationship with a primary care clinician and sharing decisions may be key drivers to ensure evidence-based preventive care for underserved populations.

Enhanced care planning and clinical-community linkages versus usual care to address basic needs of patients with multiple chronic conditions: a clinician-level randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with poorly controlled multiple chronic conditions (MCC) also have unhealthy behaviors, mental health challenges, and unmet social needs. Medical management of MCC may have limited benefit if patients are struggling to address their basic life needs. Health systems and communities increasingly recognize the need to address these issues and are experimenting with and investing in new models for connecting patients with needed services. Yet primary care clinicians, whose regular contact with patients makes them more familiar with patients' needs, are often not included in these systems. METHODS: We are starting a clinician-level cluster-randomized controlled trial to evaluate how primary care clinicians can participate in these community and hospital solutions and whether doing so is effective in controlling MCC. Sixty clinicians in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network will be matched by age and sex and randomized to usual care (control condition) or enhanced care planning with clinical-community linkage support (intervention). From the electronic health record we will identify all patients with MCC, including cardiovascular disease or risks, diabetes, obesity, or depression. A baseline assessment will be mailed to up to 50 randomly selected patients for each clinician (3000 total). Ten respondents per clinician (600 patients total) with uncontrolled MCC will be randomly selected for study inclusion, with oversampling of minorities. The intervention includes two components. First, we will use an enhanced care planning tool, My Own Health Report (MOHR), to screen patients for health behavior, mental health, and social needs. Patients will be supported by a patient navigator, who will help patients prioritize needs, create care plans, and write a personal narrative to guide the care team. Patients will update care plans every 1 to 2 weeks. Second, we will create community-clinical linkage to help address patients' needs. The linkage will include community resource registries, personnel to span settings (patient navigators and a community health worker), and care team coordination across team members through MOHR. DISCUSSION: This study will help inform efforts by primary care clinicians to help address unhealthy behaviors, mental health needs, and social risks as a strategy to better control MCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03885401. Registered on 19 September 2019.

Practice facilitation to promote evidence-based screening and management of unhealthy alcohol use in primary care: a practice-level randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Evidence demonstrates that screening for unhealthy alcohol use and providing persons engaged in risky drinking with brief behavioral and counseling interventions improves health outcomes, collectively termed screening and brief interventions. Medication assisted therapy (MAT) is another effective method for treatment of moderate or severe alcohol use disorder. Yet, primary care clinicians are not regularly screening for or treating unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are initiating a clinic-level randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate how primary care clinicians can impact unhealthy alcohol use through screening, counseling, and MAT. One hundred and 25 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) will be engaged; each will receive practice facilitation to promote screening, counseling, and MAT either at the beginning of the trial or at a 6-month control period start date. For each practice, the intervention includes provision of a practice facilitator, learning collaboratives with three practice champions, and clinic-wide information sessions. Clinics will be enrolled for 6-12 months. After completion of the intervention, we will conduct a mixed methods analysis to identify changes in screening rates, increase in provision of brief counseling and interventions as well as MAT, and the reduction of alcohol intake for patients after practices receive practice facilitation. DISCUSSION: This study offers a systematic process for dissemination and implementation of the evidence-based practice of screening, counseling, and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. Practices will be asked to implement a process for screening, counseling, and treatment based on their practice characteristics, patient population, and workflow. We propose practice facilitation as a robust and feasible intervention to assist in making changes within the practice. We believe that the process can be replicated and used in a broad range of clinical settings; we anticipate this will be supported by our evaluation of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023, Registered 5 February 2020.

Chronic Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care: Factors and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians write 45% of all opioid prescriptions in the United States, but little is known about the characteristics of patients who receive them and the clinicians who prescribe opioids in primary care settings. Our study aimed to describe the patient and clinician characteristics and clinicians' perspectives of chronic opioid prescribing in primary care. METHODS: Using a mixed methods approach, we completed an analysis of 2016 electronic health records from 21 primary care practices to identify patients who had received chronic opioids, which we defined as in receipt of an opioid prescription for at least 3 consecutive months. We compared those receiving chronic opioids with those not in terms of their demographics, prescribing clinician characteristics, and risk factors for opioid-related harms, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline on Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Pain. We then interviewed 16 primary care clinicians about their perspectives on chronic opioid prescribing. RESULTS: Of 84,029 patients, 1.1% (902/84,929) received chronic opioid prescriptions. Characteristics associated with being prescribed chronic opioids include being female, being of black or African American race, and having risks for opioid-related harms, such as mental health diagnoses, substance use disorder, and concurrent benzodiazepine use. Clinicians report multiple difficulties in weaning patients from chronic opioids, including medical contraindications of nonopioid alternatives and difficulty justifying weaning by stable long-term patients. CONCLUSION: Although patients prescribed opioids in primary care have higher risks of opioid-related harms, clinicians report multiple barriers in deprescribing chronic opioids. Future studies should examine strategies to mitigate these harms and engage patients in shared decision making about their chronic opioid use.

Clinician Experiences with Screening for Social Needs in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Despite clear evidence demonstrating the influence of social determinants on health, whether and how clinicians should address these determinants remain unclear. We aimed to understand primary care clinicians' experiences of administering a social needs screening instrument. METHODS: Using a prospective, observational design, we identified patients living in communities with lower education and income seen by 17 clinicians from 12 practices in northern Virginia. Before office visits, patients completed social needs surveys, which probed about their quality of life, education, housing, finances, substance use, transportation, social connections, physical activity, and food access. Clinicians then reviewed the completed surveys with patients. Concurrently, clinicians participated in a series of learning collaboratives to consider how to address social needs as part of care and completed diary entries about how knowing the patient's social needs influenced care after seeing each patient. RESULTS: Out of a total of 123 patients, 106 (86%) reported a social need. Excluding physical activity, 71% reported a social need, although only 3% wanted help. Clinicians reported that knowing the patient had a social need changed care delivery in 23% of patients and helped improve interactions with and knowledge of the patient in 53%. Clinicians reported that assessing social needs is difficult and resource intensive and that there were insufficient resources to help patients with identified needs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported that knowing patients' social needs changed what they did and improved communication for many patients. However, more evidence is needed regarding the benefit of social needs screening in primary care before widespread implementation.

Harnessing Information Technology to Inform Patients Facing Routine Decisions: Cancer Screening as a Test Case.

PURPOSE: Technology could transform routine decision making by anticipating patients' information needs, assessing where patients are with decisions and preferences, personalizing educational experiences, facilitating patient-clinician information exchange, and supporting follow-up. This study evaluated whether patients and clinicians will use such a decision module and its impact on care, using 3 cancer screening decisions as test cases. METHODS: Twelve practices with 55,453 patients using a patient portal participated in this prospective observational cohort study. Participation was open to patients who might face a cancer screening decision: women aged 40 to 49 who had not had a mammogram in 2 years, men aged 55 to 69 who had not had a prostate-specific antigen test in 2 years, and adults aged 50 to 74 overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Data sources included module responses, electronic health record data, and a postencounter survey. RESULTS: In 1 year, one-fifth of the portal users (11,458 patients) faced a potential cancer screening decision. Among these patients, 20.6% started and 7.9% completed the decision module. Fully 47.2% of module completers shared responses with their clinician. After their next office visit, 57.8% of those surveyed thought their clinician had seen their responses, and many reported the module made their appointment more productive (40.7%), helped engage them in the decision (47.7%), broadened their knowledge (48.1%), and improved communication (37.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients face decisions that can be anticipated and proactively facilitated through technology. Although use of technology has the potential to make visits more efficient and effective, cultural, workflow, and technical changes are needed before it could be widely disseminated.

MyPreventiveCare: implementation and dissemination of an interactive preventive health record in three practice-based research networks serving disadvantaged patients--a randomized cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based preventive services for early detection of cancer and other health conditions offer profound health benefits, yet Americans receive only half of indicated services. Policy initiatives promote the adoption of information technologies to engage patients in care. We developed a theory-driven interactive preventive health record (IPHR) to engage patients in health promotion. The model defines five levels of functionality: (1) collecting patient information, (2) integrating with electronic health records (EHRs), (3) translating information into lay language, (4) providing individualized, guideline-based clinical recommendations, and (5) facilitating patient action. It is hypothesized that personal health records (PHRs) with these higher levels of functionality will inform and activate patients in ways that simpler PHRs cannot. However, realizing this vision requires both technological advances and effective implementation based upon clinician and practice engagement. METHODS/DESIGN: We are starting a two-phase, mixed-method trial to evaluate whether the IPHR is scalable across a large number of practices and how its uptake differs for minority and disadvantaged patients. In phase 1, 40 practices from three practice-based research networks will be randomized to add IPHR functionality to their PHR versus continue to use their existing PHR. Throughout the study, we will engage intervention practices to locally tailor IPHR content and learn how to integrate new functions into their practice workflow. In phase 2, the IPHR to all nonintervention practices to observe whether the IPHR can be implemented more broadly (Scalability). Phase 1 will feature an implementation assessment in intervention practices, based on the RE-AIM model, to measure Reach (creation of IPHR accounts by patients), Adoption (practice decision to use the IPHR), Implementation (consistency, fidelity, barriers, and facilitators of use), and Maintenance (sustained use). The incremental effect of the IPHR on receipt of cancer screening tests and shared decision-making compared to traditional PHRs will assess Effectiveness. In phase 2, we will assess similar outcomes as phase 1 except for effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will yield information about the effectiveness of new health information technologies designed to actively engage patients in their care as well as information about how to effectively implement and disseminate PHRs by engaging clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02138448.

Engaging primary care patients to use a patient-centered personal health record.

PURPOSE: Health care leaders encourage clinicians to offer portals that enable patients to access personal health records, but implementation has been a challenge. Although large integrated health systems have promoted use through costly advertising campaigns, other implementation methods are needed for small to medium-sized practices where most patients receive their care. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods assessment of a proactive implementation strategy for a patient portal (an interactive preventive health record [IPHR]) offered by 8 primary care practices. The practices implemented a series of learning collaboratives with practice champions and redesigned workflow to integrate portal use into care. Practice implementation strategies, portal use, and factors influencing use were assessed prospectively. RESULTS: A proactive and customized implementation strategy designed by practices resulted in 25.6% of patients using the IPHR, with the rate increasing 1.0% per month over 31 months. Fully 23.5% of IPHR users signed up within 1 day of their office visit. Older patients and patients with comorbidities were more likely to use the IPHR, but blacks and Hispanics were less likely. Older age diminished as a factor after adjusting for comorbidities. Implementation by practice varied considerably (from 22.1% to 27.9%, P <.001) based on clinician characteristics and workflow innovations adopted by practices to enhance uptake. CONCLUSIONS: By directly engaging patients to use a portal and supporting practices to integrate use into care, primary care practices can match or potentially surpass the usage rates achieved by large health systems.