Crisis leadership behaviors in healthcare: survey validation and influence on staff outcomes in primary care clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an unprecedented transition from in-person to virtual delivery of primary health care services. Leaders were at the helm of the rapid changes required to make this happen, yet outcomes of leaders' behaviours were largely unexplored. This study (1) develops and validates the Crisis Leadership and Staff Outcomes (CLSO) Survey and (2) investigates the leadership behaviours exhibited during the transition to virtual care and their influence on select staff outcomes in primary care. METHODS: We tested the CLSO Survey amongst leaders and staff from four Community Health Centres in Ontario, Canada. The CLSO Survey measures a range of crisis leadership behaviors, such as showing empathy and promoting learning and psychological safety, as well as perceived staff outcomes in four areas: innovation, teamwork, feedback, and commitment to change. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to investigate factor structure and construct validity. We report on the scale's internal consistency through Cronbach's alpha, and associations between leadership scales and staff outcomes through odds ratios. RESULTS: There were 78 staff and 21 middle and senior leaders who completed the survey. A 4-factor model emerged, comprised of the leadership behaviors of (1) "task-oriented leadership" and (2) "person-oriented leadership", and select staff outcomes of (3) "commitment to sustaining change" and (4) "performance self-evaluation". Scales exhibited strong construct and internal validity. Task- and person-oriented leadership behaviours positively related to the two staff outcomes. CONCLUSION: The CLSO Survey is a reliable measure of leadership behaviours and select staff outcomes. Our results suggest that crisis leadership is multifaceted and both person-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviours are critical during a crisis to improve perceived staff performance and commitment to change.

Engaging Interdisciplinary Innovation Teams in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

To foster bottom-up innovations, health care organizations are leveraging interdisciplinary frontline innovation teams. These teams include workers across hierarchical levels and professional backgrounds, pooling diverse knowledge sources to develop innovations that improve patient and worker experiences and care quality, equity, and costs. Yet, these frontline innovation teams experience barriers, such as time constraints, being new to innovation, and team-based role hierarchies. We investigated the practices that such teams in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) used to overcome these barriers. Our 20-month study of two FQHC innovation teams provides one of the first accounts of how practices that sustained worker engagement in innovation and supported their ideas to implementation evolve over time. We also show the varied quantity of engagement practices used at different stages of the innovation process. At a time when FQHCs face pressure to innovate amid staff shortages, our study provides recommendations to support their work.

More isn't always better: Technology in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Clinical care in modern intensive care units (ICUs) combines multidisciplinary expertise and a complex array of technologies. These technologies have clearly advanced the ability of clinicians to do more for patients, yet so much equipment also presents the possibility for cognitive overload. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of technology in ICUs. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We analyzed qualitative data from 30 interviews with ICU clinicians and frontline managers within four ICUs. RESULTS: Our interviews identified three main challenges associated with technology in the ICU: (a) too many technologies and too much data; (b) inconsistent and inaccurate technologies; and (c) not enough integration among technologies, alignment with clinical workflows, and support for clinician identities. To address these challenges, interviewees highlighted mitigation strategies to address both social and technical systems and to achieve joint optimization. CONCLUSION: When new technologies are added to the ICU, they have potential both to improve and to disrupt patient care. To successfully implement technologies in the ICU, clinicians' perspectives are crucial. Understanding clinicians' perspectives can help limit the disruptive effects of new technologies, so clinicians can focus their time and attention on providing care to patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As technology and data continue to play an increasingly important role in ICU care, everyone involved in the design, development, approval, implementation, and use of technology should work together to apply a sociotechnical systems approach to reduce possible negative effects on clinical care for critically ill patients.

Variation in Hospital Neuraxial Labor Analgesia Rates in California.

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial analgesia provides effective pain relief during labor. However, it is unclear whether neuraxial analgesia prevalence differs across U.S. hospitals. The aim of this study was to assess hospital variation in neuraxial analgesia prevalence in California. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed birthing patients who underwent labor in 200 California hospitals from 2016 to 2020. The primary exposure was the delivery hospital. The outcomes were hospital neuraxial analgesia prevalence and between-hospital variability, before and after adjustment for patient and hospital factors. Median odds ratio and intraclass correlation coefficients quantified between-hospital variability. The median odds ratio estimated the odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia when moving between hospitals. The intraclass correlation coefficients quantified the proportion of the total variance in neuraxial analgesia use due to variation between hospitals. RESULTS: Among 1,510,750 patients who underwent labor, 1,040,483 (68.9%) received neuraxial analgesia. Both unadjusted and adjusted hospital prevalence exhibited a skewed distribution characterized by a long left tail. The unadjusted and adjusted prevalences were 5.4% and 6.0% at the 1st percentile, 21.0% and 21.2% at the 5th percentile, 70.6% and 70.7% at the 50th percentile, 75.8% and 76.6% at the 95th percentile, and 75.9% and 78.6% at the 99th percentile, respectively. The adjusted median odds ratio (2.3; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.5) indicated substantially increased odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia if they moved from a hospital with a lower odds of neuraxial analgesia to one with higher odds. The hospital explained only a moderate portion of the overall variability in neuraxial analgesia (intraclass correlation coefficient, 19.1%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A long left tail in the distribution and wide variation exist in the neuraxial analgesia prevalence across California hospitals that is not explained by patient and hospital factors. Addressing the low prevalence among hospitals in the left tail requires exploration of the interplay between patient preferences, staffing availability, and care providers' attitudes toward neuraxial analgesia.

Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

Innovation Diffusion Across 13 Specialties and Associated Clinician Characteristics.

Diffusion of innovations, defined as the adoption and implementation of new ideas, processes, products, or services in health care, is both particularly important and especially challenging. One known problem with adoption and implementation of new technologies is that, while organizations often make innovations immediately available, organizational actors are more wary about adopting new technologies because these may impact not only patients and practices but also reimbursement. As a result, innovations may remain underutilized, and organizations may miss opportunities to improve and advance. As innovation adoption is vital to achieving success and remaining competitive, it is important to measure and understand factors that impact innovation diffusion. Building on a survey of a national sample of 654 clinicians, our study measures the extent of diffusion of value-enhancing care delivery innovations (i.e., technologies that not only improve quality of care but has potential to reduce care cost by diminishing waste, Faems et al., 2010) for 13 clinical specialties and identifies healthcare-specific individual characteristics such as: professional purview, supervisory responsibility, financial incentive, and clinical tenure associated with innovation diffusion. We also examine the association of innovation diffusion with perceived value of one type of care delivery innovation - artificial intelligence (AI) - for assisting clinicians in their clinical work. Responses indicate that less than two-thirds of clinicians were knowledgeable about and aware of relevant value-enhancing care delivery innovations. Clinicians with broader professional purview, more supervisory responsibility, and stronger financial incentives had higher innovation diffusion scores, indicating greater knowledge and awareness of value-enhancing, care delivery innovations. Higher levels of knowledge of the innovations and awareness of their implementation were associated with higher perceptions of the value of AI-based technology. Our study contributes to our knowledge of diffusion of innovation in healthcare delivery and highlights potential mechanisms for speeding innovation diffusion.

Safe Surgery Checklist Implementation: Associations of Management Practice and Safety Culture Change.

Designing and developing safe systems has been a persistent challenge in health care, and in surgical settings in particular. In efforts to promote safety, safety culture, i.e., shared values regarding safety management, is considered a key driver of high-quality, safe healthcare delivery. However, changing organizational culture so that it emphasizes and promotes safety is often an elusive goal. The Safe Surgery Checklist is an innovative tool for improving safety culture and surgical care safety, but evidence about Safe Surgery Checklist effectiveness is mixed. We examined the relationship between changes in management practices and changes in perceived safety culture during implementation of safe surgery checklists. Using a pre-posttest design and survey methods, we evaluated Safe Surgery Checklist implementation in a national sample of 42 general acute care hospitals in a leading hospital network. We measured perceived management practices among managers (n = 99) using the World Management Survey. We measured perceived preoperative safety and safety culture among clinical operating room personnel (N = 2,380 (2016); N = 1,433 (2017)) using the Safe Surgical Practice Survey. We collected data in two consecutive years. Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between changes in management practices and overall safety culture and perceived teamwork following Safe Surgery Checklist implementation.

Qualitative interview study of strategies to support healthcare personnel mental health through an occupational health lens.

BACKGROUND: Employee Occupational Health ('occupational health') clinicians have expansive perspectives of the experience of healthcare personnel. Integrating mental health into the purview of occupational health is a newer approach that could combat historical limitations of healthcare personnel mental health programmes, which have been isolated and underused. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to document innovation and opportunities for supporting healthcare personnel mental health through occupational health clinicians. This work was part of a national qualitative needs assessment of employee occupational health clinicians during COVID-19 who were very much at the centre of organisational responses. DESIGN: This qualitative needs assessment included key informant interviews obtained using snowball sampling methods. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 43 US Veterans Health Administration occupational health clinicians from 29 facilities. APPROACH: This analysis focused on personnel mental health needs and opportunities, using consensus coding of interview transcripts and modified member checking. KEY RESULTS: Three major opportunities to support mental health through occupational health involved: (1) expanded mental health needs of healthcare personnel, including opportunities to support work-related concerns (eg, traumatic deployments), home-based concerns and bereavement (eg, working with chaplains); (2) leveraging expanded roles and protocols to address healthcare personnel mental health concerns, including opportunities in expanding occupational health roles, cross-disciplinary partnerships (eg, with employee assistance programmes (EAP)) and process/protocol (eg, acute suicidal ideation pathways) and (3) need for supporting occupational health clinicians' own mental health, including opportunities to address overwork/burn-out with adequate staffing/resources. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational health can enact strategies to support personnel mental health: to structurally sustain attention, use social cognition tools (eg, suicidality protocols or expanded job descriptions); to leverage distributed attention, enhance interdisciplinary collaboration (eg, chaplains for bereavement support or EAP) and to equip systems with resources and allow for flexibility during crises, including increased staffing.

Low Rate of Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in an Academic Primary Care Practice with Resident Trainees.

BACKGROUND: A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure. RESULTS: Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups. CONCLUSION: Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Assessing health care leadership and management for resilience and performance during crisis: The HERO-36.

BACKGROUND: Whereas organizational literature has provided much insight into the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of organizational leadership and management during emergencies, measures to operationalize related effective practices during crises remain sparse. PURPOSE: To address this need, we developed the Healthcare Emergency Response Optimization survey, which set out to examine the leadership and management practices in health care organizations that support resilience and performance during crisis. METHODOLOGY: We administered an online survey in April to May 2022 to health care administrators and frontline staff intimately involved in their hospital's emergency response during the COVID-19 pandemic, which included a sample of 379 respondents across nine rural and urban hospitals (response rate: 44.4%). We used confirmatory factor analysis and quantile regressions to examine the results. RESULTS: Applying confirmatory factor analysis, we retained 36 items in our survey that comprised eight measures for formal and informal practices to assess crisis leadership and management. To test effectiveness of the specified practices, we regressed self-reported resilience and performance measures on the formality and informality scores. Findings show that informal practices mattered most for resilience, whereas formal practices mattered most for performance. We also identified specific practices (anticipation, transactional and relational interactions, and ad hoc collaborations) for resilience and performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These validated measures of organizational practices assess emergency response during crisis, with an emphasis on the actions and decisions of leadership as well as the management of organizational structures and processes. Organizations using these measures may subsequently modify preparedness and planning approaches to better manage future crises.

Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in Telehealth vs In-Person Visits.

Importance: Use of telehealth has increased substantially in recent years. However, little is known about whether the likelihood of completing recommended tests and specialty referrals-termed diagnostic loop closure-is associated with visit modality. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for tests and referrals ordered at telehealth visits vs in-person visits and identify associated factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study, all patient visits from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, at 1 large urban hospital-based primary care practice and 1 affiliated community health center in Boston, Massachusetts, were evaluated. Main Measures: Prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for (1) colonoscopy referrals (screening and diagnostic), (2) dermatology referrals for suspicious skin lesions, and (3) cardiac stress tests. Results: The study included test and referral orders for 4133 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [11.7] years; 2163 [52.3%] women; 203 [4.9%] Asian, 1146 [27.7%] Black, 2362 [57.1%] White, and 422 [10.2%] unknown or other race). A total of 1151 of the 4133 orders (27.8%) were placed during a telehealth visit. Of the telehealth orders, 42.6% were completed within the designated time frame vs 58.4% of those ordered during in-person visits and 57.4% of those ordered without a visit. In an adjusted analysis, patients with telehealth visits were less likely to close the loop for all test types compared with those with in-person visits (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that rates of loop closure were low for all test types across all visit modalities but worse for telehealth. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a patient safety challenge in primary care that may be of particular concern during telehealth encounters.

Rethinking Health and Health Care: How Clinicians and Practice Groups Can Better Promote Whole Health and Well-Being for People and Communities.

A new National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, "Achieving Whole Health: A New Approach for Veterans and the Nation," redefines what it means to be healthy and creates a roadmap for health systems, including the Veterans Health Administration and the nation, to scale and spread a whole health approach to care. The report identifies 5 foundational elements for whole health care and sets 6 national, state, and local policy goals for change. This article summarizes the report, emphasizes the importance of preventive medicine, and identifies concrete actions clinicians and practices can take now to deliver whole health care.

Understanding care coordination for Veterans with complex care needs: protocol of a multiple-methods study to build evidence for an effectiveness and implementation study.

Background: For patients with complex health and social needs, care coordination is crucial for improving their access to care, clinical outcomes, care experiences, and controlling their healthcare costs. However, evidence is inconsistent regarding the core elements of care coordination interventions, and lack of standardized processes for assessing patients' needs has made it challenging for providers to optimize care coordination based on patient needs and preferences. Further, ensuring providers have reliable and timely means of communicating about care plans, patients' full spectrum of needs, and transitions in care is important for overcoming potential care fragmentation. In the Veterans Health Administration (VA), several initiatives are underway to implement care coordination processes and services. In this paper, we describe our study underway in the VA aimed at building evidence for designing and implementing care coordination practices that enhance care integration and improve health and care outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs. Methods: In a prospective observational multiple methods study, for Aim 1 we will use existing data to identify Veterans with complex care needs who have and have not received care coordination services. We will examine the relationship between receipt of care coordination services and their health outcomes. In Aim 2, we will adapt the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Veteran Care questionnaire to survey a sample of Veterans about their experiences regarding coordination, integration, and the extent to which their care needs are being met. For Aim 3, we will interview providers and care teams about their perceptions of the innovation attributes of current care coordination needs assessment tools and processes, including their improvement over other approaches (relative advantage), fit with current practices (compatibility and innovation fit), complexity, and ability to visualize how the steps proceed to impact the right care at the right time (observability). The provider interviews will inform design and deployment of a widescale provider survey. Discussion: Taken together, our study will inform development of an enhanced care coordination intervention that seeks to improve care and outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs.

The association between care integration and care quality.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to analyze the relationship between care integration and care quality, and to examine if the relationship varies by patient risk. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: The key independent variables used validated measures derived from a provider survey of functional (i.e., administrative and clinical systems) and social (i.e., patient integration, professional cooperation, professional coordination) integration. Survey responses represented data from a stratified sample of 59 practice sites from 17 health systems. Dependent variables included three quality measures constructed from patient-level Medicare data: colorectal cancer screening among patients at risk, patient-level 30-day readmission, and a practice-level Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) composite measure of publicly reported, individual measures of ambulatory clinical quality performance. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD: We obtained quality- and beneficiary-level covariate data for the 41,966 Medicare beneficiaries served by the 59 practices in our survey sample. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated hierarchical linear models to examine the association between care integration and care quality and the moderating effect of patients' clinical risk score. We graphically visualized the moderating effects at ±1 standard deviation of our z-standardized independent and moderating variables and performed simple slope tests. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our analyses uncovered a strong positive relationship between social integration, specifically patient integration, and the quality of care a patient receives (e.g., a 1-point increase in a practice's patient integration was associated with 0.31-point higher HEDIS composite score, p < 0.01). Further, we documented positive and significant associations between aspects of social and functional integration on quality of care based on patient risk. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest social integration matters for improving the quality of care and that the relationship of integration to quality is not uniform for all patients. Policymakers and practitioners considering structural integrations of health systems should direct attention beyond structure to consider the potential for social integration to impact outcomes and how that might be achieved.

Awakening and Breathing Coordination: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Determinants of Implementation.

Rationale: Routine spontaneous awakening and breathing trial coordination (SAT/SBT) improves outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients, but adherence varies. Understanding barriers to and facilitators of consistent daily use of SAT/SBT (implementation determinants) can guide the development of implementation strategies to increase adherence to these evidence-based interventions. Objectives: We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study to measure variation in the routine daily use of SAT/SBT and to identify implementation determinants that might explain variation in SAT/SBT use across 15 intensive care units (ICUs) in urban and rural locations within an integrated, community-based health system. Methods: We described the patient population and measured adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT from January to June 2021, selecting four sites with varied adherence levels for semistructured field interviews. We conducted key informant interviews with critical care nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians/advanced practice clinicians (n = 55) from these four sites between October and December 2021 and performed content analysis to identify implementation determinants of SAT/SBT use. Results: The 15 sites had 1,901 ICU admissions receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ⩾24 hours during the measurement period. The mean IMV patient age was 58 years, and the median IMV duration was 5.3 days (interquartile range, 2.5-11.9). Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence (within 2 h) was estimated at 21% systemwide (site range, 9-68%). ICU clinicians were generally familiar with SAT/SBT but varied in their knowledge and beliefs about what constituted an evidence-based SAT/SBT. Clinicians reported that SAT/SBT coordination was difficult in the context of existing ICU workflows, and existing protocols did not explicitly define how coordination should be performed. The lack of an agreed-upon system-level measure for tracking daily use of SAT/SBT led to uncertainty regarding what constituted adherence. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic increased clinician workloads, impacting performance. Conclusions: Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence varied substantially across 15 ICUs within an integrated, community-based health system. Implementation strategies that address barriers identified by this study, including knowledge deficits, challenges regarding workflow coordination, and the lack of performance measurement, should be tested in future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials to increase adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT and minimize harm related to the prolonged use of mechanical ventilation and sedation.

Enabling System Functionalities of Primary Care Practices for Team Dynamics in Transformation to Team-Based Care: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA).

Team-based primary care has been shown to be an important initiative for transforming primary care to achieve whole-person care, enhance health equity, and reduce provider burnout. Organizational approaches have been explored to better implement team-based care but a thorough understanding of the role of system functions is lacking. We aimed to identify the combinations of system functionalities in primary care practices that most enable effective teamwork. We used a novel method, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), to identify cross-case patterns in 19 primary care practices in the Harvard Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC), an initiative for transforming primary care practices by establishing teams and implementing team-based care. QCA findings identified that primary care practices with strong team dynamics exhibited strengths in three operational care process functionalities, including management of abnormal test results, cancer screening and medication management for high-priority patients, care transitions, and in health information technology (HIT) functionality. HIT functionality alone was not sufficient to achieve the desired outcomes. System functionalities in a primary care practice that support physicians and their teams in identifying patients with urgent and complex acute illnesses requiring immediate response and care and overcoming barriers to collaboration within and across institutional settings, may be essential for sustaining strong team-based primary care.

High-performing primary care clinics across high-need, high-cost Medicare populations.

BACKGROUND: To reduce spending and improve quality, some primary care clinics in the USA have focused on high-need, high-cost (HNHC) Medicare beneficiaries, which include clinically distinct subpopulations: older adults with frailty, adults under 65 years with disability and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions. Nationally, the extent to which primary care clinics are high-performing 'Bright Spots'-clinics that achieve favourable outcomes at lower costs across HNHC beneficiary subpopulations-is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of primary care clinics that perform highly on commonly used cost or quality measures for HNHC subpopulations. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study using Medicare claims data from 2014 to 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Annual spending, avoidable hospitalisations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, treat-and-release emergency department visits, all-cause 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rates and healthy days at home. Clinics were high performing when they ranked in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures for an HNHC subpopulation. 'Bright Spot' clinics were in the top quartile of performance for ≥4 measures across all the HNHC subpopulations. KEY RESULTS: A total of 2770 primary care clinics cared for at least 10 beneficiaries from each of the three HNHC subpopulations (adults under 65 with disability, older adults with frailty and beneficiaries with major complex chronic conditions). Less than 4% of clinics were high performing for each HNHC subpopulation; <0.5% of clinics were in the top quartile for all five measures for a given subpopulation. No clinics met the definition of a primary care 'Bright Spot'. CONCLUSIONS: High-performing primary care clinics that achieved favourable health outcomes or lower costs across subpopulations of HNHC beneficiaries in the Medicare programme in 2015 were rare. Efforts are needed to support primary care clinics in providing optimal care to HNHC subpopulations.

Ideas from the Frontline: Improvement Opportunities in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Engaging frontline clinicians and staff in quality improvement is a promising bottom-up approach to transforming primary care practices. This may be especially true in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and similar safety-net settings where large-scale, top-down transformation efforts are often associated with declining worker morale and increasing burnout. Innovation contests, which decentralize problem-solving, can be used to involve frontline workers in idea generation and selection. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the ideas that frontline clinicians and staff suggested via organizational innovation contests in a national sample of 54 FQHCs. INTERVENTIONS: Innovation contests solicited ideas for improving care from all frontline workers-regardless of professional expertise, job title, and organizational tenure and excluding those in senior management-and offered opportunities to vote on ideas. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,417 frontline workers across all participating FQHCs generated 2,271 improvement opportunities. APPROACHES: We performed a content analysis and organized the ideas into codes (e.g., standardization, workplace perks, new service, staff relationships, community development) and categories (e.g., operations, employees, patients). KEY RESULTS: Ideas from frontline workers in participating FQHCs called attention to standardization (n = 386, 17%), staffing (n = 244, 11%), patient experience (n = 223, 10%), staff training (n = 145, 6%), workplace perks (n = 142, 6%), compensation (n = 101, 5%), new service (n = 92, 4%), management-staff relationships (n = 82, 4%), and others. Voting results suggested that staffing resources, standardization, and patient communication were key issues among workers. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation contests generated numerous ideas for improvement from the frontline. It is likely that the issues described in this study have become even more salient today, as the COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating impacts on work environments and health/social needs of patients living in low-resourced communities. Continued work is needed to promote learning and information exchange about opportunities to improve and transform practices between policymakers, managers, and providers and staff at the frontlines.

Business-nonprofit hybrid organizing: a dynamic approach to balancing benefits and costs.

Introduction: Efforts to address complex public health challenges can benefit from cross-sector collaboration, while also fostering growing business sector engagement in promoting health equity. What form business-nonprofit collaboration should take, however, is a difficult question for managers and leaders. Hybrid organizational forms, which combine for-profit and nonprofit elements within a single organization in unconventional ways, offer an innovative and potentially promising approach. Yet, while existing typologies of cross-sector collaboration have identified hybrid forms at one end of a continuum of possible forms of collaboration, these typologies do not differentiate the diversity such hybrid forms may take, and the costs and benefits of these innovative hybrid forms are poorly understood. This leaves managers interested in promoting public health through business-nonprofit hybrid organizing with limited guidance about how to maximize potential merits while mitigating drawbacks. Methods: We performed a qualitative comparative case study of three examples of business-nonprofit hybrid organizing. Data collection included 113 interviews with representatives from 42 organizations and observation of case study activities. We used thematic analysis within and across cases to characterize the form of hybrid organizing in each case and to examine benefits and costs of different forms for supporting initiatives. Results: We identified two hybrid, collaborative forms - Appended and Blended forms. Each form had benefits and costs, the significance of which shifted over time contingent on changing strategic priorities and operating environments. Benefits and costs of particular forms become more or less important for establishing and sustaining initiatives under different conditions, requiring a dynamic view. Discussion: No particular form of business-nonprofit hybrid organizing is inherently better than another. Optimizing hybrid organizing and ensuring resilient collaborations may mean allowing collaborative forms to evolve. Practitioners can manage tradeoffs between benefits and costs through an ongoing process of assessing the fit between a given collaborative form, strategic priorities, and relevant features of the operating environment. This dynamic view offers important insights for ensuring the resilience of business-nonprofit collaborative efforts to enhance public health.