Patient and caregiver perspectives of fluid discharge protocols following pituitary surgery.

Background: Post-operative fluid restriction after transsphenoidal surgery (TSS) for pituitary tumors may effectively prevent delayed hyponatremia, the most common cause of readmission. However, implementation of individualized fluid restriction interventions after discharge is often complex and poses challenges for provider and patient. The purpose of this study was to understand the factors necessary for successful implementation of fluid restriction and discharge care protocols following TSS. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with fifteen patients and four caregivers on fluid discharge protocols were conducted following TSS. Patients and caregivers who had surgery before and after the implementation of updated discharge protocols were interviewed. Data were analyzed inductively using a procedure informed by rapid and thematic analysis. Results: Most patients and caregivers perceived fluid restriction protocols as acceptable and feasible when indicated. Facilitators to the protocols included clear communication about the purpose of and strategies for fluid restriction, access to the care team, and involvement of patients' caregivers in care discussions. Barriers included patient confusion about differences in the care plan between teams, physical discomfort of fluid restriction, increased burden of tracking fluids during recovery, and lack of clarity surrounding desmopressin prescriptions. Conclusion: Outpatient fluid restriction protocols are a feasible intervention following pituitary surgery but requires frequent patient communication and education. This evaluation highlights the importance of patient engagement and feedback to effectively develop and implement complex clinical interventions.

An initiative to promote value-based stress test selection in primary care and cardiology clinics: A mixed methods evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Exercise stress echocardiograms (stress echos) are overused, whereas exercise stress electrocardiograms (stress ECGs) can be an appropriate, lower-cost substitute. In this post hoc, mixed methods evaluation, we assessed an initiative promoting value-based, guideline-concordant ordering practices in primary care (PC) and cardiology clinics. METHODS: Change in percent of stress ECGs ordered of all exercise stress tests (stress ECGs and echos) was calculated between three periods: baseline (January 2019-February 2020); Period 1 with reduced stress ECG report turnaround time + PC-targeted education (began June 2020); and Period 2 with the addition of electronic health record-based alternative alert (AA) providing point-of-care clinical decision support. The AA was deployed in two of five PC clinics in July 2020, two additional PC clinics in January 2021, and one of four cardiology clinics in February 2021. Nineteen primary care providers (PCPs) and five cardiologists were interviewed in Period 2. RESULTS: Clinicians reported reducing ECG report turnaround time was crucial for adoption. PCPs specifically reported that value-based education helped change their practice. In PC, the percent of stress ECGs ordered increased by 38% ± 6% (SE) (p < 0.0001) from baseline to Period 1. Most PCPs identified the AA as the most impactful initiative, yet stress ECG ordering did not change (6% ± 6%; p = 0.34) between Periods 1 and 2. In contrast, cardiologists reportedly relied on their expertise rather than AAs, yet their stress ECGs orders increased from Period 1 to 2 to a larger degree in the cardiology clinic with the AA (12% ± 5%; p = 0.01) than clinics without the AA (6% ± 2%; p = 0.01). The percent of stress ECGs ordered was higher in Period 2 than baseline for both specialties (both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This initiative influenced ordering behaviour in PC and cardiology clinics. However, clinicians' perceptions of the initiative varied between specialties and did not always align with the observed behaviour change.

Screening for Social Determinants of Health During Primary Care and Emergency Department Encounters.

This cross-sectional study explores characteristics of patients who are screened and who screen positive for social determinants of health (SDOH) needs in different clinical settings within a large integrated health system.

From Acceptable to Superlative: Scaling a Technologist Coaching Intervention to Improve Image Quality.

OBJECTIVE: To explore factors influencing the expansion of the peer-based technologist Coaching Model Program (CMP) from its origins in mammography and ultrasound to all imaging modalities at a single tertiary academic medical center. METHODS: After success in mammography and ultrasound, efforts to expand the CMP across all Stanford Radiology modalities commenced in September 2020. From February to April 2021 as lead coaches piloted the program in these novel modalities, an implementation science team designed and conducted semistructured stakeholder interviews and took observational notes at learning collaborative meetings. Data were analyzed using inductive-deductive approaches informed by two implementation science frameworks. RESULTS: Twenty-seven interviews were collected across modalities with radiologists (n = 5), managers (n = 6), coaches (n = 11), and technologists (n = 5) and analyzed with observational notes from six learning meetings with 25 to 40 recurrent participants. The number of technologists, the complexity of examinations, or the existence of standardized auditing criteria for each modality influenced CMP adaptations. Facilitators underlying program expansion included cross-modality learning collaborative, thoughtful pairing of coach and technologist, flexibility in feedback frequency and format, radiologist engagement, and staged rollout. Barriers included lack of protected coaching time, lack of pre-existing audit criteria for some modalities, and the need for privacy of auditing and feedback data. DISCUSSION: Adaptations to each radiology modality and communication of these learnings were key to disseminating the existing CMP to new modalities across the entire department. An intermodality learning collaborative can facilitate the dissemination of evidence-based practices across modalities.

Evaluating the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic: A Qualitative Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may improve care for patients with heart failure. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a patient survey that captures symptom frequency, symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations, and quality of life. Despite the utility of PROs and the KCCQ-12, the implementation and routine use of these measures can be difficult. We conducted an evaluation of clinician perceptions of the KCCQ-12 to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation into clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted interviews with cardiologists from 4 institutions across the United States and Canada (n=16) and observed clinic visits at 1 institution in Northern California (n=5). Qualitative analysis was conducted in 2 rounds: (1) rapid analysis constructed around major themes related to the aims of the study and (2) content analysis with codes derived from the rapid analysis and implementation science. RESULTS: Most heart failure physicians and advanced practice clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 was acceptable, appropriate, and useful in clinical care. Clinician engagement efforts, trialability, and the straightforward design of the KCCQ-12 facilitated its use in clinical care. Further opportunities identified to facilitate implementation include more streamlined integration into the electronic health record and comprehensive staff education on PROs. Participants highlighted that the KCCQ-12 was useful in clinic visits to improve the consistency of patient history taking, focus patient-clinician conversations, collect a more accurate account of patient quality of life, track trends in patient well-being over time, and refine clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: In this qualitative study, clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 enhanced several aspects of heart failure patient care. Use of the KCCQ-12 was facilitated by a robust clinician engagement campaign and the design of the KCCQ-12 itself. Future implementation of PROs in heart failure clinic should focus on streamlining electronic health record integration and providing additional staff education on the value of PROs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Physician Perceptions of Performance Feedback and Impact on Personal Well-Being: A Qualitative Exploration of Patient Satisfaction Feedback in Neurology.

BACKGROUND: To understand neurologists' experiences and perspectives on patient satisfaction feedback and its impact on personal well-being and behavior. METHODS: From May to June 2021, the researchers conducted 19 semistructured interviews with neurologists from a large academic medical center. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory informed a combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data, which focused on perceptions of current feedback practices, its impact on physician behavior, and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: Participants tended to be female (n = 12/19, 63.2%), aged 30-39 (n = 8/19, 42.1%), white (n = 9/19, 47.4%), and were 10+ years into clinical practice (n = 18/19, 94.7%). Physicians were receptive to feedback overall, but perceptions varied by feedback type. Physicians preferred informal feedback (delivered unprompted directly by patients), given its tendency toward actionability. They disliked formal feedback (derived from anonymous surveys) due to low actionability, bias and validity issues, lack of contextual considerations, delivery through public reports, and links to financial incentives. Nearly all physicians reported formal feedback programs had the potential to negatively affect well-being and were not beneficial to their practice; a few reported adjusting their clinical practice to improve patient satisfaction performance. Five recommendations to improve patient satisfaction feedback programs emerged: Align on feedback intent, acknowledge survey limitations during program administration, increase actionability of feedback through specificity and control, support direct patient-physician feedback and problem resolution, and support empathetic integration of feedback. CONCLUSION: Understanding physician perceptions of current approaches to patient satisfaction feedback offers the opportunity to shape subsequent collection and distribution methods to improve physician performance and optimize professional fulfillment.

The patient-reported outcome measurement in heart failure clinic trial: Rationale and methods of the PRO-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with heart failure (HF), patient-reported health status provides information beyond standard clinician assessment. Although HF management guidelines recommend collecting patient-reported health status as part of routine care, there is minimal data on the impact of this intervention. STUDY DESIGN: The Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic (PRO-HF) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial testing the hypothesis that routine health status assessment via the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) leads to an improvement in patient-reported health status among patients treated in a tertiary health system HF clinic. PRO-HF has completed randomization of 1,248 participants to routine KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. Patients randomized to the KCCQ-12 arm complete KCCQ-12 assessments before each HF clinic visit with the results shared with their treating clinician. Clinicians received education regarding the interpretation and potential utility of the KCCQ-12. The primary endpoint is the change in KCCQ-12 over 1 year. Secondary outcomes are HF therapy patterns and health care utilization, including clinic visits, testing, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. As a sub-study, PRO-HF will also evaluate the impact of routine KCCQ-12 assessment on patient experience and the accuracy of clinician-assessed health status. In addition, clinicians completed semi-structured interviews to capture their perceptions on the trial's implementation of routine KCCQ-12 assessment in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: PRO-HF is a pragmatic, randomized trial based in a real-world HF clinic to determine the feasibility of routinely assessing patient-reported health status and the impact of this intervention on health status, care delivery, patient experience, and the accuracy of clinician health status assessment.

Evaluating clinician-led quality improvement initiatives: A system-wide embedded research partnership at Stanford Medicine.

Introduction: Many healthcare delivery systems have developed clinician-led quality improvement (QI) initiatives but fewer have also developed in-house evaluation units. Engagement between the two entities creates unique opportunities. Stanford Medicine funded a collaboration between their Improvement Capability Development Program (ICDP), which coordinates and incentivizes clinician-led QI efforts, and the Evaluation Sciences Unit (ESU), a multidisciplinary group of embedded researchers with expertise in implementation and evaluation sciences. Aim: To describe the ICDP-ESU partnership and report key learnings from the first 2 y of operation September 2019 to August 2021. Methods: Department-level physician and operational QI leaders were offered an ESU consultation to workshop design, methods, and overall scope of their annual QI projects. A steering committee of high-level stakeholders from operational, clinical, and research perspectives subsequently selected three projects for in-depth partnered evaluation with the ESU based on evaluability, importance to the health system, and broader relevance. Selected project teams met regularly with the ESU to develop mixed methods evaluations informed by relevant implementation science frameworks, while aligning the evaluation approach with the clinical teams' QI goals. Results: Sixty and 62 ICDP projects were initiated during the 2 cycles, respectively, across 18 departments, of which ESU consulted with 15 (83%). Within each annual cycle, evaluators made actionable, summative findings rapidly available to partners to inform ongoing improvement. Other reported benefits of the partnership included rapid adaptation to COVID-19 needs, expanded clinician evaluation skills, external knowledge dissemination through scholarship, and health system-wide knowledge exchange. Ongoing considerations for improving the collaboration included the need for multi-year support to enable nimble response to dynamic health system needs and timely data access. Conclusion: Presence of embedded evaluation partners in the enterprise-wide QI program supported identification of analogous endeavors (eg, telemedicine adoption) and cross-cutting lessons across QI efforts, clinician capacity building, and knowledge dissemination through scholarship.

A 360 degree mixed-methods evaluation of a specialized COVID-19 outpatient clinic and remote patient monitoring program.

BACKGROUND: Our goals are to quantify the impact on acute care utilization of a specialized COVID-19 clinic with an integrated remote patient monitoring program in an academic medical center and further examine these data with stakeholder perceptions of clinic effectiveness and acceptability. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was drawn from enrolled and unenrolled ambulatory patients who tested positive in May through September 2020 matched on age, presence of comorbidities and other factors. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients, frontline clinician, and administrators were analyzed in an inductive-deductive approach to identify key themes. RESULTS: Enrolled patients were more likely to be hospitalized than unenrolled patients (N = 11/137 in enrolled vs 2/126 unenrolled, p = .02), reflecting a higher admittance rate following emergency department (ED) events among the enrolled vs unenrolled, though this was not a significant difference (46% vs 25%, respectively, p = .32). Thirty-eight qualitative interviews conducted June to October 2020 revealed broad stakeholder belief in the clinic's support of appropriate care escalation. Contrary to beliefs the clinic reduced inappropriate care utilization, no difference was seen between enrolled and unenrolled patients who presented to the ED and were not admitted (N = 10/137 in enrolled vs 8/126 unenrolled, p = .76). Administrators and providers described the clinic's integral role in allowing health services to resume in other areas of the health system following an initial lockdown. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care utilization and multi-stakeholder interviews suggest heightened outpatient observation through a specialized COVID-19 clinic and remote patient monitoring program may have contributed to an increase in appropriate acute care utilization. The clinic's role securing safe reopening of health services systemwide was endorsed as a primary, if unmeasured, benefit.

Nursing Workflow Change in a COVID-19 Inpatient Unit Following the Deployment of Inpatient Telehealth: Observational Study Using a Real-Time Locating System.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted widespread implementation of telehealth, including in the inpatient setting, with the goals to reduce potential pathogen exposure events and personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization. Nursing workflow adaptations in these novel environments are of particular interest given the association between nursing time at the bedside and patient safety. Understanding the frequency and duration of nurse-patient encounters following the introduction of a novel telehealth platform in the context of COVID-19 may therefore provide insight into downstream impacts on patient safety, pathogen exposure, and PPE utilization. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in nursing workflow relative to prepandemic levels using a real-time locating system (RTLS) following the deployment of inpatient telehealth on a COVID-19 unit. METHODS: In March 2020, telehealth was installed in patient rooms in a COVID-19 unit and on movable carts in 3 comparison units. The existing RTLS captured nurse movement during 1 pre- and 5 postpandemic stages (January-December 2020). Change in direct nurse-patient encounters, time spent in patient rooms per encounter, and total time spent with patients per shift relative to baseline were calculated. Generalized linear models assessed difference-in-differences in outcomes between COVID-19 and comparison units. Telehealth adoption was captured and reported at the unit level. RESULTS: Change in frequency of encounters and time spent per encounter from baseline differed between the COVID-19 and comparison units at all stages of the pandemic (all P<.001). Frequency of encounters decreased (difference-in-differences range -6.6 to -14.1 encounters) and duration of encounters increased (difference-in-differences range 1.8 to 6.2 minutes) from baseline to a greater extent in the COVID-19 units relative to the comparison units. At most stages of the pandemic, the change in total time nurses spent in patient rooms per patient per shift from baseline did not differ between the COVID-19 and comparison units (all P>.17). The primary COVID-19 unit quickly adopted telehealth technology during the observation period, initiating 15,088 encounters that averaged 6.6 minutes (SD 13.6) each. CONCLUSIONS: RTLS movement data suggest that total nursing time at the bedside remained unchanged following the deployment of inpatient telehealth in a COVID-19 unit. Compared to other units with shared mobile telehealth units, the frequency of nurse-patient in-person encounters decreased and the duration lengthened on a COVID-19 unit with in-room telehealth availability, indicating "batched" redistribution of work to maintain total time at bedside relative to prepandemic periods. The simultaneous adoption of telehealth suggests that virtual care was a complement to, rather than a replacement for, in-person care. However, study limitations preclude our ability to draw a causal link between nursing workflow change and telehealth adoption. Thus, further evaluation is needed to determine potential downstream implications on disease transmission, PPE utilization, and patient safety.

A qualitative assessment of medical assistant professional aspirations and their alignment with career ladders across three institutions.

BACKGROUND: Growing demand for medical assistants (MAs) in team-based primary care has led health systems to explore career ladders based on expanded MA responsibilities as a solution to improve MA recruitment and retention. However, the practical implementation of career ladders remains a challenge for many health systems. In this study, we aim to understand MA career aspirations and their alignment with available advancement opportunities. METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted August to December 2019 in primary care clinics based in three health systems in California and Utah. MA perspectives of career aspirations and their alignment with existing career ladders were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Ten focus groups conducted with 59 participants revealed three major themes: mixed perceptions of expanded MA roles with concern over increased responsibility without commensurate increase in pay; divergent career aspirations among MAs not addressed by existing career ladders; and career ladder implementation challenges including opaque advancement requirements and lack of consistency across practice settings. CONCLUSION: MAs held positive perceptions of career ladders in theory, yet recommended a number of improvements to their practical implementation across three institutions including improving clarity and consistency around requirements for advancement and matching compensation to job responsibilities. The emergence of two distinct clusters of MA professional needs and desires suggests an opportunity to further optimize career ladders to provide tailored support to MAs in order to strengthen the healthcare workforce and talent pipeline.

Gearing Up for a Vaccine Requirement: A Mixed Methods Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence Among Workers at an Academic Medical Center.

GOAL: Assessing barriers to vaccination among healthcare workers may be particularly important given their roles in their respective communities. We conducted a mixed methods study to explore healthcare worker perspectives on receiving COVID-19 vaccines at a large multisite academic medical center. METHODS: A total of 5,917 employees completed the COVID-19 vaccine confidence survey (20% response rate). Most participants were vaccinated (93%). Compared to vaccinated participants, unvaccinated participants were younger (60% < 44 years), more likely to be from a non-Asian minority group (48%), and more likely to be nonclinical employees (57% vs. 46%). Among the unvaccinated respondents, 53% indicated they would be influenced by their healthcare provider, while 19% reported that nothing would influence them to get vaccinated. Key perceived barriers to vaccination from the qualitative analysis included the need for more long-term safety and efficacy data, a belief in the right to make an individual choice, mistrust, a desire for greater public health information, personal health concerns, circumstances such as prior COVID-19 infection, and access issues. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Strategies endorsed by some participants to address their concerns about safety and access included a communication campaign, personalized medicine approaches (e.g., individual appointments to discuss how the vaccine might interact with personal health conditions), and days off to recover. Mistrust and a belief in the right to make an individual choice may be harder barriers to overcome; further dialogue is needed. APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE: These findings reflect potential strategies for vaccine requirements that healthcare organizations can implement to enhance vaccine confidence. In addition, organizations can ask respected health professionals to serve as spokespeople, which may help shift the perspectives of unvaccinated healthcare workers.

Engaging Frontline Physicians in Value Improvement: A Qualitative Evaluation of Physician-Directed Reinvestment.

Purpose: Physicians can limit upward trending healthcare costs, yet legal and ethical barriers prevent the use of direct financial incentives to engage physicians in cost-reduction initiatives. Physician-directed reinvestment is an alternative value-sharing arrangement in which a health system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into professional areas of the physicians' choosing. Formal evaluations of such programs are lacking. Methods: To understand the impact of Stanford Health Care's physician-directed reinvestment in its first year (2017-2018) on physician engagement, adherence to program requirements around safety and fund use, and factors facilitating program dissemination, semi-structured qualitative interviews with physician participants, non-participants, and administrative stakeholders were conducted July-November 2019. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed through an implementation science lens. To support contextual analysis of the qualitative data, a directional estimation of the program's impact on cost from the perspective of the health system was calculated by subtracting annual maintenance cost (derived from interview self-reported time estimates and public salary data) from internal cost accounting of the total savings from first year cohort to obtain annual net benefit, which was then divided by the annual maintenance cost. Results: Physician participation was low compared with the overall physician population (n=14 of approximately 2300 faculty physicians), though 32 qualitative interviews suggested deep engagement across physician participants and adherence to target program requirements. Reinvestment funds activated intrinsic motivators such as autonomy, purpose and inter-professional relations, and extrinsic motivators, such as the direction of resources and external recognition. Ongoing challenges included limited physician awareness of healthcare costs and the need for increased clarity around which projects rise above one's existing job responsibilities. Administrative data excluding physician time, which was not directly compensated, showed a direct cost savings of $8.9M. This implied an 11-fold return on investment excluding uncompensated physician time. Conclusion: A physician-directed reinvestment program appeared to facilitate latent frontline physician innovation towards value, though additional evaluation is needed to understand its long-term impact.

Patient Perspectives of Inpatient Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine has been adopted in the inpatient setting to facilitate clinical interactions between on-site clinicians and isolated hospitalized patients. Such remote interactions have the potential to reduce pathogen exposure and use of personal protective equipment but may also pose new safety concerns given prior evidence that isolated patients can receive suboptimal care. Formal evaluations of the use and practical acceptance of inpatient telemedicine among hospitalized patients are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the experience of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with inpatient telemedicine introduced as an infection control measure during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation in a COVID-19 designated non-intensive care hospital unit at a large academic health center (Stanford Health Care) from October 2020 through January 2021. Semistructured qualitative interviews focused on patient experience, impact on quality of care, communication, and mental health. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants representing diversity across varying demographics until thematic saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using an inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Interviews with 20 hospitalized patients suggested that nonemergency clinical care and bridging to in-person care comprised the majority of inpatient telemedicine use. Nurses were reported to enter the room and call on the tablet far more frequently than physicians, who typically entered the room at least daily. Patients reported broad acceptance of the technology, citing improved convenience and reduced anxiety, but preferred in-person care where possible. Quality of care was believed to be similar to in-person care with the exception of a few patients who wanted more frequent in-person examinations. Ongoing challenges included low audio volume, shifting tablet location, and inconsistent verbal introductions from the clinical team. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences with inpatient telemedicine were largely favorable. Although most patients expressed a preference for in-person care, telemedicine was acceptable given the circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Improvements in technical and care team use may enhance acceptability. Further evaluation is needed to understand the impact of inpatient telemedicine and the optimal balance between in-person and virtual care in the hospital setting.

A Specialized Acute COVID-19 Outpatient Clinic at an Academic Medical Center.

Health systems are challenged to provide equitable access to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatient care during the pandemic. Infected patients may have difficulties accessing regular care and rely on emergency rooms. With the goal to improve system efficiencies and access to care, Stanford launched a designated outpatient COVID-19 "Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus" clinic in April 2020 in which all adult Stanford patients with newly diagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were offered follow-up for 2-3 weeks through video, telephone, and in-person encounters. Patients were triaged into risk categories and received home pulse oximeters based on a standardized protocol. Between April 15, 2020, and March 26, 2021, the Care and Respiratory Observation of Patients With Novel Coronavirus clinic enrolled 1317 patients. The clinic provided evaluation of Patients under Investigation, management of acute COVID-19 symptoms, care for COVID-19 patients after hospital discharge, clinical advice, and opportunities for research. The authors share crucial implementation lessons related to team agility, care personalization, and resource optimization.

PPE portraits: patient and clinician experiences at a COVID-19 testing site.

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic mandated personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare settings, obscuring clinician faces and expressions, and depersonalizing patient care experiences. PPE Portraits (affixing a clinician's photo to the front of PPE) was first introduced in 2015 during the West Africa Ebola epidemic, and has been shown to help maintain patient-provider connection at times when patients may be fearful, isolated, and unable to identify clinicians caring for them. Objective: To evaluate patient and clinician experiences with PPE Portraits. Study Design: Implementation pilot with mixed methods evaluation. Setting: A drive-thru COVID-19 testing site affiliated with a large academic medical center. Population studied: Patients (n=18) and clinicians (n=6) interviewed in March-April 2020. Clinicians were recruited through convenience sampling. Clinicians answered questions via recorded interviews or email. Patients were interviewed by phone through random sampling stratified by date of service. Patients were sent a post-visit survey. Intervention: Health workers affixed a PPE Portrait in order to connect better with individuals in their care. Outcome Measures: Patient and clinician experiences with PPE Portraits (assessed through inductive coding of qualitative data) and patient experiences with fear (assessed through survey). Results: Patient surveys indicated varying levels of fear, including mild (16%), moderate (66%), and severe (18%). Patients reported that seeing the PPE Portrait was comforting; four patients stated that it did not impact their care because they already trusted the facility. Clinicians corroborated patient sentiments, reporting that the intervention humanized both the testing experience for patients and also the interactions among patients and clinicians. They noted that patients seemed more at ease and that portraits fostered connection and trust, thereby reducing anxiety and fear and signaling to patients that they were being given holistic, optimal care. A majority of clinicians felt this intervention should be replicated, and they recommended having surplus portrait supplies on site to facilitate ad hoc portrait creation. Conclusion: PPE Portraits humanized the COVID-19 testing experiences for patients and clinicians during a time of fear. Clinicians recommended PPE Portraits for other healthcare settings that require PPE. Future research could assess how PPE Portraits promote patient-provider connection and trust.

Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Care Practice Sites and Their Vulnerable Patients.

Purpose: While COVID-19 has upended lives, it has also catalyzed innovation with potential to advance health delivery. Yet, we know little about how the delivery system, and primary care in particular, has responded and how this has impacted vulnerable patients. We aimed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on primary care practice sites and their vulnerable patients and to identify explanations for variation. Approach: We developed and administered a survey to practice managers and physician leaders from 173 primary care practice sites, October-November 2020. We report and graphically depict results from univariate analysis and examine potential explanations for variation in practices' process innovations in response to COVID-19 by assessing bivariate relationships between seven dependent variables and four independent variables. Findings: Among 96 (55.5%) respondents, primary care practice sites on average took more safety (8.5 of 12) than financial (2.5 of 17) precautions in response to COVID-19. Practice sites varied in their efforts to protect patients with vulnerabilities, providing care initially postponed, and experience with virtual visits. Financial risk, practice size, practitioner age, and emergency preparedness explained variation in primary care practices' process innovations. Many practice sites plan to sustain virtual visits, dependent mostly on patient and provider preference and continued reimbursement. Value: While findings indicate rapid and substantial innovation, conditions must enable primary care practice sites to build on and sustain innovations, to support care for vulnerable populations, including those with multiple chronic conditions and socio-economic barriers to health, and to prepare primary care for future emergencies.

Developing best practices for PPE Portraits across 25 sites: a systematic assessment of implementation and spread of adaptations using FRAME.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation, a form of modification that aims to improve an intervention's acceptability and sustainability in each context, is essential to successful implementation in some settings. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians have rapidly adapted how they deliver patient care. PPE Portraits are a form of adaptation, whereby health workers affix a postcard size portrait of themselves to the front of their personal protective equipment (PPE) to foster human connection during COVID-19. METHODS: We used the expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions (FRAME) method to better understand the reasoning behind and results of each adaptation. We hypothesized that using the FRAME in conjunction with design-thinking would lead to emerging best practices and that we would find adaptation similarities across sites. Throughout multiple implementations across 25 institutions, we piloted, tracked, and analyzed adaptations using FRAME and design thinking. For each adaptation, we assessed the stage of implementation, whether the change was planned, decision makers involved, level of delivery impacted, fidelity to original intervention, and the goal and reasoning for adaptation. We added three crucial components to the FRAME: original purpose of the adaptation, unintended consequences, and alternative adaptations. RESULTS: When implementing PPE Portraits across settings, from a local assisted living center's memory unit to a pediatric emergency department, several requests for adaptations arose during early development stages before implementation. Adaptations primarily related to (1) provider convenience and comfort, (2) patient populations, and (3) scale. Providers preferred smaller portraits and rounded (rather than square) laminated edges that could potentially injure a patient. Affixing the portrait with a magnet was rejected given the potential choking hazard the magnetic strip presented for children. Other adaptations, related to ease of dissemination, included slowing the process down during early development and providing buttons, which could be produced easily at scale. CONCLUSIONS: The FRAME was used to curate the reasoning for each adaptation and to inform future dissemination. We look forward to utilizing FRAME including our additions and design thinking, to build out a range of PPE Portrait best practices with accompanying costs and benefits.

Financial Incentives for Medical Assistants: A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Bonus Structures, Motivation, and Population Health Quality Measures.

PURPOSE: Medical assistants (MAs) have seen their roles expand as a result of team-based primary care models. Unlike their physician counterparts, MAs rarely receive financial incentives as a part of their compensation. This exploratory study aims to understand MA acceptability of financial incentives and perceived MA control over common population health measures. METHODS: We conducted semistructured focus groups between August and December of 2019 across 10 clinics affiliated with 3 institutions in California and Utah. MAs' perceptions of experienced and hypothetical financial incentives, their potential influence on workflow processes, and perceived levels of control over population health measures were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed for emerging themes. Perceived levels of control were further quantified using a Likert survey; measures were grouped into factors representing vaccinations, and workflow completed in the same day or multiple days (multiday). Mean scores for each factor were compared using repeated 1-way ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustment. RESULTS: MAs reported little direct experience with financial incentives. They indicated that a hypothetical bonus representing 2% to 3% of their average annual base pay would be acceptable and influential in improving consistent performance during patient rooming workflow. MAs reported having greater perceived control over vaccinations (P <.001) and same-day measures (P <.001) as compared with multiday measures. CONCLUSIONS: MAs perceived that relatively small financial incentives would increase their motivation and quality of care. Our findings suggests target measures should focus on MA work processes that are completed in the same day as the patient encounter, particularly vaccinations. Future investigation is needed to understand the effectiveness of MA financial incentives in practice.

How Feedback Is Given Matters: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Satisfaction Feedback Delivery and Physician Well-being.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how variation in the way patient satisfaction feedback is delivered relates to physician well-being and perceptions of its impact on patient care, job satisfaction, and clinical decision making. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was sent to faculty physicians from a large academic medical center in March 29, 2019. Physicians reported their exposure to feedback (timing, performance relative to peers, or channel) and related perceptions. The Professional Fulfillment Index captured burnout and professional fulfillment. Associations between feedback characteristics and well-being or perceived impact were tested using analysis of variance or logistic regression adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of 1016 survey respondents, 569 (56.0%) reported receiving patient satisfaction feedback. Among those receiving feedback, 303 (53.2%) did not believe that this feedback improved patient care. Compared with physicians who never received feedback, those who received any type of feedback had higher professional fulfillment scores (mean, 6.6±2.1 vs 6.3±2.0; P=.03) but also reported an unfavorable impact on clinical decision making (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7; P<.001). Physicians who received feedback that included one-on-one discussions (as opposed to feedback without this channel) held more positive perceptions of the feedback's impact on patient care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.0; P=.003), whereas perceptions were less positive in physicians whose feedback included comparisons to named colleagues (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8; P=.003). CONCLUSION: Providing patient satisfaction feedback to physicians was associated with mixed results, and physician perceptions of the impact of feedback depended on the characteristics of feedback delivery. Our findings suggest that feedback is viewed most constructively by physicians when delivered through one-on-one discussions and without comparison to peers.