Closing the Loop: Re-engineering the Assessment and Tracking of Symptoms in Primary Care.

Reliable systems that track the continuation, progression, or resolution of a patient's symptoms over time are essential for reliable diagnosis and ensuring that patients harboring more worrisome diagnoses are safely followed up. Given their first-contact role and increasing stresses on busy primary care clinicians and practices, new processes that make these tasks easier rather than creating more work for busy clinicians are especially needed.Some symptoms are sufficiently worrisome that they demand an urgent diagnosis and treatment while others result in a differential that can be more safely explored over time, or less differentiated and worrisome that they are best managed with the "test of time" to see if they resolve, worsen, or evolve into symptoms that are more worrisome. Regardless, it is essential that clinicians are able to reliably track symptoms over time, yet this capacity is rarely available or explicit. Working with systems engineers, we are developing prototypes for such systems and are working on their implementation and evaluation. In this commentary, we describe approaches to this essential, but underappreciated, problem in primary care.

Completion Rates and Timeliness of Diagnostic Colonoscopies for Rectal Bleeding in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Rectal bleeding is the most common presenting symptom of colorectal cancer, and guidelines recommend timely follow-up, usually with colonoscopy to ensure timely diagnoses of colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Identify loop closure rates and vulnerable process points for patients with rectal bleeding. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, using medical record review of patients aged ≥ 40 with index diagnosis of rectal bleeding at 2 primary practices-an urban academic practice and affiliated community health center, between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Patients were classified as having completed recommended follow-up workup ("closed loop") vs. not ("open loop"). Open loop patient cases were categorized into six types of process failures. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 837 patients had coded diagnoses of rectal bleeding within study window. Sixty-seven were excluded based on prior colectomy, clinical presentation more consistent with upper GI bleed, no rectal bleeding documented on chart review, or expired during the follow-up period, leaving 770 patients included. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were percentages of patient cases classified as "open loops" and distribution of these cases into six categories of process failure that were identified. KEY RESULTS: 22.3% of patients (N = 172) failed to undergo timely recommended workup for rectal bleeding. Largest failure categories were patients for whom no procedure was ordered (N = 62, 36%), followed by patients with procedures ordered but never scheduled (N = 44, 26%) or scheduled but subsequently cancelled or not kept (N = 31, 18%). While open loops increased after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this difference was not significant within our study period. CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients presenting to primary care with rectal bleeding fail to undergo recommended workup. The majority either have no procedure ordered, or procedure ordered but never scheduled or cancelled and not kept, suggesting these are important failure modes to target in future interventions. Ensuring reliable ordering and processes for timely scheduling and completion of procedures represent critical areas for improving the diagnostic process for patients with rectal bleeding in primary care.

Terminations in Primary Care: a Retrospective Observational Study of 16 Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between clinician and patient is the cornerstone of primary care. Breakdown and termination of this relationship are understudied yet important, undesirable outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the nature and extent of provider and clinic termination of the primary care relationship. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case-control study. SUBJECTS: Adult patients in Eastern Massachusetts who received primary care at hospital- and community-based clinics and health centers participating in a practice-based research network between January 2013 and June 2017. MAIN MEASURES: Formal termination by primary care physician (PCP), reasons for termination, independent predictors of termination based on mixed-effects logistic regression, and documentation of a new PCP after termination. KEY RESULTS: We identified 158,192 patients who received primary care from 182 PCPs across 16 clinics. We found 536 cases of formal termination. Clinics ranged from 4 to 119 terminations per 10,000 patients (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.21; 95% CI: 0.18-0.24). Patient age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, relationship status, employment status, and insurance type were independent predictors of termination (e.g., compared to patients employed full-time, patients unemployed due to disability were more likely to be terminated [adjusted OR:9.26; 95% CI: 6.74-12.74]). The most common cause for termination (38%) was appointment "no-shows" with some PCPs/clinics found to enforce a policy of dismissal following three no-shows. At the time of chart review, 201 patients (38%) had no documentation of a new PCP. Among patients who re-established care within the network, 134 (25%) had a primary care visit within 6 months of termination. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed chart review found that, unlike previous survey-based studies, dismissal was often for missed appointments based on enforcement of no-show policies. Many sociodemographic factors were associated with termination. Variability among clinics highlights the need for further research to better understand circumstances surrounding terminations, with the principal goals of improving patient-provider relationships and providing equitable care.

Latent Class Analysis of Prescribing Behavior of Primary Care Physicians in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines, opioids, proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), and antibiotics are frequently prescribed inappropriately by primary care physicians (PCPs), without sufficient consideration of alternative options or adverse effects. We hypothesized that distinct groups of PCPs could be identified based on their propensity to prescribe these medications. OBJECTIVE: To identify PCP groups based on their propensity to prescribe benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, and patient and PCP characteristics associated with identified prescribing patterns. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using VA data and latent class regression analyses to identify prescribing patterns among PCPs and examine the association of patient and PCP characteristics with class membership. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2524 full-time PCPs and their patient panels (n = 2,939,636 patients), from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: We categorized PCPs based on prescribing volume quartiles for the four drug classes, based on total days' supply dispensed of each medication by the PCP to their patients (expressed as days' supply per 1000 panel patient-days). We used latent class analysis to group PCPs based on prescribing and used multinomial logistic regression to examine patient and PCP characteristics associated with latent class membership. KEY RESULTS: PCPs were categorized into four groups (latent classes): low intensity (23% of cohort), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity PPI (36%), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity opioid (20%), and high intensity (21%). PCPs in the high-intensity group were predominantly in the highest quartile of prescribers for all four drugs (68% in the highest quartile for benzodiazepine, 86% opioids, 64% PPIs, 62% antibiotics). High-intensity PCPs (vs. low intensity) were substantially less likely to be female (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.21-0.42) or practice in the northeast versus other census regions (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06-0.17). CONCLUSIONS: VA PCPs can be classified into four clearly differentiated groups based on their prescribing of benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, suggesting an underlying typology of prescribing. High-intensity PCPs were more likely to be male.

Evaluating a patient safety learning laboratory to create an interdisciplinary ecosystem for health care innovation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the complexity, challenges, and slow pace of innovation, health care organizations are adopting interdisciplinary team approaches. Systems engineering, which is oriented to creating new, scalable processes that perform with higher reliability and lower costs, holds promise for driving innovation in the face of challenges to team performance. A patient safety learning laboratory (lab) can be an essential aspect of fostering interdisciplinary team innovation across multiple projects and organizations by creating an ecosystem focused on deploying systems engineering methods to accomplish process redesign. PURPOSE: We sought to identify the role and activities of a learning ecosystem that support interdisciplinary team innovation through evaluation of a patient safety learning lab. METHODS: Our study included three participating learning lab project teams. We applied a mixed-methods approach using a convergent design that combined data from qualitative interviews of team members conducted as teams neared the completion of their redesign projects, as well as evaluation questionnaires administered throughout the 4-year learning lab. RESULTS: Our results build on learning theories by showing that successful learning ecosystems continually create alignment between interdisciplinary teams' activities, organizational context, and innovation project objectives. The study identified four types of alignment, interpersonal/interprofessional, informational, structural, and processual, and supporting activities for alignment to occur. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary learning ecosystems have the potential to foster health care improvement and innovation through alignment of team activities, project goals, and organizational contexts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study applies to interdisciplinary teams tackling multilevel system challenges in their health care organization and suggests that the work of such teams benefits from the four types of alignment. Alignment on all four dimensions may yield best results.

Measuring and Improving Diagnostic Safety in Primary Care: Addressing the "Twin" Pandemics of Diagnostic Error and Clinician Burnout.

Diagnostic errors are a source of unacceptable harm in health care. However, improvement efforts have been hampered by the lack of valid measures reflecting the quality of the diagnostic process. At the same time, it has become apparent that the healthcare work system, particularly in primary care, is chaotic and stressful, leading to clinician burnout and patient harm. We propose a new construct that health systems and researchers can use to measure the quality and safety of the diagnostic process that is sensitive to the context of the health care work system. This model focuses on three measurable practices: considering "don't miss" diagnoses, looking for red flags, and ensuring that clinicians avoid common diagnostic pitfalls. We believe that the performance of clinicians with respect to these factors is sensitive to the health care work system, allowing for context-dependent measurement and improvement of the diagnostic process. Such process measures will enable more rapid improvements rather than exclusively measuring outcomes related to "correct" or "incorrect" diagnoses.

Professional-Patient Boundaries: a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Attitudes and Practices.

BACKGROUND: The essence of humanism in medicine and health care is relationships-caring relationships between clinicians and patients. While raising concerns regarding professional-patient boundaries has positively contributed to our understanding and prevention of potentially harmful boundary violations, there is controversy about which types of relationships, caring acts, and practices are acceptable versus cross boundary lines. OBJECTIVE: To examine primary care physicians' practices and attitudes regarding acts that have been questioned as potentially "inappropriate" or "unethical" crossing of professional-patient boundaries. DESIGN: Surveys conducted via in-person polling or electronic and mailed paper submissions from April 2016 to July 2017. We calculated descriptive statistics and examined associations with practices and attitudes using logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of all US primary care physicians who treat adult patients; convenience sample of attendees at medicine grand rounds presentations. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were self-reported practices and attitudes related to giving patients rides home, paying for patients' medication, helping patients find jobs, employing patients, going to dinner with patients, and providing care to personal friends. KEY RESULTS: Among 1563 total respondents, 34% had given a ride home, 34% had paid for medications, 15% helped patients find a job, 7% had employed a patient, 10% had dinner with patients, and 59% provided care to personal friends. A majority disapproved of dinner with a patient (75%) but approved of or were neutral on all other scenarios (61-90%). CONCLUSIONS: The medical profession is quite divided on questions related to drawing lines about appropriate boundaries. Contrary to official and widespread proscriptions against such practices (with exception of dinner dates), many have actually engaged in such practices and the majority found them acceptable.

Provider Misinterpretation, Documentation, and Follow-Up of Definitive Urine Drug Testing Results.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results, has not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results. DESIGN: This is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills. KEY RESULTS: Aberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p < 0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled. CONCLUSIONS: Erroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.

Screening for Adverse Drug Events: a Randomized Trial of Automated Calls Coupled with Phone-Based Pharmacist Counseling.

BACKGROUND: Medication adverse events are important and common yet are often not identified by clinicians. We evaluated an automated telephone surveillance system coupled with transfer to a live pharmacist to screen potentially drug-related symptoms after newly starting medications for four common primary care conditions: hypertension, diabetes, depression, and insomnia. METHODS: Cluster randomized trial with automated calls to eligible patients at 1 and 4 months after starting target drugs from intervention primary care clinics compared to propensity-matched patients from control clinics. Primary and secondary outcomes were physician documentation of any adverse effects associated with newly prescribed target medication, and whether the medication was discontinued and, if yes, whether the reason for stopping was an adverse effect. RESULTS: Of 4876 eligible intervention clinic patients who were contacted using automated calls, 776 (15.1%) responded and participated in the automated call. Based on positive symptom responses or request to speak to a pharmacist, 320 patients were transferred to the pharmacist and discussed 1021 potentially drug-related symptoms. Of these, 188 (18.5%) were assessed as probably and 479 (47.1%) as possibly related to the medication. Compared to a propensity-matched cohort of control clinic patients, intervention patients were significantly more likely to have adverse effects documented in the medical record by a physician (277 vs. 164 adverse effects, p < 0.0001, and 177 vs. 122 patients discontinued with documented adverse effects, p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Systematic automated telephone outreach monitoring coupled with real-time phone referral to a pharmacist identified a substantial number of previously unidentified potentially drug-related symptoms, many of which were validated as probably or possibly related to the drug by the pharmacist or their physicians. Multiple challenges were encountered using the interactive voice response (IVR) automated calling system, suggesting that other approaches may need to be considered and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02087293.

Effect of Restriction of the Number of Concurrently Open Records in an Electronic Health Record on Wrong-Patient Order Errors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recommendations in the United States suggest limiting the number of patient records displayed in an electronic health record (EHR) to 1 at a time, although little evidence supports this recommendation. Objective: To assess the risk of wrong-patient orders in an EHR configuration limiting clinicians to 1 record vs allowing up to 4 records opened concurrently. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 3356 clinicians at a large health system in New York and was conducted from October 2015 to April 2017 in emergency department, inpatient, and outpatient settings. Interventions: Clinicians were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an EHR configuration limiting to 1 patient record open at a time (restricted; n = 1669) or allowing up to 4 records open concurrently (unrestricted; n = 1687). Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit of analysis was the order session, a series of orders placed by a clinician for a single patient. The primary outcome was order sessions that included 1 or more wrong-patient orders identified by the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder measure (an electronic query that identifies orders placed for a patient, retracted, and then reordered shortly thereafter by the same clinician for a different patient). Results: Among the 3356 clinicians who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 43.1 [12.5] years; mean [SD] experience at study site, 6.5 [6.0] years; 1894 females [56.4%]), all provided order data and were included in the analysis. The study included 12 140 298 orders, in 4 486 631 order sessions, placed for 543 490 patients. There was no significant difference in wrong-patient order sessions per 100 000 in the restricted vs unrestricted group, respectively, overall (90.7 vs 88.0; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]; P = .60) or in any setting (ED: 157.8 vs 161.3, OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83-1.20], P = .96; inpatient: 185.6 vs 185.1, OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.11]; P = .86; or outpatient: 7.9 vs 8.2, OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.70-1.28], P = .71). The effect did not differ among settings (P for interaction = .99). In the unrestricted group overall, 66.2% of the order sessions were completed with 1 record open, including 34.5% of ED, 53.7% of inpatient, and 83.4% of outpatient order sessions. Conclusions and Relevance: A strategy that limited clinicians to 1 EHR patient record open compared with a strategy that allowed up to 4 records open concurrently did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient order errors. However, clinicians in the unrestricted group placed most orders with a single record open, limiting the power of the study to determine whether reducing the number of records open when placing orders reduces the risk of wrong-patient order errors. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02876588.

Reduced Effectiveness of Interruptive Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts after Conversion to a Commercial Electronic Health Record.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts in electronic health records (EHRs) can help prevent adverse drug events, but such alerts are frequently overridden, raising concerns about their clinical usefulness and contribution to alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of conversion to a commercial EHR on DDI alert and acceptance rates. DESIGN: Two before-and-after studies. PARTICIPANTS: 3277 clinicians who received a DDI alert in the outpatient setting. INTERVENTION: Introduction of a new, commercial EHR and subsequent adjustment of DDI alerting criteria. MAIN MEASURES: Alert burden and proportion of alerts accepted. KEY RESULTS: Overall interruptive DDI alert burden increased by a factor of 6 from the legacy EHR to the commercial EHR. The acceptance rate for the most severe alerts fell from 100 to 8.4%, and from 29.3 to 7.5% for medium severity alerts (P < 0.001). After disabling the least severe alerts, total DDI alert burden fell by 50.5%, and acceptance of Tier 1 alerts rose from 9.1 to 12.7% (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Changing from a highly tailored DDI alerting system to a more general one as part of an EHR conversion decreased acceptance of DDI alerts and increased alert burden on users. The decrease in acceptance rates cannot be fully explained by differences in the clinical knowledge base, nor can it be fully explained by alert fatigue associated with increased alert burden. Instead, workflow factors probably predominate, including timing of alerts in the prescribing process, lack of differentiation of more and less severe alerts, and features of how users interact with alerts.

Sick Children Crying for Help: Fostering Adverse Event Reports.

In a Perspective, Gordon Schiff discusses the importance of appropriately analyzing adverse event reports.

Randomized Trial of Reducing Ambulatory Malpractice and Safety Risk: Results of the Massachusetts PROMISES Project.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate application of quality improvement approaches to key ambulatory malpractice risk and safety areas. STUDY SETTING: In total, 25 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices (16 intervention; 9 control) in Massachusetts. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled trial of a 15-month intervention including exposure to a learning network, webinars, face-to-face meetings, and coaching by improvement advisors targeting "3+1" high-risk domains: test result, referral, and medication management plus culture/communication issues evaluated by survey and chart review tools. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Chart reviews conducted at baseline and postintervention for intervention sites. Staff and patient survey data collected at baseline and postintervention for intervention and control sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Chart reviews demonstrated significant improvements in documentation of abnormal results, patient notification, documentation of an action or treatment plan, and evidence of a completed plan (all P<0.001). Mean days between laboratory test date and evidence of completed action/treatment plan decreased by 19.4 days (P<0.001). Staff surveys showed modest but nonsignificant improvement for intervention practices relative to controls overall and for the 3 high-risk domains that were the focus of PROMISES. CONCLUSIONS: A consortium of stakeholders, quality improvement tools, coaches, and learning network decreased selected ambulatory safety risks often seen in malpractice claims.

What do Australian consumers, pharmacists and prescribers think about documenting indications on prescriptions and dispensed medicines labels?: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Documenting the indication on prescriptions and dispensed medicines labels is not standard practice in Australia. However, previous studies that have focused on the content and design of dispensed medicines labels, have suggested including the indication as a safety measure. The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of Australian consumers, pharmacists and prescribers on documenting the indication on prescriptions and dispensed medicines labels. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and mock-up of dispensed medicines labels were designed for participants. Consumers (n = 19) and pharmacists (n = 7) were recruited by convenience sample at community pharmacies in Sydney (Australia) and prescribers (n = 8), including two medical students, were recruited through snowballing. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants were interviewed. Most participants agreed that documenting the indication would be beneficial especially for patients who are forgetful or take multiple medications. Participants also believed it would improve consumers' medication understanding and adherence. Prescribers and pharmacists believed it could help reduce prescribing and dispensing errors by matching the drug/dosage to the correct indication. Prescribers refrained from documenting the indication to protect patients' privacy; however, most patients did not consider documenting the indication as a breach of privacy. Prescribers raised concerns about the extra time to include indications on prescriptions and best language to document indications, using plain language as opposed to medical terminology. CONCLUSIONS: All interviewed stakeholders identified numerous benefits of documenting the indication on prescriptions and dispensed medicines labels. Whether these potential benefits can be realized remains unknown and addressing prescribers' concern regarding the time involved in documenting the indication on prescriptions remains a challenge for vendors of electronic medication management systems.

Primary Care Collaboration to Improve Diagnosis and Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death, reducible by screening and early diagnosis, yet many patients fail to receive recommended screening. As part of an academic improvement collaborative, 25 primary care practices worked to improve CRC screening and diagnosis. METHODS: The project featured triannual learning sessions, monthly conference calls, practice coach support, and monthly reporting. The project phases included literature review and interviews with national leaders/organizations, development of driver diagrams to identify key factors and change ideas, project launch and practice team planning, and a practice improvement phase. RESULTS: The project activities included (1) inventory of barriers and best practices, (2) driver diagram to drive improvements, (3) list of changes to try, (4) compilation of lessons learned, and (5) five key changes to optimize screening and follow-up. Practices leveraged prior transformation efforts to track patients for screening and follow-up during and between office visits. By mapping processes, testing changes, and collecting data, sites targeted opportunities to improve quality, safety, efficiency, and patient and care team experience. Successful change interventions centered around partnering with gastroenterology, engaging leadership, leveraging registries and health information technology, promoting alternative screening options, and partnering with and supporting patients. Several practices achieved improvement in screening rates, while others demonstrated no change from baseline during the 10-month testing and implementation phase (July 2014-April 2015). CONCLUSION: The collaborative effectively engaged teams in a broad set of process improvements with key lessons learned related to barriers, information technology challenges, outreach challenges/strategies, and importance of stakeholder and patient engagement.

An electronic alert to decrease Kayexalate ordering.

Important safety concerns have recently emerged regarding the use of sodium polystyrene sulfonate (Kayexalate), a cation-exchange resin commonly used for the treatment of hyperkalemia. We implemented an electronic alert system at a tertiary care academic medical center to warn providers of the safety concerns of Kayexalate. We assessed the number of Kayexalate prescriptions per month, as well as the number of grams of Kayexalate ordered per month, one year before versus one year after implementing the alert. The mean (±SD) number of Kayexalate orders decreased from 123 (±12) to 76 (±14) orders/month (38% absolute reduction, p < 0.001) after implementing the alert. Additionally, the mean (±SD) amount of Kayexalate prescribed decreased from 3332 (±329) to 1885 (±358) g/month (43% absolute reduction, p < 0.001). We conclude that an electronic alert is an effective tool to decrease Kayexalate ordering.

Evaluating ambulatory practice safety: the PROMISES project administrators and practice staff surveys.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory practices deliver most health care services and contribute to malpractice risk. Yet, policymakers and practitioners often lack information about safety and malpractice risk needed to guide improvement. OBJECTIVE: To assess staff and administrator perceptions of safety and malpractice risk in ambulatory settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: We administered surveys in small-sized to medium-sized primary care practices in Massachusetts as part of a randomized controlled trial to reduce ambulatory malpractice risk. SUBJECTS: Twenty-five office practice managers/administrators and 482 staff, including [physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners (MD/PA/NPs)], nurses, other clinicians, managers, and administrators. MEASURES: Surveys included structured questions about 3 high-risk clinical domains: referral, test result, and medication management, plus communication with patients and among staff. The 30-item administrator survey evaluated the presence of organizational safety structures and processes; the 63-item staff survey queried safety and communication concerns. RESULTS: Twenty-two administrators (88%) and 292 staff (61%) responded. Administrators frequently reported important safety systems and processes were absent. Suboptimal or incomplete implementation of referral and test result management systems related to staff perceptions of their quality (P<0.05). Staff perceptions of suboptimal processes correlated with their concern about practice vulnerability to malpractice suits (P<0.05). Staff was least positive about referral management system safety, talking openly about safety problems, willingness to report mistakes, and feeling rushed. MD/PA/NPs viewed high-risk system reliability more negatively (P<0.0001) and teamwork more positively (P<0.03) than others. CONCLUSIONS: Results show opportunities for improvement in closing informational loops and establishing more reliable systems and environments where staff feels respected and safe speaking up. Initiatives to transform primary care should emphasize improving communication among facilities and practitioners.