The Role of Primary Care in Improving Population Health.

Policy Points Systems based on primary care have better population health, health equity, and health care quality, and lower health care expenditure. Primary care can be a boundary-spanning force to integrate and personalize the many factors from which population health emerges. Equitably advancing population health requires understanding and supporting the complexly interacting mechanisms by which primary care influences health, equity, and health costs.

"Why Do They Want to Know?": A Qualitative Assessment of Caregiver Perspectives on Social Drivers of Health Screening in Pediatric Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: Despite strong evidence that social factors have a large influence on child health, systematic screening for social needs is not performed universally in pediatric primary care. This is due to multiple barriers, including concerns about acceptability to families. This study sought to assess family acceptability of social needs screening in pediatric primary care. METHODS: Eight semi-structured focus groups were performed with English and Spanish-speaking caregivers of pediatric patients from a diverse academic medical center. Focus groups explored the acceptability of social domains including housing, education, finances, food access, and safety. Focus group transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes. RESULTS: Four salient themes emerged: 1) the acceptability of social determinants of health screening questions was tied to participants' understanding of the connection between the topic and child health, 2) families preferred a warm handoff to community services, 3) families feared child protective services intervention as a result of sharing unmet social needs, and 4) positive provider rapport was an important factor in choosing to share social needs. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric primary care providers should feel comfortable implementing social needs screening when they can clearly explain the connection to child health. They should become knowledgeable about organizations and partners within their communities and feel empowered to connect patients to these resources.

Primary Care: A Critical Stopgap of Mental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a worsening mental health crisis, while also dramatically reducing access to in-person primary care services. Primary care, an essential provider of mental health services, rapidly adopted telemedicine to address behavioral health needs. Here we examine the provision of mental health services by primary care during the pandemic, including the essential use of telemedicine. METHODS: Data were collected via a series of national, cross-sectional surveys of primary care clinicians in November 2020 by the Larry A. Green Center. The survey was distributed through a network of partner organizations and subscribers. Descriptive and chi squared analysis were utilized. RESULTS: Among 1,472 respondents, 88% reported increased mental health needs and 37% reported higher rates of substance use among patients. Most (65%) clinicians became more involved in providing mental health support, and 64% reported using telemedicine to provide behavioral health services. Phone-based care was more common for care delivery among patients who were uninsured (60% vs 42%, P < .01), Medicare beneficiaries (45% vs 36%, P < .05), non-English speaking (67% vs 40%, P < .001), and racial and ethnic minorities (58% vs 34%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is a leading provider of mental health services and has played a critical role during the pandemic. Primary care clinicians have strong relationships with their patients as well as outreach within communities that may otherwise struggle to access mental health services. The use of telemedicine in primary care, and specifically phone-based services, has been an essential tool to providing equitable access to mental health services.

Simple Rules That Guide Generalist and Specialist Care.

The sometimes-paradoxical emergent behavior of complex systems may be explained by the interaction of simple rules. The paradox of primary care-that systems based on primary care have healthier populations, fewer health inequities, lower health care expenditures, and better system-level evidence-based disease care, despite less evidence-based care for individual diseases-may be explained by the iterative interaction among three simple rules that describe the generalist approach: (1) Recognize a broad range of problems/opportunities; (2) Prioritize attention and action with the intent of promoting health, healing, and connection; and (3) Personalize care based on the particulars of the individual or family in their local context. These are complemented by three simple rules for specialist care that represent current approaches to quality and health care system improvement: (1) Identify and classify disease for management; (2) Interpret through specialized knowledge; (3) Generate and carry out a management plan. Health care systems that support the enactment of the simple rules of the generalist approach are likely to have more effective primary and specialty care, and greater population health, equity, quality, and sustainable cost.

Measuring Primary Care Across 35 OECD Countries.

PURPOSE: To examine the psychometric properties and scores of the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) in 28 languages and 35 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. METHODS: Using a paid online sampling service, we requested age- and sex-representative samples of 360 adults in each country. We administered the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure-a previously validated 11-item, patient-reported measure that was developed using what patients and clinicians said is most important about primary care. We also assessed construct validity through associations with demographics, the Patient-Enablement Instrument, number of years the person had been with their primary care physician and practice, whether the patient thought the doctor knowing the results would improve their care, and whether it was hard to complete the survey. We assessed the psychometric properties of the PCPCM in each country and report the summative and item-specific PCPCM scores for each country. RESULTS: The PCPCM exhibited solid psychometric properties across all languages and countries, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.88 to 0.95, and corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.47 to 0.81, with the vast majority of countries ranging from the low 0.50s to the high 0.70s. Multiple analyses showed strong evidence of concurrent validity. With a potential range from a low of 1 to a high of 4, the overall mean score was 2.74, with a standard deviation of 0.19. Mean PCPCM scores ranged from the lowest in Sweden (2.28) to the highest in Turkey (3.08), with Germany ranking second (3.01), and the United States third (2.99). CONCLUSION: The internal consistency and concurrent validity of the PCPCM across multiple countries provides strong evidence of the coherence of the breadth of primary care functions that patients and clinicians say are important. The diversity of total and item-specific scores across countries provokes interesting hypotheses about the influence of each different country's policies, practices, demographics, and culture on primary care, and provides a strong impetus for further ecological and individual data analyses using the Person-Centered Primary Care Measure. Annals "Online First" article.

COVID-19 and Telehealth Operations in Texas Primary Care Clinics: Disparities in Medically Underserved Area Clinics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered the landscape of health care delivery, prompting a rapid, widespread adoption of telehealth in primary care practices. Using a pooled sample of 1,344 primary care clinics in Texas, we examined the adoption of telehealth in Texas during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, by comparing medically underserved area (MUA) clinics and non-medically underserved area (non-MUA) clinics. Our analysis suggests that compared with MUA clinics, clinics in non-MUAs were more likely to conduct a majority of their visits via telehealth before May 1st, 2020. However, later surveys indicated that differences in telehealth use between MUA and non-MUA clinics lessened, suggesting that some of the barriers that MUA clinics initially faced might have resolved over time. This research provides an additional perspective in discussions about telehealth adoption on a widespread, permanent basis in Texas and the U.S.

Caregiver and Clinician Perspectives on Missed Well-Child Visits.

PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of well-child care visits, up to one-half of these visits are missed. Little is known about why children miss them, so we undertook a qualitative study to elucidate these factors. METHODS: We interviewed 17 caregivers whose children had missed well-child visits and 6 clinicians, focusing on 3 areas: the value of well-child visits, barriers to attendance, and facilitators of attendance. Transcripts were analyzed with a grounded theory approach and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Caregivers and clinicians identified similar important aspects of well-child visits: immunizations, detection of disease, and monitoring of growth and development. Both groups identified similar barriers to attendance: transportation, difficulty taking time off from work, child care, and other social stressors. CONCLUSIONS: Further work to explore how addressing social determinants of health might improve attendance of well-child visits is needed.

The Primary Care Spend Model: a systems approach to measuring investment in primary care.

Increased investment in primary care is associated with lower healthcare costs and improved population health. The allocation of scarce resources should be driven by robust models that adequately describe primary care activities and spending within a health system, and allow comparisons within and across health systems. However, disparate definitions result in wide variations in estimates of spending on primary care. We propose a new model that allows for a dynamic assessment of primary care spending (PC Spend) within the context of a system's total healthcare budget. The model articulates varied definitions of primary care through a tiered structure which includes overall spending on primary care services, spending on services delivered by primary care professionals and spending delivered by providers that can be characterised by the '4Cs' (first contact, continuous, comprehensive and coordinated care). This unifying framework allows a more refined description of services to be included in any estimate of primary care spend and also supports measurement of primary care spending across nations of varying economic development, accommodating data limitations and international health system differences. It provides a goal for best accounting while also offering guidance, comparability and assessments of how primary care expenditures are associated with outcomes. Such a framework facilitates comparison through the creation of standard definitions and terms, and it also has the potential to foster new areas of research that facilitate robust policy analysis at the national and international levels.

Report From the FMAHealth Practice Core Team: Achieving the Quadruple Aim Through Practice Transformation.

Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth) is a strategic planning organization effort that was created out of the reevaluation of the first Future of Family Medicine project from 2004. This article is a summary of the key findings of the FMAHealth Practice Core Team. At the highest level, we find that family medicine practices have compelling intrinsic and extrinsic reasons to evolve to new models of care delivery. We have demonstrated that payment transformation is imperative to successful practice transformation and that comprehensive payment models that include attention to physician work within the social determinants of health and require fewer administrative burdens will be key to achieving the quadruple aim. To bridge payment reform and practice transformation will require better and fewer measures of physician effectiveness in order to allow the physician-patient dyad to thrive in these new models. Achieving these goals will require a sustained national effort involving not only the many family medicine membership organizations, but their collaborative work with others in the health care transformation industry who may not have been our traditional partners. Educational initiatives must be robust, available to all family physicians regardless of professional organization membership, and focused on meeting physicians and physician practice managers where they are with the goal of moving them toward a state of more advanced care delivery. This article outlines the work done by the FMAHealth Practice Team that supports the above assertions.

Core Principles to Improve Primary Care Quality Management.

Quality management in American health care is in crisis. Performance measurement in its current form is costly, redundant, and labyrinthine. Increasingly, its contribution to achieving the Quadruple Aim is under close examination, especially in the domain of primary care services, where the burden of measurement is heaviest. This article assesses the state of quality management in primary care in the United States, particularly the 2015 Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, in comparative perspective, drawing lessons from the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the United Kingdom. The health care delivery function specific to primary care is pivotal to crossing the quality chasm, yet prior efforts to improve the quality of this function have failed more often than succeeded. These failures are the result of quality programs unguided by core principles of primary care. Quality management in primary care requires a more disciplined approach, adherent to 4 foundational principles: optimizing holistic patient and population health; harnessing the Quadruple Aim as a dynamic whole; applying measurements as tools for quality, not outcomes of quality; and prioritizing therapeutic relationships. These principles serve as the foundation for a bridge to high-functioning primary care that will lead American health care closer to the Quadruple Aim.

Student Hotspotting: Teaching the Interprofessional Care of Complex Patients.

PROBLEM: Individuals with complex health and social needs drive much of the total cost of care. Addressing these individuals' needs and decreasing costs requires interprofessional teams, called "hotspotters," who engage with communities with high utilization. Training health professions students to succeed in the hotspotting approach may benefit trainees, academic health centers (AHCs), and communities. APPROACH: The Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers and the Association of American Medical Colleges launched the Interprofessional Student Hotspotting Learning Collaborative in 2014. The goal was to train health professions students working in interprofessional teams at U.S. AHCs to meet the needs of complex patients, providing home visits and intensive case management for up to five patients over six months. The authors report themes from 20 reflections from the five-student Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) team. OUTCOMES: Across 10 sites, 57 students participated during June-December 2014. The review of the VCU experience demonstrated that the hotspotting program was successful in teaching students how social determinants affect health and the benefits of interprofessional teamwork for addressing the unmet health and social needs of complex patients. Key elements that students identified for improvement were more program structure; protected time for program activities; and formalized processes for recruiting, retaining, and transitioning patients. NEXT STEPS: Future iterations of the program should strengthen the curriculum on caring for complex patients, provide protected time or academic credit, and formally integrate teams with primary care. A larger study evaluating the program's impact on patients, health systems, and communities should be undertaken.

Assessment of Addiction Medicine Training in Family Medicine Residency Programs: A CERA Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Substance use disorder (SUD) is a widespread problem but physicians may feel inadequately prepared to provide addiction care. We sought to assess current addiction medicine curricula in US family medicine residencies (FMRs) and evaluate barriers to improving or implementing addiction medicine curricula. METHODS: Questions regarding addiction medicine training were added to the December 2015 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) survey to US FMR program directors to evaluate each FMR's curriculum, potential workforce production, perceived barriers to improving or implementing curricula and faculty training in addiction medicine. RESULTS: Of 461 FMR directors, 227 (49.2%) responded; 28.6% reported a required addiction medicine curricula. Regional variations of having a required curriculum ranged from 41.3% in the Northeast to 20.0% in the South (P=0.07). Of residencies, 31.2% had at least one graduate obtain a buprenorphine prescription waiver in the past year and 8.6% had at least one graduate pursue an addiction medicine fellowship in the past 5 years. Lack of faculty expertise was the most commonly cited barrier to having a curriculum, with only 36.2% of programs having at least one buprenorphine waivered faculty member, 9.4% an addiction medicine board certified faculty, and 5.5% a fellowship trained faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Few FMRs have addiction medicine curricula and most graduates do not seek additional training. Multifaceted efforts, including developing model national curricula, training existing faculty, and recruiting addiction trained faculty, may improve addiction medicine training in family medicine residencies to better address the growing SUD epidemic.

Assessment of the American Board of Ophthalmology's Maintenance of Certification Part 4 (Improvement in Medical Practice).

IMPORTANCE: There is disagreement as to whether Maintenance of Certification is creating value for physicians and their patients. To our knowledge, this report provides the first measures of the effectiveness of Part 4 of this activity in assisting ophthalmologists with quality improvement in their practices. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the American Board of Ophthalmology's quality improvement program-Maintenance of Certification Part 4 (Improvement in Medical Practice)-in assisting its diplomates with quality improvement in their practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the performance of 1046 American Board of Ophthalmology diplomates on Practice Improvement Modules between September 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014. The mean baseline scores for each process or outcome measure on a medical record abstraction were calculated before and after the practice improvement activity. Paired t tests were used to assess improvement before and after the activity. Diplomates' comments and ratings of the usefulness of the activity in assisting them with quality improvement were also analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diplomate performance on process and outcome measures before and after a performance improvement activity and diplomate satisfaction that the activity met the stated goals of assistance with quality improvement in their practices. RESULTS: The 1046 American Board of Ophthalmology diplomates completed 1408 Practice Improvement Modules. When measures with participation by at least 20 diplomates were analyzed, there was improvement in 24 of 30 individual process measures (80.0%; 95% CI, 61.4%-92.3%) and in 7 of 18 individual outcome measures (38.9%; 95% CI, 17.3%-64.3%) chosen for improvement by diplomates. Analysis of the mean results for each diplomate on process measures chosen for improvement showed gains occurring in 9 of 12 modules and, for outcomes chosen for improvement, in 6 of 12 modules with at least 20 participants. A total of 826 of 1115 modules (74.1%) assessed by diplomates were rated from good to excellent; positive comments outnumbered negative ones by a ratio of 5:1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Quantitative and qualitative analyses, while limited by self-report that has not been validated, suggest that the American Board of Ophthalmology's Maintenance of Certification Part 4 can help diplomates improve quality on process, and to a lesser extent, outcome measures. Findings of this study may provide a basis to improve this activity.

People Are Primary: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference.

As a person invested in personal doctoring, what promises are you willing to make about when and where you will "be there" for others? Attendees of the G. Gayle Stephens Keystone IV Conference answered that question on submitted index cards and through ongoing conference discussions. Those data were analyzed using grounded theory and combined to develop the following answer in aggregate: We will be held accountable to those who need us. We understand the need for expertise and compassion as we help others to navigate the intersection of science and humanism. We will serve as leaders in personal, public, and political conversations. We will mark a path for the profession ensuring alignment of personal practices with professional principles. We will not allow the needed conversations of processes, data points, and determinations of value to undermine our relationships with our patients. We will be there for you. Attentive and fully present. We will care for you when you have no need and you do not ask. We will center that care in your lived experience of health and illness, knowing you over time. We will be here for you now, over time and across distance, in ways that foster the feeling of wholeness and belonging. We will use the best knowledge, best tailored to meet our shared understanding of your goals and aspirations.

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

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

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

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

Metrics for assessing improvements in primary health care.

Metrics focus attention on what is important. Balanced metrics of primary health care inform purpose and aspiration as well as performance. Purpose in primary health care is about improving the health of people and populations in their community contexts. It is informed by metrics that include long-term, meaning- and relationship-focused perspectives. Aspirational uses of metrics inspire evolving insights and iterative improvement, using a collaborative, developmental perspective. Performance metrics assess the complex interactions among primary care tenets of accessibility, a whole-person focus, integration and coordination of care, and ongoing relationships with individuals, families, and communities; primary health care principles of inclusion and equity, a focus on people's needs, multilevel integration of health, collaborative policy dialogue, and stakeholder participation; basic and goal-directed health care, prioritization, development, and multilevel health outcomes. Environments that support reflection, development, and collaborative action are necessary for metrics to advance health and minimize unintended consequences.

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

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

Decision-making processes of patients who use the emergency department for primary care needs.

Emergency department (ED) use for non-urgent needs is widely viewed as a contributor to various health care system flaws and inefficiencies. There are few qualitative studies designed to explore the complexity of patients' decision-making process to use the ED vs. primary care alternatives. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 patients who were discharged from the low acuity area of a university hospital ED. A grounded theory approach including cycles of immersion/crystallization was used to identify themes and reportable interpretations. Patients reported multiple decision-making considerations that hinged on whether or not they knew about primary care options. A model is developed depicting the complexity and variation in patients' decision-making to use the ED. Optimizing health system navigation and use requires improving objective factors such as access and costs as well as subjective perceptions of patients' health care, which are also a prominent part of their decision-making process.