Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to develop a web-based tool for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to communicate concerns about treatment burden to their healthcare providers. METHODS: Patients and providers from primary-care clinics participated. We conducted focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool to screen for treatment burden by reviewing domains and items from a previously validated measure, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS). Following review of the prototype, a quasi-experimental pilot study determined acceptability of using the tool in clinical practice. The study protocol was modified to accommodate limitations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with MCC and 18 providers participated in focus groups to review existing PETS content. The pilot tool (named PETS-Now) consisted of eight domains (Living Healthy, Health Costs, Monitoring Health, Medicine, Personal Relationships, Getting Healthcare, Health Information, and Medical Equipment) with each domain represented by a checklist of potential concerns. Administrative burden was minimized by limiting patients to selection of one domain. To test acceptability, 17 primary-care providers first saw 92 patients under standard care (control) conditions followed by another 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). Each treatment burden domain was selected at least once by patients in the intervention. No significant differences were observed in overall care quality between patients in the control and intervention conditions with mean care quality rated high in both groups (9.3 and 9.2, respectively, out of 10). There were no differences in provider impressions of patient encounters under the two conditions with providers reporting that patient concerns were addressed in 95% of the visits in both conditions. Most intervention group patients (94%) found that the PETS-Now was easy to use and helped focus the conversation with the provider on their biggest concern (98%). Most providers (81%) felt they had learned something new about the patient from the PETS-Now. CONCLUSION: The PETS-Now holds promise for quickly screening and monitoring treatment burden in people with MCC and may provide information for care planning. While acceptable to patients and clinicians, integration of information into the electronic medical record should be prioritized.

The development and initial feasibility testing of D-HOMES: a behavioral activation-based intervention for diabetes medication adherence and psychological wellness among people experiencing homelessness.

Introduction: Compared to stably housed peers, people experiencing homelessness (PEH) have lower rates of ideal glycemic control, and experience premature morbidity and mortality. High rates of behavioral health comorbidities and trauma add to access barriers driving poor outcomes. Limited evidence guides behavioral approaches to support the needs of PEH with diabetes. Lay coaching models can improve care for low-resource populations with diabetes, yet we found no evidence of programs specifically tailored to the needs of PEH. Methods: We used a multistep, iterative process following the ORBIT model to develop the Diabetes Homeless Medication Support (D-HOMES) program, a new lifestyle intervention for PEH with type 2 diabetes. We built a community-engaged research team who participated in all of the following steps of treatment development: (1) initial treatment conceptualization drawing from evidence-based programs, (2) qualitative interviews with affected people and multi-disciplinary housing and healthcare providers, and (3) an open trial of D-HOMES to evaluate acceptability (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, exit interview) and treatment engagement (completion rate of up to 10 offered coaching sessions). Results: In step (1), the D-HOMES treatment manual drew from existing behavioral activation and lay health coach programs for diabetes as well as clinical resources from Health Care for the Homeless. Step (2) qualitative interviews (n = 26 patients, n = 21 providers) shaped counseling approaches, language and choices regarding interventionists, tools, and resources. PTSD symptoms were reported in 69% of patients. Step (3) trial participants (N = 10) overall found the program acceptable, however, we saw better program satisfaction and treatment engagement among more stably housed people. We developed adapted treatment materials for the target population and refined recruitment/retention strategies and trial procedures sensitive to prevalent discrimination and racism to better retain people of color and those with less stable housing. Discussion: The research team has used these findings to inform an NIH-funded randomized control pilot trial. We found synergy between community-engaged research and the ORBIT model of behavioral treatment development to develop a new intervention designed for PEH with type 2 diabetes and address health equity gaps in people who have experienced trauma. We conclude that more work and different approaches are needed to address the needs of participants with the least stable housing.

Innovative Wellness Models to Support Advancement and Retention Among Women Physicians.

Despite improvements in representation of women in academic medicine, the rate of promotion and career advancement remains unequal. Compared with their male colleagues, women report lower rates of personal-organizational value alignment and higher rates of burnout. Particular challenges further exist for Black women, Indigenous women, women of color, and third gender or gender nonbinary faculty. Promoting the well-being of women physicians requires innovative approaches beyond the traditional scope of physician well-being efforts and careful attention to the unique barriers women face. Three wellness-oriented models are presented to promote the professional fulfillment and well-being of women physicians: (1) redefine productivity and create innovative work models, (2) promote equity through workplace redesign and burnout reduction, and (3) promote, measure, and improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. By engaging in innovative models for equitable advancement and retention, it is anticipated that diverse groups of women faculty will be better represented at higher levels of leadership and thus contribute to the creation of more equitable work climates, fostering well-being for women physicians.

The Learning Health System Competency Appraisal Inventory (LHS-CAI): A novel tool for assessing LHS-focused education needs.

There is increasing interest in health care organizations functioning as learning health systems (LHSs) to improve the quality and efficiency of health care delivery while generating new knowledge. Individuals must be trained in associated concepts and competencies and subsequently positioned (or embedded) within the delivery system for maximum effect as they perform their scholarship. Potential researchers within LHSs come from many different training backgrounds; therefore, each LHS scholar requires a goal-directed plan tailored to his or her needs. There are few tools available to guide development, training, or evaluation of individuals interested in becoming leaders of research in LHSs. In this paper, we present a newly developed tool for guiding the training of such researchers, the Learning Health Systems Competency Appraisal Inventory (LHS-CAI). The LHS-CAI is modeled after the Clinical Research Appraisal Index (CRAI) used within Clinical and Translational Science Award sites across the United States. The LHS-CAI is a tool for trainees at all levels to use with their mentors in an interactive manner. The tool can then identify areas in which more training is needed and at what level to ensure success as a researcher within LHSs. We further modified the CRAI format to better leverage the LHS-CAI as a key part of an LHS scholar's individual development plan. To implement the LHS-CAI, we have identified key points within the Minnesota Learning Health System Mentored Career Development Program (MN-LHS) at which assessment of expertise for each competency would be useful to LHS scholars, mentors, and program leaders. Scholars in this program come from various clinical and academic backgrounds but are all targeting their career trajectories toward leading embedded LHS research. They will reevaluate their expertise upon completion of the program, with comparison to baseline serving as a key program evaluation tool. The LHS-CAI is currently being implemented with the first cohort of scholars in the MN-LHS program.

Assessment of Shared Decision-making for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear. Objective: To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019. Interventions: Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process. Results: The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes). Conclusion and Relevance: The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Practice And Policy Reset Post-COVID-19: Reversion, Transition, Or Transformation?

Clinical care in the United States has been transformed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To support these changes, regulators and payers have temporarily modified long-standing policies, recognizing the need for a trade-off between the costs and benefits of oversight during times of crisis. Specifically, there has been a heightened receptivity to the importance of preserving physicians' and other health care professionals' time, cognitive bandwidth, and emotional reserve for the direct care of patients, instead of squandering these resources on low-value tasks and frustrating technology. Instead of reflexively reverting to past practices and policies, there is now an opportunity to take advantage of the lessons of COVID-19 for the further transformation of health care to achieve Quadruple Aim outcomes (better care for individuals, better health for the population, better experience for clinicians, and lower costs). We outline some of the policy and practice changes that we believe should endure after the crisis has passed, and we recommend using similar logic during noncrisis times to make additional changes to further reduce administrative burden, and thus improve patient care.

Development and Implementation of an Interdisciplinary Intensive Primary Care Clinic for High-Need High-Cost Patients in a Safety Net Hospital.

In 2010, payment for some of Hennepin County Medical Center's highest need patients changed from fee for service to a per capita formula. This financial stress led the institution to employ a population health lens that revealed a significant concentration of spending on a small segment of the population. Finding high rates of potentially avoidable inpatient and emergency care, an organizational effort was initiated to attempt to manage this high-need, high-cost population more effectively. A freestanding interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic was developed. Nurses led a risk stratification process to identify eligible patients for co-located medical, care coordination, and social services from multidisciplinary care teams. Workflows to engage the population were designed to reduce readmissions and inappropriate use of emergency services. Soon after opening, the clinic added mental health and substance use professionals. For people entering the clinic between January 2010 and July 2017, utilization and financial data were collected for the year before (pre) and after (post) enrollment (n = 487). Bivariate statistics and outlier analyses facilitated comparisons between pre/post enrollment. Patients visited the new clinic twice per month on average and outpatient costs almost doubled. Overall costs were 16% lower, with the largest decrease seen in inpatient costs. This experience has led to ongoing investment, replication, and expansion of the model. An interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic for high-utilizing, underserved patients is a promising intervention. Multidisciplinary teams and ongoing institutional support are critical to program success. Payment reform is essential to the development of such programs.

Changes in Quality of Life Among Enrollees in Hennepin Health: A Medicaid Expansion ACO.

Despite limited program evaluations of Medicaid accountable care organizations (ACOs), no studies have examined if cost-saving goals negatively affect quality of life and health care experiences of low-income enrollees. The Hennepin Health ACO uses an integrated care model to address the physical, behavioral, and social needs of Medicaid expansion enrollees. As part of a larger evaluation, we conducted semistructured interviews with 35 primary care using Hennepin Health members enrolled for 2 or more years. Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, we assessed enrollee complexity and use of the care model and improvements in quality of life. We found improved quality of life was consistently associated with strong bonds to primary care, consistent mental health care, and support from extended care team members. Comprehensive, integrated care models within ACOs may improve quality of life for low-income Medicaid enrollees through coordinated primary and mental health care.

Integrated, Accountable Care For Medicaid Expansion Enrollees: A Comparative Evaluation of Hennepin Health.

Hennepin Health, a Medicaid accountable care organization, began serving early expansion enrollees (very low-income childless adults) in 2012. It uses an integrated care model to address social and behavioral needs. We compared health care utilization in Hennepin Health with other Medicaid managed care in the same area from 2012 to 2014, controlling for demographics, chronic conditions, and enrollment patterns. Homelessness and substance use were higher in Hennepin Health. Overall adjusted results showed Hennepin Health had 52% more emergency department visits and 11% more primary care visits than comparators. Over time, modeling a 6-month exposure to Hennepin Health, emergency department and primary care visits decreased and dental visits increased; hospitalizations decreased nonsignificantly but increased among comparators. Subgroup analysis of high utilizers showed lower hospitalizations in Hennepin Health. Integrated, accountable care under Medicaid expansion showed some desirable trends and subgroup benefits, but overall did not reduce acute health care utilization versus other managed care.

Medicaid expansion and mental health: A Minnesota case study.

INTRODUCTION: The health status and psychosocial needs of the Medicaid expansion population have been estimated but not measured. This population includes childless adults predicted to have high rates of mental illness, especially among the homeless. Given limitations in access to mental health services, it is unclear how prepared the U.S. health care system is to care for the needs of the expansion population. METHOD: Using enrollment and claims data from the Minnesota Department of Human Services, this study presents prevalence rates of mental illness diagnoses and measures of unstable housing in Minnesota's childless-adult early Medicaid expansion population. Rates are compared with prior predictions of serious psychological distress and mental illness constructed from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) using χ2 and t tests. RESULTS: Diagnoses of mental illness in Minnesota's childless-adult early Medicaid expansion population were more than 15% higher than prevalence measures of mental illness/distress for the current Medicaid population. Diagnosis rates fell within confidence intervals of estimates of mental illness for Minnesota's Medicaid expansion population. Almost 1 in 3 enrollees had a marker of unstable housing; of this group, half had mental illness and/or distress. DISCUSSION: Findings support predictions of the high burden of mental illness and unstable housing among the Medicaid expansion population. Minnesota offers lessons to other regions working to care for such populations: (a) the use of flexible financing structures to build integrated care systems and (b) passage of legislation to allow data sharing among mental health, social services, and medical care.

Increased Likelihood of Missed Appointments ("No Shows") for Racial/Ethnic Minorities in a Safety Net Health System.

Missed appointments have been linked to adverse outcomes known to affect racial/ethnic minorities. However, the association of missed appointments with race/ethnicity has not been determined. We sought to determine the relationships between race/ethnicity and missed appointments by performing a cross-sectional study of 161 350 patients in a safety net health system. Several race/ethnicity categories were significantly associated with missed appointment rates, including Hispanic/Latino patients, American Indian/Alaskan Native patients, and Black/African American patients, as compared with White non-Hispanic patients. Other significant predictors included Mexico as country of origin, medical complexity, and major mental illness. We recommend additional research to determine which interventions best reduce missed appointments for minority populations in order to improve the care of vulnerable patients.

Variation in Cost and Quality in Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Bending the cost curve in medical expenses is a high national priority. The relationship between cost and kidney allograft failure has not been fully investigated in the United States. METHODS: Using Medicare claims from the United States Renal Data System, we determined costs for all adults with Medicare coverage who underwent kidney transplant January 1, 2007, to June 30, 2009. We compared relative cost (observed/expected payment) for year 1 after transplantation for all transplant centers, adjusting for recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics, region, and local wage index. Using program-specific reports from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, we correlated relative cost with observed/expected allograft failure between centers, excluding small centers. RESULTS: Among 19,603 transplants at 166 centers, mean observed cost per patient per center was $65,366 (interquartile range, $55,094-$71,624). Mean relative cost was 0.99 (± 0.20); mean observed/expected allograft failure was 1.03 (± 0.46). Overall, there was no correlation between relative cost and observed/expected allograft failure (r = 0.096, P = 0.22). Comparing centers with higher than expected costs and allograft failure rates (lower performing) and centers with lower than expected costs and failure rates (higher-performing) showed differences in donor and recipient characteristics. As these characteristics were accounted for in the adjusted cost and allograft failure models, they are unlikely to explain the differences between higher- and lower-performing centers. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigations are needed to determine specific cost-effective practices of higher- and lower-performing centers to reduce costs and incidence of allograft failure.

Hennepin Health: a safety-net accountable care organization for the expanded Medicaid population.

Health care payment and delivery models that challenge providers to be accountable for outcomes have fueled interest in community-level partnerships that address the behavioral, social, and economic determinants of health. We describe how Hennepin Health--a county-based safety-net accountable care organization in Minnesota--has forged such a partnership to redesign the health care workforce and improve the coordination of the physical, behavioral, social, and economic dimensions of care for an expanded community of Medicaid beneficiaries. Early outcomes suggest that the program has had an impact in shifting care from hospitals to outpatient settings. For example, emergency department visits decreased 9.1 percent between 2012 and 2013, while outpatient visits increased 3.3 percent. An increasing percentage of patients have received diabetes, vascular, and asthma care at optimal levels. At the same time, Hennepin Health has realized savings and reinvested them in future improvements. Hennepin Health offers lessons for counties, states, and public hospitals grappling with the problem of how to make the best use of public funds in serving expanded Medicaid populations and other communities with high needs.

Shared decision making in the safety net: where do we go from here?

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process between clinicians and patients in which both share information, deliberate together, and make clinical decisions. Clinics serving safety net patients face special challenges, including fewer resources and more challenging work environments. The use of SDM within safety net institutions has not been well studied. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of 15 safety net primary care clinicians (13 physicians, 2 nurse practitioners). Each answered a 9-item SDM questionnaire and participated in a semistructured interview. From the transcribed interviews and questionnaire data, we identified themes and suggestions for introducing SDM into a safety net environment. RESULTS: Clinicians reported only partially fulfilling the central components of SDM (sharing information, deliberating, and decision making). Most clinicians expressed interest in SDM by stating that they "selected a treatment option together" with patients (8 of 15 in strong or complete agreement), but only a minority (3 of 15) "thoroughly weighed the different treatment options" together with patients. Clinicians attributed this gap to many barriers, including time pressure, overwhelming visit content, patient preferences, and lack of available resources. All clinicians believed that lack of time made it difficult to practice SDM. CONCLUSIONS: To increase use of SDM in the safety net, efficient SDM interventions designed for this environment, team care, and patient engagement in SDM will need further development. Future studies should focus on adapting SDM to safety net settings and determine whether SDM can reduce health care disparities.

Changes in medical students' views of internal medicine careers from 1990 to 2007.

BACKGROUND: The United States faces a shortage of primary care physicians and declining number of medical students choosing primary care careers. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 2 similar national surveys of senior medical students from 1990 and 2007 that addressed student characteristics, specialties chosen, clerkship experiences, perceptions of internal medicine (IM) compared with other specialties, and influential aspects of IM. We compared responses from 1990 and 2007 by analyzing a merged data set of identical items from the 2 surveys (65% of the items). RESULTS: The total sample of 2421 students comprised 1244 at 16 schools in 1990 (response rate, 75%) and 1177 at 11 schools in 2007 (82%). In 2007, there were more women (52% vs 37%, P < .001) and more educational debt (mean, $101 000 vs $63 000, P < .001). Similar proportions of students planned IM careers (23% vs 24%), although plans to practice general IM dropped from 9% to 2% (P < .001). The appeal of primary care as an influence toward IM declined from 57% to 33% (P < .001). More 2007 students reported high satisfaction with the IM clerkship (78% vs 38%, P < .001). Both cohorts thought that workload and stress are greater in IM than in other fields. Students in 2007 felt that opportunities for meaningful work in IM were greater than did students in 1990 (58% vs 42%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: More students in 2007 than in 1990 viewed IM as a potentially meaningful career. However, the 2007 students had higher debt, more negative perceptions of workload and stress in IM, and less career interest in general IM. To rebuild the generalist physician workforce, improving students' experience of IM in medical school is no longer sufficient. Bolder reform will be required to improve the educational pipeline, practice, and payment of generalist IM physicians.

Part-time careers in academic internal medicine: a report from the association of specialty professors part-time careers task force on behalf of the alliance for academic internal medicine.

To establish guidelines for more effectively incorporating part-time faculty into departments of internal medicine, a task force was convened in early 2007 by the Association of Specialty Professors. The task force used informal surveys, current literature, and consensus building among members of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine to produce a consensus statement and a series of recommendations. The task force agreed that part-time faculty could enrich a department of medicine, enhance workforce flexibility, and provide high-quality research, patient care, and education in a cost-effective manner. The task force provided a series of detailed steps for operationalizing part-time practice; to do so, key issues were addressed, such as fixed costs, malpractice insurance, space, cross-coverage, mentoring, career development, productivity targets, and flexible scheduling. Recommendations included (1) increasing respect for work-family balance, (2) allowing flexible time as well as part-time employment, (3) directly addressing negative perceptions about part-time faculty, (4) developing policies to allow flexibility in academic advancement, (5) considering part-time faculty as candidates for leadership positions, (6) encouraging granting agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Veterans Administration, to consider part-time faculty as eligible for research career development awards, and (7) supporting future research in "best practices" for incorporating part-time faculty into academic departments of medicine.