Acceptability and Adherence to Home, Kiosk, and Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement Compared to 24-H Ambulatory Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement. DESIGN: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit. MEASURES: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Considerations for Subgroup Analyses in Cluster-Randomized Trials Based on Aggregated Individual-Level Predictors.

In research assessing the effect of an intervention or exposure, a key secondary objective often involves assessing differential effects of this intervention or exposure in subgroups of interest; this is often referred to as assessing effect modification or heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Observed HTE can have important implications for policy, including intervention strategies (e.g., will some patients benefit more from intervention than others?) and prioritizing resources (e.g., to reduce observed health disparities). Analysis of HTE is well understood in studies where the independent unit is an individual. In contrast, in studies where the independent unit is a cluster (e.g., a hospital or school) and a cluster-level outcome is used in the analysis, it is less well understood how to proceed if the HTE analysis of interest involves an individual-level characteristic (e.g., self-reported race) that must be aggregated at the cluster level. Through simulations, we show that only individual-level models have power to detect HTE by individual-level variables; if outcomes must be defined at the cluster level, then there is often low power to detect HTE by the corresponding aggregated variables. We illustrate the challenges inherent to this type of analysis in a study assessing the effect of an intervention on increasing COVID-19 booster vaccination rates at long-term care centers.

Clinic, Home, and Kiosk Blood Pressure Measurements for Diagnosing Hypertension: a Randomized Diagnostic Study.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Clinical documentation of patient-reported medical cannabis use in primary care: Toward scalable extraction using natural language processing methods.

Background: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. Methods: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (November 1, 2017-October 31, 2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. Results: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., "edible THC nightly for lumbar pain") was more common than explicit (e.g., "continues medical cannabis use"). Conclusions: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients' reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients' cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance. RESULTS: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA. CONCLUSION: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.

Patient and caregiver perspectives on a tool to increase recognition of undiagnosed dementia: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of dementia may improve patient care and quality of life, yet up to half of people with dementia are undiagnosed. Electronic health record (EHR) data could be used to help identify individuals at risk of having undiagnosed dementia for outreach and assessment, but acceptability to people with dementia and caregivers is unknown. METHODS: We conducted five focus groups at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), an integrated healthcare system in Washington State, to explore people's feelings about timing of dementia diagnosis, use of EHR-based tools to predict risk of undiagnosed dementia, and communication about risk. We recruited people enrolled in KPWA who had dementia or mild cognitive impairment, people enrolled in KPWA who had neither diagnosis, and caregivers (i.e., loved ones of people with dementia who assist with various tasks of daily life). People who were non-white or Hispanic were oversampled. Two team members analyzed transcripts using thematic coding. RESULTS: Forty people (63% women; 59% non-white or Hispanic) participated in the focus groups. Themes that arose included: perceived pros and cons of early dementia diagnosis; questions and concerns about a potential tool to assess risk of undiagnosed dementia; and preferences related to patient-provider conversations disclosing that a person was at high risk to have undiagnosed dementia. Participants supported early diagnosis, describing benefits such as time to adjust to the disease, plan, involve caregivers, and identify resources. They also acknowledged the possible psychosocial toll of receiving the diagnosis. Participants supported use of an EHR-based tool, but some people worried about accuracy and privacy. Participants emphasized that information about risk of undiagnosed dementia should be communicated thoughtfully by a trusted provider and that the conversation should include advice about prognosis, treatment options and other resources when a new dementia diagnosis was made. CONCLUSION: People with dementia or mild cognitive impairment, people with neither diagnosis, and caregivers of people with dementia supported using EHR-based tools to help identify individuals at risk of having undiagnosed dementia. Such tools must be implemented carefully to address concerns and ensure that people living with dementia and their caregivers are adequately supported.

Intersecting systemic and personal barriers to accessing social services: qualitative interviews in northern California.

BACKGROUND: Addressing social risks in the clinical setting can increase patient confidence in the availability of community resources and may contribute to the development of a therapeutic alliance which has been correlated with treatment adherence and improved quality of life in mental health contexts. It is not well understood what barriers patients face when trying to connect to community resources that help address social risks. This paper aims to describe patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs-related resources to which they are referred by a program embedded in a safety net primary care clinic. METHODS: This is a qualitative assessment of patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs assistance programs. We conducted over 100 in-depth interviews with individuals in Northern California who participated in a navigation and referral program to help address their social needs and describe a unique framework for understanding how policies and systems intersect with an individual's personal life circumstances. RESULTS: Individuals described two distinct domains of barriers: 1) systems-level barriers that were linked to the inequitable distribution of and access to resources, and 2) personal-level barriers that focused on unique limitations experienced by each patient and impacted the way that they accessed services in their communities. While these barriers often overlapped or manifested in similar outcomes, this distinction was key because the systems barriers were not things that individuals could control or overcome through their own initiative or by increasing individual capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents describe intersecting systemic and personal barriers that compound patients' challenges to getting their social needs met; this includes both a picture of the inequitable distribution of and access to social services and a profile of the limitations created by individual life histories. These results speak to the need for structural changes to improve adequacy, availability, and accessibility of social needs resources. These findings highlight the need for advocacy to address systems barriers, especially the stigma that is faced by people who struggle with a variety of health and social issues, and investment in incentives to strengthen relationships between health care settings and social service agencies.

Patient Perspectives on Addressing Social Needs in Primary Care Using a Screening and Resource Referral Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Interest is growing in interventions to address social needs in clinical settings. However, little is known about patients' perceptions and experiences with these interventions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' experiences and patient-reported outcomes of a primary care-based intervention to help patients connect with community resources using trained volunteer advocates. DESIGN: Qualitative telephone interviews with patients who had worked with the volunteer advocates. Sample and recruitment targets were equally distributed between patients who had at least one reported success in meeting an identified need and those who had no reported needs met, based on the database used to document patient encounters. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred two patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients at the study clinic were periodically screened for social needs. If needs were identified, they were referred to a trained volunteer advocate who further assessed their needs, provided them with resource referrals, and followed up with them on whether their need was met. APPROACH: Thematic analysis was used to code the data. KEY RESULTS: Interviewed patients appreciated the services offered, especially the follow-up. Patients' ability to access the resource to which they were referred was enhanced by assistance with filling out forms, calling community resources, and other types of navigation. Patients also reported that interacting with the advocates made them feel listened to and cared for, which they perceived as noteworthy in their lives. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-reported information provides key insights into a human-centered intervention in a clinical environment. Our findings highlight what works in clinical interventions addressing social needs and provide outcomes that are difficult to measure using existing quantitative metrics. Patients experienced the intervention as a therapeutic relationship/working alliance, a type of care that correlates with positive outcomes such as treatment adherence and quality of life. These insights will help design more patient-centered approaches to providing holistic patient care.

Leading Innovative Practice: Leadership Attributes in LEAP Practices.

Policy Points An onslaught of policies from the federal government, states, the insurance industry, and professional organizations continually requires primary care practices to make substantial changes; however, ineffective leadership at the practice level can impede the dissemination and scale-up of these policies. The inability of primary care practice leadership to respond to ongoing policy demands has resulted in moral distress and clinician burnout. Investments are needed to develop interventions and educational opportunities that target a broad array of leadership attributes. CONTEXT: Over the past several decades, health care in the United States has undergone substantial and rapid change. At the heart of this change is an assumption that a more robust primary care infrastructure helps achieve the quadruple aim of improved care, better patient experience, reduced cost, and improved work life of health care providers. Practice-level leadership is essential to succeed in this rapidly changing environment. Complex adaptive systems theory offers a lens for understanding important leadership attributes. METHODS: A review of the literature on leadership from a complex adaptive system perspective identified nine leadership attributes hypothesized to support practice change: motivating others to engage in change, managing abuse of power and social influence, assuring psychological safety, enhancing communication and information sharing, generating a learning organization, instilling a collective mind, cultivating teamwork, fostering emergent leaders, and encouraging boundary spanning. Through a secondary qualitative analysis, we applied these attributes to nine practices ranking high on both a practice learning and leadership scale from the Learning from Effective Ambulatory Practice (LEAP) project to see if and how these attributes manifest in high-performing innovative practices. FINDINGS: We found all nine attributes identified from the literature were evident and seemed important during a time of change and innovation. We identified two additional attributes-anticipating the future and developing formal processes-that we found to be important. Complexity science suggests a hypothesized developmental model in which some attributes are foundational and necessary for the emergence of others. CONCLUSIONS: Successful primary care practices exhibit a diversity of strong local leadership attributes. To meet the realities of a rapidly changing health care environment, training of current and future primary care leaders needs to be more comprehensive and move beyond motivating others and developing effective teams.

Measuring attributes of team functioning in primary care settings: development of the TEAMS tool.

This study examines attributes of a high-functioning primary care team by creating a survey measuring staff perceptions of team culture in primary care practices with innovative team-based workforce models. Survey data from a national study of 30 exemplar primary care practices with innovative team-based workforce models was used. Staff and clinicians (n = 943) at the 30 primary care sites completed a 31-item survey online. Survey items came from previous surveys of adaptive reserve and team culture. Factor analysis, reliability and validity were examined for the survey. Case summaries from site visits and survey comments were compared for high and low scoring sites to establish validity. Three core attributes of a high-functioning team were identified: joy in practice (4 items), personal growth (3 items), and leadership and learning (20 items). Four items did not measure any attribute. Using item correlations, the 20 items for leadership and learning were reduced to 7 items. All three attribute subscales had good reliability and validity. The final 14-item survey measuring joy in practice, personal growth and leadership and learning may be useful in clinical practice as a practical tool to gauge progress in developing a high-functioning team. Further research is needed to determine the sensitivity of this instrument to change over time with interventions designed to improve team functioning in primary care.

Adaptation and Implementation of the STarT Back Risk Stratification Strategy in a US Health Care Organization: A Process Evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To support implementation of effective treatments for back pain that can be delivered to a range of people, we summarize learnings from our process evaluation of the MATCH trial's implementation of an adaptation of the STarT Back risk-stratified care model. DESIGN: Our logic model-driven evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data sources. SETTING: This study took place in a US-based health care delivery system that had adapted and implemented the STarT Back stratified care approach. This was the first formal test of the strategy in a US setting. METHODS: Data collection included observation of implementation activities, staff/provider interviews, and post-training evaluation questionnaires. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics for questionnaire data. RESULTS: We found that both primary care teams and physical therapists at intervention clinics gave the training high scores on evaluation questionnaires and reported in the interviews that they found the training engaging and useful. However, there was significant variation in the extent to which the risk stratification strategy was incorporated into care. Some primary care providers reported that the intervention changed their conversations with patients and increased their confidence in working with patients with back pain. Providers using the STarT Back tool did not change referral rates for recommended matched treatments. CONCLUSIONS: These insights provide guidance for future efforts to adapt and implement the STarT Back strategy and other complex practice change interventions. They emphasize the need for primary care-based interventions to minimize complexity and the need for ongoing monitoring and feedback.

Engaging patients in primary care design: An evaluation of a novel approach to codesigning care.

OBJECTIVE: Recognition is growing that to create truly patient-centred care, health-care organizations need to partner with patients around care design. More research into the benefits of engaging patients and the most effective ways of partnering with them is needed. METHODS: This study assessed the process and impact of a collaborative effort to design a new clinic service that balanced the number of patient and clinical provider/staff codesigners involved and recruited patients to represent diverse perspectives. Data sources included interviews with participants, event observation and participant surveys. RESULTS: Our evaluation found that including patients as equal partners improved the design process by infusing a real-world, patient perspective. The pre-event orientation and interactive methods used in the event fostered positive collaboration, as well as personal growth for the patient codesigners. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of including a roughly equal number of patients and clinical providers/staff in design events and ensuring that the patients represent diverse perspectives.

Assessing quality improvement capacity in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Healthy Hearts Northwest (H2N) is a study of external support strategies to build quality improvement (QI) capacity in primary care with a focus on cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation. METHODS: To guide practice facilitator support, experts in practice transformation identified seven domains of QI capacity and mapped items from a previously validated medical home assessment tool to them. A practice facilitator (PF) met with clinicians and staff in each practice to discuss each item on the Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA) resulting in a practice-level response to each item. We examined the association between the QICA total and sub-scale scores, practice characteristics, a measure of prior experience with managing practice change, and performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for the three cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: The QICA score was associated with prior experience managing change and moderately associated with two of the three CQMs: aspirin use (r = 0.16, p = 0.049) and blood pressure control (r = 0.18, p = 0.013). Rural practices and those with 2-5 clinicians had lower QICA scores.. CONCLUSIONS: The QICA is useful for assessing QI capacity within a practice and may serve as a guide for both facilitators and primary care practices in efforts to build this capacity and improve measures of clinical quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier# NCT02839382, retrospectively registered on July 21, 2016.

Actions and processes that patients, family members, and physicians associate with patient- and family-centered care.

BACKGROUND: Patient- and family-centered care (PFCC) is increasingly linked to improved communication, care quality, and patient decision making. However, in order to consistently implement and study PFCC, health care systems and researchers need a solid evidentiary base. Most current definitions and models of PFCC are broad and conceptual, and difficult to translate into measurable behaviors and actions. This paper provides a brief overview of all actions that focus group respondents associated with PFCC in ambulatory (outpatient) care settings and then explores actions associated with the concept of "dignity and respect" in greater detail. METHODS: We conducted nine focus groups with patients, family members, and physicians in three metropolitan regions across the United States. Group discussions were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We identified 14 domains and 47 specific actions that patients, family members, and physicians associate with PFCC. In addition to providing a detailed matrix of these domains and actions, this paper details the actions associated with the "dignity and respect" concept. Key domains identified under "dignity and respect" include: 1) building relationships, 2) providing individualized care, and 3) respecting patients' time. Within these domains we identified specific actions that break down these abstract ideas into explicit and measurable units such as taking time, listening, including family, and minimizing wait times. We identified 9, 6, and 3 specific actions associated, respectively, with building relationships, providing individualized care, and respecting patients' time. CONCLUSIONS: Our work fills a critical gap in our ability to understand and measure PFCC in ambulatory care settings by breaking down abstract concepts about PFCC into specific measurable actions. Our findings can be used to support research on how PFCC affects clinical outcomes and develop innovative tools and policies to support PFCC.

Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The STarT Back strategy for categorizing and treating patients with low back pain (LBP) improved patients' function while reducing costs in England. OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the effect of implementing an adaptation of this approach in a US setting. DESIGN: The Matching Appropriate Treatments to Consumer Healthcare needs (MATCH) trial was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with a pre-intervention baseline period. Six primary care clinics were pair randomized, three to training in the STarT Back strategy and three to serve as controls. PARTICIPANTS: Adults receiving primary care for non-specific LBP were invited to provide data 2 weeks after their primary care visit and follow-up data 2 and 6 months (primary endpoint) later. INTERVENTIONS: The STarT Back risk-stratification strategy matches treatments for LBP to physical and psychosocial obstacles to recovery using patient-reported data (the STarT Back Tool) to categorize patients' risk of persistent disabling pain. Primary care clinicians in the intervention clinics attended six didactic sessions to improve their understanding LBP management and received in-person training in the use of the tool that had been incorporated into the electronic health record (EHR). Physical therapists received 5 days of intensive training. Control clinics received no training. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were back-related physical function and pain severity. Intervention effects were estimated by comparing mean changes in patient outcomes after 2 and 6 months between intervention and control clinics. Differences in change scores by trial arm and time period were estimated using linear mixed effect models. Secondary outcomes included healthcare utilization. KEY RESULTS: Although clinicians used the tool for about half of their patients, they did not change the treatments they recommended. The intervention had no significant effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. CONCLUSIONS: A resource-intensive intervention to support stratified care for LBP in a US healthcare setting had no effect on patient outcomes or healthcare use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Clinical Trial Number NCT02286141.

Roles and Functions of Community Health Workers in Primary Care.

Community health workers have potential to enhance primary care access and quality, but remain underutilized. To provide guidance on their integration, we characterized roles and functions of community health workers in primary care through a literature review and synthesis. Analysis of 30 studies identified 12 functions (ie, care coordination, health coaching, social support, health assessment, resource linking, case management, medication management, remote care, follow-up, administration, health education, and literacy support) and 3 prominent roles representing clusters of functions: clinical services, community resource connections, and health education and coaching. We discuss implications for community health worker training and clinical support in primary care.

Getting through the day: a pilot qualitative study of U.S. women's experiences making decisions about anti-nausea medication during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Nausea during pregnancy affects 80% of pregnant women and can severely affect women's functioning and quality of life. Women often have difficulty deciding whether to take anti-nausea medications due to concern about medication risks. This paper foregrounds U.S. women's voices as they share their experiences making decisions about anti-nausea medication use. METHODS: As a pilot study, we conducted two focus groups including 20 women who had filled at least one prescription for an anti-nausea medication during pregnancy. Topics included deciding about and taking anti-nausea medications. Transcripts were analyzed by two medical anthropologists using an inductive or open coding approach. RESULTS: Women in our pilot study carefully considered whether to take anti-nausea medications. Most women preferred not to take medications, in general, but were willing to do so for severe symptoms. When considering medications, they expressed concerns about risks to fetal health. They considered information from internet research, their health care provider, and the experiences of friends and family. While some women in our study decided against taking medications, many did take a prescription medication, and they reported substantial improvement in their symptoms and sense of well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Women weighed various sources of evidence to assess the risks and benefits of taking anti-nausea medication and ultimately made a range of choices. More research is needed about the effectiveness and risks of anti-nausea medication, to help support women in their decision-making process, and also about the best methods to communicate scientific evidence to women.

"It's a Very Big Burden on Me": Women's Experiences Using Insulin for Gestational Diabetes.

Objectives Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) affects hundreds of thousands of women each year. Many require medications to manage their blood glucose levels. Only insulin is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in pregnancy. While other medications can be used, their safety remains controversial. Few studies have examined women's lived experience of using insulin for GDM. Our objective in this study was to foreground the voices of women speaking about their treatment experience. Methods We conducted two focus groups including 16 women treated for GDM with medications, primarily insulin. Topics included women's experiences with GDM diagnosis and treatment including concerns about risks and benefits of treatments. Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive coding approach. Results Many women had negative experiences with insulin use, such as feeling that they had no voice in treatment decisions, and received inadequate information about insulin, including about the impact it would have on their daily lives. Many continued to have difficulty managing their blood sugar once on insulin, and they worried about the short term and long term health effects of insulin on themselves and their babies. They wanted more information about non-insulin treatment options as well as more social support. Conclusion In our sample of women with GDM, insulin treatment resulted in negative experiences with emotional and experiential impacts lasting beyond pregnancy. There is a need for more research on other medications for GDM, so that women can have access to more treatment options and better information to guide their choices.

Effective team-based primary care: observations from innovative practices.

BACKGROUND: Team-based care is now recognized as an essential feature of high quality primary care, but there is limited empiric evidence to guide practice transformation. The purpose of this paper is to describe advances in the configuration and deployment of practice teams based on in-depth study of 30 primary care practices viewed as innovators in team-based care. METHODS: As part of LEAP, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, primary care experts nominated 227 innovative primary care practices. We selected 30 practices for intensive study through review of practice descriptive and performance data. Each practice hosted a 3-day site visit between August, 2012 and September, 2013, where specific advances in team configuration and roles were noted. Advances were identified by site visitors and confirmed at a meeting involving representatives from each of the 30 practices. RESULTS: LEAP practices have expanded the roles of existing staff and added new personnel to provide the person power and skills needed to perform the tasks and functions expected of a patient-centered medical home (PCMH). LEAP practice teams generally include a rich array of staff, especially registered nurses (RNs), behavioral health specialists, and lay health workers. Most LEAP practices organize their staff into core teams, which are built around partnerships between providers and specific Medical Assistants (MAs), and often include registered nurses (RNs) and others such as health coaches or receptionists. MAs, RNs, and other staff are heavily involved in the planning and delivery of preventive and chronic illness care. The care of more complex patients is supported by behavioral health specialists, RN care managers, and pharmacists. Standing orders and protocols enable staff to act independently. CONCLUSIONS: The 30 LEAP practices engage health professional and lay staff in patient care to the maximum extent, which enables the practices to meet the expectations of a PCMH and helps free up providers to focus on tasks that only they can perform.