Prevalence and appropriateness of in-person versus not-in-person ambulatory antibiotic prescribing in an integrated academic health system: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory antibiotic stewardship generally aims to address the appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed at in-person visits. The prevalence and appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed outside of in-person visits is poorly studied. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of all ambulatory antibiotic prescribing in an integrated health delivery system in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Antibiotic prescribers and patients receiving oral antibiotic prescriptions between January 2016 and December 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of antibiotics prescribed with in-person visits or not-in-person encounters (e.g., telephone, refills). Proportion of prescriptions in in 5 mutually exclusive appropriateness groups: 1) chronic antibiotic use; 2) antibiotic-appropriate; 3) potentially antibiotic-appropriate; 4) non-antibiotic-appropriate; and 5) not associated with a diagnosis. RESULTS: Over the 4-year study period, there were 714,057 antibiotic prescriptions ordered for 348,739 unique patients by 2,391 clinicians in 467 clinics. Patients had a mean age of 41 years old, were 61% female, and 78% White. Clinicians were 58% women; 78% physicians; and were 42% primary care, 39% medical specialists, and 12% surgical specialists. Overall, 81% of antibiotics were prescribed with in-person visits and 19% without in-person visits. The most common not-in-person encounter types were telephone (10%), orders only (5%), and refill encounters (3%). Of all antibiotic prescriptions, 16% were for chronic use, 15% were antibiotic-appropriate, 39% were potentially antibiotic-appropriate, 22% were non-antibiotic-appropriate, and 8% were not associated with a diagnosis. Antibiotics prescribed in not-in-person encounters were more likely to be chronic (20% versus 15%); less likely to be associated with appropriate or potentially appropriate diagnoses (30% versus 59%) or non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses (8% versus 25%); and more likely to be associated with no diagnosis (42% versus <1%). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory stewardship interventions that focus only on in-person visits may miss a large proportion of antibiotic prescribing, inappropriate prescribing, and antibiotics prescribed in the absence of any diagnosis.

Look-Back and Look-Forward Durations and the Apparent Appropriateness of Ambulatory Antibiotic Prescribing.

Ambulatory antibiotic stewards, researchers, and performance measurement programs choose different durations to associate diagnoses with antibiotic prescriptions. We assessed how the apparent appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing changes when using different look-back and look-forward periods. Examining durations of 0 days (same-day), -3 days, -7 days, -30 days, ±3 days, ±7 days, and ±30 days, we classified all ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions in the electronic health record of an integrated health care system from 2016 to 2019 (714,057 prescriptions to 348,739 patients by 2391 clinicians) as chronic, appropriate, potentially appropriate, inappropriate, or not associated with any diagnosis. Overall, 16% percent of all prescriptions were classified as chronic infection related. Using only same-day diagnoses, appropriate, potentially appropriate, inappropriate, and not-associated antibiotics, accounted for 14%, 36%, 22%, and 11% of prescriptions, respectively. As the duration of association increased, the proportion of appropriate antibiotics stayed the same (range, 14% to 18%), potentially appropriate antibiotics increased (e.g., 43% for -30 days), inappropriate stayed the same (range, 22% to 24%), and not-associated antibiotics decreased (e.g., 2% for -30 days). Using the longest look-back-and-forward duration (±30 days), appropriate, potentially appropriate, inappropriate, and not-associated antibiotics, accounted for 18%, 44%, 20%, and 2% of prescriptions, respectively. Ambulatory programs and studies focused on appropriate or inappropriate antibiotic prescribing can reasonably use a short duration of association between an antibiotic prescription and diagnosis codes. Programs and studies focused on potentially appropriate antibiotic prescribing might consider examining longer durations.

Development and Psychometric Analysis of the Revised Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey.

This article describes the development and psychometric testing of the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care (PPIC 2.1) survey, which we administered to 12,364 Medicare beneficiaries who received treatment from 150 randomly selected physician organizations, receiving 3,067 responses (26%). Psychometric analyses, performed using two methods to adjust for respondent inherent optimism (as a measure of response tendency), supported a 6-factor, 22-item model with excellent fit. These factors were (1) Staff Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History, (2) Provider Support for the Patient's Self-Directed Care, (3) Test Result Communication, (4) Provider Knowledge of the Patient, (5) Provider Support for Medication Adherence and Home Health Management, and (6) Specialist Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History. Per Spearman-Brown prophesy calculations, reliability would exceed 0.7 for all factors at 33 or more responses per organization. The PPIC 2.1 survey can distinguish six dimensions of integrated patient care with high physician organization-level reliability at reasonable sample sizes.

Factors Influencing Physician Practices' Adoption of Behavioral Health Integration in the United States: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral health integration is uncommon among U.S. physician practices despite recent policy changes that may encourage its adoption. OBJECTIVE: To describe factors influencing physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with leaders and clinicians from physician practices that adopted behavioral health integration, supplemented by contextual interviews with experts and vendors in behavioral health integration. SETTING: 30 physician practices, sampled for diversity on specialty, size, affiliation with parent organizations, geographic location, and behavioral health integration model (collaborative or co-located). PARTICIPANTS: 47 physician practice leaders and clinicians, 20 experts, and 5 vendors. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative analysis (cyclical coding) of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four overarching factors affecting physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration were identified. First, practices' motivations for integrating behavioral health care included expanding access to behavioral health services, improving other clinicians' abilities to respond to patients' behavioral health needs, and enhancing practice reputation. Second, practices tailored their implementation of behavioral health integration to local resources, financial incentives, and patient populations. Third, barriers to behavioral health integration included cultural differences and incomplete information flow between behavioral and nonbehavioral health clinicians and billing difficulties. Fourth, practices described the advantages and disadvantages of both fee-for-service and alternative payment models, and few reported positive financial returns. LIMITATION: The practice sample was not nationally representative and excluded practices that did not implement or sustain behavioral health integration, potentially limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Practices currently using behavioral health integration face cultural, informational, and financial barriers to implementing and sustaining behavioral health integration. Tailored, context-specific technical support to guide practices' implementation and payment models that improve the business case for practices may enhance the dissemination and long-term sustainability of behavioral health integration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Medical Association and The Commonwealth Fund.

Medical Group Structural Integration May Not Ensure That Care Is Integrated, From The Patient's Perspective.

Structural integration is increasing among medical groups, but whether these changes yield care that is more integrated remains unclear. We explored the relationships between structural integration characteristics of 144 medical groups and perceptions of integrated care among their patients. Patients' perceptions were measured by a validated national survey of 3,067 Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions across six domains that reflect knowledge and support of, and communication with, the patient. Medical groups' structural characteristics were taken from the National Study of Physician Organizations and included practice size, specialty mix, technological capabilities, and care management processes. Patients' survey responses were most favorable for the domain of test result communication and least favorable for the domain of provider support for medication and home health management. Medical groups' characteristics were not consistently associated with patients' perceptions of integrated care. However, compared to patients of primary care groups, patients of multispecialty groups had strong favorable perceptions of medical group staff knowledge of patients' medical histories. Opportunities exist to improve patient care, but structural integration of medical groups might not be sufficient for delivering care that patients perceive as integrated.

patient perceptions of integrated care and their relationship to utilization of emergency, inpatient and outpatient services.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple chronic conditions have garnered particular attention from policymakers and health service researchers because these patients utilize more services and contribute disproportionally to rising health care expenses. The growing prevalence of patients with multiple chronic conditions has increased the importance of achieving better health care integration for this patient population. Patients may be well positioned to assess integration of their care, but the relationship between patients' perceptions of care integration and use of health services has not been studied. We sought to understand how patient-perceived integrated care relates to utilization of health services. METHODS: We fielded the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care survey among a random sample of 3000 (<65 years) patients with multiple chronic conditions belonging to the Massachusetts General Hospital Physician Organization; 1503 responses were collected (50% response rate). We assessed relationships between provider performance on 11 domains of patient-reported integrated care and rates of emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and outpatient visits. RESULTS: Better performance on two of the surveyed dimensions of integrated care (information flow to other providers in your doctor's office and responsiveness independent of visits, p<0.05) was significantly associated with lower ED visit rates. Better performance on three dimensions of integrated care (information flow to your specialist, p<0.05, post-visit information flow to the patient, p<0.001, and continuous familiarity with patient over time, p<0.05) was associated with lower outpatient visit rates. No dimensions of integration were associated with hospital admission rates. CONCLUSIONS: In a single health system, patient perceptions of integrated care were associated with ED and outpatient utilization but not inpatient utilization. With further development, patient reports of integration could be useful guides to improving health system efficiency.

Development and preliminary validation of the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care survey.

Valid measures of the integration of patient care could provide rapid and accurate feedback on the successfulness of current efforts to improve health care delivery systems. This article describes the development and pilot testing of a new survey, based on a novel conceptual model, which measures the integration of patient care as experienced by patients. We administered the survey to 1,289 patients with multiple chronic conditions from one health system and received responses from 527 patients (43%). Psychometric analysis of responses supported a six-dimension model of integration with satisfactory internal consistency, discriminant validity, and goodness of fit. The Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care survey can be used to measure the integration of care received by chronically ill patients for two main purposes: as a research tool to compare interventions intended to improve the integration of care and as a quality improvement tool intended to guide the refinement of delivery system innovations.