Implementing Whole Person Primary Care: Results from a Year-Long Learning Collaborative.

PURPOSE: The National Academies of Medicine report on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care calls for a transformation of the primary care to a "whole person" model that is person-centered, relationship-based and takes into account the social, spiritual, emotional and behavioral aspects of health. However, our current delivery tools, such as the SOAP Note, do not sufficiently capture and organize the delivery of these elements in practice. To explore how to remedy this, an Integrative Health Learning Collaborative (IHLC) was established to implement and test new tools for changing primary care practices toward whole person care. METHODS: The IHLC comprised primary care practices committed to changing to a whole person care model of care along with a panel of experts in integrative health and change management. The IHLC met virtually monthly. Representatives from each practice and an assigned expert met to strategize and adapt the tools to their environment and practice. The practices used previously developed tools (the HOPE Note toolkit), change management tools, and quality improvement techniques to introduce, implement, and evaluate the changes. RESULTS: Sixteen clinics completed the process after 1 year. Overall, practices used the HOPE Note tools in 942 patients. Participants reported changes on the effectiveness of the collaborative (1) on clinical practice, (2) on the skills and attitudes of participants; and (3) the support in change management. CONCLUSIONS: This online learning collaborative supported practices implementing a whole person care model in primary care and improved the understanding, skills, and delivery ability of whole person care in all clinics completing the program.

The Case for Whole-Person Integrative Care.

Rationale: There is a need for medicine to deliver more whole-person care. This is a narrative review of several models of whole-person care and studies that illustrate the business case for whole-person models in primary care. Objectives: To provide an overview of what whole-person care models exist and explore evidence to support these models. Study Selection: Representative whole-person care models widely used in the United States are summarized and evaluated. Selected studies focused on outpatient primary care with examples from programs that integrate the delivery of conventional medical care, complementary and alternative medicine, and self-care within the context of social and cultural environments. Methods: Pubmed search conducted December 2020-February 2021. Two iterative searches using terms for "Whole Health Veterans Administration," "integrative medicine," "integrative health," "complementary and alternative medicine," and, as they related to the outcomes, of "health outcomes," "cost-effectiveness," "cost reduction," "patient satisfaction," and "physician satisfaction." Additional studies were identified from an initial search and the authors' experience of over 50 years. We looked for studies of whole-person care used in general primary care, those not using a single modality and only from United States practices. Results: A total of 125 (out of 1746) studies were found and met our inclusion criteria. We found that whole-person models of primary care exist, are quite heterogeneous in their approaches, and routinely report substantial benefits for improving the patient experience, clinical outcomes and in reducing costs. Conclusions: Evidence for the benefit of whole-person care models exist but definitions are quite heterogenous and unfocused. There is a need for more standardization of whole-person models and more research using whole systems approaches rather than reductionistic attempts using isolated components.

A new model of care to return holism to family medicine.

Family medicine's leadership in primary care is slipping as it loses its vision of whole-person care. This model of care can help us better manage and combat chronic disease.

Evaluating Integrative Cancer Clinics With the Claim Assessment Profile: An Example With the InspireHealth Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of freestanding integrative cancer clinical programs is challenging and is rarely done. We have developed an approach called the Claim Assessment Profile (CAP) to identify whether evaluation of a practice is justified, feasible, and likely to provide useful information. OBJECTIVES: A CAP was performed in order to (1) clarify the healing claims at InspireHealth, an integrative oncology treatment program, by defining the most important impacts on its clients; (2) gather information about current research capacity at the clinic; and (3) create a program theory and path model for use in prospective research. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: This case study design incorporates methods from a variety of rapid assessment approaches. Procedures included site visits to observe the program, structured qualitative interviews with 26 providers and staff, surveys to capture descriptive data about the program, and observational data on program implementation. RESULTS: The InspireHealth program is a well-established, multi-site, thriving integrative oncology clinical practice that focuses on patient support, motivation, and health behavior engagement. It delivers patient-centered care via a standardized treatment protocol. There arehigh levels of research interest from staff and resources by which to conduct research. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides the primary descriptive and claims clarification of an integrative oncology treatment program, an evaluation readiness report, a detailed logic model explicating program theory, and a clinical outcomes path model for conducting prospective research. Prospective evaluation of this program would be feasible and valuable, adding to our knowledge base of integrative cancer therapies.

Claim Assessment Profile: A Method for Capturing Healthcare Evidence in the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH).

BACKGROUND: Grounding health claims in an evidence base is essential for determining safety and effectiveness. However, it is not appropriate to evaluate all healthcare claims with the same methods. "Gold standard" randomized controlled trials may skip over important qualitative and observational data about use, benefits, side effects, and preferences, issues especially salient in research on complementary and integrative health (CIH) practices. This gap has prompted a move toward studying treatments in their naturalistic settings. In the 1990s, a program initiated under the National Institutes of Health was designed to provide an outreach to CIH practices for assessing the feasibility of conducting retrospective or prospective evaluations. The Claim Assessment Profile further develops this approach, within the framework of Samueli Institute's Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH) method. METHODS/DESIGN: The goals of a Claim Assessment Profile are to clarify the elements that constitute a practice, define key outcomes, and create an explanatory model of these impacts. The main objective is to determine readiness and capacity of a practice to engage in evaluation of effectiveness. This approach is informed by a variety of rapid assessment and stakeholder-driven methods. Site visits, structured qualitative interviews, surveys, and observational data on implementation provide descriptive data about the practice. Logic modeling defines inputs, processes, and outcome variables; Path modeling defines an analytic map to explore. DISCUSSION: The Claim Assessment Profile is a rapid assessment of the evaluability of a healthcare practice. The method was developed for use on CIH practices but has also been applied in resilience research and may be applied beyond the healthcare sector. Findings are meant to provide sufficient data to improve decision-making for stakeholders. This method provides an important first step for moving existing promising yet untested practices into comprehensive evaluation.

Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH): A Streamlined, Systematic, Phased Approach for Determining "What Works" in Healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Answering the question of "what works" in healthcare can be complex and requires the careful design and sequential application of systematic methodologies. Over the last decade, the Samueli Institute has, along with multiple partners, developed a streamlined, systematic, phased approach to this process called the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™). The SEaRCH process provides an approach for rigorously, efficiently, and transparently making evidence-based decisions about healthcare claims in research and practice with minimal bias. METHODS: SEaRCH uses three methods combined in a coordinated fashion to help determine what works in healthcare. The first, the Claims Assessment Profile (CAP), seeks to clarify the healthcare claim and question, and its ability to be evaluated in the context of its delivery. The second method, the Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL©), is a streamlined, systematic review process conducted to determine the quantity, quality, and strength of evidence and risk/benefit for the treatment. The third method involves the structured use of expert panels (EPs). There are several types of EPs, depending on the purpose and need. Together, these three methods-CAP, REAL, and EP-can be integrated into a strategic approach to help answer the question "what works in healthcare?" and what it means in a comprehensive way. DISCUSSION: SEaRCH is a systematic, rigorous approach for evaluating healthcare claims of therapies, practices, programs, or products in an efficient and stepwise fashion. It provides an iterative, protocol-driven process that is customized to the intervention, consumer, and context. Multiple communities, including those involved in health service and policy, can benefit from this organized framework, assuring that evidence-based principles determine which healthcare practices with the greatest promise are used for improving the public's health and wellness.

A Randomized Exploratory Study to Evaluate Two Acupuncture Methods for the Treatment of Headaches Associated with Traumatic Brain Injury.

Background: Headaches are prevalent among Service members with traumatic brain injury (TBI); 80% report chronic or recurrent headache. Evidence for nonpharmacologic treatments, such as acupuncture, are needed. Objective: The aim of this research was to determine if two types of acupuncture (auricular acupuncture [AA] and traditional Chinese acupuncture [TCA]) were feasible and more effective than usual care (UC) alone for TBI-related headache. Materials and Methods:Design: This was a three-armed, parallel, randomized exploratory study. Setting: The research took place at three military treatment facilities in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Patients: The subjects were previously deployed Service members (18-69 years old) with mild-to-moderate TBI and headaches. Intervention: The interventions explored were UC alone or with the addition of AA or TCA. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Secondary outcomes were the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Post-Traumatic Stress Checklist, Symptom Checklist-90-R, Medical Outcome Study Quality of Life (QoL), Beck Depression Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, and expectancy of outcome and acupuncture efficacy. Results: Mean HIT scores decreased in the AA and TCA groups but increased slightly in the UC-only group from baseline to week 6 [AA, -10.2% (-6.4 points); TCA, -4.6% (-2.9 points); UC, +0.8% (+0.6 points)]. Both acupuncture groups had sizable decreases in NRS (Pain Best), compared to UC (TCA versus UC: P = 0.0008, d = 1.70; AA versus UC: P = 0.0127, d = 1.6). No statistically significant results were found for any other secondary outcome measures. Conclusions: Both AA and TCA improved headache-related QoL more than UC did in Service members with TBI.

Measuring nonspecific factors in treatment: item banks that assess the healthcare experience and attitudes from the patient's perspective.

PURPOSE: Nonspecific factors that accompany healthcare treatments, such as patients' attitudes and expectations, are important parts of the experience of care and can influence outcomes. However, no precise, concise, and generalizable instruments to measure these factors exist. We report on the development and calibration of new item banks, titled the Healing Encounters and Attitudes Lists (HEAL), that assess nonspecific factors across a broad range of treatments and conditions. METHODS: The instrument development methodology of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) was used. Patient focus groups and clinician interviews informed our HEAL conceptual model. Literature searches of eight databases yielded over 500 instruments and resulted in an initial item pool of several thousand items. After qualitative item analysis, including cognitive interviewing, 296 items were included in field testing. The calibration sample included 1657 respondents, 1400 obtained through an Internet panel and 257 from conventional and integrative medicine clinics. Following exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the HEAL item banks were calibrated using item response theory. RESULTS: The final HEAL item banks were Patient-Provider Connection (57 items), Healthcare Environment (25 items), Treatment Expectancy (27 items), Positive Outlook (27 items), and Spirituality (26 items). Short forms were also developed from each item bank. A six-item short form, Attitudes toward Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), was also created. CONCLUSIONS: HEAL item banks provided substantial information across a broad range of each construct. HEAL item banks showed initial evidence of predictive and concurrent validity, suggesting that they are suitable for measuring nonspecific factors in treatment.

To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), PILOTS, PsycInfo, DoD Biomedical Research, clinicaltrials.gov, NLM catalog and NIH Grantee Publications Database from their inception through January 2015. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomised controlled trials of surgery and invasive procedures that penetrated the skin or an orifice and had a parallel sham procedure for comparison. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies reporting continuous outcomes were pooled and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was calculated using a random effects model for difference between true and sham groups. RESULTS: 55 studies (3574 patients) were identified meeting inclusion criteria; 39 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the main analysis (2902 patients). The overall SMD of the continuous primary outcome between treatment/sham-control groups was 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; p<0.00001; I(2)=67%). The SMD for surgery versus sham surgery was non-significant for pain-related conditions (n=15, SMD=0.13, p=0.08), marginally significant for studies on weight loss (n=10, SMD=0.52, p=0.05) and significant for gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) studies (n=5, SMD=0.65, p<0.001) and for other conditions (n=8, SMD=0.44, p=0.004). Mean improvement in sham groups relative to active treatment was larger in pain-related conditions (78%) and obesity (71%) than in GERD (57%) and other conditions (57%), and was smaller in classical-surgery trials (21%) than in endoscopic trials (73%) and those using percutaneous procedures (64%). CONCLUSIONS: The non-specific effects of surgery and other invasive procedures are generally large. Particularly in the field of pain-related conditions, more evidence from randomised placebo-controlled trials is needed to avoid continuation of ineffective treatments.

Randomized effectiveness trial of a brief course of acupuncture for posttraumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: Initial posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) care is often delayed and many with PTSD go untreated. Acupuncture appears to be a safe, potentially nonstigmatizing treatment that reduces symptoms of anxiety, depression, and chronic pain, but little is known about its effect on PTSD. METHODS: Fifty-five service members meeting research diagnostic criteria for PTSD were randomized to usual PTSD care (UPC) plus eight 60-minute sessions of acupuncture conducted twice weekly or to UPC alone. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks postrandomization. The primary study outcomes were difference in PTSD symptom improvement on the PTSD Checklist (PCL) and the Clinician-administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) from baseline to 12-week follow-up between the 2 treatment groups. Secondary outcomes were depression, pain severity, and mental and physical health functioning. Mixed model regression and t test analyses were applied to the data. RESULTS: Mean improvement in PTSD severity was significantly greater among those receiving acupuncture than in those receiving UPC (PCLΔ=19.8±13.3 vs. 9.7±12.9, P<0.001; CAPSΔ=35.0±20.26 vs. 10.9±20.8, P<0.0001). Acupuncture was also associated with significantly greater improvements in depression, pain, and physical and mental health functioning. Pre-post effect-sizes for these outcomes were large and robust. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture was effective for reducing PTSD symptoms. Limitations included small sample size and inability to parse specific treatment mechanisms. Larger multisite trials with longer follow-up, comparisons to standard PTSD treatments, and assessments of treatment acceptability are needed. Acupuncture is a novel therapeutic option that may help to improve population reach of PTSD treatment.

A systematic review of biopsychosocial training programs for the self-management of emotional stress: potential applications for the military.

Combat-exposed troops and their family members are at risk for stress reactions and related disorders. Multimodal biopsychosocial training programs incorporating complementary and alternative self-management techniques have the potential to reduce stress-related symptoms and dysfunction. Such training can preempt or attenuate the posttraumatic stress response and may be effectively incorporated into the training cycle for deploying and redeploying troops and their families. A large systematic review was conducted to survey the literature on multimodal training programs for the self-management of emotional stress. This report is an overview of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in this systematic review. Select programs such as mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management, Autogenic Training, Relaxation Response Training, and other meditation and mind-body skills practices are highlighted, and the feasibility of their implementation within military settings is addressed.

The evolution of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the USA over the last 20 years.

Medical practices that reside outside the mainstream medical structures have existed for centuries, often waxing and waning in prominence and use for various reasons. Recently, there has been a resurgence in interest and use of such practices in the USA generally referred to under the label of 'complementary and alternative medicine' (CAM). In this article we summarize some of the highlight events that punctuated this resurgence over the last 20 years. As in the past, social forces affecting these trends circulate around power, resources, and scope of practice. However, a prominent feature of this dynamic is a discussion about the role of science and 'evidence-based medicine' in addressing pluralistic healthcare-related practices. In the early years of this period, attempts to formulate the place of CAM practices as they relate to epistemology, nonconventional assumptions about health and healing, and the complexity of understanding 'whole systems' were discussed and often examined. Less attention is being paid to those core assumptions in more recent times. The focus now seems to be on how CAM practices can be judiciously and effectively 'integrated' into mainstream medicine. Examples of how this dynamic is evolving are described.