Uniting Public Health and Primary Care for Healthy Communities in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has laid bare the dis-integrated health care system in the United States. Decades of inattention and dwindling support for public health, coupled with declining access to primary care medical services have left many vulnerable communities without adequate COVID-19 response and recovery capacity. "Health is a Community Affair" is a 1966 effort to build and deploy local communities of solution that align public health, primary care, and community organizations to identify health care problem sheds, and activate local asset sheds. After decades of independent effort, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to reunite and align the shared goals of public health and primary care. Imagine how different things might look if we had widely implemented the recommendations from the 1966 report? The ideas and concepts laid out in "Health is a Community Affair" still offer a COVID-19 response and recovery approach. By bringing public health and primary care together in community now, a future that includes a shared vision and combined effort may emerge.

Performance of the Person Centered Primary Care Measure in Pediatric Continuity Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Improvement efforts in pediatric primary care would benefit from measures that capture families' holistic experience of the practice. We sought to assess the reliability and validity of the new Person-Centered Primary Care Measure (PCPCM) in a pediatric resident continuity clinic serving low-income families. METHODS: We incorporated the 11-item PCPCM, stems adapted to reflect a parent responding about their child's visit, into a telephone survey of 194 parents presenting for care in October 2019 at a pediatric resident continuity clinic in Cleveland Ohio (64% response rate). We evaluated PCPCM items using factor analysis and Rasch modeling, and assessed associations of the PCPCM with parents' demographics and perceptions of specific elements of their child's care. RESULTS: In this sample of low-income families, the PCPCM had good reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.85). All items loaded onto a single factor in principal axes factor analysis. Of the 11 aspects of primary care represented in the scale, "shared experience" was most difficult for parents to endorse in Rasch modeling. All 11 items contributed significantly to the total scale score with corrected item-total correlations >0.4. The PCPCM score was independent of socio demographics and was associated with parent's report that their child's clinician spends enough time with them. CONCLUSIONS: The PCPCM performs well in a pediatric continuity clinic setting, warranting consideration for its use as a parsimonious parent-reported measure of what patients and clinicians say matters most in pediatric primary care.

An Evaluation of CenteringParenting: A Group Well-Child Care Model in an Urban Federally Qualified Community Health Center.

Objectives: For CenteringParenting-an integrated, group participatory approach to maternal and child health-this study aimed to explore maternal participants' experiences and children's clinical metrics compared with those receiving traditional well-care visits in the same community health center. Design: A mixed-methods approach evaluated the impact of the CenteringParenting program on infant outcomes and maternal and staff experiences. Settings/Location: This study was conducted at Neighborhood Family Practice (NFP), an urban federally qualified community health center on the west side of Cleveland, Ohio. NFP is an accredited Centering Health care Institute site for both CenteringPregnancy and CenteringParenting. Subjects: Consecutive participants from the CenteringParenting program at NFP were included with age-matched controls. Outcome measures: Quantitative outcome measures included the number of well-child visits attended, immunization and lead screening rates, as well as breastfeeding initiation and duration. Semistructured interviews assessed maternal, provider, and program staff satisfaction with the program. Results: Children participating in CenteringParenting as compared with traditional individual care were demographically similar. Well-child care visits in the first 15 months of life were higher in the CenteringParenting Group (9.19 vs. 5.28, p < 0.001), which also exhibited a trend toward higher rates of completing noninfluenza immunizations. There was no difference in lead screening, with high percentages of completion in both groups. Interviews discovered strong maternal, clinician, and staff satisfaction with the program. Mothers noted the unique benefits of learning from and building relationships with each other. Conclusions: This study in a community health center indicates that innovative group care models, such as CenteringParenting, hold promise for delivering value-added elements of social interaction between parents and health care staff, in addition to increasing the number of visits attended by parents and children in the first 15 months of life. Future study is needed to further elucidate maternal, population health, and cost benefits.

Implementing team-based primary care models: a mixed-methods comparative case study in a large, integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of new care models within a health system is likely dependent on contextual factors at the individual sites of care. OBJECTIVE: To identify practice setting components contributing to uptake of new team-based care models. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods design. PARTICIPANTS: Employees and patients of primary care practices implementing two team-based models in a large, integrated health system. MAIN MEASURES: Field observations of 9 practices and 75 interviews, provider and staff surveys to assess adaptive reserve and burnout, analysis of quality metrics, and patient panel comorbidity scores. The data were collected simultaneously, then merged, thematically analyzed, and interpreted by a multidisciplinary team. KEY RESULTS: Based on analysis of observations and interviews, the 9 practices were categorized into 3 groups-high, partial, and low uptake of new team-based models. Uptake was related to (1) practices' responsiveness to change and (2) flexible workflow as related to team roles. Strength of local leadership and stable staffing mediated practices' ability to achieve high performance in these two domains. Higher performance on several quality metrics was associated with high uptake practices compared to the lower uptake groups. Mean Adaptive Reserve Measure and Maslach Burnout Inventory scores did not differ significantly between higher and lower uptake practices. CONCLUSION: Uptake of new team-based care delivery models is related to practices' ability to respond to change and to adapt team roles in workflow, influenced by both local leadership and stable staffing. Better performance on quality metrics may identify high uptake practices. Our findings can inform expectations for operational and policy leaders seeking to implement change in primary care practices.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care: Consulting, Coordinating and Collaborating Among Professionals.

PURPOSE: This paper sought to describe how clinicians from different backgrounds interact to deliver integrated behavioral and primary health care, and the contextual factors that shape such interactions. METHODS: This was a comparative case study in which a multidisciplinary team used an immersion-crystallization approach to analyze data from observations of practice operations, interviews with practice members, and implementation diaries. The observed practices were drawn from 2 studies: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado; and the Integration Workforce Study, consisting of 8 practices located across the United States. RESULTS: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians used 3 interpersonal strategies to work together in integrated settings: consulting, coordinating, and collaborating (3Cs). Consulting occurred when clinicians sought advice, validated care plans, or corroborated perceptions of a patient's needs with another professional. Coordinating involved 2 professionals working in a parallel or in a back-and-forth fashion to achieve a common patient care goal, while delivering care separately. Collaborating involved 2 or more professionals interacting in real time to discuss a patient's presenting symptoms, describe their views on treatment, and jointly develop a care plan. Collaborative behavior emerged when a patient's care or situation was complex or novel. We identified contextual factors shaping use of the 3Cs, including: time to plan patient care, staffing, employing brief therapeutic approaches, proximity of clinical team members, and electronic health record documenting behavior. CONCLUSION: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians, through their interactions, consult, coordinate, and collaborate with each other to solve patients' problems. Organizations can create integrated care environments that support these collaborations and health professions training programs should equip clinicians to execute all 3Cs routinely in practice.

Understanding Care Integration from the Ground Up: Five Organizing Constructs that Shape Integrated Practices.

PURPOSE: To provide empirical evidence on key organizing constructs shaping practical, real-world integration of behavior health and primary care to comprehensively address patients' medical, emotional, and behavioral health needs. METHODS: In a comparative case study using an immersion-crystallization approach, a multidisciplinary team analyzed data from observations of practice operations, interviews, and surveys of practice members, and implementation diaries. Practices were drawn from 2 studies of practices attempting to integrate behavioral health and primary care: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado, and the Integration Workforce Study, a study of 8 practices across the United States. RESULTS: We identified 5 key organizing constructs influencing integration of primary care and behavioral health: 1) Integration REACH (the extent to which the integration program was delivered to the identified target population), 2) establishment of continuum of care pathways addressing the location of care across the range of patient's severity of illness, 3) approach to patient transitions: referrals or warm handoffs, 4) location of the integration workforce, and 5) participants' mental model for integration. These constructs intertwine within an organization's historic and social context to produce locally adapted approaches to integrating care. Contextual factors, particularly practice type, influenced whether specialty mental health and substance use services were colocated within an organization. CONCLUSION: Interaction among 5 organizing constructs and practice context produces diverse expressions of integrated care. These constructs provide a framework for understanding how primary care and behavioral health services can be integrated in routine practice.

State-of-the-art and future directions in multilevel interventions across the cancer control continuum.

We conducted literature searches and analyses to describe the current state of multilevel intervention (MLI) research and to identify opportunities to advance cancer control and prevention. We found single-level studies that considered other contextually important levels, and multilevel health-care systems research and community-wide studies. This literature is characterized by limited reporting of theoretical, contextual, temporal, and implementation factors. Most MLIs focus on prevention and screening, rather than diagnosis, treatment, or survivorship. Opportunities relate to 1) dynamic, adaptive emergent interventions and research designs that evolve over time by attending to contextual factors and interactions across levels; 2) analyses that include simulation modeling, or multimethod approaches that integrate quantitative and qualitative methods; and 3) translation and intervention approaches that locally reinvent MLIs in different contexts. MLIs have great potential to reduce cancer burden by using theory and integrating quantitative, qualitative, participatory, and transdisciplinary methods that continually seek alignment across intervention levels, pay attention to context, and adapt over time.

An evidence integration triangle for aligning science with policy and practice.

Over-reliance on decontextualized, standardized implementation of efficacy evidence has contributed to slow integration of evidence-based interventions into health policy and practice. This article describes an "evidence integration triangle" (EIT) to guide translation, implementation, prevention efforts, comparative effectiveness research, funding, and policymaking. The EIT emphasizes interactions among three related components needed for effective evidence implementation: (1) practical evidence-based interventions; (2) pragmatic, longitudinal measures of progress; and (3) participatory implementation processes. At the center of the EIT is active engagement of key stakeholders and scientific evidence and attention to the context in which a program is implemented. The EIT model is a straightforward framework to guide practice, research, and policy toward greater effectiveness and is designed to be applicable across multiple levels-from individual-focused and patient-provider interventions, to health systems and policy-level change initiatives.

Understanding healing relationships in primary care.

PURPOSE: Clinicians often have an intuitive understanding of how their relationships with patients foster healing. Yet we know little empirically about the experience of healing and how it occurs between clinicians and patients. Our purpose was to create a model that identifies how healing relationships are developed and maintained. METHODS: Primary care clinicians were purposefully selected as exemplar healers. Patients were selected by these clinicians as having experienced healing relationships. In-depth interviews, designed to elicit stories of healing relationships, were conducted with patients and clinicians separately. A multidisciplinary team analyzed the interviews using an iterative process, leading to the development of case studies for each clinician-patient dyad. A comparative analysis across dyads was conducted to identify common components of healing relationships RESULTS: Three key processes emerged as fostering healing relationships: (1) valuing/creating a nonjudgmental emotional bond; (2) appreciating power/consciously managing clinician power in ways that would most benefit the patient; and (3) abiding/displaying a commitment to caring for patients over time. Three relational outcomes result from these processes: trust, hope, and a sense of being known. Clinician competencies that facilitate these processes are self-confidence, emotional self-management, mindfulness, and knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Healing relationships have an underlying structure and lead to important patient-centered outcomes. This conceptual model of clinician-patient healing relationships may be generalizable to other kinds of healing relationships.

Using complexity theory to build interventions that improve health care delivery in primary care.

Previous observational research confirms abundant variation in primary care practice. While variation is sometimes viewed as problematic, its presence may also be highly informative in uncovering ways to enhance health care delivery when it represents unique adaptations to the values and needs of people within the practice and interactions with the local community and health care system. We describe a theoretical perspective for use in developing interventions to improve care that acknowledges the uniqueness of primary care practices and encourages flexibility in the form of intervention implementation, while maintaining fidelity to its essential functions.

Research guidelines for assessing the impact of healing relationships in clinical medicine.

This paper charts a course for assessing the impact of healing relationships in clinical medicine. The system of healing relationships is multidimensional, longitudinal, contextual, and emergent. In a new conceptual model, healing relationships are identified in terms of the conditions of healing intention, motivation, and information transfer, and in terms of the attributes of emotional engagement, mindfulness, and trust. Five components of quality in healing relationships--adaptability, cohesion, growth, caring-in-relation, and commitment--are noted, and the importance of timing, attunement, and cultural meaning systems are described. Communication, clinical method, caring, competence, and treatment characteristics are differentiated as mediating processes; expectancy and conditioning are positioned as antecedents of healing relationships. Multiple personal and contextual outcomes are addressed with a recommendation for assessing a minimal set of each, including symptom resolution, health status, sense of coherence, patient enablement, cost effectiveness, quality of care, efficiency, access, and healer satisfaction. A wheel of knowledge connects 3 ways of knowing--personal, connected, and objective--with appropriate methodology and research designs. Applying this wheel to the issue of assessing impact in healing relationships reveals the need for multiple methods, perspectives, and triangulations. A critical multiplist strategy is one means for advancing this area of research. A double-helix trial design is introduced, in which one strand consists of a standard quantitative approach and the other consists of qualitative methods. The 2 strands are bonded by the questions addressed and by the participants in the study.

Understanding organizational designs of primary care practices.

During the past decade, many hospitals experienced difficulty integrating primary care practices into their health systems. We hypothesized that this difficulty may be, in part, a result of limited understanding of practice organizational designs. The structure and function of practices have not been well studied. In this article, we answer the following questions: Are practices all the same, or do variations in their organizational design exist? Do hospital designs predict the designs of affiliated practices? If variation exists, what are the management implications? Eighteen family practices, including nine affiliated with five separate hospital systems, were studied using an in-depth comparative case study design. A content analysis of the rich descriptive data from these cases indicates that a great variety exists in the organizational design of primary care practices, and this variety appears to be influenced by the initial conditions under which the practice was organized. Hospital system design in and of itself did not predict the design of affiliated practices. In fact, both affiliated and independent practices exhibited a range of design characteristics, some of which did not fit traditional models. Hospital systems that allowed greater flexibility of practice organizational designs were more effective at integrating and managing practices. Practices response to environmental change was greater when practice autonomy was highest. These findings suggest that a science of practice organizational design separate from that of hospitals is needed to help explain the success and failure of practices within health systems and to provide information for planning practice change.