Roles of Chaplains and Clergy in Spiritual Care for African Americans in Hospice: A Pilot Study.

CONTEXT: Spiritual care is recognition of patient and caregiver spiritual/religious needs and attention to those needs. Caregivers of African American hospice patients are more likely to report worse emotional/religious support. Yet, spiritual care delivery and roles of community clergy and chaplains for African American hospice patients are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: Examine who provides spiritual care to African American hospice patients and caregivers. METHODS: Partnering with large, urban/suburban community hospice, we interviewed caregivers of deceased African American hospice patients (n = 12), their clergy (n = 3) and chaplains (n = 5). Using a phenomenological qualitative study design, we coded transcripts and deceased patient chart data and conducted thematic analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: Community clergy and chaplains tend to not interact and provide different aspects of emotional, religious and spiritual support to hospice patients and families. Clergy and chaplains agreed that rapport and openness of the patient were main factors in meeting spiritual care needs. Clergy provided interaction with a trusted person and connection to church, congregational support, religious beliefs/theology, and practices. Chaplains focused on present needs and issues of death and dying. CONCLUSION: Clergy and chaplains have distinct, complementary roles in providing spiritual care to African American hospice patients and families. Both are needed to provide desired spiritual care for African American hospice patients and their caregivers. Robust spiritual care programs need to ensure chaplains have sufficient time to spend with patients and families and incorporate collaboration, handoffs and integrated processes for clergy and chaplains. Research is needed on effectively including clergy in hospice spiritual care delivery.

Association between days spent at home and functional status and health among persons living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Many persons living with dementias (PLWD) prefer to remain at home as long as possible, and days spent at home (DAH)-defined as the time an individual spends outside of healthcare facilities-has emerged as a person-centred outcome measure in this population. We examined the association between DAH and functional status and health among PLWD. METHODS: Utilizing a nationally representative cohort of individuals age 65 and older in the United States with dementia from the 2010-2018 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we assessed the relationship between an ordinal categorical DAH variable and number of activities of daily living (ADLs) (range 0-10; 10 being independent), mobility (0-5; 5 being mobile), and self-rated health (SRH) (0-4; 4 being excellent), controlling for patient characteristics. DAH was defined as the number of self-reported days spent outside a hospital or nursing home in the time between survey waves, typically 730 days. RESULTS: We identified 3002 participants (4192 observations, average 1.4 observations per participant). The mean DAH was 704.4 days (SD 10.8 days) and 64.9% spent all days at home (i.e. 730 days). A 2-week decrease in DAH was associated with a lower ADL score by 0.32 points (95% confidence internal [CI]: 0.24-0.40, P-for-trend<0.001), a lower mobility score by 0.18 points (95% CI: 0.13-0.22, P-for-trend<0.001), and a lower SRH by 0.05 points (95% CI: 0.02-0.08, P-for-trend<0.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that DAH is positively associated with important patient-reported outcomes among the dementia population, strengthening the argument for considering DAH as a meaningful outcome measure for PLWD.

Understanding uptake of information about innovations among emergency department clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, little was known about managing sick patients, but emergency department (ED) clinicians had to decide which treatments and care processes to adopt. Our objective was to describe how ED clinicians learned about innovations and how they assessed them for credibility during the pandemic. Methods: We purposively sampled clinicians from hospital-based EDs to conduct focus groups with ED clinicians and staff. We used both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct thematic analysis of transcripts. Results: We conducted focus groups with clinicians from eight EDs across the United States. We found that ED clinicians in our sample relied on friends and colleagues or departmental and institutional leadership for information on innovations. They used social media sources when they came from credible accounts but did not directly seek information from professional societies. Clinicians reported a range of challenges to obtain credible information during the pandemic, including a fractured and changing information environment, policies misaligned across clinical sites or that conflicted with clinical knowledge, high patient volume, fear of harming patients, and untimely information. Facilitators included access to experienced and trusted colleagues and leaders and practicing at multiple EDs. Conclusion: Participants cited anecdotal evidence, institutional practice, and word-of-mouth-rather than peer-reviewed evidence and professional society communications-as their primary sources of information about care innovations during the early phases of the pandemic. These results underscore the importance of developing trusted local mechanisms and wider networks to identify and vet information for frontline clinicians during rapidly emerging public health emergencies.

How the CAHPS Clinician and Group Patient Experience Survey Data Have Been Used in Research: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS®) survey measures experiences with ambulatory care providers to inform public reporting, pay-for-performance initiatives, interventions, patient choice of physicians/practices, and quality improvement. Since the survey's 2007 release, no systematic review of its use in research has been published. Methods: We reviewed English-language, peer-reviewed articles published since 2008 using CG-CAHPS survey data in the U.S. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: We examined 126 articles and included 52. Twenty-seven articles focused on general primary care, and the others focused on ambulatory specialty care. Of the 52 studies, 37 were cross-sectional, and the majority conducted patient-level regression analysis, controlling for patient characteristics. The most-used CAHPS measures were overall provider rating and the provider communication composite. CG-CAHPS data were primarily utilized to evaluate interventions (24 studies) and examine cross-sectional associations (21 studies) of site-level (eg, organizational climate), provider-level (physician empathy), and patient-level (medication adherence) factors with patient experience. Four studies reported disparities in patient experience. Conclusions: The widespread use of CG-CAHPS data implies the survey's value in measuring and improving care quality. Unlike facility or plan surveys, the CG-CAHPS survey was designed to allow attribution to medical groups and clinicians, which, as evidence shows, is its main strength. Policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and health care leaders can leverage CG-CAHPS data in quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.

Patient Surveys Are Used Most Often to Assess Health Care Innovations, Rigorous Methods Are Less Common.

The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Innovations Exchange (IE) was developed to collect and report on innovative approaches to improving health care. The team reviewed 348 IE innovations including patient-reported satisfaction or experience measures. Innovations most often measured overall rating of care (61% of innovations), followed by access (52%) and provider-patient communication (12%). More than half used patient satisfaction surveys (n = 187) rather than patient experience surveys (n = 64). Innovations using patient experience surveys more often measured specific aspects of patient care, for example, access, versus a general overall rating of care. Most innovations using patient experience surveys administered nonvalidated, homegrown surveys, with few using the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality-endorsed, psychometrically-tested CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey. The most common study design was postimplementation-only (65%), highlighting that methodological rigor used to assess patient-centeredness in the IE is low. Broad use of patient experience surveys and more rigorous evaluation study designs has increased some over time but is still lacking.

Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system preference score (PROPr) in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to prior research, our study presents longitudinal comparisons of the EQ-5D-5L and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) scores. This fills a gap in the literature, providing a much-needed understanding of these preference-based measures and their applications in healthcare research. Furthermore, our study provides equations to estimate one measure from the other, a tool that can significantly facilitate comparisons across studies. METHODS: We administered a health survey to 4,098 KnowledgePanel® members living in the United States. A subset of 1,256 (82% response rate) with back pain also completed the six-month follow-up survey. We then conducted thorough cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the two measures, including product-moment correlations between scores, associations with demographic variables, and health conditions. To estimate one measure from the other, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the baseline data from the general population. RESULTS: The correlation between the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr scores was 0.69, but the intraclass correlation was only 0.34 because the PROPr had lower (less positive) mean scores on the 0 (dead) to 1 (perfect health) continuum than the EQ-5D-5L. The associations between the two preference measures and demographic variables were similar at baseline. The product-moment correlation between unstandardized beta coefficients for each preference measure regressed on 22 health conditions was 0.86, reflecting similar patterns of unique associations. Correlations of change from baseline to 6 months in the two measures with retrospective perceptions of change were similar. Adjusted variance explained in OLS regressions predicting one measure from the other was 48%. On average, the predicted values were within a half-standard deviation of the observed EQ-5D-5L and PROPr scores. The beta-binomial regression model slightly improved over the OLS model in predicting the EQ-5D-5L from the PROPr but was equivalent to the OLS model in predicting the PROPr. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial mean differences, the EQ-5D-5L and PROPr have similar cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with other variables. We provide the OLS regression equations for use in cost-effectiveness research and meta-analyses. Future studies are needed to compare these measures with different conditions and interventions to provide more information on their relative validity.

A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022.

BACKGROUND: Studies of implementation strategies range in rigor, design, and evaluated outcomes, presenting interpretation challenges for practitioners and researchers. This systematic review aimed to describe the body of research evidence testing implementation strategies across diverse settings and domains, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy to classify strategies and the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to classify outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies examining implementation strategies from 2010-2022 and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021235592). We searched databases using terms "implementation strategy", "intervention", "bundle", "support", and their variants. We also solicited study recommendations from implementation science experts and mined existing systematic reviews. We included studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of at least one implementation strategy to improve health or health care using an outcome that could be mapped to the five evaluation dimensions of RE-AIM. Only studies meeting prespecified methodologic standards were included. We described the characteristics of studies and frequency of implementation strategy use across study arms. We also examined common strategy pairings and cooccurrence with significant outcomes. FINDINGS: Our search resulted in 16,605 studies; 129 met inclusion criteria. Studies tested an average of 6.73 strategies (0-20 range). The most assessed outcomes were Effectiveness (n=82; 64%) and Implementation (n=73; 56%). The implementation strategies most frequently occurring in the experimental arm were Distribute Educational Materials (n=99), Conduct Educational Meetings (n=96), Audit and Provide Feedback (n=76), and External Facilitation (n=59). These strategies were often used in combination. Nineteen implementation strategies were frequently tested and associated with significantly improved outcomes. However, many strategies were not tested sufficiently to draw conclusions. CONCLUSION: This review of 129 methodologically rigorous studies built upon prior implementation science data syntheses to identify implementation strategies that had been experimentally tested and summarized their impact on outcomes across diverse outcomes and clinical settings. We present recommendations for improving future similar efforts.

How Much Does Intravenous Fluid Cause Hematocrit to Drop? Improving Interpretation of Hematocrit Toward Better Post-Hemorrhage Care.

INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhage is assessed, at least in part, via hematocrit testing. To differentiate unexpected drops in hematocrit because of ongoing hemorrhage versus expected drops as a result of known hemorrhage and intravenous fluid administration, we model expected post-operative hematocrit values accounting for fluid balance and intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) among patients without substantial post-operative bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed patient-level data from the electronic health record of an academic medical center for all non-pregnant adults admitted for elective knee or hip arthroplasty from November 2013 to September 2022 who did not require blood products. We used linear regression to evaluate the association between post-operative hematocrit and predictor variables including pre-operative hematocrit, intraoperative net fluid intake, blood volume, time from surgery to lab testing, EBL, patient height, and patient weight. RESULTS: We included 6,648 cases. Mean (SD) estimated blood volume was 4,804 mL (1023), mean net fluid intake was 1,121 mL (792), and mean EBL was 144 mL (194). Each 100 mL of EBL and 1,000 mL net positive fluid intake was associated with a decrease of 0.52 units (95% CI, 0.51-0.53) and 2.4 units (2.2-2.7) in post-operative hematocrit. Pre-operative hematocrit was the strongest predictor of post-operative hematocrit. Each 1-unit increase in pre-operative hematocrit was associated with a 0.70-unit increase (95% CI, 0.67-0.73) in post-operative hematocrit. Our estimates were robust to sensitivity analyses, and all variables included in the model were statistically significant with P <.005. CONCLUSION: Patient-specific data, including fluid received since the time of initial hemorrhage, can aid in estimating expected post-hemorrhage hematocrit values, and thus in assessing for the ongoing hemorrhage.

Misaligned Supports: Differences in Reported Health Care Worker Well-being Supports Provided and Needed During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To describe the well-being supports provided to health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic in health centers and hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative interviews before and after implementation of a peer-based support intervention. SETTING: Purposively sampled hospitals and health centers across the US. PARTICIPANTS: 28 site leaders and 56 HCWs sampled from 16 hospitals and 12 health centers. METHOD: Site leaders and HCWs were asked to describe supports available to HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thematic and content coding and analysis of interview responses were conducted using Dedoose. RESULTS: Both site leaders and HCWs identified a range of support resources available. Communication resources were the most frequently cited in both groups. Health care workers reported bi-directional communication, while one-way communication was emphasized by site leaders. Hospitals highlighted counseling support, particularly Employee Assistance Programs (EAP), while health centers prioritized community support. Wellness activities were more prevalent in hospital settings, while health centers offered specific workplace-provided training for HCWs. Health care workers encountered barriers when accessing support, including limited time, fear of stigma, and disruptions to their existing support networks attributable to the pandemic. CONCLUSION: While there are resources for HCWs, the available supports may not align with their needs and barriers to access may limit the effectiveness of these supports. Continued engagement between leaders and HCWs could help better align resources with needs.

Testing an Intervention to Improve Health Care Worker Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stress First Aid is an evidence-informed peer-to-peer support intervention to mitigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being of health care workers (HCWs). Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored peer-to-peer support intervention compared with usual care to support HCWs' well-being at hospitals and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial comprised 3 cohorts of HCWs who were enrolled from March 2021 through July 2022 at 28 hospitals and FQHCs in the US. Participating sites were matched as pairs by type, size, and COVID-19 burden and then randomized to the intervention arm or usual care arm (any programs already in place to support HCW well-being). The HCWs were surveyed before and after peer-to-peer support intervention implementation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to evaluate the intervention's effect on outcomes, including general psychological distress and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Intervention: The peer-to-peer support intervention was delivered to HCWs by site champions who received training and subsequently trained the HCWs at their site. Recipients of the intervention were taught to respond to their own and their peers' stress reactions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were general psychological distress and PTSD. General psychological distress was measured with the Kessler 6 instrument, and PTSD was measured with the PTSD Checklist. Results: A total of 28 hospitals and FQHCs with 2077 HCWs participated. Both preintervention and postintervention surveys were completed by 2077 HCWs, for an overall response rate of 28% (41% at FQHCs and 26% at hospitals). A total of 862 individuals (696 females [80.7%]) were from sites that were randomly assigned to the intervention arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.86 (5.70) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.11 (16.07). A total of 1215 individuals (947 females [78.2%]) were from sites assigned to the usual care arm; the baseline mean (SD) psychological distress score was 5.98 (5.62) and the baseline mean (SD) PTSD score was 16.40 (16.43). Adherence to the intervention was 70% for FQHCs and 32% for hospitals. The ITT analyses revealed no overall treatment effect for psychological distress score (0.238 [95% CI, -0.310 to 0.785] points) or PTSD symptom score (0.189 [95% CI, -1.068 to 1.446] points). Post hoc analyses examined the heterogeneity of treatment effect by age group with consistent age effects observed across primary outcomes (psychological distress and PTSD). Among HCWs in FQHCs, there were significant and clinically meaningful treatment effects for HCWs 30 years or younger: a more than 4-point reduction for psychological distress (-4.552 [95% CI, -8.067 to -1.037]) and a nearly 7-point reduction for PTSD symptom scores (-6.771 [95% CI, -13.224 to -0.318]). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial found that this peer-to-peer support intervention did not improve well-being outcomes for HCWs overall but had a protective effect against general psychological distress and PTSD in HCWs aged 30 years or younger in FQHCs, which had higher intervention adherence. Incorporating this peer-to-peer support intervention into medical training, with ongoing support over time, may yield beneficial results in both standard care and during public health crises. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04723576.

Surgical appropriateness nudges: Developing behavioral science nudges to integrate appropriateness criteria into the decision making of spine surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists in surgeon decision making. In response, multiple specialty societies have established criteria for the appropriate use of spine surgery. Yet few strategies exist to facilitate routine use of appropriateness criteria by surgeons. Behavioral science nudges are increasingly used to enhance decision making by clinicians. We sought to design "surgical appropriateness nudges" to support routine use of appropriateness criteria for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The work reflected Stage I of the NIH Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development and involved an iterative, multi-method approach, emphasizing qualitative methods. Study sites included two large referral centers for spine surgery. We recruited spine surgeons from both sites for two rounds of focus groups. To produce preliminary nudge prototypes, we examined sources of variation in surgeon decision making (Focus Group 1) and synthesized existing knowledge of appropriateness criteria, behavioral science nudge frameworks, electronic tools, and the surgical workflow. We refined nudge prototypes via feedback from content experts, site leaders, and spine surgeons (Focus Group 2). Concurrently, we collected data on surgical practices and outcomes at study sites. We pilot tested the refined nudge prototypes among spine surgeons, and surveyed them about nudge applicability, acceptability, and feasibility (scale 1-5, 5 = strongly agree). RESULTS: Fifteen surgeons participated in focus groups, giving substantive input and feedback on nudge design. Refined nudge prototypes included: individualized surgeon score cards (frameworks: descriptive social norms/peer comparison/feedback), online calculators embedded in the EHR (decision aid/mapping), a multispecialty case conference (injunctive norms/social influence), and a preoperative check (reminders/ salience of information/ accountable justification). Two nudges (score cards, preop checks) incorporated data on surgeon practices and outcomes. Six surgeons pilot tested the refined nudges, and five completed the survey (83%). The overall mean score was 4.0 (standard deviation [SD] 0.5), with scores of 3.9 (SD 0.5) for applicability, 4.1 (SD 0.5) for acceptability, and 4.0 (SD 0.5), for feasibility. Conferences had the highest scores 4.3 (SD 0.6) and calculators the lowest 3.9 (SD 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral science nudges might be a promising strategy for facilitating incorporation of appropriateness criteria into the surgical workflow of spine surgeons. Future stages in intervention development will test whether these surgical appropriateness nudges can be implemented in practice and influence surgical decision making.

Identifying Strategies for Strengthening the Health Care Workforce in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Like the United States as a whole, Virginia faces a significant shortage of health care workers in nursing, primary care, and behavioral health. If current trends persist, these shortages will increase across Virginia. The authors of this study identify interventions that can help the Virginia Health Workforce Development Authority (VHWDA) address these health care workforce shortages. To accomplish this goal, they applied an analytic framework to existing or potential interventions for retaining, recruiting, and improving the structural efficiency of the nursing, primary care, and behavioral health workforces in Virginia. In this study, they highlight which interventions VHWDA should prioritize based on its desired outcomes and policy goals.

Is Primary Care Patient Experience Associated with Provider-Patient Language Concordance and Use of Interpreters for Spanish-preferring Patients: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare provided by a bilingual provider or with the assistance of an interpreter improves care quality; however, their associations with patient experience are unknown. We reviewed associations of patient experience with provider-patient language concordance (LC) and use of interpreters for Spanish-preferring patients. METHOD: We reviewed articles from academic databases 2005-2023 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Joanna Briggs Institute Checklists to rate study quality. We reviewed 217 (of 2193) articles, yielding 17 for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 17 included articles, most articles focused on primary (n = 6 studies) or pediatric care (n = 5). All were cross-sectional, collecting data by self-administered surveys (n = 7) or interviews (n = 4). Most assessed the relationship between LC or interpreter use and patient experience by cross-sectional associations (n = 13). Two compared subgroups, and two provided descriptive insights into the conversational content (provider-interpreter-patient). None evaluated interventions, so evidence on effective strategies is lacking. LC for Spanish-preferring patients was a mix of null findings (n = 4) and associations with better patient experience (n = 3) (e.g., receiving diet/exercise counseling and better provider communication). Evidence on interpreter use indicated better (n = 2), worse (n = 2), and no association (n = 2) with patient experience. Associations between Spanish-language preference and patient experience were not significant (n = 5) or indicated worse experience (n = 4) (e.g., long waits, problems getting appointments, and not understanding nurses). CONCLUSION: LC is associated with better patient experience. Using interpreters is associated with better patient experience but only with high-quality interpreters. Strategies are needed to eliminate disparities and enhance communication for all Spanish-preferring primary care patients, whether with a bilingual provider or an interpreter.

Pragmatic implementation of comprehensive dementia care management: The Cedars-Sinai C.A.R.E.S. Program preliminary data.

BACKGROUND: The United States faces a growing challenge with over 6.5 million people living with dementia (PLwD). PLwD and their caregivers struggle with cognitive, functional, behavioral, and psychosocial issues. As dementia care shifts to home settings, caregivers receive inadequate support but bear increasing responsibilities, leading to higher healthcare costs. In response, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Guiding an Improving Dementia Experience (GUIDE) Model. The study explores the real-world implementation of the Cedars-Sinai C.A.R.E.S. Program, a pragmatic dementia care model, detailing its recruitment process and initial outcomes. METHODS: The Cedars-Sinai C.A.R.E.S. Program was integrated into the Epic electronic health record system and focused on proactive patient identification, engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, care transitions, and ongoing care management. Eligible patients with a dementia diagnosis were identified through electronic health record and invited to join the program. Nurse practitioners with specialized training in dementia care performed comprehensive assessments using the CEDARS-6 tool, leading to personalized care plans developed in consultation with primary care providers. Patients benefited from a multidisciplinary team and support from care navigators. RESULTS: Of the 781 eligible patients identified, 431 were enrolled in the C.A.R.E.S. PROGRAM: Enrollees were racially diverse, with lower caregiver strain and patient behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) severity compared to other programs dementia care programs. Healthcare utilization, including hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) admissions, and urgent care visits showed a downward trend over time. Completion of advanced directives and Physician Order of Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) increased after enrollment. CONCLUSION: The Cedars-Sinai C.A.R.E.S. Program offers a promising approach to dementia care. Its real-world implementation demonstrates the feasibility of enrolling a diverse population and achieving positive outcomes for PLwD and their caregivers, supporting the goals of national dementia care initiatives.

Financial Interventions to Improve Screening in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Although health screenings offer timely detection of health conditions and enable early intervention, adoption is often poor. How might financial interventions create the necessary incentives and resources to improve screening in primary care settings? This systematic review aimed to answer this question. METHODS: Peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2023 were identified and categorized by the level of intervention (practice or individual) and type of intervention, specifically alternative payment models (APMs), fee-for-service (FFS), capitation, and capital investments. Outcomes included frequency of screening, performance/quality of care (e.g., patient satisfaction, health outcomes), and workflow changes (e.g., visit length, staffing). RESULTS: Of 51 included studies, a majority focused on practice-level interventions (n=32), used APMs (n=41) that involved payments for achieving key performance indicators (KPIs; n=31) and were of low or very low strength of evidence based on GRADE criteria (n=42). Studies often included screenings for cancer (n=32), diabetes care (n=18), and behavioral health (n=15). KPI payments to both practices and individual providers corresponded with increased screening rates, whereas capitation and provider-level FFS models yielded mixed results. A large majority of studies assessed changes in screening rates (n=48) with less focus on quality of care (n=11) or workflow changes (n=4). DISCUSSION: Financial mechanisms can enhance screening rates with evidence strongest for KPI payments to both practices and individual providers. Future research should explore the relationship between financial interventions and quality of care, in terms of both clinical processes and patient outcomes, as well as the role of these interventions in shaping care delivery.

Associations of Primary Care Provider Burnout with Quality Improvement, Patient Experience Measurement, Clinic Culture, and Job Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among providers negatively impacts patient care experiences and safety. Providers at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) are at high risk for burnout due to high patient volumes; inadequate staffing; and balancing the demands of patients, families, and team members. OBJECTIVE: Examine associations of provider burnout with their perspectives on quality improvement (QI), patient experience measurement, clinic culture, and job satisfaction. DESIGN: We conducted a cross-sectional provider survey about their perspectives including the single-item burnout measure. We fit separate regression models, controlling for provider type, gender, being multilingual, and fixed effects for clinic predicting outcome measures from burnout. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four providers from 44 clinics in large, urban FQHC (52% response rate; n = 174). MAIN MEASURES: Survey included a single-item, self-defined burnout measure adapted from the Physician Worklife Survey, and measures from the RAND AMA Study survey, Heath Tracking Physician survey, TransforMed Clinician and Staff Questionnaire, Physician Worklife Survey, Minimizing Errors Maximizing Outcomes survey, and surveys by Friedberg et al. 31 and Walling et al. 32 RESULTS: Thirty percent of providers reported burnout. Providers in clinics with more facilitative leadership reported not being burned out (compared to those reporting burnout; p-values < 0.05). More pressures related to patient care and lower job satisfaction were associated with burnout (p-values < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Creating provider-team relationships and environments where providers have the time and space necessary to discuss changes to improve care, ideas are shared, leadership supports QI, and QI is monitored and discussed were related to not being burned out. Reducing time pressures and improving support needed for providers to address the high-need levels of FQHC patients can also decrease burnout. Such leadership and support to improving care may be a separate protective factor against burnout. Research is needed to further examine which aspects of leadership drive down burnout and increase provider involvement in change efforts and improving care.

Cumulative Update of a Systematic Overview Evaluating Interventions Addressing Polypharmacy.

Importance: Polypharmacy is associated with mortality, falls, hospitalizations, and functional and cognitive decline. The study of polypharmacy-related interventions has increased substantially, prompting the need for an updated, more focused systematic overview. Objective: To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. Evidence Review: A search was conducted of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for articles published from January 2017-October 2022, as well as those identified in a previous overview (January 2004-February 2017). Systematic reviews were included regardless of study design, setting, or outcome. The evidence was summarized by 4 categories: (1) medication-related process outcomes (eg, potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and potential prescribing omission reductions), (2) clinical and functional outcomes, (3) health care use and economic outcomes, and (4) acceptability of the intervention. Findings: Fourteen SRs were identified (3 from the previous overview), 7 of which included meta-analyses, representing 179 unique published studies. Nine SRs examined medication-related process outcomes (low to very low evidence quality). Systematic reviews using pooled analyses found significant reductions in the number of PIMs, potential prescribing omissions, and total number of medications, and improvements in medication appropriateness. Twelve SRs examined clinical and functional outcomes (very low to moderate evidence quality). Five SRs examined mortality; all mortality meta-analyses were null, but studies with longer follow-up periods found greater reductions in mortality. Five SRs examined falls incidence; results were predominantly null save for a meta-analysis in which PIMs were discontinued. Of the 8 SRs examining quality of life, most (7) found predominantly null effects. Ten SRs examined hospitalizations and readmissions (very low to moderate evidence quality) and 4 examined emergency department visits (very low to low evidence quality). One SR found significant reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions among higher-intensity medication reviews with face-to-face patient components. Another meta-analysis found a null effect. Of the 7 SRs without meta-analyses for hospitalizations and readmissions, all had predominantly null results. Two of 4 SRs found reductions in emergency department visits. Two SRs examined acceptability (very low evidence quality), finding wide variation in the adoption of polypharmacy-related interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: This updated systematic overview noted little evidence of an association between polypharmacy-related interventions and reduced important clinical and health care use outcomes. More evidence is needed regarding which interventions are most useful and which populations would benefit most.

Mapping of the PROMIS global health measure to the PROPr in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System (PROMIS®) global health items (global-10) yield physical and mental health scale scores and the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) scoring system estimated from PROMIS domain scores (e.g., PROMIS-29 + 2) produces a single score anchored by 0 (dead or as bad as being dead) to 1 (full health). A link between the PROMIS global-10 and the PROPr is needed. METHODS: The PROMIS-29 + 2 and the PROMIS global-10 were administered to 4102 adults in the Ipsos KnowledgePanel in 2022. The median age was 52 (range 18-94), 50% were female, 70% were non-Hispanic White, and 64% were married or living with a partner. The highest level of education completed for 26% of the sample was a high school degree or general education diploma and 44% worked full-time. We estimated correlations of the PROPr with the PROMIS global health items and the global physical and mental health scales. We examined the adjusted R2 and estimated correlations between predicted and observed PROPr scores. RESULTS: Product-moment correlations between the PROMIS global health items and the PROPr ranged from 0.50 to 0.63. The PROMIS global physical health and mental health scale scores correlated 0.74 and 0.60, respectively, with the PROPr. The adjusted R2 in the regression of the PROPr on the PROMIS global health items was 64%. The equated PROPr preference scores correlated (product-moment) 0.80 (n = 4043; p < 0.0001) with the observed PROPr preference scores, and the intra-class correlation (two-way random effects model) was 0.80. The normalized mean absolute error (NMAE) was 0.45 (SD = 0.43). The adjusted R2 in the OLS regression of the PROPr on the PROMIS global health scales was 59%. The equated PROPr preference scores correlated (product-moment) was 0.77 (n = 4046; p < 0.0001) with the observed PROPr preference scores, and the intra-class correlation was 0.77. The NMAE was 0.49 (SD = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Regression equations provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the PROPr preference-based score from the PROMIS global health items or scales for group-level comparisons. These estimates facilitate cost-effectiveness research and meta-analyses. The estimated PROPr scores are not accurate enough for individual-level applications. Future evaluations of the prediction equations are needed.

How Well Do Seven Self-Report Measures Represent Underlying Back Pain Impact?

BACKGROUND: The extent to which different measures of back pain impact represent an underlying common factor has implications for decisions about which one to use in studies of pain management and estimating one score from others. AIMS: To determine if different self-report back pain impact measures represent an underlying pain latent variable and estimate associations with it. METHOD: Seven pain impact measures completed by Amazon Mechanical Turk adults are used to estimate internal consistency reliability and associations: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (OMPQ), Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back Tool, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) disability score, PEG (Pain intensity, interference with Enjoyment of life, interference with General activity), and Impact Stratification Score (ISS). RESULTS: The sample of 1,874 adults with back pain had an average age of 41 and 52% were female. Sixteen percent were Hispanic, 7% non-Hispanic Black, 5% non-Hispanic Asian, and 71% non-Hispanic White. Internal consistency reliability estimates ranged from 0.710 (OMPQ) to 0.923 (GCPS). Correlations among the measures ranged from 0.609 (RMDQ with OMPQ) to 0.812 (PEG with GCPS). Standardized factor loadings on the pain latent variable ranged from 0.782 (RMDQ) to 0.870 (ISS). CONCLUSIONS: Scores of each measure can be estimated from the others for use in research.