At-home hemoglobin A1c testing during COVID-19 improved glycemic control.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 has exacerbated barriers to routine testing for chronic disease management. This study investigates whether a home hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test kit intervention increases frequency of HbA1c testing and leads to changes in HbA1c 6 months post testing and whether self-reinforcement education improves maintenance of HbA1c testing. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a randomized, controlled quality improvement intervention among members with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in a large commercial health plan. METHODS: Participants were 41,214 commercial fully insured members with T2D without an HbA1c test in the past 6 months or with only 1 HbA1c test in the last 12 months. Members were randomly assigned to either a control group or an at-home HbA1c testing intervention group consisting of either an opt-in test or a direct-to-member opt-out HbA1c test kit shipment. A third cohort of members was assigned to a self-reinforcement group to encourage continued testing twice per year. Main outcomes were HbA1c testing rates and HbA1c levels (in %). RESULTS: A total of 11.1% (508 of 4590) at-home HbA1c kits were completed. At-home HbA1c test kits increased testing rates by 4.9% compared with controls (P < .001). Members with an HbA1c level of at least 7% who requested and completed at-home HbA1c testing had a 0.38% reduction in HbA1c in the 6 months post intervention when controlling for baseline HbA1c (P < .001). Members who received self-reinforcement messaging had a 0.37% HbA1c reduction post intervention (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: This novel, at-home approach to test HbA1c is an effective intervention to increase testing rates and facilitate HbA1c reduction over time in patients with T2D.

Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings. METHODS: A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted. RESULTS: The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.

U.S. hospital performance methodologies: a scoping review to identify opportunities for crossing the quality chasm.

BACKGROUND: Hospital performance quality assessments inform patients, providers, payers, and purchasers in making healthcare decisions. These assessments have been developed by government, private and non-profit organizations, and academic institutions. Given the number and variability in available assessments, a knowledge gap exists regarding what assessments are available and how each assessment measures quality to identify top performing hospitals. This study aims to: (a) comprehensively identify current hospital performance assessments, (b) compare quality measures from each methodology in the context of the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) six domains of STEEEP (safety, timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equitable, and patient-centeredness), and (c) formulate policy recommendations that improve value-based, patient-centered care to address identified gaps. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using a systematic search of MEDLINE and the grey literature along with handsearching to identify studies that provide assessments of US-based hospital performance whereby the study cohort examined a minimum of 250 hospitals in the last two years (2017-2019). RESULTS: From 3058 unique records screened, 19 hospital performance assessments met inclusion criteria. Methodologies were analyzed across each assessment and measures were mapped to STEEEP. While safety and effectiveness were commonly identified measures across assessments, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were less frequently represented. Equity measures were also limited to risk- and severity-adjustment methods to balance patient characteristics across populations, rather than stand-alone indicators to evaluate health disparities that may contribute to community-level inequities. CONCLUSIONS: To further improve health and healthcare value-based decision-making, there remains a need for methodological transparency across assessments and the standardization of consensus-based measures that reflect the IOM's quality framework. Additionally, a large opportunity exists to improve the assessment of health equity in the communities that hospitals serve.

Effect of Organization-Directed Workplace Interventions on Physician Burnout: A Systematic Review.

To assess the impact of organization-directed workplace interventions on physician burnout, including stress or job satisfaction in all settings, we conducted a systematic review of the literature published from January 1, 2007, to October 3, 2018, from multiple databases. Manual searches of grey literature and bibliographies were also performed. Of the 633 identified citations, 50 met inclusion criteria. Four unique categories of organization-directed workplace interventions were identified. Teamwork involved initiatives to incorporate scribes or medical assistants into electronic health record (EHR) processes, expand team responsibilities, and improve communication among physicians. Time studies evaluated the impact of schedule adjustments, duty hour restrictions, and time-banking initiatives. Transitions referred to workflow changes such as process improvement initiatives or policy changes within the organization. Technology related to the implementation or improvement of EHRs. Of the 50 included studies, 35 (70.0%) reported interventions that successfully improved the 3 measures of physician burnout, job satisfaction, and/or stress. The largest benefits resulted from interventions that improved processes, promoted team-based care, and incorporated the use of scribes/medical assistants to complete EHR documentation and tasks. Implementation of EHR interventions to improve clinical workflows worsened burnout, but EHR improvements had positive effects. Time interventions had mixed effects on burnout. The results of our study suggest that organization-directed workplace interventions that improve processes, optimize EHRs, reduce clerical burden by the use of scribes, and implement team-based care can lessen physician burnout. Benefits of process changes can enhance physician resiliency, augment care provided by the team, and optimize the coordination and communication of patient care and health information.

The science of eliminating health disparities: summary and analysis of the NIH summit recommendations.

In December 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored the first NIH Summit showcasing its investment and contribution to health disparities research and unveiling a framework for moving this important field forward. The Summit, titled "The Science of Eliminating Health Disparities," drew on extensive experience of experts leading health disparities research transformation in diverse fields. The Summit also provided a historic educational opportunity to contribute to health care reform. The theme, addressing disparities through integration of science, practice, and policy, introduced a paradigm for advancing research through transformational, translational, and transdisciplinary research. Engaging active participation throughout the Summit generated recommendations bridging science, practice, and policy, including action on social determinants of health, community engagement, broad partnerships, capacity-building, and media outreach.

Moving toward paradigm-shifting research in health disparities through translational, transformational, and transdisciplinary approaches.

Translational, transdisciplinary, and transformational research stands to become a paradigm-shifting mantra for research in health disparities. A windfall of research discoveries using these 3 approaches has increased our understanding of the health disparities in racial, ethnic, and low socioeconomic status groups. These distinct but related research spheres possess unique environments, which, when integrated, can lead to innovation in health disparities science. In this article, we review these approaches and propose integrating them to advance health disparities research through a change in philosophical position and an increased emphasis on community engagement. We argue that a balanced combination of these research approaches is needed to inform evidence-based practice, social action, and effective policy change to improve health in disparity communities.