Considerations Before Selecting a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design for a Practice Improvement Study.

PURPOSE: Despite the growing popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) for practice-based research, the design's advantages and challenges are not well documented. The objective of this study was to identify the advantages and challenges of the SW-CRT design for large-scale intervention implementations in primary care settings. METHODS: The EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, included a large collection of SW-CRTs. We conducted qualitative interviews with 17 key informants from EvidenceNOW grantees to identify the advantages and challenges of using SW-CRT design. RESULTS: All interviewees reported that SW-CRT can be an effective study design for large-scale intervention implementations. Advantages included (1) incentivized recruitment, (2) staggered resource allocation, and (3) statistical power. Challenges included (1) time-sensitive recruitment, (2) retention, (3) randomization requirements and practice preferences, (4) achieving treatment schedule fidelity, (5) intensive data collection, (6) the Hawthorne effect, and (7) temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges experienced by EvidenceNOW grantees suggest that certain favorable real-world conditions constitute a context that increases the odds of a successful SW-CRT. An existing infrastructure can support the recruitment of many practices. Strong retention plans are needed to continue to engage sites waiting to start the intervention. Finally, study outcomes should be ones already captured in routine practice; otherwise, funders and investigators should assess the feasibility and cost of data collection.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Clinical Quality Measure Exchange is Not Easy.

PURPOSE: The Trial of Aggregate Data Exchange for Maintenance of Certification and Raising Quality was a randomized controlled trial which first had to test whether quality reporting could be a by-product of clinical care. We report on the initial descriptive study of the capacity for and quality of exchange of whole-panel, standardized quality measures from health systems. METHODS: Family physicians were recruited from 4 health systems with mature quality measurement programs and agreed to submit standardized, physician-level quality measures for consenting physicians. Identified measure or transfer errors were captured and evaluated for root-cause problems. RESULTS: The health systems varied considerably by patient demographics and payer mix. From the 4 systems, 256 family physicians elected to participate. Of 19 measures negotiated for use, 5 were used by all systems. There were more than 15 types of identified errors including breaks in data delivery, changes in measures, and nonsensical measure results. Only 1 system had no identified errors. CONCLUSIONS: The secure transfer of standardized, physician-level quality measures from 4 health systems with mature measure processes proved difficult. There were many errors that required human intervention and manual repair, precluding full automation. This study reconfirms an important problem, namely, that despite widespread health information technology adoption and federal meaningful use policies, we remain far from goals to make clinical quality reporting a reliable by-product of care.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance. RESULTS: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA. CONCLUSION: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.

Practice facilitation to promote evidence-based screening and management of unhealthy alcohol use in primary care: a practice-level randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Evidence demonstrates that screening for unhealthy alcohol use and providing persons engaged in risky drinking with brief behavioral and counseling interventions improves health outcomes, collectively termed screening and brief interventions. Medication assisted therapy (MAT) is another effective method for treatment of moderate or severe alcohol use disorder. Yet, primary care clinicians are not regularly screening for or treating unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are initiating a clinic-level randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate how primary care clinicians can impact unhealthy alcohol use through screening, counseling, and MAT. One hundred and 25 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) will be engaged; each will receive practice facilitation to promote screening, counseling, and MAT either at the beginning of the trial or at a 6-month control period start date. For each practice, the intervention includes provision of a practice facilitator, learning collaboratives with three practice champions, and clinic-wide information sessions. Clinics will be enrolled for 6-12 months. After completion of the intervention, we will conduct a mixed methods analysis to identify changes in screening rates, increase in provision of brief counseling and interventions as well as MAT, and the reduction of alcohol intake for patients after practices receive practice facilitation. DISCUSSION: This study offers a systematic process for dissemination and implementation of the evidence-based practice of screening, counseling, and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. Practices will be asked to implement a process for screening, counseling, and treatment based on their practice characteristics, patient population, and workflow. We propose practice facilitation as a robust and feasible intervention to assist in making changes within the practice. We believe that the process can be replicated and used in a broad range of clinical settings; we anticipate this will be supported by our evaluation of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023, Registered 5 February 2020.

Team-Based Clinic Redesign of Opioid Medication Management in Primary Care: Effect on Opioid Prescribing.

PURPOSE: Six key elements of opioid medication management redesign in primary care have been previously identified. Here, we examine the effect of implementing these Six Building Blocks on opioid-prescribing practices. METHODS: Six rural-serving organizations with 20 clinic locations received support for 15 months during the period October 2015 to May 2017 to implement the Six Building Blocks. Patients undergoing long-term opioid therapy (LtOT) at these study sites were compared with patients undergoing LtOT enrolled in a regional health plan who did not receive care at the study sites but who resided in the same primary care service areas (control group). Outcomes were monthly trend in the proportion of patients undergoing LtOT prescribed a ≥100 morphine equivalent dose (MED) of opioids daily and the total number of patients receiving an opioid prescription. An interrupted time series using difference-indifference analysis was used for tests of significance. RESULTS: The proportion of patients prescribed a ≥100 MED of opioids daily decreased 2.2% (11.8% to 9.6%) among patients at the intervention clinics and 1.3% (14.0% to 12.7%) among patients in the control group. The rate of decrease was significantly greater among study patients than among patients in the control group (P = .018). The rate of decrease in the number of patients on LtOT at intervention clinics increased during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to redesign opioid medication management in primary care resulted in a significant decrease in opioid prescribing. Future research is needed to determine if these results are generalizable to other settings and to assess implications for patient-reported outcomes.

The Role of Health Extension in Practice Transformation and Community Health Improvement: Lessons From 5 Case Studies.

Passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act triggered 2 successive grant initiatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, allowing for the evolution of health extension models among 20 states, not limited to support for in-clinic primary care practice transformation, but also including a broader concept incorporating technical assistance for practices and their communities to address social determinants of health. Five states stand out in stretching the boundaries of health extension: New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington. Their stories reveal lessons learned regarding the successes and challenges, including the importance of building sustained relationships with practices and community coalitions; of documenting success in broad terms as well as achieving diverse outcomes of meaning to different stakeholders; of understanding that health extension is a function that can be carried out by an individual or group depending on resources; and of being prepared for political struggles over "turf" and ownership of extension. All states saw the need for long-term, sustained fundraising beyond grants in an environment expecting a short-term return on investment, and they were challenged operating in a shifting health system landscape where the creativity and personal relationships built with small primary care practices was hindered when these practices were purchased by larger health delivery systems.

A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of adding various forms of enhanced external support to practice facilitation on primary care practices' clinical quality measure (CQM) performance. METHODS: Primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho were eligible if they had fewer than 10 full-time clinicians. Practices were randomized to practice facilitation only, practice facilitation and shared learning, practice facilitation and educational outreach visits, or practice facilitation and both shared learning and educational outreach visits. All practices received up to 15 months of support. The primary outcome was the CQM for blood pressure control. Secondary outcomes were CQMs for appropriate aspirin therapy and smoking screening and cessation. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Of 259 practices recruited, 209 agreed to be randomized. Only 42% of those offered educational outreach visits and 27% offered shared learning participated in these enhanced supports. CQM performance improved within each study arm for all 3 cardiovascular disease CQMs. After adjusting for differences between study arms, CQM improvements in the 3 enhanced practice support arms of the study did not differ significantly from those seen in practices that received practice facilitation alone (omnibus P = .40 for blood pressure CQM). Practices randomized to receive both educational outreach visits and shared learning, however, were more likely to achieve a blood pressure performance goal in 70% of patients compared with those randomized to practice facilitation alone (relative risk = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.16-3.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no significant differences in CQM performance across study arms, the ability of a practice to reach a target level of performance may be enhanced by adding both educational outreach visits and shared learning to practice facilitation.

Impact of initiatives to reduce prescription opioid risks on medically attended injuries in people using chronic opioid therapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to determine whether initiatives to improve the safety of opioid prescribing decreased injuries in people using chronic opioid therapy (COT). METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using data from Group Health (GH), an integrated health care delivery system in the United States. In 2007, GH implemented initiatives which substantially reduced daily opioid dose and increased patient monitoring. Among GH members age 18 or older receiving COT between 2006 and 2014, we compared injury rates for patients in GH's integrated group practice (IGP; exposed to the initiatives) vs patients cared for by contracted providers (not exposed). Injuries were identified using a validated algorithm. We calculated injury incidence during the baseline (preintervention) period from 2006 to 2007; the dose reduction period, 2008 to 2010; and the risk stratification and monitoring period, 2010 to 2014. Using modified Poisson regression, we estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) representing the relative change per year in injury rates. RESULTS: Among 21 853 people receiving COT in the IGP and 8260 in contracted care, there were 2679 injuries during follow-up. The baseline injury rate was 1.0% per calendar quarter in the IGP and 0.9% in contracted care. Risk reduction initiatives did not decrease injury rates: Within the IGP, the RR in the dose reduction period was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95-1.07) and in the risk stratification and monitoring period, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.04). Injury trends did not differ between the two care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Risk reduction initiatives did not decrease injuries in people using COT.

Assessing quality improvement capacity in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Healthy Hearts Northwest (H2N) is a study of external support strategies to build quality improvement (QI) capacity in primary care with a focus on cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation. METHODS: To guide practice facilitator support, experts in practice transformation identified seven domains of QI capacity and mapped items from a previously validated medical home assessment tool to them. A practice facilitator (PF) met with clinicians and staff in each practice to discuss each item on the Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA) resulting in a practice-level response to each item. We examined the association between the QICA total and sub-scale scores, practice characteristics, a measure of prior experience with managing practice change, and performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for the three cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: The QICA score was associated with prior experience managing change and moderately associated with two of the three CQMs: aspirin use (r = 0.16, p = 0.049) and blood pressure control (r = 0.18, p = 0.013). Rural practices and those with 2-5 clinicians had lower QICA scores.. CONCLUSIONS: The QICA is useful for assessing QI capacity within a practice and may serve as a guide for both facilitators and primary care practices in efforts to build this capacity and improve measures of clinical quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier# NCT02839382, retrospectively registered on July 21, 2016.

Engaging Primary Care Practices in Studies of Improvement: Did You Budget Enough for Practice Recruitment?

PURPOSE: The methods and costs to enroll small primary care practices in large, regional quality improvement initiatives are unknown. We describe the recruitment approach, cost, and resources required to recruit and enroll 500 practices in the Northwest and Midwest regional cooperatives participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded initiative, EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care. METHODS: The project management team of each cooperative tracked data on recruitment methods used for identifying and connecting with practices. We developed a cost-of-recruitment template and used it to record personnel time and associated costs of travel and communication materials. RESULTS: A total of 3,669 practices were contacted during the 14- to 18-month recruitment period, resulting in 484 enrolled practices across the 6 states served by the 2 cooperatives. The average number of interactions per enrolled practice was 7, with a total of 29,100 hours and a total cost of $2.675 million, or $5,529 per enrolled practice. Prior partnerships predicted recruiting almost 1 in 3 of these practices as contrasted to 1 in 20 practices without a previous relationship or warm hand-off. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment of practices for large-scale practice quality improvement transformation initiatives is difficult and costly. The cost of recruiting practices without existing partnerships is expensive, costing 7 times more than reaching out to familiar practices. Investigators initiating and studying practice quality improvement initiatives should budget adequate funds to support high-touch recruitment strategies, including building trusted relationships over a long time frame, for a year or more.

A review of instruments to measure interprofessional team-based primary care.

Interprofessional team-based care is increasingly regarded as an important feature of delivery systems redesigned to provide more efficient and higher quality care, including primary care. Measurement of the functioning of such teams might enable improvement of team effectiveness and could facilitate research on team-based primary care. Our aims were to develop a conceptual framework of high-functioning primary care teams to identify and review instruments that measure the constructs identified in the framework, and to create a searchable, web-based atlas of such instruments (available at: http://primarycaremeasures.ahrq.gov/team-based-care/ ). Our conceptual framework was developed from existing frameworks, the teamwork literature, and expert input. The framework is based on an Input-Mediator-Output model and includes 12 constructs to which we mapped both instruments as a whole, and individual instrument items. Instruments were also reviewed for relevance to measuring team-based care, and characterized. Instruments were identified from peer-reviewed and grey literature, measure databases, and expert input. From nearly 200 instruments initially identified, we found 48 to be relevant to measuring team-based primary care. The majority of instruments were surveys (n = 44), and the remainder (n = 4) were observational checklists. Most instruments had been developed/tested in healthcare settings (n = 30) and addressed multiple constructs, most commonly communication (n = 42), heedful interrelating (n = 42), respectful interactions (n = 40), and shared explicit goals (n = 37). The majority of instruments had some reliability testing (n = 39) and over half included validity testing (n = 29). Currently available instruments offer promise to researchers and practitioners to assess teams' performance, but additional work is needed to adapt these instruments for primary care settings.

Alignment of patient and primary care practice member perspectives of chronic illness care: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known as to whether primary care teams' perceptions of how well they have implemented the Chronic Care Model (CCM) corresponds with their patients' own experience of chronic illness care. We examined the extent to which practice members' perceptions of how well they organized to deliver care consistent with the CCM were associated with their patients' perceptions of the chronic illness care they have received. METHODS: Analysis of baseline measures from a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a practice facilitation intervention to implement the CCM in small, community-based primary care practices. All practice "members" (i.e., physician providers, non-physician providers, and staff) completed the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey and adult patients with 1 or more chronic illnesses completed the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire. RESULTS: Two sets of hierarchical linear regression models accounting for nesting of practice members (N = 283) and patients (N = 1,769) within 39 practices assessed the association between practice member perspectives of CCM implementation (ACIC scores) and patients' perspectives of CCM (PACIC). ACIC summary score was not significantly associated with PACIC summary score or most of PACIC subscale scores, but four of the ACIC subscales [Self-management Support (p < 0.05); Community Linkages (p < 0.02), Delivery System Design (p < 0.02), and Organizational Support (p < 0.02)] were consistently associated with PACIC summary score and the majority of PACIC subscale scores after controlling for patient characteristics. The magnitude of the coefficients, however, indicates that the level of association is weak. CONCLUSIONS: The ACIC and PACIC scales appear to provide complementary and relatively unique assessments of how well clinical services are aligned with the CCM. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing both patient and practice member perspectives when evaluating quality of chronic illness care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00482768.

Key activities used by community based primary care practices to improve the quality of diabetes care in response to practice facilitation.

BACKGROUND: A recent systematic review suggests that practice facilitation (PF) is a robust intervention for implementing evidence-based preventive care guidelines in primary care, but the ability of PF to improve chronic illness care remains unclear. AIMS: To examine the specific activities and Chronic Care model (CCM) components that primary care practices implemented and sustained in response to a 12-month PF intervention. METHODS: The ABC trial tested the effectiveness of PF to improve care for diabetes in 40 small community-based primary care practices that were randomized to "initial" or "delayed" intervention arms. A trained facilitator met with each practice over 12-months. Facilitators used interactive consensus building to help practices implement one or more of quality improvement activities based on the CCM. Facilitators prospectively recorded implementation activities reported by practice teams during monthly meetings and confirmed which of these were sustained at the end of the intervention. RESULTS: 37 practices implemented and sustained a total of 43 unique activities [range 1-15, average 6.5 (SD=2.9)]. The number (%) of practices that implemented 1 or more key activities in each CCM component varied: Patient Self-Management Support: 37 (100%); Clinical Information Systems: 24 (64.9%), Delivery System Design: 14 (37.8%), Decision Support: 13 (35.1%), Community Linkages: 2 (5.4%); Healthcare System Support: 2 (2.7%). The majority of practices (59%) only implemented activities from 1 or 2 CCM components. The number of sustained activities was associated with the number of PF visits, but not with practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the PF intervention, it was difficult for these small practices to implement comprehensive CCM changes. Although practices implemented and sustained a remarkable number and variety of key activities, the majority of these focused on patient self-management support, as opposed to other components of the CCM, such as clinical information systems, decision support, delivery system redesign, and community linkages.

The Ability of Primary Care Practices to Measure and Report on Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: Creating useful clinical quality measure (CQM) reports in a busy primary care practice is known to depend on the capability of the electronic health record (EHR). Two other domains may also contribute: supportive leadership to prioritize the work and commit the necessary resources, and individuals with the necessary health information technology (IT) skills to do so. Here we describe the results of an assessment of the above 3 domains and their associations with successful CQM reporting during an initiative to improve smaller primary care practices' cardiovascular disease CQMs. METHODS: The study took place within an AHRQ EvidenceNOW initiative of external support for smaller practices across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Practice facilitators who provided this support completed an assessment of the 3 domains previously described for each of their assigned practices. Practices submitted 3 CQMs to the study team: appropriate aspirin prescribing, use of statins when indicated, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation. RESULTS: Practices with advanced EHR reporting capability were more likely to report 2 or more CQMs. Only one-third of practices were "advanced" in this domain, and this domain had the highest proportion of practices (39.1%) assessed as "basic." The presence of advanced leadership or advanced skills did not appreciably increase the proportion of practices that reported 2 or more CQMs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support previous reports of limited EHR reporting capabilities within smaller practices but extend these findings by demonstrating that practices with advanced capabilities in this domain are more likely to produce CQM reports.

Improving Diabetes Control in a Medicaid Managed Care Population With Complex Needs.

INTRODUCTION: People enrolled in Medicaid managed care who struggle with diabetes control often have complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. Here the authors report the results of a program designed to partner with primary care teams to address those needs. METHODS: A nonprofit organization partnered with a Medicaid managed care plan and a Federally Qualified Health Center in California to enroll people with A1cs >9% in a 12-month program. The program team included a community health worker, certified diabetes care and education specialist/registered dietitian, behavioral health counselor, and registered nurse. They developed patient-led action plans, connected patients to community resources, and supported behavior changes to improve diabetes control. Baseline assessments of behavioral health conditions and social needs were collected. Monthly A1c values were tracked for participants and a comparison group. RESULTS: Of the 51 people enrolled, 83% had at least 1 behavioral health condition. More than 90% reported at least 1 unmet social need. The average monthly A1c among program participants was 0.699 lower than the comparison group post-enrollment (P = .0008), and the disparity in A1c between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White participants at enrollment declined. DISCUSSION: Participants had high levels of unmet medical, behavioral, and social needs. Addressing these needs resulted in a rapid and sustained improvement in A1c control compared to non-enrollees and a reduction in disparity of control among Hispanic participants. CONCLUSION: By partnering with a primary care team, a program external to Federally Qualified Health Center primary care can improve clinical outcomes for people with complex needs living with diabetes.

Cost estimates for operating a primary care practice facilitation program.

PURPOSE: Practice facilitation is widely recognized as a promising method for achieving large-scale practice redesign. Little is known, however, about the cost of providing practice facilitation to small primary practices from the prospective of an organization providing facilitation activities. METHODS: We report practice facilitation costs on 19 practices in South Texas that were randomized to receive facilitation activities. The study design assured that each practice received at least 6 practice facilitation visits during the intervention year. We examined only the variable cost associated with practice facilitation activities. Fixed or administrative costs of providing facilitation actives were not captured. All facilitator activities (time, mileage, and materials) were self-reported by the practice facilitators and recorded in spreadsheets. RESULTS: The median total variable cost of all practice facilitation activities from start-up through monitoring, including travel and food, was $9,670 per practice (ranging from $8,050 to $15,682). Median travel and food costs were an additional $2,054 but varied by clinic. Approximately 50% of the total cost is attributable to practice assessment and start-up activities, with another 31% attributable to practice facilitation visits. Sensitivity analysis suggests that a 24-visit practice facilitation protocol increased estimated median total variable costs of all practice facilitation activities only by $5,428, for a total of $15,098. CONCLUSIONS: We found that, depending on the facilitators wages and the intensity of the intervention, the cost of practice facilitation ranges between $9,670 and $15,098 per practice per year and have the potential to be cost-neutral from a societal prospective if practice facilitation results in 2 fewer hospitalizations per practice per year.

Relationship quality and patient-assessed quality of care in VA primary care clinics: development and validation of the work relationships scale.

PURPOSE: Efforts to better understand the impact of clinic member relationships on care quality in primary care clinics have been limited by the absence of a validated instrument to assess these relationships. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale assessing relationships within primary care clinics. METHODS: The Work Relationships Scale (WRS) was developed and administered as part of a survey of learning and relationships among 17 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. A Rasch partial-credit model and principal components analysis were used to evaluate item performance, select the final items for inclusion, and establish unidimensionality for the WRS. The WRS was then validated against semistructured clinic member interviews and VA Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP) data. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-seven clinicians and staff completed the clinic survey, and 247 participated in semistructured interviews. WRS scores were significantly associated with clinic-level reporting for 2 SHEP variables: overall rating of personal doctor/nurse (r(2) =0.43, P <.01) and overall rating of health care (r(2)= 0.25, P <.05). Interview data describing relationship characteristics were consistent with variability in WRS scores across low-scoring and high-scoring clinics. CONCLUSIONS: The WRS shows promising validity as a measure assessing the quality of relationships in primary care settings; moreover, primary care clinics with lower WRS scores received poorer patient quality ratings for both individual clinicians and overall health care. Relationships play an important role in shaping care delivery and should be assessed as part of efforts to improve patient care within primary care settings.

Context matters: the experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change.

PURPOSE: We aimed to advance the internal and external validity of research by sharing our empirical experience and recommendations for systematically reporting contextual factors. METHODS: Fourteen teams conducting research on primary care practice transformation retrospectively considered contextual factors important to interpreting their findings (internal validity) and transporting or reinventing their findings in other settings/situations (external validity). Each team provided a table or list of important contextual factors and interpretive text included as appendices to the articles in this supplement. Team members identified the most important contextual factors for their studies. We grouped the findings thematically and developed recommendations for reporting context. RESULTS: The most important contextual factors sorted into 5 domains: (1) the practice setting, (2) the larger organization, (3) the external environment, (4) implementation pathway, and (5) the motivation for implementation. To understand context, investigators recommend (1) engaging diverse perspectives and data sources, (2) considering multiple levels, (3) evaluating history and evolution over time, (4) looking at formal and informal systems and culture, and (5) assessing the (often nonlinear) interactions between contextual factors and both the process and outcome of studies. We include a template with tabular and interpretive elements to help study teams engage research participants in reporting relevant context. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of identifying and reporting contextual factors. Involving diverse stakeholders in assessing context at multiple stages of the research process, examining their association with outcomes, and consistently reporting critical contextual factors are important challenges for a field interested in improving the internal and external validity and impact of health care research.

The importance of relational coordination and reciprocal learning for chronic illness care within primary care teams.

BACKGROUND: Recent research from a complexity theory perspective suggests that implementation of complex models of care, such as the Chronic Care Model (CCM), requires strong relationships and learning capacities among primary care teams. PURPOSES: Our primary aim was to assess the extent to which practice member perceptions of relational coordination and reciprocal learning were associated with the presence of CCM elements in community-based primary care practices. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We used baseline measures from a cluster randomized controlled trial testing a practice facilitation intervention to implement the CCM and improve risk factor control for patients with Type 2 diabetes in small primary care practices. Practice members (i.e., physicians, nonphysician providers, and staff) completed baseline assessments, which included the Relational Coordination Scale, Reciprocal Learning Scale, and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) survey, along with items assessing individual and clinic characteristics. To assess the association between Relational Coordination, Reciprocal Learning, and ACIC, we used a series of hierarchical linear regression models accounting for clustering of individual practice members within clinics and controlling for individual- and practice-level characteristics and tested for mediation effects. FINDINGS: A total of 283 practice members from 39 clinics completed baseline measures. Relational Coordination scores were significantly and positively associated with ACIC scores (Model 1). When Reciprocal Learning was added, Relational Coordination remained a significant yet notably attenuated predictor of ACIC (Model 2). The mediation effect was significant (z = 9.3, p < .01); 24% of the association between Relational Coordination and ACIC scores was explained by Reciprocal Learning. Of the individual- and practice-level covariates included in Model 3, only the presence of an electronic medical record was significant; Relational Coordination and Reciprocal Learning remained significant independent predictors of ACIC. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Efforts to implement complex models of care should incorporate strategies to strengthen relational coordination and reciprocal learning among team members.

Integrating MOUD and Primary Care: Outcomes of a Multicenter Learning Collaborative.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid use and overdose remain a central and worsening public health emergency in the United States and abroad. Efforts to expand treatment have struggled to match the rising incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD), and treating patients in primary care settings represents one of the most promising opportunities to meet this need. Learning collaboratives (LCs) are one evidence-based strategy to improve implementation of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care. METHODS: We developed and studied a multidisciplinary MOUD learning collaborative involving six underserved primary care clinics. We used a mixed-methods approach to assess needs, develop curriculum, and evaluate outcomes from these clinics. RESULTS: We recruited six clinics to participate in the collaborative. Half had an established MOUD program. Approximately 80% of participants achieved their organizational quality improvement goals for the collaborative. After the collaborative, participants also reported a significant increase in their perceived competence to implement/improve a MOUD program (pre-LC competence=2.80, post-LC competence=6.33/10, P=.02). The most consistent barrier we identified was stigma around OUD and its effects on patients' ability to access services and staff/provider ability to provide services. The most frequent enablers of program success were trainee interest, organizational leadership support, and a dedicated MOUD care team. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations used clinical and systems improvement knowledge to enhance their existing programs or to take steps to create new programs. All participants identified the need for additional staff/clinician training, especially to overcome stigma around OUD. The outcomes demonstrated the crucial importance of long-term organizational support for program success.