Virtual quality improvement collaborative with primary care practices during COVID-19: a case study within a clinically integrated network.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are a common approach to facilitate practice change and improve care delivery. Attention to QIC implementation processes and outcomes can inform best practices for designing and delivering collaborative content. In partnership with a clinically integrated network, we evaluated implementation outcomes for a virtual QIC with independent primary care practices delivered during COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal case study evaluation of a virtual QIC in which practices participated in bimonthly online meetings and monthly tailored QI coaching sessions from July 2020 to June 2021. Implementation outcomes included: (1) level of engagement (meeting attendance and poll questions), (2) QI capacity (assessments completed by QI coaches), (3) use of QI tools (plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles started and completed) and (4) participant perceptions of acceptability (interviews and surveys). RESULTS: Seven clinics from five primary care practices participated in the virtual QIC. Of the seven sites, five were community health centres, three were in rural counties and clinic size ranged from 1 to 7 physicians. For engagement, all practices had at least one member attend all online QIC meetings and most (9/11 (82%)) poll respondents reported meeting with their QI coach at least once per month. For QI capacity, practice-level scores showed improvements in foundational, intermediate and advanced QI work. For QI tools used, 26 PDCA cycles were initiated with 9 completed. Most (10/11 (91%)) survey respondents were satisfied with their virtual QIC experience. Twelve interviews revealed additional themes such as challenges in obtaining real-time data and working with multiple electronic medical record systems. DISCUSSION: A virtual QIC conducted with independent primary care practices during COVID-19 resulted in high participation and satisfaction. QI capacity and use of QI tools increased over 1 year. These implementation outcomes suggest that virtual QICs may be an attractive alternative to engage independent practices in QI work.

A Cost Analysis of Rethink the Strip: De-implementing a Low-value Practice in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Routine self-monitoring of blood glucose is a low-value practice that provides limited benefit for patients with non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVES: We estimated the costs of Rethink the Strip (RTS), a multistrategy approach to the de-implementation of self-monitoring of blood glucose in primary care. RESEARCH DESIGN: RTS was conducted among 20 primary care clinics in North Carolina. We estimated the non-site-based and site-based costs of the 5 RTS strategies (practice facilitation, audit and feedback, provider champions, educational meetings, and educational materials) from the analytic perspective of an integrated health care system for 12 and 27-month time horizons. Material costs were tracked through project records, and personnel costs were assessed using activity-based costing. We used nationally based wage estimates. RESULTS: Total RTS costs equaled $68,941 for 12 months. Specifically, non-site-based costs comprised $16,560. Most non-site-based costs ($11,822) were from the foundational programming and coding updates to the electronic health record data to develop the audit and feedback reports. The non-site-based costs of educational meetings, practice facilitation, and educational materials were substantially lower, ranging between ~$400 and $1000. Total 12-month site-based costs equaled $2569 for a single clinic (or $52,381 for 20 clinics). Educational meetings were the most expensive strategy, averaging $1401 per clinic. The site-based costs for the 4 other implementation strategies were markedly lower, ranging between $51 for educational materials and $555 for practice facilitation per clinic. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides detailed cost information for implementation strategies used to support evidence-based programs in primary care clinics.

A Mixed Methods Approach to Improving Provider Counseling of Patients Who Vape.

Significance: Vaping is an epidemic among young people, but there is little guidance on how medical providers should counsel young adults about vaping. To address this gap, we examined how electronic health record (EHR) systems prompt providers to collect vaping data and interviewed young adults about vaping communications with providers and preferred information sources. Methods: In this mixed methods study, we used survey research methods to explore if prompts exist in EHR systems to guide discussions about vaping with youth seen in primary care. We collected primary care practice information about EHR prompts regarding e-cigarette use from 10 rural North Carolina practices from August 2020 through November 2020 and interviewed 17 young adults (age 18-21 years) who reviewed resources and provided their opinion on the resource's relevance for their age group. Interviews were stratified by vaping status, transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Results: Only 5 of 10 EHR systems included prompts to capture information about vaping and data capture was optional in all 5 cases. Of the 17 interviewees, 10 were female, 14 were White, 3 were non-White and the mean age was 19.6 years. Two central themes emerged. Young adults: 1) were open to confidential, non-confrontational interactions with trusted providers and supported the use of a 2-page resource/discussion guide, questionnaires about vaping, and other waiting room resources, and 2) wanted prevention and cessation resources to be age-appropriate, including medical facts from a trusted source, and to be disseminated via social media platforms used by young adults. Conclusions: We found a lack of EHR functionalities in screening for vaping status hindered patients from receiving counseling on use. Young adults report a willingness to communicate with and learn from trusted providers and to gain understanding from information accessed via social media.

A non-randomized pilot study to test the feasibility of treating chronic pain and opioid prescription use in rural areas with acceptance and commitment therapy (T-PACT).

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) involves one-third of the US population, and prescription opioids contribute to the opioid epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention emphasizes maximizing non-opioid treatment, but many rural populations cannot access alternative therapies. Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs across four rural states performed a multi-site, single-arm intervention feasibility study testing methods and procedures of implementing a behavioral intervention, acceptance and commitment therapy, in primary care CNCP patients on chronic opioids. Using the CONSORT extension for feasibility studies, we describe lessons learned in recruiting/retaining participants, intervention implementation, data measurement, and multi-site procedures. Results inform a future definitive trial and potentially others conducting rural trials.

Increasing collaboration on substance use disorder research with primary care practices through the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) called for its national nodes to promote the translation of evidence-based interventions from substance use disorder (SUD) research into clinical practices. This collaborative demonstration project engaged CTN-affiliated practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in research that describes aspects of opioid prescribing in primary care. METHODS: Six PBRNs queried electronic health records from a convenience sample of 134 practices (84 participants) to identify the percent of adult patients with an office visit who were prescribed an opioid medication from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, and, of those, the percent also prescribed a sedative in that year. Seven PBRNs sent an e-mail survey to a convenience sample of 108 practices (58 participants) about their opioid management policies and procedures during the project year. RESULTS: Of 561,017 adult patients with a visit to one of the 84 clinics in the project year, 22.9% (PBRN range 3.1%-25.4%) were prescribed opioid medications, and 52.1% (PBRN range 8.5%-60.6%) of those were prescribed a sedative in the same year. Of the 58 practices returning a survey (45.3% response rate), 98.1% had formal written treatment agreements for chronic opioid therapy, 68.5% had written opioid prescribing policies, and 43.4% provided reports to providers with feedback on opioid management. Only 24.1% were providing buprenorphine for OUD. CONCLUSION: CTN-affiliated PBRNs demonstrated their ability to collaborate on a project related to opioid management; results highlight the important role for PBRNs in OUD treatment, research, and the need for interventions and additional policies addressing opioid prescribing in primary care practice.

COVID-19 Needs Assessment and Support for Primary Care Practices in Western North Carolina.

Background: It is critical to ensure that Primary Care Providers (PCPs) have adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), supplies, training, staffing, and contingency planning during pandemics, particularly in rural areas. In March 2020, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mountain Area Health Education Center (MAHEC), in collaboration with the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at UNC Chapel Hill, rapidly created and conducted a needs assessment of PCPs in western North Carolina (WNC). Methods: A group of twenty volunteers conducted a telephone survey of PCPs in a 16 county region of WNC. Practices were asked about their COVID-19 testing and telehealth offerings, PPE adequacy, and capacity to continue serving patients. The survey's emergency alert feature linked practices to immediate support. Descriptive data were generated to identify regional needs. Results: Out of 110 practices, 48 (43.6%) offered COVID-19 testing, with testing more common in rural counties (56.3% vs 33.9%). Telehealth services, including phone-only visits, were offered by almost all practices (91.8%). PPE needs included N-95 respirators (49.1%), face shields (45.5%), and staff gowns (38.2%). Rural practices were more likely to report the need for PPE. Assistance was requested for staff member childcare (34.5%) and providing or billing for telehealth (31.8%). The most urgent practice requests were related to finances, PPE, and telehealth. MAHEC's Practice Support team linked practices to virtual coaching, tip sheets, case-based video didactics and communication forums, and newsletters. Conclusion: During a pandemic, it is crucial to ensure that PCPs can continue to serve their patients. A rapid needs assessment of PCPs can allow for immediate and ongoing support that matches regional and practice-specific needs. Rural practices may require more assistance than their urban counterparts. Our rapid survey process jumpstarted a statewide system for enhanced communications with PCPs to better prepare for future emergencies.

Patient and provider perspectives on uptake of a shared decision making intervention for asthma in primary care practices.

OBJECTIVE: Poor outcomes and health disparities related to asthma result in part from difficulty disseminating new evidence such as shared decision making (SDM) into clinical practice. As part of a three-arm cluster randomized dissemination study, evaluation of the impact of different dissemination methods was studied. Here we evaluate themes from patient and provider focus groups to assess the impact of a facilitated, traditional dissemination approach, or no intervention, on patient and provider perspectives of asthma care. METHODS: Using semi-structured questions, twenty-four pre- and post-intervention focus groups with patients and providers took place across primary care practices. Discussions were held in all three arms both before and after the time of intervention rollout. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Across all sites patients and providers discussed themes of communication, asthma self-management, barriers, education, and patient awareness. After the intervention, compared to traditional sites, facilitated practices were more likely to discuss themes related to SDM, such as patient-centered communication, patient-provider negotiation on treatment plan, planning, goal-setting, and solutions to barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Emergent themes allowed for further understanding of how the SDM implementation was perceived at the patient and provider level. The facilitated implementation was associated with higher adoption of the SDM intervention. These themes and supporting quotes add to knowledge of best practices associated with implementing an evidence-based SDM intervention for asthma into primary care and will inform researchers, practices, and providers as they work to improve adoption of evidence-based interventions into practice.

Community Advisory Boards Guiding Engaged Research Efforts within a Clinical Translational Sciences Award: Key Contextual Factors Explored.

BACKGROUND: Engaging stakeholders in research carries the promise of enhancing the research relevance, transparency, and speed of getting findings into practice. By describing the context and functional aspects of stakeholder groups, like those working as community advisory boards (CABs), others can learn from these experiences and operationalize their own CABs. Our objective is to describe our experiences with diverse CABs affiliated with our community engagement group within our institution's Clinical Translational Sciences Award (CTSA). We identify key contextual elements that are important to administering CABs. METHODS: A group of investigators, staff, and community members engaged in a 6-month collaboration to describe their experiences of working with six research CABs. We identified the key contextual domains that illustrate how CABS are developed and sustained. Two lead authors, with experience with CABs and identifying contextual domains in other work, led a team of 13 through the process. Additionally, we devised a list of key tips to consider when devising CABs. RESULTS: The final domains include (1) aligned missions among stakeholders (2) resources/support, (3) defined operational processes/shared power, (4) well-described member roles, and (5) understanding and mitigating challenges. The tips are a set of actions that support the domains. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying key contextual domains was relatively easy, despite differences in the respective CAB's condition of focus, overall mission, or patient demographics represented. By contextualizing these five domains, other research and community partners can take an informed approach to move forward with CAB planning and engaged research.

The Cost to Successfully Apply for Level 3 Medical Home Recognition.

BACKGROUND: The National Committee for Quality Assurance patient-centered medical home recognition program provides practices an opportunity to implement medical home activities. Understanding the costs to apply for recognition may enable practices to plan their work. METHODS: Practice coaches identified 5 exemplar practices (3 pediatric and 2 family medicine practices) that received level 3 recognition. This analysis focuses on 4 that received recognition in 2011. Clinical, informatics, and administrative staff participated in 2- to 3-hour interviews. We determined the time required to develop, implement, and maintain required activities. We categorized costs as (1) nonpersonnel, (2) developmental, (3) those used to implement activities, (4) those used to maintain activities, (5) those to document the work, and (6) consultant costs. Only incremental costs were included and are presented as costs per full-time equivalent (pFTE) provider. RESULTS: Practice size ranged from 2.5 to 10.5 pFTE providers, and payer mixes ranged from 7% to 43% Medicaid. There was variation in the distribution of costs by activity by practice, but the costs to apply were remarkably similar ($11,453-15,977 pFTE provider). CONCLUSION: The costs to apply for 2011 recognition were noteworthy. Work to enhance care coordination and close loops were highly valued. Financial incentives were key motivators. Future efforts to minimize the burden of low-value activities could benefit practices.

Health survey of workers exposed to mixed solvent and ergonomic hazards in footwear and equipment factory workers in Thailand.

A cross-sectional health study was performed at four footwear and one equipment factory in Thailand to evaluate the prevalence of chemical- and ergonomic-related symptoms in Thai factory workers and to investigate associations between these symptoms and exposures to organic solvents, isocyanates and ergonomic risks. A 10-page health questionnaire was administered to 1784 workers across the four footwear and equipment factories. A total of 1675 questionnaires were returned, yielding a 94% response rate. The questionnaires asked about age, gender, use of chemicals, use of personal protective equipment and health outcomes. Without exception, the percentages of workers reporting symptoms after being hired were higher than those reporting symptoms before being hired for all the factories. The highest symptom percentages were related to ergonomic stressors. Multiple logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted prevalence odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. This study showed that adverse health effects experienced by footwear and equipment factory workers are associated with occupational exposures to chemicals (volatile organic solvents and water-based adhesives) and ergonomic hazards.

A survey of airborne and skin exposures to chemicals in footwear and equipment factories in Thailand.

This research reports on a pilot industrial hygiene study that was performed at four footwear factories and two equipment factories in Thailand. Workers in these factories were exposed through inhalation and dermal contact to a large number of organic vapors from solvents and cements that were hand applied. In addition, these workers were exposed to highly toxic isocyanates primarily through the dermal route. A total of 286 personal air samples were obtained at the four footwear factories using organic vapor monitors; individual job tasks were monitored using a real-time MIRAN Spectrometer. A total of 64 surface, tool, or hand samples were monitored for isocyanates using surface contamination detectors. Real-time measurements were also obtained for organic vapors in two equipment factories. From 8% to 21% of the workers sampled in each footwear factory were overexposed to mixtures of chemicals from solvents and cements. Up to 100% of the workers performing specific job tasks were overexposed to mixtures of chemicals. From 39% to 69% of the surface samples were positive for unreacted isocyanates. Many of the real-time measurements obtained in the equipment factories exceeded occupational exposure limits. Personal protective equipment and engineering controls were inadequate in all of the factories.