Revisiting Provider Communication to Support Team Cohesiveness: Implications for Practice, Provider Burnout, and Technology Application in Primary Care Settings.

Background: Effective team communication is an essential aspect of care delivery and the coordination of patients in primary care settings. With the rapid evolution of health information technology (HIT), including the implementation of electronic health records, there remains a gap in the literature about preferred methods of primary care team communication and the subsequent impact of provider and team outcomes (e.g., team cohesiveness; burnout). This study explores the impact of varying modes of communication across provider disciplines and by geographic settings during primary care delivery. Methods: We used a cross-sectional survey design to collect data from a random convenience sample of PCPs (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) (n = 314) in New York State (NYS). We mailed a paper survey with validated measures for communication methods, team cohesiveness, and provider outcomes (burnout, job dissatisfaction, and the intention to leave position). Descriptive statistics, linear regression models, and crude and adjusted odds ratios while controlling for individual and practice characteristics were calculated. Results: In-person communication was found to yield greater job satisfaction and less intention to leave current position in the next year (p=0.02) compared to other forms of communication including electronic health record features. The odds of job satisfaction was 1.51 times higher with in-person communication (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.19), and the odds of intending to leave a position was 45% less with in-person communication (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.85). The odds of reporting burnout at work was 36% less with in-person communication (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.92) compared to other communication modalities. There was no significant association between team communication via the EHR and team cohesiveness, provider burnout, or job satisfaction. Conclusion: This study demonstrates evidence that in-person communication is more likely to reduce burnout and job dissatisfaction compared to other forms of communication infrastructure in primary care settings. More research is needed to understand PCP perspectives about the functionality and potential burden that inhibits the use of EHR features for provider-provider communication. In addition, attention to the needs of teams by geographic location and by workforce discipline is warranted to ensure effective HIT communication application adoption.

Mitigating primary care provider burnout with interdisciplinary dyads and shared care delivery.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Increased incidence of chronic illnesses coupled with physician shortages have yielded strain on primary care provider (PCP) to meet care demands. Interdisciplinary providers have increasingly been embedded into primary care teams to alleviate some workload demand. Little evidence exists about the impact of interdisciplinary PCP care delivery models on provider strain in primary care. To determine the impact of interdisciplinary PCP care delivery on burnout, job satisfaction and intention to leave current position. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey using Dillman methodology of primary care practices (e.g., internal medicine) across New York State. A random sample of interdisciplinary PCPs (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) (n = 333) responded. The Provider Comanagement Index (α = 0.85) was used to measure how well interdisciplinary dyads comanagement care delivery attributes (effective communication; mutual respect and trust; shared philosophy of care). Provider outcomes were measured with validated Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Health Resources and Services Administration items for burnout, job satisfaction and intention to leave position. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression models, crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated, controlling for participant and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Almost 30% of participants reported burnout with three times the odds of intending to leave their current position within 1 year. With each unit increase in effective comanagement between interdisciplinary dyads there was 15% less burnout and 10% less odds of intention to leave position. CONCLUSION: Incorporating interdisciplinary specialties in primary care appears promising to alleviate some adverse provider outcomes. Organizations contemplating delivery models to promote well-being and retention may consider comanagement. Cost effectiveness research is needed to determine financial sustainability of interdisciplinary care delivery.

Melanoma Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes: A Feasibility Study of Melanoma Screening Implementation in Primary Care Settings.

Introduction Melanoma incidence rates are rising faster than the rates of any other malignancy. As a major global public health concern, melanoma can be identified by a visual exam not requiring expensive invasive procedures. However, non-dermatologists lack specialized training and skills to identify high-risk patients and implement melanoma skin screenings during regular exams. Most patients from rural and underserved areas have inadequate access to specialty dermatologic care, which can potentially lead to later-stage melanomas and poor patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers to the implementation of risk surveys and melanoma skin screenings in primary care settings through live interactive education and the telementoring project - Melanoma ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes).  Methods This cross-sectional study was designed with theoretical concepts from dissemination and implementation research. Monthly Melanoma ECHO sessions were integrated into an ongoing Dermatology ECHO at the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA, from April 2018 to February 2019. Ten primary care providers, medical doctors/doctors of osteopathic medicine (MDs/DOs), nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs), from across Missouri participated. Eleven virtual monthly melanoma-related didactics and case-based discussions were provided to participants. Information regarding risk factors, risk surveys, and screening techniques was provided. Ongoing telementoring and guidance were also provided for de-identified real-life patient cases. The main outcomes and measures of the study were to identify the facilitators and barriers of risk survey and melanoma skin screenings in primary care settings and to quantify the number of high-risk patients identified by participating providers and the number of new melanomas detected by visual exams during the study period. Results The primary reason why six out of 10 providers reported participation in Melanoma ECHO was that implementing melanoma skin screenings in their practice was made easier as it increased their confidence. Nine providers reported increased knowledge, and eight cited professional networking as other facilitators. The main perceived barrier to melanoma skin screening was lack of administrative and nursing support, and six providers indicated that lack of time to incorporate skin exams was also a barrier. Combined, ten participants reported identifying 976 high-risk patients during the study period and detecting 36 new melanomas. Discussion and conclusion Our findings indicate that primary care providers may benefit from attending regularly scheduled and focused specialized telementoring sessions, such as Melanoma ECHO. Ongoing support from specialists may help providers practicing in rural and isolated areas with the successful integration of risk surveys and melanoma skin screenings in primary care settings. Further Melanoma ECHO sessions with a more diverse group of primary care providers are needed to better understand the generalizability of the results.

Primary drivers and psychological manifestations of stress in frontline healthcare workforce during the initial COVID-19 outbreak in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the physical and psychological impact of high stress clinical environments and contributory factors of burnout in multidisciplinary healthcare workforce during the initial outbreak of COVID-19. METHOD: In-person qualitative interviews informed by an adaptation of Karasek's Job Demand-control model were conducted with a convenience sample of healthcare workforce from March to April 2020. RESULTS: Themes emerging from interviews coalesced around three main areas: fear of uncertainty, physical and psychological manifestations of stress, and resilience building. Shifting information, a lack of PPE, and fear of infecting others prompted worry for those working with Covid-infected patients. Participants reported that stress manifested more psychologically than physically. Individualized stress mitigation efforts, social media and organizational transparency were reported by healthcare workers to be effective against rising stressors. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has presented healthcare workforce with unprecedented challenges in their work environment. With attention to understanding stressors and supporting clinicians during healthcare emergencies, more research is necessary in order to effectively promote healthcare workforce well-being.