Finding meaning: a realist-informed perspective on social risk screening and relationships as mechanisms of change.

Background: Social risk screening rates in many US primary care settings remain low. This realist-informed evaluation explored the mechanisms through which a tailored coaching and technical training intervention impacted social risk screening uptake in 26 community clinics across the United States. Methods: Evaluation data sources included the documented content of interactions between the clinics and implementation support team and electronic health record (EHR) data. Following the realist approach, analysis was composed of iterative cycles of developing, testing and refining program theories about how the intervention did-or didn't-work, for whom, under what circumstances. Normalization Process Theory was applied to the realist program theories to enhance the explanatory power and transferability of the results. Results: Analysis identified three overarching realist program theories. First, clinic staff perceptions about the role of standardized social risk screening in person-centered care-considered "good" care and highly valued-strongly impacted receptivity to the intervention. Second, the physicality of the intervention materials facilitated collaboration and impacted clinic leaders' perception of the legitimacy of the social risk screening implementation work. Third, positive relationships between the implementation support team members, between the support team and clinic champions, and between clinic champions and staff motivated and inspired clinic staff to engage with the intervention and to tailor workflows to their settings' needs. Study clinics did not always exhibit the social risk screening patterns anticipated by the program theories due to discrepant definitions of success between clinic staff (improved ability to provide contextualized, person-centered care) and the trial (increased rates of EHR-documented social risk screening). Aligning the realist program theories with Normalization Process Theory constructs clarified that the intervention as implemented emphasized preparation over operationalization and appraisal, providing insight into why the intervention did not successfully embed sustained systematic social risk screening in participating clinics. Conclusion: The realist program theories highlighted the effectiveness and importance of intervention components and implementation strategies that support trusting relationships as mechanisms of change. This may be particularly important in social determinants of health work, which requires commitment and humility from health care providers and vulnerability on the part of patients.

Implementation Support for a Social Risk Screening and Referral Process in Community Health Centers.

Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.

Patient-Reported Social Risks and Clinician Decision Making: Results of a Clinician Survey in Primary Care Community Health Centers.

PURPOSE: To assess the extent that patients' social determinants of health (SDOH) influence safety-net primary care clinicians' decisions at the point of care; examine how that information comes to the clinician's attention; and analyze clinician, patient, and encounter characteristics associated with the use of SDOH data in clinical decision making. METHODS: Thirty-eight clinicians working in 21 clinics were prompted to complete 2 short card surveys embedded in the electronic health record (EHR) daily for 3 weeks. Survey data were matched with clinician-, encounter-, and patient-level variables from the EHR. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equation models were used to assess relationships between the variables and the clinician reported use of SDOH data to inform care. RESULTS: Social determinants of health were reported to influence care in 35% of surveyed encounters. The most common sources of information on patients' SDOH were conversations with patients (76%), prior knowledge (64%), and the EHR (46%). Social determinants of health were significantly more likely to influence care among male and non-English-speaking patients, and those with discrete SDOH screening data documented in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic health records present an opportunity to support clinicians integrating information about patients' social and economic circumstances into care planning. Study findings suggest that SDOH information from standardized screening documented in the EHR, combined with patient-clinician conversations, may enable social risk-adjusted care. Electronic health record tools and clinic workflows could be used to support both documentation and conversations. Study results also identified factors that may cue clinicians to include SDOH information in point-of-care decision-making. Future research should explore this topic further.

Partner-developed electronic health record tools to facilitate social risk-informed care planning.

OBJECTIVE: Increased social risk data collection in health care settings presents new opportunities to apply this information to improve patient outcomes. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support these applications. We conducted a participatory engagement process to develop electronic health record (EHR)-based CDS tools to facilitate social risk-informed care plan adjustments in community health centers (CHCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified potential care plan adaptations through systematic reviews of hypertension and diabetes clinical guidelines. The results were used to inform an engagement process in which CHC staff and patients provided feedback on potential adjustments identified in the guideline reviews and on tool form and functions that could help CHC teams implement these suggested adjustments for patients with social risks. RESULTS: Partners universally prioritized tools for social risk screening and documentation. Additional high-priority content included adjusting medication costs and changing follow-up plans based on reported social risks. Most content recommendations reflected partners' interests in encouraging provider-patient dialogue about care plan adaptations specific to patients' social needs. Partners recommended CDS tool functions such as alerts and shortcuts to facilitate and efficiently document social risk-informed care plan adjustments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: CDS tools were designed to support CHC providers and staff to more consistently tailor care based on information about patients' social context and thereby enhance patients' ability to adhere to care plans. While such adjustments occur on an ad hoc basis in many care settings, these are among the first tools designed both to systematize and document these activities.

Designing and Implementing an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Card Study in Primary Care: Methods and Considerations.

Card studies-short surveys about the circumstances within which patients receive care-are traditionally completed on physical cards. We report on the development of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded card study intended to decrease logistical challenges inherent to paper-based approaches, including distributing, tracking, and transferring the physical cards, as well as data entry and respondent prompts, while simultaneously decreasing the complexity for participants and facilitating rich analyses by linking to clinical and demographic data found in the EHR. Developing the EHR-based programming and data extraction was time consuming, required specialized expertise, and necessitated iteration to rectify issues encountered during implementation. Nonetheless, future EHR-embedded card studies will be able to replicate many of the same processes as informed by these results. Once built, the EHR-embedded card study simplified survey implementation for both the research team and clinic staff, resulting in research-quality data, the ability to link survey responses to relevant EHR data, and a 79% response rate. This detailed accounting of the development and implementation process, including issues encountered and addressed, might guide others in conducting EHR-embedded card studies.

"I didn't know you could do that": A Pilot Assessment of EHR Optimization Training.

BACKGROUND: Informatics tools within electronic health records (EHRs)-for example, data rosters and clinical reminders-can help disseminate care guidelines into clinical practice. Such tools' adoption varies widely, however, possibly because many primary care providers receive minimal training in even basic EHR functions. OBJECTIVES: This mixed-methods evaluation of a pilot training program sought to identify factors to consider when providing EHR use optimization training in community health centers (CHCs) as a step toward supporting CHC providers' adoption of EHR tools. METHODS: In spring 2018, we offered 10 CHCs a 2-day, 16-hour training in EHR use optimization, provided by clinician trainers, and customized to each CHC's needs. We surveyed trainees pre- and immediately post-training and again 3 months later. We conducted post-training interviews with selected clinic staff, and conducted a focus group with the trainers, to assess satisfaction with the training, and perceptions of how it impacted subsequent EHR use. RESULTS: Six CHCs accepted and received the training; 122 clinic staff members registered to attend, and most who completed the post-training survey reported high satisfaction. Three months post-training, 80% of survey respondents said the training had changed their daily EHR use somewhat or significantly. CONCLUSION: Factors to consider when planning EHR use optimization training in CHCs include: CHCs may face barriers to taking part in such training; it may be necessary to customize training to a given clinic's needs and to different trainees' clinic roles; identifying trainees' skill level a priori would help but is challenging; in-person training may be preferable; and inclusion of a practice coach may be helpful. Additional research is needed to identify how to provide such training most effectively.

Using Electronic Health Record-Based Clinical Decision Support to Provide Social Risk-Informed Care in Community Health Centers: Protocol for the Design and Assessment of a Clinical Decision Support Tool.

BACKGROUND: Consistent and compelling evidence demonstrates that social and economic adversity has an impact on health outcomes. In response, many health care professional organizations recommend screening patients for experiences of social and economic adversity or social risks-for example, food, housing, and transportation insecurity-in the context of care. Guidance on how health care providers can act on documented social risk data to improve health outcomes is nascent. A strategy recommended by the National Academy of Medicine involves using social risk data to adapt care plans in ways that accommodate patients' social risks. OBJECTIVE: This study's aims are to develop electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools that suggest social risk-informed care plan adaptations for patients with diabetes or hypertension, assess tool adoption and its impact on selected clinical quality measures in community health centers, and examine perceptions of tool usability and impact on care quality. METHODS: A systematic scoping review and several stakeholder activities will be conducted to inform development of the CDS tools. The tools will be pilot-tested to obtain user input, and their content and form will be revised based on this input. A randomized quasi-experimental design will then be used to assess the impact of the revised tools. Eligible clinics will be randomized to a control group or potential intervention group; clinics will be recruited from the potential intervention group in random order until 6 are enrolled in the study. Intervention clinics will have access to the CDS tools in their EHR, will receive minimal implementation support, and will be followed for 18 months to evaluate tool adoption and the impact of tool use on patient blood pressure and glucose control. RESULTS: This study was funded in January 2020 by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health. Formative activities will take place from April 2020 to July 2021, the CDS tools will be developed between May 2021 and November 2022, the pilot study will be conducted from August 2021 to July 2022, and the main trial will occur from December 2022 to May 2024. Study data will be analyzed, and the results will be disseminated in 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' social risk information must be presented to care teams in a way that facilitates social risk-informed care. To our knowledge, this study is the first to develop and test EHR-embedded CDS tools designed to support the provision of social risk-informed care. The study results will add a needed understanding of how to use social risk data to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/31733.

Strengthening methods for tracking adaptations and modifications to implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Developing effective implementation strategies requires adequate tracking and reporting on their application. Guidelines exist for defining and reporting on implementation strategy characteristics, but not for describing how strategies are adapted and modified in practice. We built on existing implementation science methods to provide novel methods for tracking strategy modifications. METHODS: These methods were developed within a stepped-wedge trial of an implementation strategy package designed to help community clinics adopt social determinants of health-related activities: in brief, an 'Implementation Support Team' supports clinics through a multi-step process. These methods involve five components: 1) describe planned strategy; 2) track its use; 3) monitor barriers; 4) describe modifications; and 5) identify / describe new strategies. We used the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy to categorize strategies, Proctor et al.'s reporting framework to describe them, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to code barriers / contextual factors necessitating modifications, and elements of the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced to describe strategy modifications. RESULTS: We present three examples of the use of these methods: 1) modifications made to a facilitation-focused strategy (clinics reported that certain meetings were too frequent, so their frequency was reduced in subsequent wedges); 2) a clinic-level strategy addition which involved connecting one study clinic seeking help with community health worker-related workflows to another that already had such a workflow in place; 3) a study-level strategy addition which involved providing assistance in overcoming previously encountered (rather than de novo) challenges. CONCLUSIONS: These methods for tracking modifications made to implementation strategies build on existing methods, frameworks, and guidelines; however, as none of these were a perfect fit, we made additions to several frameworks as indicated, and used certain frameworks' components selectively. While these methods are time-intensive, and more work is needed to streamline them, they are among the first such methods presented to implementation science. As such, they may be used in research on assessing effective strategy modifications and for replication and scale-up of effective strategies. We present these methods to guide others seeking to document implementation strategies and modifications to their studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03607617 (first posted 31/07/2018).

Initiating and Implementing Social Determinants of Health Data Collection in Community Health Centers.

Successfully incorporating social determinants of health (SDH) screening into clinic workflows can help care teams provide targeted care, appropriate referrals, and other interventions to address patients' social risk factors. However, integrating SDH screening into clinical routines is known to be challenging. To achieve widespread adoption of SDH screening, we need to better understand the factors that can facilitate or hinder implementation of effective, sustainable SDH processes. The authors interviewed 43 health care staff and professionals at 8 safety net community health center (CHC) organizations in 5 states across the United States; these CHCs had adopted electronic health record (EHR)-based SDH screening without any external implementation support. Interviewees included staff in administrative, quality improvement, informatics, front desk, and clinical roles (providers, nurses, behavioral health staff), and community health workers. Interviews focused on how each organization integrated EHR-based SDH screening into clinic workflows, and factors that affected adoption of this practice change. Factors that facilitated effective integration of EHR-based SDH screening were: (1) external incentives and motivators that prompted introduction of this screening (eg, grant requirements, encouragement from professional associations); (2) presence of an SDH screening advocate; and (3) maintaining flexibility with regard to workflow approaches to optimally align them with clinic needs, interests, and resources. Results suggest that it is possible to purposefully create an environment conducive to successfully implementing EHR-based SDH screening. Approaching the task of implementing SDH screening into clinic workflows as understanding the interplay of context-dependent factors, rather than following a step-by-step process, may be critical to success in primary care settings.

Unintended consequences: a qualitative study exploring the impact of collecting implementation process data with phone interviews on implementation activities.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative data are crucial for capturing implementation processes, and thus necessary for understanding implementation trial outcomes. Typical methods for capturing such data include observations, focus groups, and interviews. Yet little consideration has been given to how such methods create interactions between researchers and study participants, which may affect participants' engagement, and thus implementation activities and study outcomes. In the context of a clinical trial, we assessed whether and how ongoing telephone check-ins to collect data about implementation activities impacted the quality of collected data, and participants' engagement in study activities. METHODS: Researchers conducted regular phone check-ins with clinic staff serving as implementers in an implementation study. Approximately 1 year into this trial, 19 of these study implementers were queried about the impact of these calls on study engagement and implementation activities. The two researchers who collected implementation process data through phone check-ins with the study implementers were also interviewed about their perceptions of the impact of the check-ins. RESULTS: Study implementers' assessment of the check-ins' impact fell into three categories: (1) the check-ins had no effect on implementation activities, (2) the check-ins served as a reminder about study participation (without relating a clear impact on implementation activities), and (3) the check-ins caused changes in implementation activities. The researchers similarly perceived that the phone check-ins served as reminders and encouraged some implementers' engagement in implementation activities; their ongoing nature also created personal connections with study implementers that may have impacted implementation activities. Among some study implementers, anticipation of the check-in calls also improved their ability to recount implementation activities and positively affected quality of the data collected. CONCLUSION: These results illustrate the potential impact of qualitative data collection on implementation activities during implementation science trials. Mitigating such effects may prove challenging, but acknowledging these consequences-or even embracing them, perhaps by designing data collection methods as implementation strategies-could enhance scientific rigor. This work is presented to stimulate debate about the complexities involved in capturing data on implementation processes using common qualitative data collection methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.

Lessons learned about the effective operationalization of champions as an implementation strategy: results from a qualitative process evaluation of a pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Though the knowledge base on implementation strategies is growing, much remains unknown about how to most effectively operationalize these strategies in diverse contexts. For example, while evidence shows that champions can effectively support implementation efforts in some circumstances, little has been reported on how to operationalize this role optimally in different settings, or on the specific pathways through which champions enact change. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies supporting the adoption of guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing in community health centers in the USA. Quantitative data came from the community health centers' shared electronic health record; qualitative data sources included community health center staff interviews over 3 years. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, data were collected concurrently and merged for interpretation to identify factors associated with improved outcomes. Qualitative analysis was guided by the constant comparative method. As results from the quantitative and initial qualitative analyses indicated the essential role that champions played in promoting guideline-concordant prescribing, we conducted multiple immersion-crystallization cycles to better understand this finding. RESULTS: Five community health centers demonstrated statistically significant increases in guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing. A combination of factors appeared key to their successful practice change: (1) A clinician champion who demonstrated a sustained commitment to implementation activities and exhibited engagement, influence, credibility, and capacity; and (2) organizational support for the intervention. In contrast, the seven community health centers that did not show improved outcomes lacked a champion with the necessary characteristics, and/or organizational support. Case studies illustrate the diverse, context-specific pathways that enabled or prevented study implementers from advancing practice change. CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms the important role of champions in implementation efforts and offers insight into the context-specific mechanisms through which champions enact practice change. The results also highlight the potential impact of misaligned implementation support and key modifiable barriers and facilitators on implementation outcomes. Here, unexamined assumptions and a lack of evidence-based guidance on how best to identify and prepare effective champions led to implementation support that failed to address important barriers to intervention success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02325531 . Registered 15 December 2014.

Does increased implementation support improve community clinics' guideline-concordant care? Results of a mixed methods, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs' EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes. RESULTS: Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics' ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Variation in Electronic Health Record Documentation of Social Determinants of Health Across a National Network of Community Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This paper describes the adoption of an electronic health record-based social determinants of health screening tool in a national network of more than 100 community health centers. METHODS: In 2016, a screening tool with questions on 7 social determinants of health domains was developed and deployed in the electronic health record, with technical instructions on how to use the tool and suggested clinical workflows. To understand adoption patterns, the study team extracted electronic health record data for any patient with a community health center visit between June 2016 and May 2018. Patients were considered "screened" if a response to at least 1 social determinants of health domain was documented in the electronic health record tool. RESULTS: A total of 31,549 patients (2% of those with a visit in the study period) had a documented social determinants of health screening. The number of screenings increased over time, time; 71 community health centers (67%) conducted at least one screening, but almost 50% took place in only 4 community health centers. Over half (55%) of screenings only included responses for only 1 domain. Screening was most likely to occur during an office visit with an established patient and documented in the electronic health record by a medical assistant. CONCLUSIONS: Screening documentation patterns varied widely across the network of community health centers. Despite the growing national emphasis on the importance of screening for social determinants of health, these findings suggest that simply activating electronic health record tools for social determinants of health screening does not lead to widespread adoption. Potential barriers to screening adoption and implementation should be explored further. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Study protocol: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge trial of tailored support for implementing social determinants of health documentation/action in community health centers, with realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: National leaders recommend documenting social determinants of health and actions taken to address social determinants of health in electronic health records, and a growing body of evidence suggests the health benefits of doing so. However, little evidence exists to guide implementation of social determinants of health documentation/action. METHODS: This paper describes a 5-year, mixed-methods, stepped-wedge trial with realist evaluation, designed to test the impact of providing 30 community health centers with step-by-step guidance on implementing electronic health record-based social determinants of health documentation. This guidance will entail 6 months of tailored support from an interdisciplinary team, including training and technical assistance. We will report on tailored support provided at each of five implementation steps; impact of tailored implementation support; a method for tracking such tailoring; and context-specific pathways through which these tailored strategies effect change. We will track the competencies and resources needed to support the study clinics' implementation efforts. DISCUSSION: Results will inform how to tailor implementation strategies to meet local needs in real-world practice settings. Secondary analyses will assess impacts of social determinants of health documentation and referral-making on diabetes outcomes. By learning whether and how scalable, tailored implementation strategies help community health centers adopt social determinants of health documentation and action, this study will yield timely guidance to primary care providers. We are not aware of previous studies exploring implementation strategies that support adoption of social determinants of action using electronic health and interventions, despite the pressing need for such guidance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03607617 , registration date: 7/31/2018-retrospectively registered.

Adoption of Social Determinants of Health EHR Tools by Community Health Centers.

PURPOSE: This pilot study assessed the feasibility of implementing electronic health record (EHR) tools for collecting, reviewing, and acting on patient-reported social determinants of health (SDH) data in community health centers (CHCs). We believe it is the first such US study. METHODS: We implemented a suite of SDH data tools in 3 Pacific Northwest CHCs in June 2016, and used mixed methods to assess their adoption through July 2017. We modified the tools at clinic request; for example, we added questions that ask if the patient wanted assistance with SDH needs. RESULTS: Social determinants of health data were collected on 1,130 patients during the study period; 97% to 99% of screened patients (n = 1,098) had ≥1 SDH need documented in the EHR, of whom 211 (19%) had an EHR-documented SDH referral. Only 15% to 21% of patients with a documented SDH need indicated wanting help. Examples of lessons learned on adoption of EHR SDH tools indicate that clinics should: consider how to best integrate tools into existing workflow processes; ensure that staff tasked with SDH efforts receive adequate tool training and access; and consider that timing of data entry impacts how and when SDH data can be used. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that adoption of systematic EHR-based SDH documentation may be feasible, but substantial barriers to adoption exist. Lessons from this study may inform primary care providers seeking to implement SDH-related efforts, and related health policies. Far more research is needed to address implementation barriers related to SDH documentation in EHRs.

How 6 Organizations Developed Tools and Processes for Social Determinants of Health Screening in Primary Care: An Overview.

Little is known about how health care organizations are developing tools for identifying/addressing patients' social determinants of health (SDH). We describe the processes recently used by 6 organizations to develop SDH screening tools for ambulatory care and the barriers they faced during those efforts. Common processes included reviewing literature and consulting primary care staff. The organizations prioritized avoiding redundant data collection, integrating SDH screening into existing workflows, and addressing diverse clinic needs. This article provides suggestions for others hoping to develop similar tools/strategies for identifying patients' SDH needs in ambulatory care settings, with recommendations for further research.

Developing Electronic Health Record (EHR) Strategies Related to Health Center Patients' Social Determinants of Health.

BACKGROUND: "Social determinants of heath" (SDHs) are nonclinical factors that profoundly affect health. Helping community health centers (CHCs) document patients' SDH data in electronic health records (EHRs) could yield substantial health benefits, but little has been reported about CHCs' development of EHR-based tools for SDH data collection and presentation. METHODS: We worked with 27 diverse CHC stakeholders to develop strategies for optimizing SDH data collection and presentation in their EHR, and approaches for integrating SDH data collection and the use of those data (eg, through referrals to community resources) into CHC workflows. RESULTS: We iteratively developed a set of EHR-based SDH data collection, summary, and referral tools for CHCs. We describe considerations that arose while developing the tools and present some preliminary lessons learned. CONCLUSION: Standardizing SDH data collection and presentation in EHRs could lead to improved patient and population health outcomes in CHCs and other care settings. We know of no previous reports of processes used to develop similar tools. This article provides an example of 1 such process. Lessons from our process may be useful to health care organizations interested in using EHRs to collect and act on SDH data. Research is needed to empirically test the generalizability of these lessons.

Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon: a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. METHODS: We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. RESULTS: Recommended prescribing occurred at 13-16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c ≥7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had ≥1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014.

"Salt in the Wound": Safety Net Clinician Perspectives on Performance Feedback Derived From EHR Data.

Electronic health record (EHR) data can be extracted for calculating performance feedback, but users' perceptions of such feedback impact its effectiveness. Through qualitative analyses, we identified perspectives on barriers and facilitators to the perceived legitimacy of EHR-based performance feedback, in 11 community health centers (CHCs). Providers said such measures rarely accounted for CHC patients' complex lives or for providers' decisions as informed by this complexity, which diminished the measures' perceived validity. Suggestions for improving the perceived validity of performance feedback in CHCs are presented. Our findings add to the literature on EHR-based performance feedback by exploring provider perceptions in CHCs.

Reporting on the Strategies Needed to Implement Proven Interventions: An Example From a "Real-World" Cross-Setting Implementation Study.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this study was to empirically demonstrate the use of a new framework for describing the strategies used to implement quality improvement interventions and provide an example that others may follow. Implementation strategies are the specific approaches, methods, structures, and resources used to introduce and encourage uptake of a given intervention's components. Such strategies have not been regularly reported in descriptions of interventions' effectiveness, or in assessments of how proven interventions are implemented in new settings. This lack of reporting may hinder efforts to successfully translate effective interventions into "real-world" practice. A recently published framework was designed to standardize reporting on implementation strategies in the implementation science literature. We applied this framework to describe the strategies used to implement a single intervention in its original commercial care setting, and when implemented in community health centers from September 2010 through May 2015. Per this framework, the target (clinic staff) and outcome (prescribing rates) remained the same across settings; the actor, action, temporality, and dose were adapted to fit local context. The framework proved helpful in articulating which of the implementation strategies were kept constant and which were tailored to fit diverse settings, and simplified our reporting of their effects. Researchers should consider consistently reporting this information, which could be crucial to the success or failure of implementing proven interventions effectively across diverse care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02299791.