Improving screening, treatment, and intervention for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care through clinic, practice-based research network, and health plan partnerships: Protocol of the ANTECEDENT study.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, contributing to 95,000 deaths annually. When offered in primary care, screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT), and medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) can effectively address UAU. However, these interventions are not yet routine in primary care clinics. Therefore, our study evaluates tailored implementation support to increase SBIRT and MAUD in primary care. METHODS: ANTECEDENT is a pragmatic implementation study designed to support 150 primary care clinics in Oregon adopting and optimizing SBIRT and MAUD workflows to address UAU. The study is a partnership between the Oregon Health Authority Transformation Center-state leaders in Medicaid health system transformation-SBIRT Oregon and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. We recruited clinics providing primary care in Oregon and prioritized reaching clinics that were small to medium in size (<10 providers). All participating clinics receive foundational support (i.e., a baseline assessment, exit assessment, and access to the online SBIRT Oregon materials) and may opt to receive tailored implementation support delivered by a practice facilitator over 12 months. Tailored implementation support is designed to address identified needs and may include health information technology support, peer-to-peer learning, workflow mapping, or expert consultation via academic detailing. The study aims are to 1) engage, recruit, and conduct needs assessments with 150 primary care clinics and their regional Medicaid health plans called Coordinated Care Organizations within the state of Oregon, 2) implement and evaluate the impact of foundational and supplemental implementation support on clinic change in SBIRT and MAUD, and 3) describe how practice facilitators tailor implementation support based on context and personal expertise. Our convergent parallel mixed-methods analysis uses RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance). It is informed by a hybrid of the i-PARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework. DISCUSSION: This study will explore how primary care clinics implement SBIRT and MAUD in routine practice and how practice facilitators vary implementation support across diverse clinic settings. Findings will inform how to effectively align implementation support to context, advance our understanding of practice facilitator skill development over time, and ultimately improve detection and treatment of UAU across diverse primary care clinics.

Clinicians' Core Needs in a Pandemic: Qualitative Findings From the Chat Box in a Statewide COVID-19 ECHO Program.

PURPOSE: Research on primary care's role in a pandemic response has not adequately considered the day-to-day needs of clinicians in the midst of a crisis. We created an Oregon COVID-19 ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) program, a telementoring education model for clinicians. The program was adapted for a large audience and encouraged interactivity among the hundreds of participants via the chat box. We assessed how chat box communications within the statewide program identified and ameliorated some of clinicians' needs during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative analysis of chat box transcripts from 11 sessions.We coded transcripts using the editing method, whereby analysts generate categories predominantly from the data, but also from prior knowledge. We then explored the context of clinicians' needs in a pandemic, as conceptualized in Maslow's hierarchy of needs adapted for physicians: physiologic, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. RESULTS: The mean number of chat box participants was 492 per session (range, 385 to 763). Participants asked 1,462 questions and made 819 comments throughout the program. We identified 3 key themes: seeking answers and trustworthy information, seeking practical resources, and seeking and providing affirmation and peer support. These themes mapped onto the Maslow's needs framework. We found that participants were able to create a virtual community in the chat box that supported many of their needs. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel data source, we found sharing the experience of practicing in a rapidly changing environment via comments and questions in an ECHO program both defined and supported participants' needs.

Project ECHO Integrated Within the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN).

Two key advancements in improving the quality of primary care have been practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and Project Extension for Community Health care Outcomes (ECHO). PBRNs advance quality through research and transformation projects, often using practice facilitation. Project ECHO uses case-based telementoring to support community clinicians to deliver best-practice care. Although some PBRNs sponsor ECHO programs, the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) has created a statewide network for ECHO programs (Oregon ECHO Network [OEN]). We facilitated a unique funding stream for the OEN by partnering with payers and health systems. The purpose of this article is to share our experience of how OEN programs and ORPRN research and transformation projects enhance practice recruitment and retention and improve financial stability. We describe the synergy between ORPRN projects and ECHO programs using 3 examples: tobacco cessation, chronic pain and opioid prescribing, and diabetes management. We highlight challenges and opportunities in these examples, beginning with their development, their implementation, and their ultimate alignment, despite varied funding streams and timelines. We believe that incorporating the OEN within ORPRN has been a success for both PBRN research and Project ECHO programs, allowing us to better support primary care practices across the state.

Practice-Based Research Today: A Changing Primary Care Landscape Requires Changes in Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN) Research.

Primary care has changed in the past 40 years, and research performed within and by practice-based research networks (PBRN) needs to change to keep up with the current practice landscape. A key task for PBRNs is to connect with today's stakeholders, not only the traditional physicians, providers, office staff, and patients, but health systems, insurance companies, and government agencies. In addition to one-time externally funded engagement efforts, PBRNs must develop and report on sustainable, long-term strategies. PBRNs are also demonstrating how they use classic practice-based research techniques of practice facilitation and electronic health record (EHR) data extraction and reporting in new and important research areas, such as studying the opioid epidemic. PBRNs are adapting and transforming along with primary care.

Congruence of Patient Self-Rating of Health with Family Physician Ratings.

BACKGROUND: A single self-rated health (SRH) question is associated with health outcomes, but agreement between SRH and physician-rated patient health (PRPH) has been poorly studied. We studied patient and physician reasoning for health ratings and the role played by patient lifestyle and objective health measures in the congruence between SRH and PRPH. METHODS: Surveys of established family medicine patients and their physicians, and medical record review at 4 offices. Patients and physicians rated patient health on a 5-point scale and gave reasons for the rating and suggestions for improving health. Patients' and physicians' reasons for ratings and improvement suggestions were coded into taxonomies developed from the data. Bivariate relationships between the variables and the difference between SRH and PRPH were examined and all single predictors of the difference were entered into a multivariable regression model. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 506 patients and 33 physicians. SRH and PRPH ratings matched exactly for 38% of the patient-physician dyads. Variables associated with SRH being lower than PRPH were higher patient body mass index (P = .01), seeing the physician previously (P = .04), older age, (P < .001), and a higher comorbidity score (P = .001). Only 25.7% of the dyad reasons for health status rating and 24.1% of needed improvements matched, and these matches were unrelated to SRH/PRPH agreement. Physicians focused on disease in their reasoning for most patients, whereas patients with excellent or very good SRH focused on feeling well. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' and physicians' beliefs about patient health frequently lack agreement, confirming the need for shared decision making with patients.

Urban Health Project: A Sustainable and Successful Community Internship Program for Medical Students.

BACKGROUND: Urban Health Project (UHP) is a mission and vision-driven summer internship at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine that places first-year medical students at local community agencies that work with underserved populations. At the completion of their internship, students write Final Intern Reflections (FIRs). METHODS: Final Intern Reflections written from 1987 to 2012 were read and coded to both predetermined categories derived from the UHP mission and vision statements and new categories created from the data themselves. RESULTS: Comments relating to UHP's mission and vision were found in 47% and 36% of FIRs, respectively. Positive experiences outweighed negative by a factor of eight. Interns reported the following benefits: educational (53%), valuable (25%), rewarding (25%), new (10%), unique (6%), and life-changing (5%). CONCLUSIONS: Urban Health Project is successful in providing medical students with enriching experiences with underserved populations that have the potential to change their understanding of vulnerable populations.

Hand hygiene and face touching in family medicine offices: a Cincinnati Area Research and Improvement Group (CARInG) network study.

BACKGROUND: Family medicine offices may play an important role in the transmission of common illnesses such as upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). There has, however, been little study of whether physicians teach patients about URTI transmission and what their own actions are to prevent infection. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of hand hygiene and the frequency with which family physicians and staff touch their eyes, nose, and mouth (the T-zone) as well as physician and staff self-reported behaviors and recommendations given to patients regarding URTI prevention. METHODS: We observed family physicians and staff at 7 offices of the Cincinnati Area Research and Improvement Group (CARInG) practice-based research network for the quality of hand hygiene and number of T-zone touches. After observations, participants completed surveys about personal habits and recommendations given to patients to prevent URTIs. RESULTS: A total of 31 clinicians and 48 staff participated. They touched their T-zones a mean of 19 times in 2 hours (range, 0-105 times); clinicians did so significantly less often than staff (P < .001). We observed 123 episodes of hand washing and 288 uses of alcohol-based cleanser. Only 11 hand washings (9%) met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for effective hand washing. Alcohol cleansers were used more appropriately, with 243 (84%) meeting ideal use. Participants who were observed using better hand hygiene and who touched their T-zone less report the same personal habits and recommendations to patients as those with poorer URTI prevention hygiene. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and staff in family medicine offices frequently touch their T-zone and demonstrate mixed quality of hand cleansing. Participants' self-rated URTI prevention behaviors were not associated with how well they actually perform hand hygiene and how often they touch their T-zone. The relationship between self-reported and observed behaviors and URTIs in family medicine office settings needs further study.

Diabetes in homeless persons: barriers and enablers to health as perceived by patients, medical, and social service providers.

The ways homelessness and diabetes affect each other is not well known. The authors sought to understand barriers and enablers to health for homeless people with diabetes as perceived by homeless persons and providers. The authors performed semistructured interviews with a sample of participants (seven homeless persons, six social service providers, and five medical providers) in an urban Midwest community. Data analysis was performed with the qualitative editing method. Participants described external factors (chaotic lifestyle, diet/food availability, access to care, and medications) and internal factors (competing demands, substance abuse, stress) that directly affect health. Social service providers were seen as peripheral to diabetes care, although all saw their primary functions as valuable. These factors and relationships are appropriately modeled in a complex adaptive chronic care model, where the framework is bottom up and stresses adaptability, self-organization, and empowerment. Adapting the care of homeless persons with diabetes to include involvement of patients and medical and social service providers must be emergent and responsive to changing needs.

Patterns of relating between physicians and medical assistants in small family medicine offices.

PURPOSE: The clinician-colleague relationship is a cornerstone of relationship-centered care (RCC); in small family medicine offices, the clinician-medical assistant (MA) relationship is especially important. We sought to better understand the relationship between MA roles and the clinician-MA relationship within the RCC framework. METHODS: We conducted an ethnographic study of 5 small family medicine offices (having <5 clinicians) in the Cincinnati Area Research and Improvement Group (CARInG) Network using interviews, surveys, and observations. We interviewed 19 MAs and supervisors and 11 clinicians (9 family physicians and 2 nurse practitioners) and observed 15 MAs in practice. Qualitative analysis used the editing style. RESULTS: MAs' roles in small family medicine offices were determined by MA career motivations and clinician-MA relationships. MA career motivations comprised interest in health care, easy training/workload, and customer service orientation. Clinician-MA relationships were influenced by how MAs and clinicians respond to their perceptions of MA clinical competence (illustrated predominantly by comparing MAs with nurses) and organizational structure. We propose a model, trust and verify, to describe the structure of the clinician-MA relationship. This model is informed by clinicians' roles in hiring and managing MAs and the social familiarity of MAs and clinicians. Within the RCC framework, these findings can be seen as previously undefined constraints and freedoms in what is known as the Complex Responsive Process of Relating between clinicians and MAs. CONCLUSIONS: Improved understanding of clinician-MA relationships will allow a better appreciation of how clinicians and MAs function in family medicine teams. Our findings may assist small offices undergoing practice transformation and guide future research to improve the education, training, and use of MAs in the family medicine setting.

Patient safety incidents in home hospice care: the experiences of hospice interdisciplinary team members.

BACKGROUND: Hospice provides a full range of services for patients near the end of life, often in the patient's own home. There are no published studies that describe patient safety incidents in home hospice care. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to explore the types and characteristics of patient safety incidents in home hospice care from the experiences of hospice interdisciplinary team members. METHODS: The study design is qualitative and descriptive. From a convenience sample of 17 hospices in 13 states we identified 62 participants including hospice nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, and home health aides. We interviewed a separate sample of 19 experienced hospice leaders to assess the credibility of primary results. Semistructured telephone interviews were recorded and transcribed. Four researchers used an editing technique to identify common themes from the interviews. RESULTS: Major themes suggested a definition of patient safety in home hospice that includes concern for unnecessary harm to family caregivers or unnecessary disruption of the natural dying process. The most commonly described categories of patient harm were injuries from falls and inadequate control of symptoms. The most commonly cited contributing factors were related to patients, family caregivers, or the home setting. Few participants recalled incidents or harm related to medical errors by hospice team members. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe patient safety incidents from the experiences of hospice interdisciplinary team members. Compared with patient safety studies from other health care settings, participants recalled few incidents related to errors in evaluation, treatment, or communication by the hospice team.

Care for patients with chronic nonmalignant pain with and without chronic opioid prescriptions: a report from the Cincinnati Area Research Group (CARinG) network.

BACKGROUND: The use of chronic opioids for patients with chronic nonmalignant pain (CNMP) is a common problem for family physicians, yet little is known about the management of CNMP in family medicine offices. METHODS: Twenty one physicians at 8 practices of the Cincinnati Area Research Group (CARinG) network completed 25 to 30 modified Primary Care Network Survey 2 surveys. Each survey contained the question, "To your knowledge, does this patient have chronic (>3 months) pain, even if they are not being seen for pain today?" Chart reviews of all patients identified as having chronic pain were performed to examine assessment, management, and monitoring of chronic opioids. Ten of these physicians and 10 office nurses or medical assistants were interviewed about caring for patients with chronic pain. RESULTS: Primary Care Network Survey 2 questionnaires were completed for 533 patients, 138 (26%) of which had CNMP, and 65 (47%) of those were taking chronic opioids; 25% of patients taking chronic opioids had a urine drug screen and 22% had an opioid contract in the chart. Patients with CNMP who were taking chronic opioids were more likely to be younger (54 vs 59 years; P = .003), have a coexisting mental health diagnosis (69% vs 44%; P = .005), and have assessments for pain (P = .031), function (P = .003), and psychological distress (P < .001) and a second opinion (P = .001) in the chart than did patients with CNMP who were not taking opioids. Physicians described suspicion of patients as a primary difficulty in prescribing or considering chronic opioids; they also expressed interest in practicing evidence-based CNMP care, but there was little teamwork between physicians and medical assistants caring for patients with CNMP who were taking chronic opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic opioids are frequently prescribed to patients with CNMP. Although patients taking opioids have better documentation of pain assessments and management, care for all patients with CNMP fell short of evidence-based guidelines and was primarily performed by the physician alone.

"But what does it mean for me?" Primary care patients' communication preferences for test results notification.

BACKGROUND: The best ways to communicate test results in primary care to achieve patient satisfaction and assist patients to incorporate results into their personal health decision making are unknown. A study was conducted to determine the factors that patients believe are important in achieving those goals. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 12 adults, at least half with a chronic disease requiring regular testing, who shared experiences about receiving test results from physicians' offices and how they used them in their health decision making. In addition, "think aloud" interviewing techniques were used to assess participants' satisfaction and stated understanding with six different formats for receiving a hypothetical test result (a mildly elevated lipid profile). The interviews were analyzed using the editing technique to determine important factors in test results notification. FINDINGS: Three themes were found to be important in satisfaction with and stated understanding and use of test results: (1) the information shared (test result, clinician interpretation and guidance), (2) significance of the results (testing purpose, abnormal or normal result) and (3) personal preferences for communication (timeliness, interpersonal connection, and hard copy). Participants' stated understanding was highest, among several potential formats, for actual values with desired/normal values, a low-literacy description of the test's purpose, and a simple graph. CONCLUSIONS: A results notification algorithm includes (1) communication elements (the purpose of the test, the actual results with desired values, clinician guidance, and a graphical representation) and (2) appropriate choice of notification technique (phone/visit for diagnostic tests and all significantly abnormal results and mail/e-mail/Web for all others).

Crossing the finish line: follow-up of abnormal test results in a multisite community health center.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal test results is a common safety problem in outpatient practice. However, it is unclear exactly where and how often failures occur in the results management process. Our goal was to determine where breakdowns occur by examining 4 high-risk abnormal test results in a group of 11 clinics of an urban community health center organization. METHODS: Using a chart audit, we counted failures in the management of abnormal results of 4 tests: Pap smears, mammograms, international normalized ratio (INR), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). We assessed documentation that the result was filed in the chart; the provider signed and responded to the result; the patient was notified of the result; the appropriate follow-up occurred, and it occurred in a timely manner or there was explicit patient refusal of the recommended follow-up. RESULTS: There were 344 abnormal test results (105 Pap smears, 82 mammograms, 61 INRs, and 96 PSAs). The highest rate of failures in the management process was at follow-up care; 34% of the abnormal results did not have documentation that appropriate follow-up had occurred (11% for mammography, 26% for INR, 45% for Pap smears, and 46% for PSA). All of the earlier steps were performed with far fewer failures. For patients receiving follow-up care, 49% of the time, follow-up care did not occur in a timely manner. CONCLUSIONS: Most breakdowns in the testing process for these 4 abnormal tests were in the final step, documenting that appropriate follow-up care occurred. Office systems for managing abnormal results reporting and patient follow-up are needed to improve the safety and quality of care.

The management of test results in primary care: does an electronic medical record make a difference?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is unknown whether an electronic medical record (EMR) improves the management of test results in primary care offices. METHODS: As part of a larger assessment using observations, interviews, and chart audits at eight family medicine offices in SW Ohio, we documented five results management steps (right place in chart, signature, interpretation, patient notification, and abnormal result follow-up) for laboratory and imaging test results from 25 patient charts in each office. We noted the type of records used (EMR or paper) and how many management steps had standardized results management processes in place. RESULTS: We analyzed 461 test results from 200 charts at the eight offices. Commonly grouped tests (complete blood counts, etc) were considered a single test. A total of 274 results were managed by EMR (at four offices). Results managed with an EMR were more often in the right place in the chart (100% versus 98%), had more clinician signatures (100% versus 86%), interpretations (73% versus 64%), and patient notifications (80% vs. 66%) documented. For the subset of abnormal results (n=170 results), 64% of results managed with an EMR had a follow-up plan documented compared to only 40% of paper managed results. Having two or more standardized results management steps did not significantly improve documentation of any step, but no offices had standardized processes for documenting interpretation of test results or follow-up for abnormal results. There was inter-office variability in the successful documentation of results management steps, but 75% of the top performing offices had EMRs. CONCLUSIONS: There was greater documentation of results managed by an EMR, but all offices fall short in notifying patients and in documenting interpretation and follow-up of abnormal test results.

Management of test results in family medicine offices.

PURPOSE: We wanted to explore test results management systems in family medicine offices and to delineate the components of quality in results management. METHODS: Using a multimethod protocol, we intensively studied 4 purposefully chosen family medicine offices using observations, interviews, and surveys. Data analysis consisted of iterative qualitative analysis, descriptive frequencies, and individual case studies, followed by a comparative case analysis. We assessed the quality of results management at each practice by both the presence of and adherence to systemwide practices for each results management step, as well as outcomes from chart reviews, patient surveys, and interview and observation notes. RESULTS: We found variability between offices in how they performed the tasks for each of the specific steps of results management. No office consistently had or adhered to office-wide results management practices, and only 2 offices had written protocols or procedures for any results management steps. Whereas most patients surveyed acknowledged receiving their test results (87% to 100%), a far smaller proportion of patient charts documented patient notification (58% to 85%), clinician response to the result (47% to 84%), and follow-up for abnormal results (28% to 55%). We found 2 themes that emerged as factors of importance in assessing test results management quality: safety awareness-a leadership focus and communication that occurs around quality and safety, teamwork in the office, and the presence of appropriate policies and procedures; and technological adoption-the presence of an electronic health record, digital connections between the office and testing facilities, use of technology to facilitate patient communication, and the presence of forcing functions (built-in safeguards and requirements). CONCLUSION: Understanding the components of safety awareness and technological adoption can assist family medicine offices in evaluating their own results management processes and help them design systems that can lead to higher quality care.

Quality and safety in outpatient laboratory testing.

Interactions between the laboratory and outpatient physician are critical to ensure the appropriateness, accuracy, and utility of laboratory results. A recent Institute of Medicine report suggested that the consequences of medical errors in the outpatient setting-and the opportunities to improve-"may dwarf those in hospitals." This article focuses on the role of the physician's office in laboratory quality.