Harmonizing the Tripartite Mission in Academic Family Medicine: A Longitudinal Case Example.

Academic practices and departments are defined by a tripartite mission of care, education, and research, conceived as being mutually reinforcing. But in practice, academic faculty have often experienced these 3 missions as competing rather than complementary priorities. This siloed approach has interfered with innovation as a learning health system in which the tripartite missions reinforce each other in practical ways. This paper presents a longitudinal case example of harmonizing academic missions in a large family medicine department so that missions and people interact in mutually beneficial ways to create value for patients, learners, and faculty. We describe specific experiences, implementation, and examples of harmonizing missions as a feasible strategy and culture. "Harmonized" means that no one mission subordinates or drives out the others; each mission informs and strengthens the others (quickly in practice) while faculty experience the triparate mission as a coherent whole faculty job. Because an academic department is a complex system of work and relationships, concepts for leading a complex adaptive system were employed: (1) a "good enough" vision, (2) frequent and productive interactions, and (3) a few simple rules. These helped people harmonize their work without telling them exactly what to do, when, and how. Our goal here is to highlight concrete examples of harmonizing missions as a feasible operating method, suggesting ways it builds a foundation for a learning health system and potentially improving faculty well-being.

Departmental Metrics to Guide Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion for Academic Family Medicine Departments.

PROBLEM: Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) efforts have accelerated over the past several years, without a traditional guidebook that other missions often have. To evaluate progress over time, departments of family medicine are seeking ways to measure their current EDI state. Across the specialty, unity regarding which EDI metrics are meaningful is absent, and discordance even exists about what should be measured. APPROACH: This paper provides a general metrics framework, including a wide array of possibilities to consider measuring, for assessing individual departmental progress in this broad space. These measures are designed to be general enough to provide common language and can be customized to align with strategic priorities of individual family medicine departments. OUTCOMES: The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee of the Association of Departments of Family Medicine has produced a common framework to facilitate measurement of EDI outcomes in the following areas: care delivery and health, workforce recruitment and retention, learner recruitment and training, and research participation. This framework allows departments to monitor progress across these domains that impact the tripartite mission, providing opportunities to capitalize on measured gains in EDI. NEXT STEPS: Departments can review this framework and consider which metrics are applicable or develop their own metrics to align with their strategic priorities. In the future, collective departments could compare notes and measure aggregate progress together. Evaluating progress is a step in the journey toward the goal of ensuring that departments are operating from inclusive and just academic systems.

Negotiating a new chair package: context and considerations.

Negotiating a resource package as a potential new department chair is common practice in academic medicine. The foundations for this negotiation include the historical presence of the department in relation to the broader institution, projections for future growth, accounting for mission/vision, resource needs (space, personnel, finances, etc), faculty and staff development, and external partnerships within and outside the institution. Despite similarities in this process across departments, many nuances influence the development of a specific new chair package, such as, department size; desires, perspectives and talents of the incoming chair, the department faculty, the medical school and dean; prevailing agendas and mission imperatives; and the overall priorities of the institution. With strategy and forethought, a new chair package can promote a successful chair tenure and departmental growth. Assembled through the Association of Departments of Family Medicine with input from several dozen department chairs and senior leaders, this is intended to serve as a practical guide to new chair packages for chair candidates.

Implementing Clinic First Guiding Actions Across 4 Family Medicine Residency Clinics.

PROBLEM: Family medicine faculty and residents have observed that continuity clinic is often unsatisfying, attributed to a lack of patient and team continuity and erratic clinic schedules pieced together after the prioritization of hospital service and rotation schedules. APPROACH: In 2019, a 3-year Clinic First project, called Clinic as Curriculum (CaC), was launched across the 4 family medicine residencies of the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School. The department began publishing quarterly CaC dashboard data. Each clinic completed a baseline assessment of their performance on the 13 Building Blocks of High-Performing Primary Care. Using their baseline data, each clinic identified which block or blocks, in addition to the blocks on continuity of care and resident scheduling, to focus on. The plan is to collaboratively implement the overall and local goals using dashboard data and iterative process improvement over 3 years. OUTCOMES: At baseline, clinics functioned quite well with respect to the 13 building blocks, but CaC dashboard data varied across the 4 clinics, with large variation between clinics on how frequently faculty were scheduled in the clinic and the proportion of total clinic visits seen by faculty. Resident continuity rates were low (range, 38%-47%). Level loading (consistent physician availability to meet patient demand) rates ranged from 1 to 11 days a month. Regarding resident schedules, 2 programs are moving from 4-week to 2-week inpatient blocks, and 2 programs are exploring longitudinal scheduling. One clinic will assign faculty and residents to specific clinic days. Two clinics are implementing microteams of 1 faculty and 3-4 residents. NEXT STEPS: The authors plan to analyze the dashboard data longitudinally; explore microteams, team continuity, and team scheduling adherence; and develop and implement resident scheduling changes over the next 3 years.

Shared Language for Shared Work in Population Health.

People working on behalf of population health, community health, or public health often experience confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of these and other common terms-the similarities and differences and how they bear on the tasks and division of labor for care delivery and public health. Shared language must be clear enough to help, not hinder people working together as they ultimately come to mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities, and actions in their joint work. Based on an iterative lexicon development process, the authors developed and propose a definitional framework as an aid to navigating among related population and community health terms. These terms are defined, similarities and differences clarified, and then organized into 3 categories that reflect goals, realities, and ways to get the job done. Goals include (a) health as well-being for persons, (b) population health as that goal expressed in measurable terms for groups, and (c) community health as population health for particular communities of interest, geography, or other defining characteristic-groups with shared identity and particular systemic influences on health. Realities are social determinants as influences, health disparities as effects, and health equity as both a goal and a design principle. Ways to get the job done include health care delivery systems for enrollees and public health in population-based civic activities-with a broad zone of collaboration where streams of effort converge in partnership with served communities. This map of terms can enable people to move forward together in a broad zone of collaboration for health with less confusion, ambiguity, and conflict.

Coming Together in Action for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.

THE CHALLENGE: Family medicine departments see elevating equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)* as socially necessary and as powerful in achieving core missions. The importance and timeliness of this longstanding issue in medicine are magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic with its disproportionate effect on communities of color and by civil unrest focused on racial justice. EDI plays out in three pillars: (1) care delivery and health, (2) workforce recruitment and retention, and (3) learner recruitment and training. People are at very different places with EDI work with regard to knowledge, experience, comfort and confidence. This is a wide-ranging developmental challenge, not a narrow, technical, or quick fix. The Immediate Goal: To make a strong start in taking all faculty and staff on a participatory journey that brings changes in everything they do, using inclusive means to this inclusive end. Initial Achievements: An inclusive process that resulted in (1) a shared intellectual framework-definitions with "north star" goals across the three pillars of EDI action, (2) shared acceptance of need for change, (3) top growth areas with actions to take, and (4) harnessing the energy for action-many volunteers, a visible leader, and charge. Ongoing Action: Application of an equity lens to department relationships, specific incidents, tools and education, policy review, and measures development. Invitation to Further Conversation Among Departments: EDI work can quickly create a shared intellectual framework and broadly engage people in taking a department down its developmental path. Operating principles for undertaking such work are offered for conversation among departments.

Clinical Workflows and the Associated Tasks and Behaviors to Support Delivery of Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care.

Integrating primary care and behavioral health is an important focus of health system transformation. Cross-case comparative analysis of 19 practices in the United States describing integrated care clinical workflows. Surveys, observation visits, and key informant interviews analyzed using immersion-crystallization. Staff performed tasks and behaviors-guided by protocols or scripts-to support 4 workflow phases: (1) identifying; (2) engaging/transitioning; (3) providing treatment; and (4) monitoring/adjusting care. Shared electronic health records and accessible staffing/scheduling facilitated workflows. Stakeholders should consider these workflow phases, address structural features, and utilize a developmental approach as they operationalize integrated care delivery.

Seeking a wider lens for scientific rigor in emerging fields: The case of the primary care behavioral health model.

In response to widespread recognition of the need to blend biomedical and psychosocial health care efforts, the primary care behavioral health (PCBH) model has achieved rapid uptake across the United States. Reports of its application come from military sectors, community health centers, and a variety of health care systems, large and small. Examining the PCBH model's appeal, evidence, and design forces us to confront important questions. These questions and much more are addressed in this issue of Families, Systems, & Health. (PsycINFO Database Record

From Our Practices to Yours: Key Messages for the Journey to Integrated Behavioral Health.

BACKGROUND: The historic, cultural separation of primary care and behavioral health has caused the spread of integrated care to lag behind other practice transformation efforts. The Advancing Care Together study was a 3-year evaluation of how practices implemented integrated care in their local contexts; at its culmination, practice leaders ("innovators") identified lessons learned to pass on to others. METHODS: Individual feedback from innovators, key messages created by workgroups of innovators and the study team, and a synthesis of key messages from a facilitated discussion were analyzed for themes via immersion/crystallization. RESULTS: Five key themes were captured: (1) frame integrated care as a necessary paradigm shift to patient-centered, whole-person health care; (2) initialize: define relationships and protocols up-front, understanding they will evolve; (3) build inclusive, empowered teams to provide the foundation for integration; (4) develop a change management strategy of continuous evaluation and course-correction; and (5) use targeted data collection pertinent to integrated care to drive improvement and impart accountability. CONCLUSION: Innovators integrating primary care and behavioral health discerned key messages from their practical experience that they felt were worth sharing with others. Their messages present insight into the challenges unique to integrating care beyond other practice transformation efforts.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care: Consulting, Coordinating and Collaborating Among Professionals.

PURPOSE: This paper sought to describe how clinicians from different backgrounds interact to deliver integrated behavioral and primary health care, and the contextual factors that shape such interactions. METHODS: This was a comparative case study in which a multidisciplinary team used an immersion-crystallization approach to analyze data from observations of practice operations, interviews with practice members, and implementation diaries. The observed practices were drawn from 2 studies: Advancing Care Together, a demonstration project of 11 practices located in Colorado; and the Integration Workforce Study, consisting of 8 practices located across the United States. RESULTS: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians used 3 interpersonal strategies to work together in integrated settings: consulting, coordinating, and collaborating (3Cs). Consulting occurred when clinicians sought advice, validated care plans, or corroborated perceptions of a patient's needs with another professional. Coordinating involved 2 professionals working in a parallel or in a back-and-forth fashion to achieve a common patient care goal, while delivering care separately. Collaborating involved 2 or more professionals interacting in real time to discuss a patient's presenting symptoms, describe their views on treatment, and jointly develop a care plan. Collaborative behavior emerged when a patient's care or situation was complex or novel. We identified contextual factors shaping use of the 3Cs, including: time to plan patient care, staffing, employing brief therapeutic approaches, proximity of clinical team members, and electronic health record documenting behavior. CONCLUSION: Primary care and behavioral health clinicians, through their interactions, consult, coordinate, and collaborate with each other to solve patients' problems. Organizations can create integrated care environments that support these collaborations and health professions training programs should equip clinicians to execute all 3Cs routinely in practice.

Don Bloch's vision for Collaborative Family Health Care: Progress and next steps.

BACKGROUND: Don Bloch is the central figure in the origin story for the field of collaborative family health care; the journal Families, Systems, & Health; and for the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association (CFHA). He exerted extraordinary intellectual and practical leadership for all 3. He convened a national working session in 1994 that took stock of the field and set out next steps, one of which was to create the interprofessional organization dedicated to collaborative family health care that is now CFHA. PURPOSE: As part of honoring Don Bloch's contributions to the field and this journal, this article sets out tenets of his original vision and traces next steps toward this vision generated by national groups between 1994 and 2014, showing what is the same or different over these 20 years, and especially what this means for the field going forward. METHOD: Precepts of Don Bloch's original vision are drawn from his writings, including the briefing papers he prepared for the national Wingspread group convened in 1994, which also set out next steps for the field. These steps are then compared with next developmental steps for the field generated by CFHA conference attendees in 2004 and again in 2014, after reviewing the history of the organization and the field. CONCLUSION: Much of Don Bloch's vision has remained relevant to health care transformation, with a number of areas showing significant accomplishment and acceptance, whereas others remain aspirational, and a few others arguably being more difficult to achieve now than when Don articulated them.

The 5 R's: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world.

Research often fails to find its way into practice or policy in a timely way, if at all. Given the current pressure and pace of health care change, many authors have recommended different approaches to make health care research more relevant and rapid. An emerging standard for research, the "5 R's" is a synthesis of recommendations for care delivery research that (1) is relevant to stakeholders; (2) is rapid and recursive in application; (3) redefines rigor; (4) reports on resources required; and (5) is replicable. Relevance flows from substantive ongoing participation by stakeholders. Rapidity and recursiveness occur through accelerated design and peer reviews followed by short learning/implementation cycles through which questions and answers evolve over time. Rigor is the disciplined conduct of shared learning within the specific changing situations in diverse settings. Resource reporting includes costs of interventions. Replicability involves designing for the factors that may affect subsequent implementation of an intervention or program in different contexts. These R's of the research process are mutually reinforcing and can be supported by training that fosters collaborative and reciprocal relationships among researchers, implementers, and other stakeholders. In sum, a standard is emerging for research that is both rigorous and relevant. Consistent and bold application will increase the value, timeliness, and applicability of the research enterprise.

Research and evaluation in the transformation of primary care.

Across the United States, primary care practices are engaged in demonstration projects and quality improvement efforts aimed at integrating behavioral health and primary care. Efforts to make sustainable changes at the frontline of care have identified new research and evaluation needs. These efforts enable clinics and larger health care communities to learn from demonstration projects regarding what works and what does not when integrating mental health, substance use, and primary care under realistic circumstances. To do this, implementers need to measure their successes and failures to inform local improvement processes, including the efforts of those working on integration in separate but similar settings. We review how new research approaches, beyond the contributions of traditional controlled trials, are needed to inform integrated behavioral health. Illustrating with research examples from the field, we describe how research traditions can be extended to meet these new research and learning needs of frontline implementers. We further suggest that a shared language and set of definitions for the field (not just for a particular study) are critical for the aggregation of knowledge and learning across practices and for policymaking and business modeling.

What does it mean to "employ" the RE-AIM model?

Many grant proposals identify the use of a given evaluation model or framework but offer little about how such models are implemented. The authors discuss what it means to employ a specific model, RE-AIM, and key dimensions from this model for program planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting. The authors report both conceptual and content specifications for the use of the RE-AIM model and a content review of 42 recent dissemination and implementation grant applications to National Institutes of Health that proposed the use of this model. Outcomes include the extent to which proposals addressed the overall RE-AIM model and specific items within the five dimensions in their methods or evaluation plans. The majority of grants used only some elements of the model (less than 10% contained thorough measures across all RE-AIM dimensions). Few met criteria for "fully developed use" of RE-AIM and the percentage of key issues addressed varied from, on average, 45% to 78% across the RE-AIM dimensions. The results and discussion of key criteria should help investigators in their use of RE-AIM and illuminate the broader issue of comprehensive use of evaluation models.

Building a medical home around the patient: what it means for behavior.

A great deal has already been written on "patient-centered health care." This article aims to organize and make readily visible some of that work in context of the "patient-centered medical home" (PCMH). Patient-centered provider and patient behaviors are both required if PCMH is to become a successful innovation in practice. These behaviors are shown together on one page as dimensions of patient centeredness. A medical home that achieves patient-centered results will require different behaviors and attitudes from both patients and providers.

Integrating care for persons, not only diseases.

Integrated care is geared toward enhancing usual care and decision-making for common combinations of medical and mental health conditions, including the behavioral health and behavioral change aspects. Yet even with comprehensive and well-integrated care for health conditions and well-coordinated teamwork in place, some patients do not engage or respond to care in the way clinicians would like or predict. This troubles patients and clinicians alike and may be chalked up informally to things like medical complexity (multiple co-existing conditions), mental health conditions (that complicate care), or simply the case being considered complex or difficult. It also raises the question of how to address person-specific factors that interfere with care of whatever conditions the patient may have, and invites behavioral health clinicians in medical settings to look beyond care of conditions to the care of persons, and to look beyond disease-specific care management protocols to master generic practices of care management across whatever conditions the person may have. This person-centered emphasis is intrinsic to the concept of the "patient-centered medical home" which has burst into animated discussion and demonstration among providers, health plans, government plans, employer purchasers, and professional associations across public and private entities. This represents an opportunity for collaborative care clinicians to help shape the national state of the art in medical home and includes a range of person-oriented (rather than disease-oriented) practices for care management, including working systematically with complex patients and difficult patient-clinician relationships.

Primary care for patient complexity, not only disease.

Primary care is increasingly geared toward standardized care and decision-making for common chronic conditions, combinations of medical and mental health conditions, and the behavioral aspects of care for those conditions. Yet even with well-integrated team-based care for health conditions in place, some patients do not engage or respond as well as clinicians would wish or predict. This troubles patients and clinicians alike and is often chalked up informally to "patient complexity." Indeed, every clinician has encountered complex patients and reacted with "Oh my gosh"-but not necessarily with a patterned vocabulary for exactly how the patient is complex and what to do about it. Based on work in the Netherlands, patient complexity is defined here as interference with standard care and decision-making by symptom severity or impairments, diagnostic uncertainty, difficulty engaging care, lack of social safety or participation, disorganization of care, and difficult patient-clinician relationships. A blueprint for patient-centered medical home must address patient complexity by promoting the interplay of usual care for conditions and individualized attention to patient-specific sources of complexity-across whatever diseases and conditions the patient may have.

Addressing multiple behavioral risk factors in primary care. A synthesis of current knowledge and stakeholder dialogue sessions.

BACKGROUND: Addressing behavioral risk factors in primary care has become a pressing concern due to the increasing burden of behavioral risk factors on disease, healthcare costs, and public health. Risk factors considered include smoking, risky drinking, sedentary lifestyle, and unhealthy diet-singly or in combination. The already burdened primary care system needs a practical approach to efficiently and effectively address any combination of multiple risk factors. Multiple perspectives and broad insight are urgently needed to gain a deeper understanding of the interacting scientific, systems, and policy issues associated with multiple risk factor interventions (MRFIs). PURPOSE: This paper synthesizes findings from literature reviews, epidemiologic analyses, and structured interactive dialogue sessions, and includes a set of recommendations designed to stimulate further action. METHODS: Several papers were produced to document current knowledge, research evidence, and salient issues related to multiple risk factor assessment and intervention. Structured interactive dialogue sessions were then conducted with clinician, health system, and health policy leaders regarding what advantage or energy would be liberated by a multiple risk factor approach (rather than separate single risk factor approaches), and how to build a policy framework or constituency for MRFIs. This information is synthesized in this paper. RESULTS: There is a clear need to address MRFIs among multiple stakeholders, including patients, purchasers, payers, clinicians, health system leaders, and policy-level stakeholders. MRFIs need to bring with them a compelling value proposition for all stakeholders, and a vision of practical and systematic ways to make it a reality in already-pressed primary care practices. Involving stakeholders in dialogue aimed at helping them see the world through each other's eyes helps overcome discouragement and generates energy for jointly designing new approaches. Recommendations for further action include the creation of multistakeholder dialogue, creation of a policy agenda, development of a translation or integration agenda that connects researchers and practitioners in a two-way exchange, initiation of a series of demonstration projects around MRFIs, and support for research on multiple (rather than only single) risk factor interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The need to address multiple behavioral risk factors in primary care is increasingly urgent. Whereas stakeholders by themselves may be willing to address multiple risk factors, they agree that it can only be done successfully with a collaborative approach. Findings based on evidence reviews, hypotheses generation, and stakeholder dialogue provide guidance for appropriate further action that, based on what is known already, can be initiated right away.