A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

Integrated Behavioral Health in Primary Care Residency and Nonresidency Practices.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Integrated behavioral health (BH) is becoming a preferred model of care for primary care because it improves patient outcomes and satisfaction. Little is known about whether residency practices are consistently modeling this preferred care model relative to real-world nonresidency practices. The study compared levels of BH integration, patient health outcomes, and satisfaction with care between residency practices and nonresidency practices with colocated BH providers. METHODS: Baseline data were collected in 2018-2019 from 44 practices and their adult patients with chronic conditions participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial to improve BH integration. The sample included 18 (40.9%) residency and 26 (59.1%) nonresidency practices, with 1,817 (45.3%) patients from residency practices and 2,190 (54.7%) patients from nonresidency practices. Outcomes including BH integration levels (the Practice Integration Profile), patient health outcomes (the PROMIS-29), and patient satisfaction with care (the Consultation and Relational Empathy scale) were compared between residency and nonresidency practices using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: No differences were found between BH integration levels, patient health outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care between residency and nonresidency practices. In a sample of primary care practices with colocated BH providers, residencies had BH integration and patient outcomes similar to real-world practices. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices with residency programs reported comparable levels of BH integration, patient health outcomes, and patient satisfaction compared to practices without residency programs. Both types of practices require interventions and resources to help them overcome challenges associated with dissemination of high levels of BH integration.

Intersectionality of Systemic Disadvantage on Mortality and Care Following TBI.

BACKGROUND: People of color (POC), especially those who also hold social identities associated with disadvantage (non-English-speaking, female, older, lower socioeconomic level), continue to be underserved in the health system, which can result in poorer care and worsened health outcomes. Most disparity research in traumatic brain injury (TBI) focuses on the impact of single factors, which misses the compounding effect of belonging to multiple historically marginalized groups. OBJECTIVE: To examine the intersectional impact of multiple social identities vulnerable to systemic disadvantage following TBI on mortality, opioid usage during acute hospitalization, and discharge location. METHODS: Retrospective observational design utilizing electronic health records merged with local trauma registry data. Patient groups were defined by race and ethnicity (POC or non-Hispanic White), age, sex, type of insurance, and primary language (English-speaking vs non-English-speaking). Latent class analysis (LCA) was performed to identify clusters of systemic disadvantage. Outcome measures were then assessed across latent classes and tested for differences. RESULTS: Over an 8-year period, 10 809 admissions with TBI occurred (37% POC). LCA identified a 4-class model. Groups with more systemic disadvantage had higher rates of mortality. Classes with older populations had lower rates of opioid administration and were less likely to discharge to inpatient rehabilitation following acute care. Sensitivity analyses examining additional indicators of TBI severity demonstrated that the younger group with more systemic disadvantage had more severe TBI. Controlling for more indicators of TBI severity changed statistical significance in mortality for younger groups. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate significant health inequities in the mortality and access to inpatient rehabilitation following TBI along with higher rates of severe injury in younger patients with more social disadvantages. While many inequities may be related to systemic racism, our findings suggested an additive, deleterious effect for patients who belonged to multiple historically disadvantaged groups. Further research is needed to understand the role of systemic disadvantage for individuals with TBI within the healthcare system.

Econometric evaluation of implementing a behavioral health integration intervention in primary care settings.

Integrated behavioral health (IBH) is an approach to patient care that brings medical and behavioral health providers (BHPs) together to address both behavioral and medical needs within primary care settings. A large, pragmatic, national study aimed to test the effectiveness and measure the implementation costs of an intervention to improve IBH integration within primary care practices (IBH-PC). Assess the time and cost to practices of implementing a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed from the perspective of clinic owners to move behavioral service integration from co-location toward full integration as part of the IBH-PC study. IBH-PC program implementation costs were estimated in a representative sample of 8 practices using standard micro-econometric evaluation of activities outlined in the implementation workbook, including program implementation tasks, remote quality improvement coaching services, educational curricula, and learning community activities, over a 24-month period. The total median cost of implementing the IBH-PC program across all stages was $20,726 (range: $12,381 - $60,427). The median cost of the Planning Stage was $10,258 (range: $4,625 - $14,840), while the median cost of the Implementation Stage was $9,208 (range: $6,017 - 49,993). There were no statistically significant differences in practice or patient characteristics between the 8 selected practices and the larger IBH-PC practice sample (N=34). This study aimed to quantify the relative costs associated with integrating behavioral health into primary care. Although the cost assessment approach did not include all costs (fixed, variable, operational, and opportunity costs), the study aimed to develop a replicable and pragmatic measurement process with flexibility to adapt to emerging developments in each practice environment, providing a reasonable ballpark estimate of costs associated with implementation to help guide future executive decisions.

This study estimated the cost of implementing a program that helped 8 primary care practices transition from a co-located behavioral health services model to greater integration. Our study was part of a larger study across the United States. The authors found that the per-practice program implementation cost ranged between $12,381 and $60,427 and the median cost was $20,726. Leaders of healthcare organizations that participated in this study thought that these costs represented the work of program implementation and that they were reasonable and acceptable.

Developing Digital Therapeutics for Chronic Pain in Primary Care: A Qualitative Human-Centered Design Study of Providers' Motivations and Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Digital therapeutics are growing as a solution to manage pain for patients; yet, they are underused in primary care where over half of the patients with chronic pain seek care. Little is known about how to successfully engage primary care providers in recommending digital therapeutics to their patients. Exploring provider motivations in chronic pain management would potentially help to improve their engagement and inform the development of digital therapeutics. OBJECTIVE: This study examined primary care providers' motivations for chronic pain management, including their strategies and challenges, to inform the future development of chronic pain-related digital therapeutics tailored to primary care settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with health care providers recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Washington and 1 clinic in Colorado between July and October 2021. The sample (N=11) included 7 primary care physicians, 2 behavioral health providers, 1 physician assistant, and 1 nurse. Most providers worked in clinics affiliated with urban academic health systems. Guided by the human-centered design approach and Christensen's Job-to-be-Done framework, we asked providers their goals and priorities in chronic pain management, their experiences with challenges and strategies used to care for patients, and their perceptions of applying digital therapeutics in clinical practice. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: We found that primary care providers were motivated but challenged to strengthen the patient-provider alliance, provide team-based care, track and monitor patients' progress, and address social determinants of health in chronic pain management. Specifically, providers desired additional resources to improve patient-centered communication, pain education and counseling, and goal setting with patients. Providers also requested greater accessibility to multidisciplinary care team consultations and nonpharmacological pain treatments. When managing chronic pain at the population level, providers need infrastructure and systems to systematically track and monitor patients' pain and provide wraparound health and social services for underserved patients. Recommendations on digital therapeutic features that might address provider challenges in achieving these motivations were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Given the findings, to engage primary care providers, digital therapeutics for chronic pain management need to strengthen the patient-provider alliance, increase access to nonpharmacological treatment options, support population health tracking and management, and provide equitable reach. Leveraging digital therapeutics in a feasible, appropriate, and acceptable way to aid primary care providers in chronic pain management may require multimodal features that address provider motivations at an individual care and clinic or system level.

Payment strategies for behavioral health integration in hospital-affiliated and non-hospital-affiliated primary care practices.

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies-fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher's exact tests and independent T-tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices.

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

Differences in Occupational Burnout Among Primary Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Occupational burnout is a major concern for personal well-being and patient care. We examined burnout among primary care providers (PCPs), medical residents, behavioral health providers (BHPs), nurses, and other clinical and nonclinical primary care team members. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study, nested within a larger randomized trial. Participants completed a validated 9-item burnout measure with 3 domains: depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and personal accomplishment. Multivariable multilevel linear regression with a random intercept for each practice was used to determine mean differences in burnout across professional roles. RESULTS: Overall burnout rates varied by professional role: PCPs 70%, medical residents 89%, BHPs 59%, nurses 66%, other clinicians 68%, and nonclinical professionals 70%. Compared with nonclinical professionals, residents experienced more burnout in more domains, followed by PCPs. PCPs, residents, and nurses reported significantly worse depersonalization and exhaustion scores. Nonclinical professionals had worse accomplishment scores than all clinical professionals except for residents. This study revealed moderate-to-high levels of burnout among primary care professionals. DISCUSSION: Clinicians may be experiencing aspects of burnout more intensely than their nonclinical colleagues, and this may be most true for residents and PCPs. Based on these variations, interventions to mitigate burnout may need to be tailored by professional role.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care (IBH-PC) to improve patient-centered outcomes in adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration. METHODS: Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration. DISCUSSION: As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Defining and measuring core processes and structures in integrated behavioral health in primary care: a cross-model framework.

A movement towards integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care continues to grow, among an accumulating evidence base for its effectiveness for improving care. However, healthcare organizations struggle to navigate where to target their limited resources for improving integration. We evaluated a cross-model framework of IBH core processes and structures. We used a mixed-methods approach for evaluation of the framework, which included (a) an evaluation survey of national experts and stakeholders, (b) crosswalks with common IBH measures, and (c) a real-world usability test. Five core IBH principles, mapping to 25 processes, and nine clinic structures were defined. Survey responses from 29 IBH domain and policy experts and stakeholders resulted in uniformly high ratings of importance and variable levels of feasibility for measurement, particularly with respect to electronic health record (EHR) systems. A real-world usability test resulted in good uptake and use of the framework across a state-wide effort. An IBH Cross-Model Framework of core principles, processes, and structures generated good acceptability and showed good real-world utility in a state-wide effort to improve IBH across disparate levels of integration in diverse primary care settings. Findings identify feasible areas of measurement, particularly with EHR systems. Next steps include testing the relationship between the individual framework components and patient outcomes to help guide clinics towards prioritizing efforts focused on improving integration.

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

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

Service utilization and chronic condition outcomes among primary care patients with substance use disorders and co-occurring chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined. RESULTS: Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p's < 0.05), and patients with SUD diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed opioid medications. Chronic condition outcomes were no different for patients with versus without SUD diagnoses. DISCUSSION: Despite the higher visit rates to providers in primary care, a majority of patients with SUD diagnoses and chronic medical conditions in primary care did not get seen by co-located behavioral health providers, who can potentially provide and support evidence informed care for both SUD and chronic conditions. Patients with chronic medical conditions also were more likely to get prescribed opioids if they had an SUD diagnosis. Care pathway innovations for SUDs that include greater utilization of evidence-informed co-treatment of SUDs and chronic conditions within primary care settings may be necessary for improving care overall for patients with comorbid SUDs and chronic conditions.

Prevalence of documented alcohol and opioid use disorder diagnoses and treatments in a regional primary care practice-based research network.

BACKGROUND: Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices. METHODS: We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016). RESULTS: Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists. CONCLUSIONS: AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD.

The Northwest Participant and Clinical Interactions Network: Increasing opportunities for patients to participate in research across the Northwestern United States.

INTRODUCTION: The Institute of Translational Health Sciences (ITHS) promotes and supports translational research collaboration between clinicians, communities, and investigators across the five-state Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (WWAMI) region. The ITHS has developed a collaborative regional clinical research network, the Northwest Participant & Clinical Interactions Network (NW PCI), involving 12 diverse clinical health systems and academic institutions. METHODS: This descriptive article details NW PCI's development, infrastructure and governance, tools, characteristics, and initial outcomes. RESULTS: Regional NW PCI sites are conducting largely industry-sponsored studies; they are interested in including more grant-funded research. Regional NW PCI sites had over 1,240 open studies involving over 6700 patients in 2016. NW PCI trials are largely industry-sponsored; NW PCI sites are interested in including more grant-funded research. In its first three years, the NW PCI Coordinating Center facilitated regional sites' participation in 34 new grant and contract applications across diverse topics. CONCLUSION: The NW PCI model supports the goals of the developing CTSA Trial Innovation Network by increasing access to cutting-edge research across the Northwestern U.S., by supporting investigators seeking diverse populations, including those with rare diseases, for their research studies, and by providing settings to test implementation and dissemination of effective interventions.

Conflicts of Interest and Distribution of Resources to Community Partners: An Organizational Ethics Dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest can arise when faculty and staff administer programs that distribute research funds, training opportunities, and other resources across academic and community partners. We describe the ethical concerns encountered by a Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in administering its community-focused pilot grant program and how its Research Bioethics Consultation service helped to address them.Ethical Concerns: CTSA program faculty and staff identified ethical concerns in several areas, including appropriateness of including Regional Research Collaborations (RRC) faculty as principal or co-investigators on applications, determining how much help RRC faculty and staff should provide to prospective applicants, and creating a fair and effective application review process. DISCUSSION: The CTSA program identified common goals and values for its community-focused pilot grant program, and resolved the conflicts of interest with the new pilot grant policies. This approach could generalize to conflicts of interest that arise in other academic-community partnerships.

Oxygen and pulse oximetry in childhood pneumonia: surveys of clinicians and student clinicians in Cambodia.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the availability of oxygen and pulse oximetry, barriers to use, clinician perceptions and practices regarding their role in the management of childhood pneumonia, and the formal education and training regarding these technologies received by student clinicians in Cambodia. METHODS: In the clinician survey, we surveyed 81 clinicians practising at all national paediatric, provincial and district referral hospitals throughout Cambodia. Respondents were primarily physicians whose scope of practice included paediatrics, and most reported the presence of oxygen (93% (95% confidence interval (CI) [87, 98])) but less availability of pulse oximetry (51% (95% CI [39, 61])). RESULTS: Common barriers to use included a lack of policies and guidelines, as well as a lack of training. In the student clinician survey, 332 graduating medical and nursing students were surveyed, and most reported learning about oxygen (96% (95% CI [94, 98])) and pulse oximetry (72% (95% CI [67, 77])) during their training. CONCLUSIONS: Data from both surveys indicate that despite their utility, oxygen and pulse oximetry may be underused in Cambodia. The reported barriers and perceptions of the tools indicate a clear role for improved training for clinicians and students on the use of oxygen and pulse oximetry, the value of oxygen and pulse oximetry for managing childhood pneumonia, and the need for improved policies and guidelines governing their use.