Codesigning Online Continuing Medical Education on Social Health Integration and Social Risk-Informed Care for Primary Care Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Adapting clinical care decisions for patient-reported social risks is essential to social health integration and patient-centered care. Most research in this area focuses on awareness and assistance (social-needs-targeted care), such as screening and referral to food, financial, and other resources. Limited evidence for adjustment strategies (social risk-informed care) or adapting care for social risks made it difficult for Kaiser Permanente to implement new initiatives. This article describes a codesign process to build a novel, adjustment-focused continuing medical education course. METHODS: The authors codeveloped the online continuing medical education course with patients and clinicians using user-centered design. Transcripts from codesign activities were coded and analyzed by thematic analysis to identify major themes, including perceptions of social risk-informed care and barriers to care adjustment. RESULTS: Practical hurdles for implementing social risk-informed care emerged, including clinicians' concerns about the ethics of adjustment as substandard care, particularly without robust assistance activities. However, patients expressed a desire for their care to be adapted to their social circumstances, to allow for more realistic care plans. DISCUSSION: Implementation barriers identified from the codesign were addressed through an interactive, case-study approach. Existing evidence on contextualized care and shared decision making informed a general framework for primary care providers to engage in awareness and adjustment activities, paired with 3 interactive case studies based on real-world, clinician-supplied scenarios. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend that multiple stakeholder perspectives be incorporated during the development of social health integration initiatives, particularly adjustment. Education complemented by active, nuanced, flexible implementation strategies may be necessary for the successful uptake of care-delivery-based social health integration activities.

Assessing the Feasibility of an Empathic Inquiry Approach to Social Needs Screening in 10 Federally Qualified Health Centers.

OBJECTIVES: Despite an increasing emphasis from health care organizations on patients' social health, there is debate about how best to screen patients for social health needs in practice. Empathic Inquiry is a patient-centered approach to asking about patients' social needs that incorporates motivational interviewing and trauma-informed care techniques to increase patient experience of trustworthiness and safety with their care teams. The purpose of this brief report is to describe the feasibility and acceptability of implementing an Empathic Inquiry-informed approach to social needs screening in 10 federally qualified health centers. METHODS: Clinical staff at community health centers implemented Empathic Inquiry as part of an 8-month learning collaborative. Patients completed surveys about their experience with Empathic Inquiry after screening conversations took place. Qualitative data on organizational implementation experience were collected monthly during 2018. FINDINGS: Eight of 10 organizations completed the learning collaborative and implemented Empathic Inquiry in practice. Of 132 patient surveys received, patients agreed (64% strongly agree, 28% somewhat agree) that being screened for social needs strengthened their relationship with their care team and 83% strongly agreed the conversation was a good use of time. Most patients (54%) indicated social health screening was appropriate at every visit, and 27% answered once every 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The Empathic Inquiry approach to understanding patients' social needs was feasible for implementation in community settings. Patients said the conversations were worthwhile, built trust with their care teams, and should be conducted every 6 months or more frequently.

Pragmatic Randomized Study of Targeted Text Message Reminders to Reduce Missed Clinic Visits.

INTRODUCTION: Missed clinic appointments ("no-shows") waste health system resources, decrease physician availability, and may worsen patient outcomes. Appointment reminders reduce no-shows, though evidence on the optimal number of reminders is limited and sending multiple reminders for every visit is costly. Risk prediction models can be used to target reminders for visits that are likely to be missed. METHODS: We conducted a randomized quality improvement project at Kaiser Permanente Washington among patients with primary care and mental health visits with a high no-show risk comparing the effect of one text message reminder (sent 2 business days prior to the appointment) with 2 text message reminders (sent 2 and 3 days prior) on no-shows and same-day cancellations. We estimated the relative risk (RR) of an additional reminder using G-computation with logistic regression adjusted for no-show risk. RESULTS: Between February 27, 2019 and September 23, 2019, a total of 125,076 primary care visits and 33,593 mental health visits were randomized to either 1 or 2 text message reminders. For primary care visits, an additional text message reduced the chance of no-show by 7% (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.96) and same-day cancellations by 6% (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98). In mental health visits, an additional text message reduced the chance of no-show by 11% (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.86-0.93) but did not impact same-day cancellations (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.11). We did not find effect modification among subgroups defined by visit or patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Study findings indicate that using a prediction model to target reminders may reduce no-shows and spend health care resources more efficiently.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance. RESULTS: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA. CONCLUSION: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.