A collaboration team to build social service partnerships within a safety-net health system.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate safety-net healthcare system partnerships with community social service providers, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC DHS) created a new collaboration team to spur cross-agency social and medical referral networks and engage communities affected by health disparities as part of a Sect. 1115 Medicaid waiver in Los Angeles County entitled Whole Person Care-Los Angeles (WPC-LA). METHODS: This observational research reviews three years of collaboration team implementation (2018-2020) through Medicaid-reportable engagement reports, a collaboration team qualitative survey on challenges, facilitators, and recommendations for community engagement. Member reflections for survey findings were conducted with the collaboration team and LAC DHS WPC-LA leadership. RESULTS: Collaboration team Medicaid engagement reports (n = 144) reported > 2,700 events, reaching > 70,000 individuals through cross-agency and community-partnered meetings. The collaboration team survey (n = 9) and member reflection sessions portrayed engagement processes through outreach, service assessments, and facilitation of service partnerships. The collaboration team facilitated community engagement processes through countywide workgroups on justice-system diversion and African American infant and maternal health. Recommendations for future safety net health system engagement processes included assessing health system readiness for community engagement and identifying strategies to build mutually beneficial social service partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated collaboration team allowed for bi-directional knowledge exchange between county services, populations with lived experience, and social services, identifying service gaps and recommendations. Engagement with communities affected by health disparities resulted in health system policy recommendations and changes.

Mechanisms for Community Health Worker Action on Patient-, Institutional-, and Community-Level Barriers to Primary Care in a Safety-Net Setting.

Medically and socially complex patients disproportionately face barriers to primary care, contributing to health inequities and higher health care costs. This study elicited perspectives on how community health workers (CHWs) act upon barriers to primary care in 5 patient (n = 25) and 3 CHW focus groups (n = 17). Participants described how CHWs acted on patient-level barriers through social support, empowerment, and linkages, and system-level barriers by enhancing care team awareness of patient circumstances, optimizing communication, and advocating for equitable treatment. Limitations existed for influencing entrenched community-level barriers. CHWs, focusing on patient preferences, motivators, and circumstances, intervened on multilevel barriers to primary care, including advocacy for equitable treatment. These mechanisms have implications for existing CHW conceptual models.

Community-based organizations' perspectives on improving health and social service integration.

BACKGROUND: Collaborations between health systems and community-based organizations (CBOs) are increasingly common mechanisms to address the unmet health-related social needs of high-risk populations. However, there is limited evidence on how to develop, manage, and sustain these partnerships, and implementation rarely incorporates perspectives of community social service organizations. To address these gaps, we elicited CBOs' perspectives on service delivery for clients, the impact of the Whole Person Care-Los Angeles (WPC-LA) initiative to integrate health and social care, and their suggestions for improving health system partnerships. METHODS: Using stakeholder engaged principles and a qualitative Rapid Assessment Process, we conducted brief surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews with 65 key informants from 36 CBOs working with WPC-LA. RESULTS: Major themes identified by CBOs included: 1) the importance of a holistic, client-centered, continuously engaged approach that is reliant on regional partnerships; 2) benefits of WPC-LA expanding capacity and networks; 3) concerns about communication and redundancy hindering WPC-LA; and 4) a need for more equitable partnerships incorporating their approaches. CONCLUSIONS: CBOs value opportunities for integration with health systems, bring critical expertise to these partnerships, and seek to strengthen cross-sector collaborations. Early, equitable, and inclusive participation in the development and implementation of these partnerships may enhance their effectiveness, but requires policy that prioritizes and incentivizes sustainable and mutually beneficial partnerships.

Defining Team Effort Involved in Patient Care from the Primary Care Physician's Perspective.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the attributes of patients who require more effort to manage may improve risk adjustment approaches and lead to more efficient resource allocation, improved patient care and health outcomes, and reduced burnout in primary care clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize high-effort patients from the physician's perspective. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-nine primary care physicians in an academic primary care network. MAIN MEASURES: From a list of 100 randomly selected patients in their panels, PCPs identified patients who required a high level of team-based effort and patients they considered complex. For high-effort patients, PCPs indicated which factors influenced their decision: medical/care coordination, behavioral health, and/or socioeconomic factors. We examined differences in patient characteristics based on PCP-defined effort and complexity. KEY RESULTS: Among 9594 eligible patients, PCPs classified 2277 (23.7 %) as high-effort and 2676 (27.9 %) as complex. Behavioral health issues were the major driver of effort in younger patients, while medical/care coordination issues predominated in older patients. Compared to low-effort patients, high-effort patients were significantly (P < 0.01 for all) more likely to have higher rates of medical (e.g. 23.2 % vs. 6.3 % for diabetes) and behavioral health problems (e.g. 9.8 % vs. 2.9 % for substance use disorder), more frequent primary care visits (10.9 vs. 6.0 visits), and higher acute care utilization rates (25.8 % vs. 7.7 % for emergency department [ED] visits and 15.0 % vs. 3.9 % for hospitalization). Almost one in five (18 %) patients who were considered high-effort were not deemed complex by the same PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients defined as high-effort by their primary care physicians, not all of whom were medically complex, appear to have a high burden of psychosocial issues that may not be accounted for in current chronic disease-focused risk adjustment approaches.

Targeted Reminder Phone Calls to Patients at High Risk of No-Show for Primary Care Appointment: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No-shows, or missed appointments, are a problem for many medical practices. They result in fragmented care and reduce access for all patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether telephone reminder calls targeted to patients at high risk of no-show can reduce no-show rates. DESIGN: Single-center randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2247 primary care patients in a hospital-based primary care clinic at high risk of no-show (>15 % risk) for their appointment in 7 days. INTERVENTION: Seven days prior to their appointment, intervention arm patients were placed in a calling queue to receive a reminder phone call from a patient service coordinator. Coordinators were trained to engage patients in concrete planning. All patients received an automated phone call (usual care). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was no-show rate. Secondary outcomes included arrival rate, cancellation rate, reschedule rate, time to cancellation, and change in revenue. KEY RESULTS: The no-show rate in the intervention arm (22.8 %) was significantly lower (absolute risk difference -6.4 %, p < 0.01, 95 % CI [-9.8 to -3.0 %]) than that in the control arm (29.2 %). Arrival, cancellation, and reschedule rates did not differ significantly. In the intervention arm, rescheduling and cancellations occurred further in advance of the appointment (mean difference, 0.35 days; 95 % CI [0.07-0.64]; p = 0.01). Reimbursement did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: A phone call 7 days prior to an appointment led to a significant reduction in no-shows and increased reimbursement among patients at high risk of no-show. The use of targeted interventions may be of interest to practices taking on increased accountability for population health.

Implementing a hybrid approach to select patients for care management: variations across practices.

OBJECTIVES: Appropriate selection of patients is key to the success of care management programs (CMPs). Hybrid patient selection approaches, in which large data assets are culled to develop a list of patients for more targeted clinical review, are increasingly common. We sought to describe the patient and practice characteristics associated with high-risk patient identification and selection for a CMP during clinical review, and to explore variation across primary care practices. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Standardized estimates of Medicare beneficiaries identified as high risk for poor outcomes and high medical expense, and appropriate for a CMP within a large Pioneer Accountable Care Organization, were developed using mixed effects logistic models. Study subjects were 2685 Medicare beneficiaries aged over 18 (includes individuals eligible for Medicare due to a disability) aligned to 35 primary care practices in 2013. RESULTS: Independent predictors of patient identification as high risk include older age; higher risk score; recent increases in medical conditions; higher numbers of medical hospitalizations, skilled nursing facility days, and primary care physician visits; and shorter relationships with the primary care physician. Older age, and lower income, but no prior hospice use were independently associated with patient selection for a CMP among the subset of patients identified as being high risk. Adjusted predicted percents of high-risk patients varied significantly across practices overall and for 5 of the 6 patient characteristics that were independently associated with identification as high risk. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistency in high-risk patient identification and selection for a CMP may reflect differences in practice resources, but also highlight the need for continual training and feedback in order to protect against unintentional biases.

Addressing basic resource needs to improve primary care quality: a community collaboration programme.

BACKGROUND: Unmet basic resource needs, such as difficulty affording healthcare, medications, food and housing, may contribute to worse healthcare quality indicators, but interventions are hampered by lack of specific knowledge regarding the distribution of unmet basic resource needs and their association with priority clinical conditions and health service use patterns. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of primary care patients in two urban academic practices from 1 October 2013 to 30 April 2014. Patients were screened for unmet needs and enrolled in a programme to link them with community resources. Key measures included patient report of unmet basic resource needs, clinical conditions prioritised by quality improvement programmes (hypertension, diabetes and depression), and health service use patterns such as frequent emergency department (ED) visits (>2 in the preceding year) and frequent clinic 'no-shows' (>1 in the preceding year). RESULTS: 416 patients with unmet needs were included, and compared with 2750 patients who did not report needs. The most common types of needs reported were: difficulties affording healthcare (46.5%), food (40.1%) and utilities (36.3%). Patients who reported unmet needs were more likely to have depression (17.8% vs 9.5%, p<0.0001), diabetes (32.7% vs 20.4%, p<0.0001), hypertension (54.3% vs 46.3%, p=0.002), be frequent ED users (11.3% vs 5.4%, p<0.0001), and have frequent 'no-shows' to clinic (21.6% vs 11.9%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Difficulty affording healthcare and food are particularly common needs among patients with priority conditions. Strategies to identify and address unmet needs as part of routine care may be an important way to improve healthcare quality.

Clinician considerations when selecting high-risk patients for care management.

OBJECTIVES: Hybrid approaches to case finding show promise as a method to increase the success of care management programs (CMPs). A large healthcare system implemented a hybrid approach in which clinicians review algorithm-generated lists of potential high-risk patients within their practice and select the patients most appropriate for the CMP. We sought to understand the criteria clinicians used when selecting patients. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of primary care clinicians and their care managers from a diverse set of practices. METHODS: Two independent reviewers thematically coded interview responses through an iterative process. RESULTS: In addition to clinical need (eg, disease severity or multiple comorbidities), interviewees considered a number of nonclinical patient characteristics that they felt placed patients at risk for suboptimal healthcare utilization and poor adherence. These include patients' predisposing (eg, health literacy or navigation challenges, physical vulnerabilities, insight regarding their health) and enabling characteristics (eg, social and home environment, coping skills, financial resources). Interviewees also considered patients' existing linkages with the health system and whether other clinicians were already meeting a patient's care needs. CONCLUSIONS: In selecting patients for a CMP, clinicians considered patient characteristics that are not easily captured in standard clinical and administrative data. A hybrid approach to case finding concentrates clinician review on patients who meet standard clinical and healthcare utilization criteria, and allows clinicians to incorporate knowledge of patients' predisposing and enabling characteristics that are not readily maintained in clinical data.

Evaluating a Model to Predict Primary Care Physician-Defined Complexity in a Large Academic Primary Care Practice-Based Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Improving the ability to risk-stratify patients is critical for efficiently allocating resources within healthcare systems. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a physician-defined complexity prediction model against outpatient Charlson score (OCS) and a commercial risk predictor (CRP). DESIGN: Using a cohort in which primary care physicians reviewed 4302 of their adult patients, we developed a predictive model for estimated physician-defined complexity (ePDC) and categorized our population using ePDC, OCS and CRP. PARTICIPANTS: 143,372 primary care patients in a practice-based research network participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES: For all patients categorized as complex in 2007 by one or more risk-stratification method, we calculated the percentage of total person time from 2008-2011 for which eligible cancer screening was incomplete, HbA1c was ≥ 9 %, and LDL was ≥ 130 mg/dl (in patients with cardiovascular disease). We also calculated the number of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions per person year (ppy). KEY RESULTS: There was modest agreement among individuals classified as complex using ePDC compared with OCS (36.7 %) and CRP (39.6 %). Over 4 follow-up years, eligible ePDC-complex patients had higher proportions (p < 0.001) of time with: incomplete cervical (17.8 % vs. 13.3 % for OCS; 19.4 % vs. 11.2 % for CRP), breast (21.4 % vs. 14.9 % for OCS; 22.7 % vs. 15.0 % for CRP), and colon (25.9 % vs. 18.7 % for OCS; 27.0 % vs. 18.2 % for CRP) cancer screening; HbA1c ≥ 9 % (15.6 % vs. 8.1 % for OCS; 15.9 % vs. 6.9 % for CRP); and LDL ≥ 130 mg/dl (12.4 % vs. 7.9 % for OCS; 11.8 % vs 9.0 % for CRP). ePDC-complex patients had higher rates (p < 0.003) of: ED visits (0.21 vs. 0.11 ppy for OCS; 0.17 vs. 0.15 ppy for CRP), and admissions in patients 45-64 and ≥ 65 years old (0.11 vs. 0.10 ppy AND 0.24 vs. 0.21 ppy for OCS). CONCLUSION: Our measure for estimated physician-defined complexity compared favorably to commonly used risk-prediction approaches in identifying future suboptimal quality and utilization outcomes.

Appointment "no-shows" are an independent predictor of subsequent quality of care and resource utilization outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Identifying individuals at high risk for suboptimal outcomes is an important goal of healthcare delivery systems. Appointment no-shows may be an important risk predictor. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that patients with a high propensity to "no-show" for appointments will have worse clinical and acute care utilization outcomes compared to patients with a lower propensity. DESIGN: We calculated the no-show propensity factor (NSPF) for patients of a large academic primary care network using 5 years of outpatient appointment data. NSPF corrects for patients with fewer appointments to avoid over-weighting of no-show visits in such patients. We divided patients into three NSPF risk groups and evaluated the association between NSPF and clinical and acute care utilization outcomes after adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 140,947 patients who visited a network practice from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009, and were either connected to a primary care physician or to a primary care practice, based on a previously validated algorithm. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were incomplete colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening, and above-goal hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels at 1-year follow-up, and hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the subsequent 3 years. KEY RESULTS: Compared to patients in the low NSPF group, patients in the high NSPF group (n=14,081) were significantly more likely to have incomplete preventive cancer screening (aOR 2.41 [2.19-.66] for colorectal, aOR 1.85 [1.65-.08] for cervical, aOR 2.93 [2.62-3.28] for breast cancer), above-goal chronic disease control measures (aOR 2.64 [2.22-3.14] for HbA1c, aOR 1.39 [1.15-1.67] for LDL], and increased rates of acute care utilization (aRR 1.37 [1.31-1.44] for hospitalization, aRR 1.39 [1.35-1.43] for emergency department visits). CONCLUSIONS: NSPF is an independent predictor of suboptimal primary care outcomes and acute care utilization. NSPF may play an important role in helping healthcare systems identify high-risk patients.

Development and preliminary testing of the health in community survey.

OBJECTIVES: Develop and pilot test the Health in Community Survey (HCS), to collect patients' perceptions of care integration between traditional care providers and community-based services that address social determinants of health. RESEARCH DESIGN: Interviews of working-age, English-or Spanish-speaking patients with multiple chronic conditions to identify survey domains; cognitive interviews and pilot test of HCS Version 1. RESULTS: Preliminary interview subjects identified diverse care concerns. From these findings, we designed six HCS domains. Cognitive interviews identified problems relating to patients' perceptions about limited function and disability. Nearly one-third of pilot test subjects reported they did not definitely have enough resources for food, transportation, doctor and hospital bills, and medications; 41.6% said their clinicians only sometimes or never knew about their resource problems. CONCLUSIONS: Although it requires further validation, the HCS offers insights into patients' perceptions of care integration between traditional health care providers and services addressing social determinants of health.

Caring for high-need, high-cost patients: what makes for a successful care management program?

Provider groups taking on risk for the overall costs of care in accountable care organizations are developing care management programs to improve care and thereby control costs. Many such programs target "high-need, high-cost" patients: those with multiple or complex conditions, often combined with behavioral health problems or socioeconomic challenges. In this study we compared the operational approaches of 18 successful complex care management programs in order to offer guidance to providers, payers, and policymakers on best practices for complex care management. We found that effective programs customize their approach to their local contexts and caseloads; use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to identify patients; consider care coordination one of their key roles; focus on building trusting relationships with patients as well as their primary care providers; match team composition and interventions to patient needs; offer specialized training for team members; and use technology to bolster their efforts.

Limited English proficient patients and time spent in therapeutic range in a warfarin anticoagulation clinic.

BACKGROUND: While anticoagulation clinics have been shown to deliver tailored, high-quality care to patients receiving warfarin therapy, communication barriers with limited English proficient (LEP) patients may lead to disparities in anticoagulation outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data on 3770 patients receiving care from the Massachusetts General Hospital Anticoagulation Management Service (AMS) from 2009 to 2010. This included data on international normalized ratio (INR) tests and patient characteristics, including language and whether AMS used a surrogate for primary communication. We calculated percent time in therapeutic range (TTR for INR between 2.0 and 3.0) and time in danger range (TDR for INR <1.8 or >3.5) using the standard Rosendaal interpolation method. There were 241 LEP patients; LEP patients, compared with non-LEP patients, had a higher number of comorbidities (3.2 versus 2.9 comorbidities, P=0.004), were more frequently uninsured (17.0% versus 4.3%, P<0.001), and less educated (47.7% versus 6.0% ≤high school education, P<0.001). LEP patients compared with non-LEP patients spent less TTR (71.6% versus 74.0%, P=0.007) and more TDR (12.9% versus 11.3%, P=0.018). In adjusted analyses, LEP patients had lower TTR as compared with non-LEP patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.1, 2.2]). LEP patients who used a communication surrogate spent less TTR and more TDR. CONCLUSION: Even within a large anticoagulation clinic with a high average TTR, a small but significant decrease in TTR was observed for LEP patients compared with English speakers. Future studies are warranted to explore how the use of professional interpreters impact TTR for LEP patients.

Neighborhood incarceration rate and asthma prevalence in New York City: a multilevel approach.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the association between neighborhood incarceration rate and asthma prevalence and morbidity among New York City adults. METHODS: We used multilevel modeling techniques and data from the New York City Community Health Survey (2004) to analyze the association between neighborhood incarceration rate and asthma prevalence, adjusting for individual-level sociodemographic, behavioral, and environmental characteristics. We examined interactions between neighborhood incarceration rate, respondent incarceration history, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The mean neighborhood rate of incarceration was 5.4% (range = 2.1%-12.8%). Neighborhood incarceration rate was associated with individual-level asthma prevalence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03, 1.10) in unadjusted models but not after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.98, 1.04). This association did not differ according to respondent race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Among New York City adults, the association between neighborhood incarceration rate and asthma prevalence is explained by the sociodemographic composition of neighborhoods and disparities in asthma prevalence at the individual level. Public health practitioners should further engage with criminal justice professionals and correctional health care providers to target asthma outreach efforts toward both correctional facilities and neighborhoods with high rates of incarceration.

Engaging individuals recently released from prison into primary care: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Individuals released from prison have high rates of chronic conditions but minimal engagement in primary care. We compared 2 interventions designed to improve primary care engagement and reduce acute care utilization: Transitions Clinic, a primary care-based care management program with a community health worker, versus expedited primary care. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial from 2007 to 2009 among 200 recently released prisoners who had a chronic medical condition or were older than 50 years. We abstracted 12-month outcomes from an electronic repository available from the safety-net health care system. Main outcomes were (1) primary care utilization (2 or more visits to the assigned primary care clinic) and (2) emergency department (ED) utilization (the proportion of participants making any ED visit). RESULTS: Both groups had similar rates of primary care utilization (37.7% vs 47.1%; P = .18). Transitions Clinic participants had lower rates of ED utilization (25.5% vs 39.2%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Chronically ill patients leaving prison will engage in primary care if provided early access. The addition of a primary care-based care management program tailored for returning prisoners reduces ED utilization over expedited primary care.