Frequency of newborn bathing in the first 9 weeks of life and related factors: An observational study in a community-based sample from Meta-LARC.

PURPOSE: Environmental factors such as bathing may play a role in atopic dermatitis (AD) development. This analysis utilized data from the Community Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE) Trial (NCT03409367), a randomized controlled trial of emollient therapy for AD prevention in the general population, to estimate bathing frequency and associated factors within the first 9 weeks of life. METHODS: Data were collected from 909 parent/newborn dyads recruited from 25 pediatric and family medicine clinics from the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC) practice-based research network (PBRN) consortium in Oregon, North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin for the CASCADE trial. Ordinal logistic regression was used to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the association between bathing frequency (measured in baths per week) and demographic, medical, and lifestyle information about the infant, their family, and their household. Variables were selected using a backwards-stepwise method and estimates from the reduced model are reported in the text. RESULTS: Moisturizer use (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.54-2.68), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.42-2.72), a parental education level lower than a 4-year college degree (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.70-3.62), living in North Carolina or Wisconsin (compared to Oregon; OR = 2.12 and 1.47, 95% CI: 1.53-2.93 and 1.04-2.08, respectively), and increasing child age (in days; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02) were significantly associated with more frequent bathing, while pet ownership (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52-0.87) was significantly associated with less frequent bathing. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic variation in bathing frequency before 9 weeks of age that may be of relevance to AD prevention studies.

Prognostic Indices for Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient identification is an important step for advance care planning (ACP) discussions. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a scoping review to identify prognostic indices potentially useful for initiating ACP. METHODS: We included studies that developed and/or validated a multivariable prognostic index for all-cause mortality between 6 months and 5 years in community-dwelling adults. PubMed was searched in October 2018 for articles meeting our search criteria. If a systematic review was identified from the search, we checked for additional eligible articles in its references. We abstracted data on population studied, discrimination, calibration, where to find the index, and variables included. Each index was further assessed for clinical usability. RESULTS: We identified 18 articles with a total of 17 unique prognostic indices after screening 9154 titles. The majority of indices (88%) had c-statistics greater than or equal to 0.70. Only 1 index was externally validated. Ten indices, 8 developed in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom, were considered clinically usable. CONCLUSION: Of the 17 unique prognostic indices, 10 may be useful for implementation in the primary care setting to identify patients who may benefit from ACP discussions. An index classified as "clinically usable" may not be easy to use because of a large number of variables that are not routinely collected and the need to program the index into the electronic medical record.

Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Team-Based to Clinician-Focused Implementation of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care.

Introduction: For many patients, primary care is an appropriate setting for advance care planning (ACP). ACP focuses on what matters most to patients and ensuring health care supports patient-defined goals. ACP may involve interactions between a clinician and a patient, but for seriously ill patients ACP could be managed by a team. Methods: We are conducting a cluster randomized trial comparing team-based to clinician-focused ACP using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in 42 practices recruited from 7 practice-based research networks (PBRNs). Practices were randomized to one of the two models. Patients are referred to the study after engaging in ACP in primary care. Our target enrollment is 1260 subjects. Patient data are collected at enrollment, six months and one year. Primary outcomes are patient-reported goal-concordant care and days at home. Secondary outcomes include additional patient measures, clinician/team experience, and practice-level measures of SICP implementation. Study Implementation: This trial was designed and is conducted by the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC), a consortium of PBRNs focused on integrating engagement with patients, families, and other stakeholders into primary care research and practice. The trial pairs a comparative effectiveness study with implementation of a new program and is designed to balance fidelity to the assigned model with flexibility to allow each practice to adapt implementation to their environment and priorities. Our dissemination will report the results of comparing the two models and the implementation experience of the practices to create guidance for the spread of ACP in primary care.

Quality of Colonoscopy Performed in Rural Practice: Experience From the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative and the Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network.

PURPOSE: Colon cancer screening is effective. To complete screening in 80% of individuals over age 50 years by 2018 will require adequate colonoscopy capacity throughout the country, including rural areas, where colonoscopy providers may have less specialized training. Our aim was to study the quality of colonoscopy in rural settings. METHODS: The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) collaborated to recruit Oregon rural practices to submit colonoscopy reports to CORI's National Endoscopic Database (NED). Ten ORPRN sites were compared to non-ORPRN rural (n = 11) and nonrural (n = 43) sites between January 2009 and October 2011. Established colonoscopy quality measures were calculated for all sites. RESULTS: No ORPRN physicians were gastroenterologists compared with 82% of nonrural physicians. ORPRN practices reached the cecum in 87.4% of exams compared with 89.3% of rural sites (P = .0002) and 90.9% of nonrural sites (P < .0001). Resected polyps were less likely to be retrieved (84.7% vs 91.6%; P < .0001) and sent to pathology (77.1% vs 91.3%; P < .0001) at ORPRN practices compared to nonrural sites. The overall polyp detection (39.0% vs 40.3%) was similar (P = .217) between ORPRN and nonrural practices. Of exams with polyps, the rate for largest polyp on exam 6-9 mm was 20.8% at ORPRN sites, compared to 26.8% at nonrural sites (P < .0001), and for polyps >9mm 16.6% vs 18.7% (P = .106). CONCLUSION: ORPRN sites performed well on most colonoscopy quality measures, suggesting that high-quality colonoscopy can be performed in rural settings.

Impact of a Boot Camp Translation Intervention on Self-Management Support in Primary Care: A Report From the INSTTEPP Trial and Meta-LARC Consortium.

PURPOSE: Self-management support (SMS) is a pillar of the well-established chronic care model and a key component of improving outcomes for patients with chronic illnesses. The Implementing Networks' Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) trial sought to determine whether a boot camp translation process could assist small to medium-sized primary care practices with care managers implement SMS tools. METHODS: INSTTEPP used a stepped-wedge design across 16 practices from 4 practice-based research networks over 12 months. Each network completed a 2-month boot camp translation for creating SMS tools with 16 participants (2 patients, a clinician, and a care manager from each of 4 practices) and subsequent implementation. Outcome measures for patients were the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), self-rated health, and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) process-of-care items at baseline, 1 and 2 months. Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) and theory of planned behavior outcomes were assessed at 5 points over 10 months for clinicians and staff. RESULTS: A total of 297 patients and 89 practice staff and clinicians completed surveys during the study. Over successive 2-month sampling periods, intervention patients experienced greater improvement in PACIC process of care and self-rated health compared to control patients (P<0.0001 and P=0.0273, respectively). PAM (P=0.3515), CS-PAM (P=0.7464), and theory of planned behavior outcomes (P>0.10 for all) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Significant effects on process of care and self-rated health are evidence that the boot camp translation intervention impacted SMS. A larger trial with a typical 6-month boot camp intervention may show significant effects on other outcomes.

Implementing Community-Created Self-Management Support Tools in Primary Care Practices: Multimethod Analysis From the INSTTEPP Study.

PURPOSE: With one-half of Americans projected to be living with at least one chronic condition before 2020, enhancing patient self-management support (SMS) may improve health-related behaviors and clinical outcomes. Routine SMS implementation in primary care settings is difficult. Little is known about the practice conditions required for successful implementation of SMS tools. METHODS: Four primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) recruited 16 practices to participate in a boot camp translation process to adapt patient-centered SMS tools. Boot camp translation sessions were held over a 2-month period with 2 patients, a clinician, and a care manager from each practice. Qualitative case comparison and qualitative comparative analysis were used to examine practice conditions needed to implement SMS tools. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Four different practice conditions affected the implementation of new SMS tools: functional practice organization; system that enables innovation and change; presence of a visible, activated champion; and synergy and alignment of SMS changes with other work. Qualitative comparative analysis suggested that it was necessary to have an enabling system, a visible champion, and synergy for a practice to at least minimally implement the SMS tools. Sufficiency testing, however, failed to show robust consistency to satisfactorily explain conditions required to implement new SMS tools. CONCLUSIONS: To implement tailored self-management support tools relatively rapidly, the minimum necessary conditions include a system that enables innovation and change, presence of a visible champion, and alignment of SMS changes with other work; yet, these alone are insufficient to ensure successful implementation.

How to Translate Self-Management Support Tools Into Clinical Practice: A Report From the INSTTEPP Trial and Meta-LARC Consortium.

PURPOSE: Patient self-management is an inevitable part of the work of being a patient, and self-management support (SMS) has become increasingly important in chronic disease management. However, the majority of SMS resources available in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality SMS Resource Library were developed without explicit collaboration between clinicians and patients. METHODS: Translation of SMS tools derived from the library into primary care practices occurred utilizing boot camp translation in four different practice-based research networks (PBRNs). The typical model of boot camp translation was adapted for the purpose of the Implementing Networks' Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) study to develop SMS tools for implementation in the participating practices. Clinicians, clinic staff members, and patients were involved throughout the translation process. Existing resources from the SMS library were reviewed and adapted by each boot camp translation group to create tools unique to the patients in each network. RESULTS: There was no preexisting resource within the library that was deemed suitable for implementation without modification. Each network adapted tools from the SMS library to create different products. Common themes emerged from each network's translation process that highlighted the importance of patient engagement in the translation process. Boot camp translation, in conjunction with PBRNs, can be implemented to adapt SMS tools for implementation in member practices. CONCLUSIONS: Boot camp translation with a combination of practices and patients can be implemented to facilitate a process of local adaptation that improves the local applicability of SMS tools in primary care clinics.

Adapting Boot Camp Translation Methods to Engage Clinician/Patient Research Teams Within Practice-Based Research Networks: A Report From the INSTTEPP Trial and Meta-LARC Consortium.

PURPOSE: Boot camp translation is a proven process to engage community members and health professionals in translating and disseminating evidence-based "best practices" models for health prevention and chronic illness care. Primary care practice improvement studies, particularly involving patient-driven change, as seen with self-management support (SMS), require engaged practice teams that include patients. Models of engagement such as boot camp translation may be effective. METHODS: Four geographically dispersed practice-based research networks (PBRNs) from the Meta-LARC consortium engaged 16 practices to form SMS implementation teams involving a clinician, care manager, and 2 patients in each team. Our study adapted the boot camp translation model to engage the implementation teams in describing patient SMS, studying the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's SMS Resource Library, and adapting and implementing self-management tools at each practice site. Testimonials and quotes were collected across the 4 PBRNs through a facilitated brainstorming discussion and consensus model at each PBRN kickoff meeting to address the focused question, "What do patients want and need in order to self-manage their chronic illnesses?" RESULTS: Testimonials collected across the 4 PBRNs and participation levels indicated there was a high degree of engagement in the boot camp translation process across the PBRNs and the practices. Each PBRN developed themes expressed by patients and the practices regarding what patients want and need to self-manage their illnesses. Each practice selected, adapted, and implemented an SMS tool. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that adapted boot camp translation was effective in guiding multiple practices to implement self-management support tools for the INSTTEPP trial. Additional study of the adapted boot camp translation process in practice quality improvement and practice redesign studies is needed.

Practice-Based Research Networks Ceding to a Single Institutional Review Board: A Report From the INSTTEPP Trial and Meta-LARC Consortium.

Historically, a single research project involving numerous practice-based research networks (PBRNs) required multiple institutional review boards (IRBs) to be involved in approval of the project. However, to avoid redundancies, federal IRB regulations now allow cooperative research projects that involve more than one institution to use reasonable methods of cooperative IRB review and to cede authority for review and oversight of the project to a single lead IRB. Through ceding, a lead IRB has the authority for review and oversight of the project delegated by all participating sites' IRBs and becomes the IRB of record for the ceded sites. In the conduct of cooperative research projects, each institution or primary care office site is still responsible for safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects and for complying with applicable regulations. The purpose of this report is to delineate the process, including cooperation and effort of personnel, for accomplishing IRB approval for the Implementing Networks' Self-management Tools Through Engaging Patients and Practices (INSTTEPP) clinical trial. This process involved 4 PBRNs, 16 family physician offices, 4 academic institution's IRBs, and 4 family practice office external IRBs ceding to the lead IRB. Once ceding was accomplished, subsequent IRB modifications and continuing reviews were the responsibility of the lead IRB, ultimately saving time for all participants and keeping the project on schedule.

Acid-related upper endoscopy findings in patients with diabetes versus non-diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between diabetes, GERD symptoms and acid-related mucosal damage has not been well studied. AIMS: To better quantify risk of acid-related mucosal damage among patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: A prospective study using 10 sites from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI) National Endoscopy Database surveyed patients undergoing EGD by telephone within 30 days on medical history, symptoms and demographics. Varices and feeding tube indications were excluded. Acid-related damage was defined as any of these findings recorded in CORI: Barrett's esophagus; esophageal inflammation (unless non-acid-related etiology); healed ulcer, duodenal, gastric or esophageal ulcer; stricture; and mucosal abnormality with erosion or ulcer. RESULTS: Of 1,569 patients, 16% had diabetes, 95% being type 2. Diabetic patients were significantly more likely to be male, older and have a higher body mass index, and less likely to report frequent heartburn and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. No significant differences were found in acid reflux and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use between groups. In unadjusted analyses, diabetic patients had a similar risk for acid-related damage than non-diabetic patients (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.42) which persisted after adjusting for gender, age, acid reflux, acid indication and PPI use (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.39). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in risk of acid-related mucosal damage was found, even after adjustment for potential confounders. Our data do not support the need for a lower threshold to perform endoscopy in diabetic patients.