A Web-Based Peer Support Network to Help Care Partners of People With Serious Illness: Co-Design Study.

BACKGROUND: Care partners of people with serious illness experience significant challenges and unmet needs during the patient's treatment period and after their death. Learning from others with shared experiences can be valuable, but opportunities are not consistently available. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to design and prototype a regional, facilitated, and web-based peer support network to help active and bereaved care partners of persons with serious illness be better prepared to cope with the surprises that arise during serious illness and in bereavement. METHODS: An 18-member co-design team included active care partners and those in bereavement, people who had experienced serious illness, regional health care and support partners, and clinicians. It was guided by facilitators and peer network subject-matter experts. We conducted design exercises to identify the functions and specifications of a peer support network. Co-design members independently prioritized network specifications, which were incorporated into an early iteration of the web-based network. RESULTS: The team prioritized two functions: (1) connecting care partners to information and (2) facilitating emotional support. The design process generated 24 potential network specifications to support these functions. The highest priorities included providing a supportive and respectful community; connecting people to trusted resources; reducing barriers to asking for help; and providing frequently asked questions and responses. The network platform had to be simple and intuitive, provide technical support for users, protect member privacy, provide publicly available information and a private discussion forum, and be easily accessible. It was feasible to enroll members in the ConnectShareCare web-based network over a 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: A co-design process supported the identification of critical features of a peer support network for care partners of people with serious illnesses in a rural setting, as well as initial testing and use. Further testing is underway to assess the long-term viability and impact of the network.

Women's experiences of maternity care in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic: A follow-up systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Maternity care services in the United Kingdom have undergone drastic changes due to pandemic-related restrictions. Prior research has shown maternity care during the pandemic was negatively experienced by women and led to poor physical and mental health outcomes in pregnancy. A synthesis is required of published research on women's experiences of maternity care during the latter half of the COVID-19 pandemic. AIM: To update a previous systematic review of maternity care experiences during the pandemic to June 2021, exploring experiences of maternity care specifically within the United Kingdom and how they may have changed, in order to inform future maternity services. METHODS: A systematic review of qualitative literature was conducted using comprehensive searches of five electronic databases and the Cochrane COVID Study Register, published between 1 June 2021 and 13 October 2022, and further updated to 30 September 2023. Thematic Synthesis was utilised for data synthesis. FINDINGS: Of 21,860 records identified, 27 studies were identified for inclusion. Findings included 14 descriptive themes across the five core concepts: (1)Care-seeking and experience; (2)Virtual care; (3)Self-monitoring; (4)COVID-19 vaccination; (5)Ethical future of maternity care. DISCUSSION: Our findings in the UK are consistent with those globally, and extend those of the previous systematic review, particularly about women's perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest the following are important to women for future maternity care: personalisation and inclusiveness; clear and evidence-based communication to facilitate informed decision-making; and achieving balance between social commitments and time spent settling into motherhood.

The Cystic Fibrosis Learning Network: A mixed methods evaluation of program goals, attributes, and impact.

Introduction: The Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Foundation sponsored the design, pilot testing, and implementation of the CF Learning Network (CFLN) to explore how the Foundation's Care Center Network (CCN) could become a learning health system. Six years after the design, the Foundation commissioned a formative mixed methods evaluation of the CFLN to assess: CFLN participants' understanding of program goals, attributes, and perceptions of current and future impact. Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with CFLN participants to identify perceived goals, attributes, and impact of the network. Following thematic analyses, we developed and distributed a survey to CFLN members and a matched sample of CCN programs to understand whether the themes were unique to the CFLN. Results: Interviews with 24 CFLN participants were conducted. Interviewees identified the primary CFLN goal as improving outcomes for people living with CF, with secondary goals of providing training in quality improvement (QI), creating a learning community, engaging all stakeholders in improvement, and spreading best practices to the CCN. Project management, use of data, common QI methods, and the learning community were seen as critical to success. Survey responses were collected from 103 CFLN members and 25 CCN members. The data revealed that CFLN respondents were more likely than CCN respondents to connect with other CF programs, routinely use data for QI, and engage patient and family partners in QI. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the CFLN provides value beyond that achieved by the CCN. Key questions remain about whether spread of the CFLN could improve outcomes for more people living with CF.

"It helps us say what's important..." Developing Serious Illness Topics: A clinical visit agenda-setting tool.

BACKGROUND: Skillful communication with attention to patient and care partner priorities can help people with serious illnesses. Few patient-facing agenda-setting tools exist to facilitate such communication. OBJECTIVE: To develop a tool to facilitate prioritization of patient and care partner concerns during serious illness visits. PATIENT OR FAMILY INVOLVEMENT: Two family members of seriously ill individuals advised. METHODS: We performed a literature review and developed a prototype agenda-setting tool. We modified the tool based on cognitive interviews with patients, families and clinicians. We piloted the tool with patients, care partners and clinicians to gain an initial impression of its perceived value. RESULTS: Interviews with eight patients, eight care partners and seven clinicians, resulted in refinements to the initial tool, including supplementation with visual cues. In the pilot test, seven clinicians used the tool with 11 patients and 12 family members. Qualitatively, patients and care partners reported the guide helped them consider and assert their priorities. Clinicians reported the tool complemented usual practice. Most participants reported no distress, disruption or confusion. DISCUSSION: Patients, care partners and clinicians appreciated centering patient priorities in serious illness visits using the agenda-setting tool. More thorough evaluation is required. PRACTICAL VALUE: The agenda-setting tool may operationalize elements of good serious illness care.

Harnessing the Collective Expertise of Patients, Care Partners, Clinical Teams, and Researchers Through a Coproduction Learning Health System: A Case Study of the Dartmouth Health Promise Partnership.

The coproduction learning health system (CLHS) model extends the definition of a learning health system to explicitly bring together patients and care partners, health care teams, administrators, and scientists to share the work of optimizing health outcomes, improving care value, and generating new knowledge. The CLHS model highlights a partnership for coproduction that is supported by data that can be used to support individual patient care, quality improvement, and research. We provide a case study that describes the application of this model to transform care within an oncology program at an academic medical center.

Enhancing Care Partnerships Using a Rheumatology Dashboard: Bringing Together What Matters Most to Both Patients and Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: Dashboards can support person-centered care by helping people partner with their clinicians to coproduce care based on preferences, shared decision-making, and evidence-based treatments. We engaged caregivers of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and clinicians in a pilot study to assess their experiences and the utility and impact of an electronic previsit questionnaire and point-of-care dashboard to support coproduction of rheumatology care. METHODS: We employed a mixed-methods design to assess users' perceptions of a customized electronic health record rheumatology module at four pediatric rheumatology practices and two adult rheumatology practices. We surveyed a convenience sample of caregivers of children with JIA (n = 113), adults with RA (n = 116), and clinicians (n = 12). We conducted semistructured interviews with 13 caregivers and patients and six care teams. Experiences were evaluated using descriptive statistics and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Caregivers of children with JIA and adults with RA reported the dashboards were useful during discussions (88%) and helped them talk about what mattered most (82%), make health care decisions (83%), and create a treatment plan (77%). Clinicians provided similar feedback. Two-thirds (67%) of caregivers and adults and 55% of clinicians would recommend the dashboard to peers. System usability scores (77.1 ± 15.6) were above average. Dashboards helped users make sense of health information, communicate more effectively, and make decisions. Improvements to the dashboards and workflows could enhance patient self-management and clinician efficiency. CONCLUSION: Visual point-of-care dashboards can support caregivers, patients, and clinicians to coproduce rheumatology care. Findings demonstrate a need to spread and scale for broader benefit and impact.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes. METHODS: Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized. RESULTS: The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38461.

Eliciting patients' healthcare goals and concerns: Do questions influence responses?

There is increasing interest in asking patients questions before their visits to elicit goals and concerns, which is part of the move to support the concept of coproducing care. The phrasing and delivery of such questions differs across settings and is likely to influence responses. This report describes a study that (i) used a three-level model to categorize the goals and concerns elicited by two different pre-visit questions, and (ii) describes associations between responses elicited and the phrasing and delivery of the two questions. The questions were administered to patients with rheumatic disease, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Paper-based responses from 150 patients with rheumatic disease and 338 patients with IBD were analyzed (163 paper, 175 electronic). The goals and concerns elicited were primarily disease or symptom-specific. The specific goal and concern examples featured in one pre-visit question were more commonly reported in responses to that question, compared to the question without examples. Questions completed electronically before the visit were associated with longer responses than those completed on paper in the waiting room. In conclusion, how and when patients' goals and concerns are elicited appears to have an impact on responses and warrants further investigation.

Prioritizing Measures That Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System.

BACKGROUND: Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS. METHODS: A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities. RESULTS: Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients). CONCLUSIONS: The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.

Co-design of an Electronic Dashboard to Support the Coproduction of Care in Pediatric Rheumatic Disease: Human-Centered Design and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: The coproduction of care involves patients and families partnering with their clinicians and care teams, with the premise that each brings their own perspective, knowledge, and expertise, as well as their own values, goals, and preferences, to the partnership. Dashboards can display meaningful patient and clinical data to assess how a patient is doing and inform shared decision-making. Increasing communication between patients and care teams is particularly important for children with chronic conditions. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the most common chronic pediatric rheumatic condition, is associated with increased pain, decreased function, and decreased quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to design a dashboard prototype for use in coproducing care in patients with JIA. We evaluated the use and needs of end users, obtained a consensus on the necessary dashboard data elements, and constructed display prototypes to inform meaningful discussions for coproduction. METHODS: A human-centered design approach involving parents, patients, clinicians, and care team members was used to develop a dashboard to support the coproduction of care in 4 ambulatory pediatric rheumatology clinics. We engaged a multidisciplinary team (n=18) of patients, parents, clinicians, nurses, and staff during an in-person kick-off meeting followed by biweekly meetings. We also leveraged advisory panels. Teams mapped workflows and patient journeys, created personas, and developed dashboard sketches. The final dashboard components were determined via Delphi consensus voting. Low-tech dashboard testing was completed during clinic visits, and visual display prototypes were iterated by using the Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology. Patients and clinicians were surveyed regarding their experiences. RESULTS: Teams achieved consensus on what data mattered most at the point of care to support patients with JIA, families, and clinicians collaborating to make the best possible health care decisions. Notable themes included the right data in the right place at the right time, data in once for multiple purposes, patient and family self-management components, and the opportunity for education and increased transparency. A final set of 11 dashboard data elements was identified, including patient-reported outcomes, clinical data, and medications. Important design considerations featured the incorporation of real-time data, clearly labeled graphs, and vertical orientation to facilitate review and discussion. Prototype paper-testing with 36 patients and families yielded positive feedback, with 89% (8/9) to 100% (9/9) of parents (n=9) and 80% (8/10) to 90% (9/10) of clinicians (n=10) strongly agreeing or agreeing that the dashboard was useful during clinic discussions, helped to talk about what mattered most, and informed health care decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a dashboard prototype that displays patient-reported and clinical data over time, along with medications that can be used during a clinic visit to support meaningful conversations and shared decision-making among patients with JIA, their families, and their clinicians and care teams.

Development of Balanced Whole System Value Measures for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care in the IBD Qorus Collaborative Using a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND: The IBD Qorus Collaborative aims to reduce variation and increase the value of care for the adult inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community. To evaluate the success of the collaborative, we aimed to develop a balanced set of outcome measures that reflect a multistakeholder view of value in IBD care. To achieve this, we used the Clinical Value Compass framework and engaged a mixed-stakeholder group to conduct a modified Delphi process. The end result was a 10-measure set to assess the value of IBD care. METHOD: The modified Delphi process included 3 iterative rounds of blinded voting and interactive webinar-style discussion. We recruited 18 participants for the Delphi panel, including clinicians, researchers, patients, Crohn's & Colitis Foundation staff, and payers. Participants first identified constructs to measure, then identified the tools to measure those constructs. A literature review and environmental scan of current measures in 4 domains were performed, and relevant measures were proposed for discussion and voting in each domain. Throughout the process, participants were invited to contribute additional measures. CONCLUSION: The modified Delphi process led to selection of 10 value measures across 4 domains: (1) patient experience; (2) functional status; (3) clinical status; and (4) health care costs and utilization. We have successfully completed a 3-stage modified Delphi process to develop a balanced set of value measures for adult IBD care. The value measure set expands upon prior efforts that have established quality measures for IBD care by adding cost and experience of care elements. This work positions IBD Qorus to better assess, study, improve, and demonstrate value at individual, system, and population levels and will inform and empower related research, improvement, and implementation efforts.

Utilization Patterns and Outcomes of People With Diabetes and COVID-19: Evidence From United States Medicare Beneficiaries in 2020.

Objective: Determine differences in utilization patterns, disease severity, and outcomes between patients with and without diabetes mellitus diagnosed with COVID-19 in 2020. Research Design and Methods: We used an observational cohort comprised of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a medical claim indicating a COVID-19 diagnosis. We performed inverse probability weighting between beneficiaries with and without diabetes to account for differences in socio-demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Results: In the unweighted comparison of beneficiaries, all characteristics were significantly different (P<0.001). Beneficiaries with diabetes were younger, more likely to be black, had more comorbidities, higher rates of Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligibility, and were less likely to be female. In the weighted sample, hospitalization rates for COVID-19 among beneficiaries with diabetes was higher (20.5% vs 17.1%; p < 0.001). Outcomes of hospitalizations were similarly worse among beneficiaries with diabetes: admissions to ICU during hospitalizations (7.78% vs. 6.11%; p < 0.001); in-hospital mortality (3.85% vs 2.93%; p < 0.001); and ICU mortality (2.41% vs 1.77%). Beneficiaries with diabetes had more ambulatory care visits (8.9 vs. 7.8, p < 0.001) and higher overall mortality (17.3% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001) following COVID-19 diagnosis. Conclusion: Beneficiaries with diabetes and COVID-19 had higher rates of hospitalization, ICU use and overall mortality. While the mechanism of how diabetes impacts the severity of COVID-19 may not be fully understood, there are important clinical implications for persons with diabetes. A diagnosis of COVID-19 leads to greater financial and clinical burden than for their counterparts, persons without diabetes, including perhaps most significantly, higher death rates.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: How our response is shaping the future of cystic fibrosis care.

The findings of this body of work are presented in the eight articles included in this supplement. The impact and perspectives of adult and pediatric care teams and patient/families are covered with special attention to mental health care, the financial and personnel impacts within care programs, the experiences of vulnerable and underrepresented patient populations, and implementation of remoting monitoring. Commentaries from colleagues provide a broader perspective, offering reflections on the findings and their implications regarding the future CF care model.

International, national and local trends in the spread of COVID-19: a geographic view of COVID-19 spread and the role to be played by coproduction.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, emerged in 2019 and led to a worldwide pandemic in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a massive natural experiment in the formation of mitigation strategies to prevent cases and to provide effective healthcare for those afflicted. Regional differences in the impact of the pandemic on morbidity and mortality have been driven by political and regional differences in the coproduction of public health and social policy. We explored the United States (US) experience of COVID-19 for trends and correlations with other nations and also at the national, regional, state and local levels. OBJECTIVE: To identify geographic and temporal trends in the spread of COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS: Population data on COVID-19 cases and mortality were acquired on a daily basis from multiple publicly available databases, including the New York Times and Johns Hopkins University. At each geographic level (national, state and county), geographic entities' reported cases were evaluated for correlations using linear least-squares methods to identify patterns of correlation in the cases independent of scale. We evaluated for two specific characteristics: (i) the nature of the curvature of the line linking across percentile scores, ranging from concave to convex and (ii) the area under this curve, indicating how effectively a selected region (nation, state and county) is linked to its entire containing unit (world, country and state). We used this approach to identify three distinct COVID behavior phenotypes, each of which consisted of a number of states in the USA. RESULTS: We found that COVID activity in the USA follows a unique trend compared to other countries and that within the USA during the first year of the pandemic, three initial COVID phenotypes emerged: (i) the metropolitan outbreak (early outbreak phenotype); (ii) the regional outbreak (summer peak phenotype) and (iii) trans-regional outbreak (fall/winter peak phenotype), which, taken in sum, represent the overall USA national trend. Each phenotype has specific behavioral characteristics and is composed of a cluster of different states experiencing different conditions. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a new opportunity for public health strategy in the pandemic, namely to apply targeted public health approaches to address the specific needs of each phenotype. In the future, we should create databases that capture key health and hardship data elements at the smallest geographic level possible and use these to track trends, predict the future and apply targeted coproduction approaches to more effectively and efficiently safeguard population health, economic vitality and social well-being.

A 'COVID Compass' for navigating the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The greatest challenge confronting political, public health, business, education and social welfare leaders in the COVID pandemic era is to restore the economy, businesses and schools without further risking public health. The 'COVID Compass' project aims to provide helpful information to guide local decisions by tracking state and local policies over time and their impact on a balanced set of outcomes-health metrics, economic trends and social hardship indicators. METHODS: We selected a parsimonious set of 'local level' health, economic and hardship outcomes and linked them to 'local level' actions aimed to decrease COVID-19 health effects and to mitigate hardship for people, businesses and the economy. Data trends will be released frequently (e.g. weekly and monthly) to show changes in health economic and social hardship 'outcomes' (based on quantitative data), alongside policy, health care, public health and individual/social 'actions' (based on both qualitative and quantitative data). RESULTS: Work on initial analytic and visualization prototypes of the COVID Compass is currently in progress at national, state and local levels. CONCLUSION: Building a national, regional and local integrated database platform that captures upstream policies, actions and behaviors and links them to downstream health, economic and social hardship outcomes will offer a more comprehensive view of the data necessary for decision-makers and citizens to more effectively and intelligently monitor and mitigate harms caused by the pandemic.

Point-of-care dashboards promote coproduction of healthcare services for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Coproduction of healthcare services by patients and professionals is seen as an increasingly important mechanism to support person-centred care delivery. Coproduction invites a deeper understanding of what persons sometimes called 'patients' bring to development of a service. Yet, little is known about tools that may help elicit that information. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore potential benefits and limitations of an electronic pre-visit survey (PVS) and dashboard by studying uptake and experiences within the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method evaluation of patients and clinicians using the IBD Qorus PVS and dashboard at 24 programmes participating in the IBD Qorus learning health system. We analysed (i) descriptive statistics and thematic analyses of 537 patient surveys, (ii) semi-structured interviews with seven patients and six care teams and (iii) usage data collected between 25 March 2019 and 26 April 2020. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds (64%; n = 38) of clinicians enrolled ≥25 patients into IBD Qorus; 59% (n = 29) of clinicians received ≥25 electronic PVS, with 3834 PVS received during the study period. Post-visit evaluation surveys were completed by patients following 26% (n = 993) of PVS completions. Among patients who reported using the dashboard for 1 or more months (n = 537), two-thirds (65%, n = 344) used the dashboard at a clinic visit and one-third used it outside the clinic (33%, n = 176). Most patients who used the dashboard during a clinic visit said it was helpful in discussions with their clinician (82%), in talking about what matters most (76%) and in making healthcare decisions (71%). Patients using the dashboard during the clinic visit reported higher levels of shared decision-making than those who did not use the dashboard (82% vs. 65%, P < 0.001). This relationship remained significant after controlling for receipt of care at a clinic with the highest levels of patient-reported shared decision-making (odds ratio: 2.1; confidence interval: 1.3-3.3). Patients and clinicians found the greatest value in using the PVS and dashboard to share concerns and symptoms, prepare for a visit and support discussions during the visit. The lack of integration with existing electronic health records (EHRs) limited clinician usage of the PVS and dashboard. CONCLUSIONS: The PVS and dashboard created a shared language, which supported coproduction and shared decision-making and facilitated a shared understanding of goals, concerns, symptoms and well-being. To support uptake, future systems should reduce implementation burden for healthcare professionals and integrate seamlessly with existing EHR systems and workflows.

International, national and local trends in the spread of COVID-19: a geographic view of COVID-19 spread and the role to be played by coproduction.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19, a respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, emerged in 2019 and led to a worldwide pandemic in 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a massive natural experiment in the formation of mitigation strategies to prevent cases and to provide effective healthcare for those afflicted. Regional differences in the impact of the pandemic on morbidity and mortality have been driven by political and regional differences in the coproduction of public health and social policy. We explored the United States (US) experience of COVID-19 for trends and correlations with other nations and also at the national, regional, state and local levels. OBJECTIVE: To identify geographic and temporal trends in the spread of COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS: Population data on COVID-19 cases and mortality were acquired on a daily basis from multiple publicly available databases, including the New York Times and Johns Hopkins University. At each geographic level (national, state and county), geographic entities' reported cases were evaluated for correlations using linear least-squares methods to identify patterns of correlation in the cases independent of scale. We evaluated for two specific characteristics: (i) the nature of the curvature of the line linking across percentile scores, ranging from concave to convex and (ii) the area under this curve, indicating how effectively a selected region (nation, state and county) is linked to its entire containing unit (world, country and state). We used this approach to identify three distinct COVID behavior phenotypes, each of which consisted of a number of states in the USA. RESULTS: We found that COVID activity in the USA follows a unique trend compared to other countries and that within the USA during the first year of the pandemic, three initial COVID phenotypes emerged: (i) the metropolitan outbreak (early outbreak phenotype); (ii) the regional outbreak (summer peak phenotype) and (iii) trans-regional outbreak (fall/winter peak phenotype), which, taken in sum, represent the overall USA national trend. Each phenotype has specific behavioral characteristics and is composed of a cluster of different states experiencing different conditions. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a new opportunity for public health strategy in the pandemic, namely to apply targeted public health approaches to address the specific needs of each phenotype. In the future, we should create databases that capture key health and hardship data elements at the smallest geographic level possible and use these to track trends, predict the future and apply targeted coproduction approaches to more effectively and efficiently safeguard population health, economic vitality and social well-being.

Quality of Care Program Reduces Unplanned Health Care Utilization in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is significant variation in processes and outcomes of care for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), suggesting opportunities to improve quality of care. We aimed to determine whether a structured quality of care program can improve IBD outcomes, including the need for unplanned health care utilization. METHODS: We used a structured approach to improve adult IBD care in 27 community-based gastroenterology practices and academic medical centers. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and health care utilization were collected at clinical visits. Outcomes were monitored monthly using statistical process control charts; improvement was defined by special cause (nonrandom) variation over time. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to patient-level data. Nineteen process changes were offered to improve unplanned health care utilization. Ten outcomes were assessed, including disease activity, remission status, urgent care need, recent emergency department use, hospitalizations, computed tomography scans, health confidence, corticosteroid or opioid use, and clinic phone calls. RESULTS: We collected data prospectively from 20,382 discrete IBD visits. During the 15-month project period, improvement was noted across multiple measures, including need for urgent care, hospitalization, steroid use, and opioid utilization. Adjusted multivariable modeling showed significant improvements over time across multiple outcomes including urgent care need, health confidence, emergency department utilization, hospitalization, corticosteroid use, and opioid use. Attendance at monthly coached webinars was associated with improvement. DISCUSSION: Outcomes of IBD care were improved using a structured quality improvement program that facilitates small process changes, sharing of best practices, and ongoing feedback. Spread of these interventions may facilitate broad improvement in IBD care when applied to a large population.

User-Centered Design of the consideRATE Questions, a Measure of People's Experiences When They Are Seriously Ill.

CONTEXT: No brief patient-reported experience measure focuses on the most significant concerns of seriously ill individuals. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop the consideRATE questions. METHODS: This user-centered design study had three phases. We reviewed the literature and consulted stakeholders, including caregivers, clinicians, and researchers, to identify the elements of care most important to patients (Phase 1). We refined items based on cognitive interviews with patients, families, and clinicians (Phase 2). We piloted the measure with patients and families (Phase 3). RESULTS: Phase 1 resulted in seven questions addressing the following elements: 1) care team attention to patients' physical symptoms, 2) emotional symptoms, 3) environment of care, 4) respect for patients' priorities, 5) communication about future plans, 6) communication about financial and similar affairs, and 7) communication about illness trajectory. Phase 2 participants included eight patients, eight family members, and seven clinicians. We added an open-text comment option. We did not identify any other issues that were important enough to participants to include. Response choices ranged from one (very bad) to four (very good), with a not applicable option (does not apply). Phase 3 involved 15 patients and 16 family members and demonstrated the acceptability of the consideRATE questions. Most reported that the questions were not distressing, disruptive, or confusing. Completion time averaged 2.4 minutes (range 1-5). CONCLUSION: Our brief patient-reported serious illness experience measure is based on what matters most to patients, families, and clinicians. It was acceptable to patients and families in a regional sample. It has promise for use in clinical settings.