Impact of Referring High-Risk Patients to Intensive Outpatient Primary Care Services: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems have implemented intensive outpatient primary care programs with the hopes of reducing healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted primary care intensive management (PIM) for patients at high risk for hospitalization or death, or "high-risk." We evaluated whether a referral model would decrease high-risk patient costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using a quasi-experimental design comparing 456 high-risk patients referred to PIM from October 2017 to September 2018 to 415 high-risk patients matched on propensity score. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans in the top 10th percentile of risk for 90-day hospitalization or death and recent hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit. INTERVENTION: PIM consisted of interdisciplinary teams that performed comprehensive assessments, intensive case management, and care coordination services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in VHA and non-VHA outpatient utilization, inpatient admissions, and costs 12 months pre- and post-index date. KEY RESULTS: Of the 456 patients referred to PIM, 301 (66%) enrolled. High-risk patients referred to PIM had a marginal reduction in ED visits (- 0.7; [95% CI - 1.50 to 0.08]; p = 0.08) compared to propensity-matched high-risk patients; overall outpatient costs were similar. High-risk patients referred to PIM had similar number of medical/surgical hospitalizations (- 0.2; [95% CI, - 0.6 to 0.16]; p = 0.2), significant increases in length of stay (6.36; [CI, - 0.01 to 12.72]; p = 0.05), and higher inpatient costs ($22,628, [CI, $3587 to $41,669]; p = 0.02) than those not referred to PIM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: VHA intensive outpatient primary care was associated with higher costs. Referral to intensive case management programs targets the most complex patients and may lead to increased utilization and costs, particularly in an integrated healthcare setting with robust patient-centered medical homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PIM 2.0: Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Intensive Management (PIM) Project (PIM2). NCT04521816. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04521816.

Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare systems seek to improve care for complex high-risk patients, but engaging such patients to actively participate in their healthcare can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe types of patient engagement strategies reported as successfully deployed by providers/teams and experienced by patients in a Veterans Health Administration (VA) intensive primary care (IPC) pilot program. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with 29 VA IPC staff (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists) and 51 patients who had at least four IPC team encounters. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using a combination a priori/inductive approach. RESULTS: The engagement strategies successfully deployed by the IPC providers/teams could be considered either more "facilitative," i.e., facilitated by and dependent on staff actions, or more "self-sustaining," i.e., taught to patients, thus cultivating their ongoing patient self-care. Facilitative strategies revolved around enhancing patient access and coordination of care, trust-building, and addressing social determinants of health. Self-sustaining strategies were oriented around patient empowerment and education, caregiver and/or community support, and boundaries and responsibilities. When patients described their experiences with the "facilitative" strategies, many discussed positive proximal outcomes (e.g., increased access to healthcare providers). Self-sustaining strategies led to positive (self-reported) longer-term clinical outcomes, such as behavior change. CONCLUSION: We identified two categories of strategies for successfully engaging complex, high-risk patients: facilitative and self-sustaining. Intensive primary care program leaders may consider thoughtfully building "self-sustaining" engagement strategies into program development. Future research can confirm their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.

Associations Between Primary Care Providers and Staff-Reported Access Management Challenges and Patient Perceptions of Access.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Optimizing patients' access to primary care is critically important but challenging. In a national survey, we asked primary care providers and staff to rate specific care processes as access management challenges and assessed whether clinics with more of these challenges had worse access outcomes. METHODS: Study design: Cross sectional. National Primary Care Personnel Survey (NPCPS) (2018) participants included 6210 primary care providers (PCPs) and staff in 813 clinics (19% response rate) and 158,645 of their patients. We linked PCP and staff ratings of access management challenges to veterans' perceived access from 2018-2019 Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Patient Centered Medical Home (SHEP-PCMH) surveys (35.6% response rate). MAIN MEASURES: The NPCPS queried PCPs and staff about access management challenges. The mean overall access challenge score was 28.6, SD 6.0. The SHEP-PCMH access composite asked how often veterans reported always obtaining urgent appointments same/next day; routine appointments when desired and having medical questions answered during office hours. ANALYTIC APPROACH: We aggregated PCP and staff responses to clinic level, and use multi-level, multivariate logistic regressions to assess associations between clinic-level access management challenges and patient perceptions of access. We controlled for veteran-, facility-, and area-level characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Veterans at clinics with more access management challenges (> 75th percentile) had a lower likelihood of reporting always receiving timely urgent care appointments (AOR: .86, 95% CI: .78-.95); always receiving routine appointments (AOR: .74, 95% CI: .67-.82); and always reporting same- or next-day answers to telephone questions (AOR: .79, 95% CI: .70-.90) compared to veterans receiving care at clinics with fewer (< 25th percentile) challenges. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Findings show a strong relationship between higher levels of access management challenges and worse patient perceptions of access. Addressing access management challenges, particularly those associated with call center communication, may be an actionable path for improved patient experience.

Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA's Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams. METHODS: The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation's overall goal is to assess CRH's return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners. DISCUSSION: Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership.

Burnout, employee engagement, and changing organizational contexts in VA primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic involved a rapid change to the working conditions of all healthcare workers (HCW), including those in primary care. Organizational responses to the pandemic, including a shift to virtual care, changes in staffing, and reassignments to testing-related work, may have shifted more burden to these HCWs, increasing their burnout and turnover intent, despite their engagement to their organization. Our objectives were (1) to examine changes in burnout and intent to leave rates in VA primary care from 2017-2020 (before and during the pandemic), and (2) to analyze how individual protective factors and organizational context affected burnout and turnover intent among VA primary care HCWs during the early months of the pandemic. METHODS: We analyzed individual- and healthcare system-level data from 19,894 primary care HCWs in 139 healthcare systems in 2020. We modeled potential relationships between individual-level burnout and turnover intent as outcomes, and individual-level employee engagement, perceptions of workload, leadership, and workgroups. At healthcare system-level, we assessed prior-year levels of burnout and turnover intent, COVID-19 burden (number of tests and deaths), and the extent of virtual care use as potential determinants. We conducted multivariable analyses using logistic regression with standard errors clustered by healthcare system controlled for individual-level demographics and healthcare system complexity. RESULTS: In 2020, 37% of primary care HCWs reported burnout, and 31% reported turnover intent. Highly engaged employees were less burned out (OR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.52-0.63) and had lower turnover intent (OR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.57-0.68). Pre-pandemic healthcare system-level burnout was a major predictor of individual-level pandemic burnout (p = 0.014). Perceptions of reasonable workload, trustworthy leadership, and strong workgroups were also related to lower burnout and turnover intent (p < 0.05 for all). COVID-19 burden, virtual care use, and prior year turnover were not associated with either outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Employee engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of primary care HCW burnout and turnover intent during the pandemic, suggesting it may have a protective effect during stressful times. COVID-19 burden and virtual care use were not related to either outcome. Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between engagement and burnout and improving well-being in primary care.

Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Workplace Civility and Burnout Among VA Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: Civility, or politeness, is an important part of the healthcare workplace, and its absence can lead to healthcare provider and staff burnout. Lack of civility is well-documented among mostly female nurses, but is not well-described among the gender-mixed primary care provider (PCP) workforce. Understanding civility and its relationship to burnout among male and female PCPs could help lead to tailored interventions to improve civility and reduce burnout in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To analyze gender differences in civility, burnout, and the relationship between civility and burnout among male and female PCPs. DESIGN: Multi-level logistic regression analysis of a cross-sectional national survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3216 PCP respondents (1946 women and 1270 men) in 135 medical centers from a 2019 national Veterans Health Administration (VA) survey. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes: burnout; predictors: workplace civility and gender; controls: race, ethnicity, VA tenure, and supervisory status. KEY RESULTS: Workplace civility was rated higher (p<0.001) among male (mean = 4.07, standard deviation [SD] = 0.36, range 1-5) compared to female (mean = 3.88, SD = 0.33) PCPs. Almost half of the sample reported burnout (47.6%), but this difference was not significant (p = 0.73) between the genders. Higher workplace civility was significantly related to lower burnout among female PCPs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31 to 0.69), but not among male PCPs (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.42 to 1.22). Interactions between civility and other demographic variables (race, ethnicity, VA tenure, or supervisory status) were not significantly related to burnout. CONCLUSION: Female PCPs report lower workplace civility than male PCPs. An inverse relationship between civility and burnout is present for women but not men. More research is needed on this phenomenon. Interventions tailored to gender- and primary care-specific needs should be employed to increase civility and reduce burnout among PCPs.

The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching Project: Cluster-Randomized Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Patient Experience of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Given persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination. OBJECTIVE: The Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics. DESIGN: Multi-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs. INTERVENTIONS: We used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects. KEY RESULTS: N = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone. CONCLUSION: Although coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

What Do Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) Teams Need to Improve Care for Primary Care Patients with Complex Needs?

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care (IPC) programs for patients with complex needs do not generate cost savings in most settings. Strengthening existing patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) to address the needs of these patients in primary care is a potential high-value alternative. OBJECTIVES: Explore PCMH team functioning and characteristics that may impact their ability to perform IPC tasks; identify the IPC components that could be incorporated into PCMH teams' workflow; and identify additional resources, trainings, and staff needed to better manage patients with complex needs in primary care. METHODS: We interviewed 44 primary care leaders, PCMH team members (providers, nurses, social workers), and IPC program leaders at 5 VA IPC sites and analyzed a priori themes using a matrix analysis approach. RESULTS: Higher-functioning PCMH teams were described as already performing most IPC tasks, including panel management and care coordination. All sites reported that PCMH teams had the knowledge and skills to perform IPC tasks, but not with the same intensity as specialized IPC teams. Home visits/assessments and co-attending appointments were perceived as not feasible to perform. Key stakeholders identified 6 categories of supports and capabilities that PCMH teams would need to better manage complex patients, with care coordination/management and fully staffed teams as the most frequently mentioned. Many thought that PCMH teams could make better use of existing VA and non-VA resources, but might need training in identifying and using those resources. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH teams can potentially offer certain clinic-based services associated with IPC programs, but tasks that are time intensive or require physical absence from clinic might require collaboration with community service providers and better use of internal and external healthcare system resources. Future studies should explore the feasibility of PCMH adoption of IPC tasks and the impact on patient outcomes.

Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value. OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients. DESIGN: A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites. APPROACH: We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects. KEY RESULTS: Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).

Association between care coordination tasks with non-VA community care and VA PCP burnout: an analysis of a national, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The scope of care coordination in VA primary care increased with the launch of the Veterans Choice Act, which aimed to increase access through greater use of non-VA Community Care. These changes may have overburdened already busy providers with additional administrative tasks, contributing to provider burnout. Our objective was to understand the role of challenges with care coordination in burnout. We analyzed relationships between care coordination challenges with Community Care reported by VA primary care providers (PCPs) and VA PCP burnout. METHODS: Our cross-sectional survey contained five questions about challenges with care coordination. We assessed whether care coordination challenges were associated with two measures of provider burnout, adjusted for provider and facility characteristics. Models were also adjusted for survey nonresponse and clustered by facility. Trainee and executive respondents were excluded. 1,543 PCPs in 129 VA facilities nationwide responded to our survey (13 % response rate). RESULTS: 51 % of our sample reported some level of burnout overall, and 46 % reported feeling burned out at least once a week. PCPs were more likely to be burned out overall if they reported more than average challenges with care coordination (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.58 to 2.63). These challenges include managing patients with outside prescriptions or obtaining outside tests or records. CONCLUSIONS: VA primary care providers who reported greater than average care coordination challenges were more likely to be burned out. Interventions to improve care coordination could help improve VA provider experience.

Use of the Veterans' Choice Program and Attrition From Veterans Health Administration Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Concerns over timely access and waiting times for appointments in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) spurred the push towards greater privatization. In 2014, VHA increased the provision of care from community providers through the Veterans' Choice Program (Choice). OBJECTIVES: We examined the characteristics of patients and practices more likely to use Choice care and whether using Choice care affected patients' attrition from VHA primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a longitudinal study of VHA primary care users in the fiscal year 2015 and their attrition 2 years later. In the multivariate analysis, we examined whether attrition from VHA primary care was related to prior use of Choice care. SUBJECTS: A total of 1.4 million nonelderly patients diagnosed with chronic conditions. MEASURES: Choice outpatient care utilization was measured in the baseline year. Attrition was measured as not receiving any VHA primary care in 2 subsequent years. RESULTS: In our cohort, 93,710 (7%) patients used some Choice outpatient care, and these patients were more likely to be female, White or Hispanic, to have more primary care utilization at baseline, and to have long driving distances to VHA care. Practices which sent more patients out for Choice care had lower mean scores for patient-centered medical home implementation and longer mean waiting times for appointments. In the adjusted analysis, the probability of attrition was significantly lower (-0.009) among patients who used Choice outpatient care (0.036) versus patients who did not (0.044) (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of community outpatient providers in the Choice program was associated with less attrition from VHA primary care.

Elements of the healthy work environment associated with lower primary care nurse burnout.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between primary care nurses' work environment and burnout, particularly in settings where patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) have been implemented. PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between PCMH nurses' work environment and burnout. METHODS: Multivariable analyses were performed using two waves of survey data from PCMH registered nurses (RNs; n = 170) and PCMH licensed vocational nurses (LVNs; n = 181) in 23 primary care clinics. FINDINGS: True collaboration was inversely associated with PCMH RN burnout (b = -2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.29, -0.08, p < .01). Meaningful recognition was inversely associated with PCMH LVN burnout (b = -5.1, 95% CI = -8.36, -1.82, p < .01). In models with all nurses, RN (vs. LVN) position was associated with higher levels of burnout (b = 6.2, 95% CI = 2.47, 9.84, p < .01). DISCUSSION: This study highlights the important role of the work environment in reducing PCMH nurse burnout. Strategies to foster team collaboration and meaningful recognition should be investigated to reduce PCMH nurse burnout.

Staff Perspectives on Primary Care Teams as De Facto "Hubs" for Care Coordination in VA: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Improving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed. OBJECTIVE: To identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems. INTERVENTIONS: This paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings. APPROACH: We conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers. KEY RESULTS: PACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs. CONCLUSION: In the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals.

Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home. OBJECTIVE: Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care. INTERVENTION: PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

What makes team communication effective: a qualitative analysis of interprofessional primary care team members' perspectives.

Although numerous scholars have emphasized the need for effective communication between members of interprofessional teams, few studies provide a clear understanding of what constitutes effective team communication in primary care settings, specifically where patient-centered medical home (PCMH) teams have been implemented. This paper describes the elements of effective communication as perceived by members of interprofessional PCMH primary care teams, and identifies elements of effective communication that have persisted over time. Using transcribed text from 75 semi-structured interviews, we applied the grounded theory method of constant comparison to categorize emergent themes relating to elements of team communication. Interprofessional PCMH team members described the elements of effective communication as: 1) shared knowledge, 2) situation/goal awareness, 3) problem-solving, 4) mutual respect; and communication that is 5) transparent, 6) timely, 7) frequent, 8) consistent, and 9) parsimonious. Parsimony is an emergent theme that may be especially relevant for interprofessional PCMH teams challenged with structured clinic schedules. Future work could focus on understanding how to teach and sustain effective parsimonious communication. Comprehensive quality improvement efforts incorporating a variety of strategies, including team communication training, information and communication technologies, and standardized communication tools may facilitate communication of pertinent patient information in a brief and concise manner.

Communication Among Team Members Within the Patient-centered Medical Home and Patient Satisfaction With Providers: The Mediating Role of Patient-Provider Communication.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) uses team-based care to improve patient outcomes, including satisfaction. The quality of patients' communication with their primary care providers (PCPs) is a key determinant of patient satisfaction. A shift to team-based care could disrupt the therapeutic relationship between patients and their PCPs and reduce patient satisfaction if communication and coordination among primary care team members is poor. Little is known about the relationship between intrateam communication within a PCMH and patient satisfaction with PCPs, and whether patient-provider communication might mediate this relationship. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between intrateam communication in a PCMH and patients' satisfaction with assigned PCPs, and whether patient-provider communication mediates this relationship. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys of Veterans Health Administration PCPs (2011-2012, n=149) matched with their assigned patients' surveys (n=3329). Mediation analyses using a nested data structure, controlling for patient and provider characteristics. MEASURES: Patient satisfaction with PCPs, patient-reported patient-provider communication, and PCP-reported intrateam communication within the PCMH. RESULTS: Intrateam communication and patient-provider communication were independently associated with patients' satisfaction with their PCPs. Patient-provider communication mediated 56% of the association between intrateam communication and patient satisfaction. Better intrateam communication combined with better patient-provider communication predicted high satisfaction (81%), compared with poor intrateam communication and poor patient-provider communication (22%). CONCLUSIONS: PCMH environments with better communication among team members are likely to experience better patient-provider communication and high patient satisfaction. PCMH practices with low ratings of patient satisfaction may need to look beyond individual PCPs to communication within and across teams.

Care coordination and provider stress in primary care management of high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is a critical component of managing high-risk patients, who tend to have complex and multiple medical and psychosocial problems and are typically at high risk for increased hospitalization and incur high health care expenditures. Primary care models such as the patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are designed to improve care coordination and reduce care fragmentation. However, little is known about how the burden of care coordination for high-risk patients influences PCMH team members' stress. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between provider stress and care coordination time in high-risk patient care and whether availability of help is associated with reduced stress. STUDY DESIGN: Multivariable regression analysis of a cross-sectional survey of PCMH primary care providers (PCPs) and nurses. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 164 PCPs and 272 nurses in primary care practices at five geographically diverse Veteran Health Administration (VA) medical center health systems. MAIN MEASURES: The main outcome variable was provider stress due to high-risk patient care. Independent variables were the reported proportion of high-risk patients in PCP/nurse patient panels, time spent coordinating care for these patients, and provider satisfaction with help received in caring for them. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 44%. Spending more than 8 h per week coordinating care was significantly associated with a 0.21-point increase in reported provider stress compared to spending 8 h or less per week (95% CI: 0.04-0.39; p = 0.015). The magnitude of the association between stress and care coordination time was diminished when provider satisfaction with help received was included in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived provider stress from care of high-risk patients may arise from challenges related to coordinating their care. Our findings suggest that the perception of receiving help for high-risk patient care may be valuable in reducing provider stress.

Primary Care Tasks Associated with Provider Burnout: Findings from a Veterans Health Administration Survey.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a primary care delivery model predicated on shared responsibility for patient care among members of an interprofessional team. Effective task sharing may reduce burnout among primary care providers (PCPs). However, little is known about the extent to which PCPs share these responsibilities, and which, if any, of the primary care tasks performed independently by the PCPs (vs. shared with the team) are particularly associated with PCP burnout. A better understanding of the relationship between these tasks and their effects on PCP burnout may help guide focused efforts aimed at reducing burnout. OBJECTIVE: To investigate (1) the extent to which PCPs share responsibility for 14 discrete primary care tasks with other team members, and (2) which, if any, of the primary care tasks performed by the PCPs (without reliance on team members) are associated with PCP burnout. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) survey data from two time periods. PARTICIPANTS: 327 providers from 23 VA primary care practices within one VHA regional network. MAIN MEASURES: The dependent variable was PCP report of burnout. Independent variables included PCP report of the extent to which they performed 14 discrete primary care tasks without reliance on team members; team functioning; and PCP-, clinic-, and system-level variables. KEY RESULTS: In adjusted models, PCP reports of intervening on patient lifestyle factors and educating patients about disease-specific self-care activities, without reliance on their teams, were significantly associated with burnout (intervening on lifestyle: b = 4.11, 95% CI = 0.39, 7.83, p = 0.03; educating patients: b = 3.83, 95% CI = 0.33, 7.32, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Performing behavioral counseling and self-management education tasks without relying on other team members for assistance was associated with PCP burnout. Expanding the roles of nurses and other healthcare professionals to assume responsibility for these tasks may ease PCP burden and reduce burnout.

Long-term impact of evidence-based quality improvement for facilitating medical home implementation on primary care health professional morale.

BACKGROUND: Poor morale among primary care providers (PCPs) and staff can undermine the success of patient-centered care models such as the patient-centered medical home that rely on highly coordinated inter-professional care teams. Medical home literature hypothesizes that participation in quality improvement can ease medical home transformation. No studies, however, have assessed the impact of quality improvement participation on morale (e.g., burnout or dissatisfaction) during transformation. The objective of this study is to examine whether primary care practices participating in evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) during medical home transformation reduced burnout and increased satisfaction over time compared to non-participating practices. METHODS: We used a longitudinal quasi-experimental design to examine the impact of EBQI (vs. no EBQI), a multi-level, interdisciplinary approach for engaging frontline primary care practices in developing evidence-based improvement innovations and tools for spread on PCP and staff morale following the 2010 national implementation of the medical home model in the Veterans Health Administration. The sample included 356 primary care employees (107 primary care providers and 249 staff) from 23 primary care practices (6 intervention and 17 comparison) within one Veterans Health Administration region. Three intervention practices began EBQI in 2011 (early) and three more began EBQI in 2012 (late). Three waves of surveys were administered across 42 months beginning in November 2011 and ending in January 2016 approximately 2 years 18 months apart. We used repeated measures analysis of the survey data on medical home teams. Main outcome measures were the emotional exhaustion subscale from the Maslach Burnout Inventory, and job satisfaction. RESULTS: Six of 26 approved EBQI innovations directly addressed provider and staff morale; all 26 addressed medical home implementation challenges. Survey rates were 63% for baseline and 48% for both follow-up waves. Age was associated with lower burnout among PCPs (p = .039) and male PCPs had higher satisfaction (p = .037). Controlling for practice and PCP/staff characteristics, burnout increased by 5 points for PCPs in comparison practices (p = .024) and decreased by 1.4 points for early and 6.8 points (p = .039) for the late EBQI practices. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging PCPs and staff in EBQI reduced burnout over time during medical home transformation.

Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study.

Objective: With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research. Methods: Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted. Results: CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations. Conclusions: Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.