Patient Experiences and Perceptions of Care Coordination in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient perceptions of care coordination in primary care can help improve responsiveness to patients' needs, outcomes, and quality of care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore patient experiences and perceptions of care coordination in primary care. METHOD: Interviews with 13 patients from 10 clinics were conducted and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Three primary themes arose: care coordinators provide a gateway to accessing needed care; patients needed and valued the support and trusted advice of their care coordinators; and patients valued care coordinators' help with navigating, engaging, and educating them about their care. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding what patients value in care delivery can help frame a vision for a more responsive approach in delivering primary care, as well as create a pathway to quality improvement, moving toward a truly patient-centered focus in primary care.

COVID-19 Impacts on Primary Care Clinic Care Management Processes.

PURPOSE: To learn whether the COVID-19 pandemic's disruptions and associated reduced health outcomes for people with chronic conditions might have been caused by a decrease in care management processes (CMPs) in primary care clinics METHODS: Longitudinal cohort design with repeated survey-based measures of CMPs from 2017, 2019, and 2021 in 269 primary care clinics in Minnesota. RESULTS: There were only small differences in organizational characteristics and no differences in overall CMPs between the 269 clinics analyzed and the 287 that only completed surveys in 1 or 2 years. Overall CMP scores rose by similar amounts (1.6% and 2.1%) from 2017 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2021. In 2021, CMP scores were lower in small medical groups than in large medical groups in 2017 (66.1% vs 78.5%, P <.001), a similar difference to that in 2017. Care management process scores were also lower in clinics in urban areas compared with rural areas (73.9% vs 79.0%, P <.001), but overall scores in all subgroups were higher in 2021 than in 2017. This improvement occurred despite reports from 55% of clinic leaders that the pandemic had been very or extremely disruptive. CONCLUSIONS: Although quite disrupted by the pandemic, care management processes for chronic disease care in these resilient primary care clinics actually increased from 2019 to 2021, at least in clinics that were part of large organizations. However, that was not true for clinics from smaller groups and perhaps for other areas of care.

Successful Change Management Strategies for Improving Diabetes Care Delivery Among High-Performing Practices.

PURPOSE: To learn how the highest-performing primary care practices manage change when implementing improvements to diabetes care delivery. METHODS: We ranked a total of 330 primary care practices submitting practice management assessments and diabetes reports to the Understanding Infrastructure Transformation Effects on Diabetes study in 2017 and 2019 by Optimal Diabetes Care performance. We ranked practices from the top quartile by greatest annual improvement to capture dynamic change. Starting with the top performers, we interviewed practice leaders to identify their most effective strategies for managing change. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed to identify change management strategies. Saturation occurred when no new strategies were identified over 2 consecutive interviews. RESULTS: Ten of the top 13 practices agreed to interviews. We identified 199 key comments representing 48 key care management concepts. We also categorized concepts into 6 care management themes and 37 strategic approaches. We categorized strategic approaches into 13 distinct change management strategies. The most common strategies identified were (1) standardizing the care process, (2) performance awareness, (3) enhancing care teams, (4) health care organization participation, (5) improving reporting systems, (6) engaging staff and clinicians, (7) accountability for tasks, (8) engaging leadership, and (9) tracking change. Care management themes identified by most practices included proactive care, improving patient relationships, and previsit planning. CONCLUSIONS: Top-performing primary care practices identify a similar group of strategies as important for managing change during quality improvement activities. Practices involved in diabetes improvement activities, and perhaps other chronic conditions, should consider adopting these change management strategies.

How Type of Practice Ownership Affects Participation with Quality Improvement External Facilitation: Findings from EvidenceNOW.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is an implementation strategy that can help primary care practices improve healthcare quality and build quality improvement (QI) capacity when delivered in a flexible manner by trained professionals. Practice ownership is associated with use of QI. However, little is known about how practices of different ownership participate in external facilitation, and this could inform future initiatives. OBJECTIVE: Using data from EvidenceNOW, we examined how practice ownership influences participation in external facilitation. STUDY DESIGN: We used an iterative mixed-methods design. PARTICIPANTS, APPROACH, AND MEASURES: We collected data from practices on practice characteristics (e.g., location, size, payer mix) and ownership type via surveys and from facilitators on the number of hours, encounters, and months each practice had with a facilitator via facilitation logs. Using multivariable linear regression, we examined the association between facilitation and ownership (n = 1117 practices). We conducted semi-structured interviews with EvidenceNOW leadership (n = 12) and facilitators (n = 51) and observed facilitators in a subset of practices (n = 64); we analyzed this qualitative data for patterns of facilitation. KEY RESULTS: In the fully adjusted model, differences by ownership were non-significant; FQHCs, however, had significantly less participation in facilitation than clinician-owned practices across two measures (unadjusted difference: - 2.83, p < 0.01 for number of encounters, and - 2.04, p < 0.01 for number of months with encounters). Qualitative data showed that Health System and FQHC ownership influenced types of practices enrolled in EvidenceNOW, and suggested that in these practices lower autonomy and greater complexity compared to clinician-owned ownership influenced facilitation participation patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Practice ownership shaped how but not how much practices participated in external facilitation. This finding highlights the importance of tailoring facilitation approaches based on ownership-related characteristics in future QI initiatives.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders? METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process. RESULTS: Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively? METHODS: In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (ß = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (ß = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Strategies and Factors Associated With Top Performance in Primary Care for Diabetes: Insights From a Mixed Methods Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine what strategies and factors are most important for high performance in the primary care of patients with diabetes. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods, cross-sectional, observational analysis of interviews and characteristics of primary care clinics in Minnesota and bordering areas. We compared strategies, facilitators, and barriers identified by 31 leaders of 17 clinics in high-, middle-, and low-performance quartiles on a standardized composite measure of diabetes outcomes for 416 of 586 primary care clinics. Semistructured interview data were combined with quantitative data regarding clinic performance and a survey of the presence of care management processes. RESULTS: The interview analysis identified 10 themes providing unique insights into the factors and strategies characterizing the 3 performance groups. The main difference was the degree to which top-performing clinics used patient data to guide proactive and outreach methods to intensify treatment and monitor effect. Top clinics also appeared to view visit-based care management processes as necessary but insufficient, whereas all respondents regarded being part of a large system as mostly helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Top-performing clinic approaches to diabetes care differ from lower-performing clinics primarily by emphasizing data-driven proactive outreach to patients to intensify treatment. Although confirmatory studies are needed, clinical leaders should consider the value of this paradigm shift in approach to care.

Differences in Diabetes Care With and Without Certification as a Medical Home.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether primary care practices certified as medical homes differ in having the practice systems required for that designation and in attaining favorable outcomes for their patients with diabetes, and whether those systems are associated with better diabetes outcomes. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional observational study, Understanding Infrastructure Transformation Effects on Diabetes (UNITED), of 586 Minnesota adult primary care practices, comparing those that were certified vs uncertified as medical homes in 2017, with analyses supplemented by previously published studies of these practices. We collected survey information about the presence of medical home practice systems for diabetes care and obtained 6 standardized measures of diabetes care collected yearly from all Minnesota practices. RESULTS: Of 416 practices completing questionnaires (71% of all practices, 92% of participating practices), 394 had data on diabetes care measures. Uncertified practices (39%) were more likely than certified practices to be rural, but their patient populations were similar. Certified practices had more medical home practice systems (79.2% vs 74.9%, P =.01) and were more likely to meet a composite measure of optimal diabetes care (46.8% vs 43.2%, P <.001). A 1-SD increase in presence of practice systems was associated with a 1.4% higher probability of meeting that measure (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Practices certified as medical homes have more practice systems and higher performance on diabetes care than uncertified practices, but there is extensive overlap, and any differences may reflect self-selection for certification.

The Role of the Patient-Centered Medical Home in Treating Depression.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses the role of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) in treating depression, focusing on findings from primary care-based studies and their implications for the PCMH. RECENT FINDINGS: Pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, and collaborative care are evidence-based treatments for depression that can be delivered in primary care and extended to diverse populations. Recent research aligns with the core components of the PCMH model. The core components of the PCMH are critical elements of depression treatment. Comprehensive care within the PCMH addresses medical and behavioral health concerns, including depression. Psychiatric and psychological care must be flexibly delivered so services remain accessible yet patient-centered. To ensure the quality and safety of treatment, depression symptoms must be consistently monitored. Coordination within and occasionally outside of the PCMH is needed to ensure patients receive the appropriate level of care. More research is needed to empirically evaluate depression treatment within the PCMH.

Burnout Among Physicians, Advanced Practice Clinicians and Staff in Smaller Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017. SETTING: Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS: 10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE: Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS: Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Use of Quality Improvement Strategies Among Small to Medium-Size US Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: Improving primary care quality is a national priority, but little is known about the extent to which small to medium-size practices use quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve care. We examined variations in use of QI strategies among 1,181 small to medium-size primary care practices engaged in a national initiative spanning 12 US states to improve quality of care for heart health and assessed factors associated with those variations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, practice characteristics were assessed by surveying practice leaders. Practice use of QI strategies was measured by the validated Change Process Capability Questionnaire (CPCQ) Strategies Scale (scores range from -28 to 28, with higher scores indicating more use of QI strategies). Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between practice characteristics and the CPCQ strategies score. RESULTS: The mean CPCQ strategies score was 9.1 (SD = 12.2). Practices that participated in accountable care organizations and those that had someone in the practice to configure clinical quality reports from electronic health records (EHRs), had produced quality reports, or had discussed clinical quality data during meetings had higher CPCQ strategies scores. Health system-owned practices and those experiencing major disruptive changes, such as implementing a new EHR system or clinician turnover, had lower CPCQ strategies scores. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in the use of QI strategies among small to medium-size primary care practices across 12 US states. Findings suggest that practices may need external support to strengthen their ability to do QI and to be prepared for new payment and delivery models.

Engaging Primary Care Practices in Studies of Improvement: Did You Budget Enough for Practice Recruitment?

PURPOSE: The methods and costs to enroll small primary care practices in large, regional quality improvement initiatives are unknown. We describe the recruitment approach, cost, and resources required to recruit and enroll 500 practices in the Northwest and Midwest regional cooperatives participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-funded initiative, EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care. METHODS: The project management team of each cooperative tracked data on recruitment methods used for identifying and connecting with practices. We developed a cost-of-recruitment template and used it to record personnel time and associated costs of travel and communication materials. RESULTS: A total of 3,669 practices were contacted during the 14- to 18-month recruitment period, resulting in 484 enrolled practices across the 6 states served by the 2 cooperatives. The average number of interactions per enrolled practice was 7, with a total of 29,100 hours and a total cost of $2.675 million, or $5,529 per enrolled practice. Prior partnerships predicted recruiting almost 1 in 3 of these practices as contrasted to 1 in 20 practices without a previous relationship or warm hand-off. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment of practices for large-scale practice quality improvement transformation initiatives is difficult and costly. The cost of recruiting practices without existing partnerships is expensive, costing 7 times more than reaching out to familiar practices. Investigators initiating and studying practice quality improvement initiatives should budget adequate funds to support high-touch recruitment strategies, including building trusted relationships over a long time frame, for a year or more.

Updated Priorities Among Effective Clinical Preventive Services.

PURPOSE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's provisions for first-dollar coverage of evidence-based preventive services have reduced an important barrier to receipt of preventive care. Safety-net providers, however, still serve a substantial uninsured population, and clinician and patient time remain limited in all primary care settings. As a consequence, decision makers continue to set priorities to help focus their efforts. This report updates estimates of relative health impact and cost-effectiveness for evidence-based preventive services. METHODS: We assessed the potential impact of 28 evidence-based clinical preventive services in terms of their cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden, as measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Each service received 1 to 5 points on each of the 2 measures-cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden-for a total score ranging from 2 to 10. New microsimulation models were used to provide updated estimates of 12 of these services. Priorities for improving delivery rates were established by comparing the ranking with what is known of current delivery rates nationally. RESULTS: The 3 highest-ranking services, each with a total score of 10, are immunizing children, counseling to prevent tobacco initiation among youth, and tobacco-use screening and brief intervention to encourage cessation among adults. Greatest population health improvement could be obtained from increasing utilization of clinical preventive services that address tobacco use, obesity-related behaviors, and alcohol misuse, as well as colorectal cancer screening and influenza vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies high-priority preventive services and should help decision makers select which services to emphasize in quality-improvement initiatives.

Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Brief Clinician Tobacco Counseling for Youth and Adults.

PURPOSE: To help clinicians and care systems determine the priority for tobacco counseling in busy clinic schedules, we assessed the lifetime health and economic value of annually counseling youth to discourage smoking initiation and of annually counseling adults to encourage cessation. METHODS: We conducted a microsimulation analysis to estimate the health impact and cost effectiveness of both types of tobacco counseling in a US birth cohort of 4,000,000. The model used for the analysis was constructed from nationally representative data sets and structured literature reviews. RESULTS: Compared with no tobacco counseling, the model predicts that annual counseling for youth would reduce the average prevalence of smoking cigarettes during adult years by 2.0 percentage points, whereas annual counseling for adults will reduce prevalence by 3.8 percentage points. Youth counseling would prevent 42,686 smoking-attributable fatalities and increase quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 756,601 over the lifetime of the cohort. Adult counseling would prevent 69,901 smoking-attributable fatalities and increase QALYs by 1,044,392. Youth and adult counseling would yield net savings of $225 and $580 per person, respectively. If annual tobacco counseling was provided to the cohort during both youth and adult years, then adult smoking prevalence would be 5.5 percentage points lower compared with no counseling, and there would be 105,917 fewer smoking-attributable fatalities over their lifetimes. Only one-third of the potential health and economic benefits of counseling are being realized at current counseling rates. CONCLUSIONS: Brief tobacco counseling provides substantial health benefits while producing cost savings. Both youth and adult intervention are high-priority uses of limited clinician time.

A Statewide Effort to Implement Collaborative Care for Depression: Reach and Impact for All Patients With Depression.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the reach and impact of collaborative care for depression outside of clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of a collaborative care intervention for depression on the rates of depression diagnosis, use of specific depression codes, and treatment intensification. RESEARCH DESIGN: Evaluation of a staggered, multiple baseline implementation initiative. SUBJECTS: Patients receiving depression care in primary care clinics throughout Minnesota from February 2008 through March 2011. MEASURES: Data regarding depression diagnosis rates and codes, and measures of antidepressant intensification were provided by health insurers. RESULTS: Depression Improvement Across Minnesota: Offering a New Direction (DIAMOND) affected neither rates of depression recognition nor use of depression diagnostic codes, and the overall reach of DIAMOND was disappointingly small. Patients in DIAMOND had more episodes of treatment intensification than non-DIAMOND patients, but we were unable to account for depression severity in our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: DIAMOND did not affect depression recognition or diagnostic coding, but may have affected treatment intensification. Our results suggest that even strongly evidence-based interventions may have little contamination effects on patients not enrolled in the new care model.

Assessing Trends in Tobacco Cessation in Diverse Patient Populations.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined change in tobacco use over 4 years among the general population of patients in six diverse health care organizations using electronic medical record data. METHODS: The study cohort (N = 34 393) included all patients age 18 years or older who were identified as smokers in 2007, and who then had at least one primary care visit in each of the following 4 years. RESULTS: In the 4 years following 2007, this patient cohort had a median of 13 primary care visits, and 38.6% of the patients quit smoking at least once. At the end of the fourth follow-up year, 15.4% had stopped smoking for 1 year or more. Smokers were more likely to become long-term quitters if they were 65 or older (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = [1.16, 1.49]), or had a diagnoses of cancer (1.26 [1.12, 1.41]), cardiovascular disease (1.22 [1.09, 1.37]), asthma (1.15 [1.06, 1.25]), or diabetes (1.17 [1.09, 1.27]). Characteristics associated with lower likelihood of becoming a long-term quitter were female gender (0.90 [0.84, 0.95]), black race (0.84 [0.75, 0.94]) and those identified as non-Hispanic (0.50 [0.43, 0.59]). CONCLUSIONS: Among smokers who regularly used these care systems, one in seven had achieved long-term cessation after 4 years. This study shows the practicality of using electronic medical records for monitoring patient smoking status over time. Similar methods could be used to assess tobacco use in any health care organization to evaluate the impact of environmental and organizational programs.

The effects of patient-centered depression care on patient satisfaction and depression remission.

BACKGROUND: While health systems are striving for patient-centered care, they have little evidence to guide them on how to engage patients in their care, or how this may affect patient experiences and outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To explore which specific patient-centered aspects of care were best associated with depression improvement and care satisfaction. METHODS: Design: observational. SETTING: 83 primary care clinics across Minnesota. SUBJECTS: Primary care patients with new prescriptions for antidepressants for depression were recruited from 2007 to 2009. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients completed phone surveys regarding demographics and self-rated health status and depression severity at baseline and 6 months. Patient centeredness was assessed via a modified version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Differences in rates of remission and satisfaction between positive and negative responses for each care process were evaluated using chi-square tests. RESULTS: At 6 months, 37% of 792 patients ages 18-88 achieved depression remission, and 79% rated their care as good-to-excellent. Soliciting patient preferences for care and questions or concerns, providing treatment plans, utilizing depression scales and asking about suicide risk were patient-centered measures that were positively associated with depression remission in the unadjusted model; these associations were mildly weakened after adjustment for depression severity and health status. Nearly all measures of patient centeredness were positively associated with care ratings. CONCLUSION: The patient centeredness of care influences how patients experience and rate their care. This study identified specific actions providers can take to improve patient satisfaction and depression outcomes.

Racial/Ethnic differences in health care visits made before suicide attempt across the United States.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a public health concern, but little is known about the patterns of health care visits made before a suicide attempt, and whether those patterns differ by race/ethnicity. OBJECTIVES: To examine racial/ethnic variation in the types of health care visits made before a suicide attempt, when those visits occur, and whether mental health or substance use diagnoses were documented. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal study, 2009-2011. PARTICIPANTS: 22,387 individuals who attempted suicide and were enrolled in the health plan across 10 health systems in the Mental Health Research Network. MEASURES: Cumulative percentage of different types of health care visits made in the 52 weeks before a suicide attempt, by self-reported racial/ethnicity and diagnosis. Data were from the Virtual Data Warehouse at each site. RESULTS: Over 38% of the individuals made any health care visit within the week before their suicide attempt and ∼95% within the preceding year; these percentages varied across racial/ethnic groups (P<0.001). White individuals had the highest percentage of visits (>41%) within 1 week of suicide attempt. Asian Americans were the least likely to make visits within 52 weeks. Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders had proportionally the most inpatient and emergency visits before an attempt, but were least likely to have a recorded mental health or substance use diagnosis. Overall, visits were most common in primary care and outpatient general medical settings. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides temporal evidence of racial/ethnic differences in health care visits made before suicide attempt. Health care systems can use this information to help focus the design and implementation of their suicide prevention initiatives.

Minnesota's Early Experience with Medical Home Implementation: Viewpoints from the Front Lines.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is evolving about the impact of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) on important outcomes in primary care. Minnesota has developed its own PCMH certification process, envisioned as an all-payer initiative with an emphasis on patient-centeredness, which may add unique experiences and outcomes to the national discussion. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers encountered by nine diverse primary care practices selected from the first 80 to achieve PCMH certification in Minnesota. DESIGN: This was a qualitative analysis of semi-structured, in-person interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one administrative and clinical leaders, including clinic managers, physician champions, medical directors, nursing supervisors, and care coordinators participated in the study. KEY RESULTS: Six factors emerged as most important to the efforts to become PMCHs: leadership support, organizational culture, finances, quality improvement (QI) experience, information technology (IT) resources, and patient involvement. Facilitators included committed leadership at local and higher levels, prior experience and ongoing support for QI initiatives, and adequate financial and IT resources. Reimbursement was a significant barrier due to perceived inadequacy and inconsistent participation by health plans. The unsuitability of electronic medical records (EMRs) to PCMH documentation requirements likewise presented ongoing challenges. Many interviewees described patient input as helpful to their clinics' PCMH-related changes and were enthusiastic about their "patient partners." The majority of interviewees felt that becoming a PCMH was right for patients and was personally worthwhile, even while acknowledging the tremendous effort involved and voicing skepticism about reimbursement over the short term. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of participants in Minnesota's state-wide initiative to legislate PCMH transformation provides a broad view of facilitators and barriers. Unique facilitators included a requirement for patient involvement, which pushed practices to create patient-centered innovations, and new reimbursement models based on quality indicators for a population. Among barriers were the costs to practices and patients, and EMRs that failed to accommodate PCMH requirements.

A framework for describing health care delivery organizations and systems.

Describing, evaluating, and conducting research on the questions raised by comparative effectiveness research and characterizing care delivery organizations of all kinds, from independent individual provider units to large integrated health systems, has become imperative. Recognizing this challenge, the Delivery Systems Committee, a subgroup of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Effective Health Care Stakeholders Group, which represents a wide diversity of perspectives on health care, created a draft framework with domains and elements that may be useful in characterizing various sizes and types of care delivery organizations and may contribute to key outcomes of interest. The framework may serve as the door to further studies in areas in which clear definitions and descriptions are lacking.