Search

Background: Guidelines for managing and preventing chronic disease tend to be well-known. Yet, translation of this evidence into practice is inconsistent. We identify a combination of factors that are connected to guideline concordant delivery of evidence-informed chronic disease care in primary care., Methods: Cross-sectional observational study; purposively selected 22 practices to vary on size, ownership and geographic location, using National Quality Forum metrics to ensure practices had a ≥ 70% quality level for at least 2 of the following: aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol and diabetes management. Interviewed 2 professionals (eg, medical director, practice manager) per practice (n = 44) to understand staffing and clinical operations. Analyzed data using an iterative and inductive approach., Results: Community Health Centers (CHCs) employed interdisciplinary clinical teams that included a variety of professionals as compared with hospital-health systems (HHS) and clinician-owned practices. Despite this difference, practice members consistently reported a number of functions that may be connected to clinical chronic care quality, including: having engaged leadership; a culture of teamwork; engaging in team-based care; using data to inform quality improvement; empaneling patients; and managing the care of patient panels, with a focus on continuity and comprehensiveness, as well as having a commitment to the community., Conclusions: There are mutable organizational attributes connected-guideline concordant chronic disease care in primary care. Research and policy reform are needed to promote and study how to achieve widespread adoption of these functions and organizational attributes that may be central to achieving equity and improving chronic disease prevention., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors report no competing or conflicting interests., (© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Studies specifically focused on patients' perspectives on telemedicine visits in primary and behavioral health care are fairly limited and have often focused on highly selected populations or used overall satisfaction surveys., Objective: To examine patient perspectives on the shift to telemedicine, the remote delivery of health care via the use of electronic information and communications technology, in primary and behavioral health care in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) during COVID-19., Design: Semi-structured interviews were conducted using video conference with patients and caregivers between October and December 2020., Participants: Providers from 6 FQHCs nominated participants. Eighteen patients and caregivers were interviewed: 6 patients with only primary care visits; 5 with only behavioral health visits; 3 with both primary care and behavioral health visits; and 4 caregivers of children with pediatric visits., Approach: Using a protocol-driven, rapid qualitative methodology, we analyzed the interview data and assessed the quality of care, benefits and challenges of telemedicine, and use of telemedicine post-pandemic., Key Results: Respondents broadly supported the option of home-based synchronous telemedicine visits in primary and behavioral health care. Nearly all respondents appreciated remote visits, largely because such visits provided a safe option during the pandemic. Patients were generally satisfied with telemedicine and believed the quality of visits to be similar to in-person visits, especially when delivered by a provider with whom they had established rapport. Although most respondents planned to return to mostly in-person visits when considered safe to do so, they remained supportive of the continued option for remote visits as remote care addresses some of the typical barriers faced by low-income patients., Conclusions: Addressing digital literacy challenges, enhancing remote visit privacy, and improving practice workflows will help ensure equitable access to all patients as we move to a new post-COVID-19 "normal" marked by increased reliance on telemedicine and technology., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Structures (context of care delivery) and processes (actions aimed at delivery care) are posited to drive patient outcomes. Despite decades of primary care research, there remains a lack of evidence connecting specific structures/processes to patient outcomes to determine which of the numerous recommended structures/processes to prioritize for implementation. The objective of this study was to identify structures/processes most commonly present in high-performing primary care practices for chronic care management and prevention. We conducted key informant interviews with a national sample of 22 high-performing primary care practices. We identified the 10 most commonly present structures/processes in these practices, which largely enable 2 core functions: mobilizing staff to conduct patient outreach and helping practices avoid gaps in care. Given the costs of implementing and maintaining numerous structures/processes, our study provides a starting list for providers to prioritize and for researchers to investigate further for specific effects on patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Few studies have assessed the fidelity of practice facilitation (PF) as an implementation strategy, and none have used an a priori definition or conceptual framework of fidelity to guide fidelity assessment. The authors adapted the Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity to guide fidelity assessment in HealthyHearts NYC, an intervention that used PF to improve adoption of cardiovascular disease evidence-based guidelines in primary care practices. Data from a web-based tracking system of 257 practices measured fidelity using 4 categories: frequency, duration, content, and coverage. Almost all (94.2%) practices received at least the required 13 PF visits. Facilitators spent on average 26.3 hours at each site. Most practices (95.7%) completed all Task List items, and 71.2% were educated on all Chronic Care Model strategies. The majority (65.8%) received full coverage. This study provides a model that practice managers and implementers can use to evaluate fidelity of PF, and potentially other implementation strategies., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Policy Points Telehealth has many potential advantages during an infectious disease outbreak such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the shift to telehealth as a prominent care delivery mode. Not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in the telehealth revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Without proactive efforts to address both patient- and provider-related digital barriers associated with socioeconomic status, the wide-scale implementation of telehealth amid COVID-19 may reinforce disparities in health access in already marginalized and underserved communities. To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them., Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed fundamental shifts across the US health care delivery system, including a rapid transition to telehealth. Telehealth has many potential advantages, including maintaining critical access to care while keeping both patients and providers safe from unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus. However, not all health care providers and patients are equally ready to take part in this digital revolution, which raises concerns for health equity during and after the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: The study analyzed data about small primary care practices' telehealth use and barriers to telehealth use collected from rapid-response surveys administered by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Bureau of Equitable Health Systems and New York University from mid-April through mid-June 2020 as part of the city's efforts to understand how primary care practices were responding to the COVID-19 pandemic following New York State's stay-at-home order on March 22. We focused on small primary care practices because they represent 40% of primary care providers and are disproportionately located in low-income, minority or immigrant areas that were more severely impacted by COVID-19. To examine whether telehealth use and barriers differed based on the socioeconomic characteristics of the communities served by these practices, we used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to stratify respondents as being in high-SVI or low-SVI areas. We then characterized respondents' telehealth use and barriers to adoption by using means and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. In addition to a primary analysis using pooled data across the five waves of the survey, we performed sensitivity analyses using data from respondents who only took one survey, first wave only, and the last two waves only., Findings: While all providers rapidly shifted to telehealth, there were differences based on community characteristics in both the primary mode of telehealth used and the types of barriers experienced by providers. Providers in high-SVI areas were almost twice as likely as providers in low-SVI areas to use telephones as their primary telehealth modality (41.7% vs 23.8%; P <.001). The opposite was true for video, which was used as the primary telehealth modality by 18.7% of providers in high-SVI areas and 33.7% of providers in low-SVI areas (P <0.001). Providers in high-SVI areas also faced more patient-related barriers and fewer provider-related barriers than those in low-SVI areas., Conclusions: Between April and June 2020, telehealth became a prominent mode of primary care delivery in New York City. However, the transition to telehealth did not unfold in the same manner across communities. To ensure greater telehealth equity, policy changes should address barriers faced overwhelmingly by marginalized patient populations and those who serve them., (© 2021 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

Background: There is no commonly accepted comprehensive framework for describing the practical specifics of external support for practice change. Our goal was to develop such a taxonomy that could be used by both external groups or researchers and health care leaders., Methods: The leaders of 8 grants from Agency for Research and Quality for the EvidenceNOW study of improving cardiovascular preventive services in over 1500 primary care practices nationwide worked collaboratively over 18 months to develop descriptions of key domains that might comprehensively characterize any external support intervention. Combining literature reviews with our practical experiences in this initiative and past work, we aimed to define these domains and recommend measures for them., Results: The taxonomy includes 1 domain to specify the conceptual model(s) on which an intervention is built and another to specify the types of support strategies used. Another 5 domains provide specifics about the dose/mode of that support, the types of change process and care process changes that are encouraged, and the degree to which the strategies are prescriptive and standardized. A model was created to illustrate how the domains fit together and how they would respond to practice needs and reactions., Conclusions: This taxonomy and its use in more consistently documenting and characterizing external support interventions should facilitate communication and synergies between 3 areas (quality improvement, practice change research, and implementation science) that have historically tended to work independently. The taxonomy was designed to be as useful for practices or health systems managing change as it is for research., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy used to build practice capacity and support practice changes to improve health care outcomes. Yet, few studies have investigated how practice facilitation strategies are tailored to different primary care contexts., Objective: To identify contextual factors that drive facilitators' strategies to meet practice improvement goals, and how these strategies are tailored to practice context., Design: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews analyzed using inductive (open coding) and deductive (thematic) approaches. This study was conducted as part of a larger study, HealthyHearts New York City, which evaluated the impact of practice facilitation on adoption of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines., Participants: 15 facilitators working in two practice contexts: small independent practices (SIPs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)., Main Measures: Strategies facilitators use to support and promote practice changes and contextual factors that impact this approach., Key Results: Contextual factors were described similarly across settings and included the policy environment, patient needs, site characteristics, leadership engagement, and competing priorities. We identified four facilitation strategies used to tailor to contextual factors and support practice change: (a) remain flexible to align with practice and organizational priorities; (b) build relationships; (c) provide value through information technology expertise; and (d) build capacity and create efficiencies. Facilitators in SIPs and FQHCs described using the same strategies, often in combination, but tailored to their specific contexts., Conclusions: Despite significant infrastructure and resource differences between SIPs and FQHCs, the contextual factors that influenced the facilitator's change process and the strategies used to address those factors were remarkably similar. The findings emphasize that facilitators require multidisciplinary skills to support sustainable practice improvement in the context of varying complex health care delivery settings.

Objective: HealthyHearts NYC was a stepped wedge randomized control trial that tested the effectiveness of practice facilitation on the adoption of cardiovascular disease guidelines in small primary care practices. The objective of this study was to identify was to identify attributes of small practices that signaled they would perform well in a practice facilitation intervention implementation., Methods: A mixed methods multiple-case study design was used. Six small practices were selected representing 3 variations in meeting the practice-level benchmark of >70% of hypertensive patients having controlled blood pressure. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify themes and assign case ratings. Cross-case rating comparison was used to identify attributes of high performing practices., Results: Our first key finding is that the high-performing and improved practices in our study looked and acted similarly during the intervention implementation. The second key finding is that 3 attributes emerged in our analysis of determinants of high performance in small practices: (1) advanced use of the EHR; (2) dedicated resources and commitment to quality improvement; and (3) actively engaged lead clinician and office manager., Conclusions: These attributes may be important determinants of high performance, indicating not only a small practice's capability to engage in an intervention but possibly also its readiness to change. We recommend developing tools to assess readiness to change, specifically for small primary care practices, which may help external agents, like practice facilitators, better translate intervention implementations to context.

Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (Project ECHO) offers an innovative and low-cost approach to enhancing the management of complex conditions among primary care providers. The NYC Health + Hospitals Buprenorphine ECHO (H + H ECHO) program offers primary care providers (PCPs) training and support in managing opioid use disorder (OUD). This exploratory study assessed the feasibility of a 16-session video conferencing platform led by Addiction Medicine experts in improving addiction knowledge, perceived self-efficacy, and buprenorphine prescribing among PCPs located in 17 publicly-funded ambulatory care clinics. A pre- and post-training survey assessed changes in knowledge and self-efficacy. Buprenorphine prescribing patterns were also captured pre-post training. Training sessions consisted of a review of the agenda by the H + H ECHO hub team, 15-30 min didactic lectures led by specialists, followed by a patient case presentation. Participants attended an average of 9 lectures (range, 1-15 sessions) and 53% of trainees attended at least 10 of the 16 sessions. Perceived self-efficacy improved post-H + H ECHO (73.2%) versus pre-training survey results (58.1%). There were minimal increases in knowledge post-training (58.4%) versus pre-training (51.4%). Only three additional providers reported prescribing Buprenorphine post-training (n = 10) versus pre-training (n = 7). Suggestions for improving H + H ECHO included trainings addressing stigma, administrative support, improved referrals to office-based opioid treatment (OBOT), integration of non-physician staff (i.e., case management, social work), and combining multimodal learning strategies (i.e., podcasts, web-based modules) with videoconferencing. This study demonstrates the feasibility of H + H ECHO among PCPs in publicly-funded clinics and improvements in self-efficacy. Studies are needed to identify alternative strategies to improve knowledge and prescribing of buprenorphine post-H + H ECHO., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Small independent primary care practices (SIPs) often lack the resources to implement system changes. HealthyHearts NYC, funded through the EvidenceNOW initiative of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, studied the effectiveness of practice facilitation to improve cardiovascular disease- related care in 257 SIPs. We sought to understand SIP clinicians' perspectives on the benefits of practice facilitation., Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 SIP clinicians enrolled in HealthyHearts NYC. Interviews were transcribed and coded using deductive and inductive approaches. To understand whether the perceived benefits of practice facilitation differ based on the availability of internal staff for quality improvement (QI), we compared themes pertaining to benefits between practices with 3 or fewer office staff vs more than 3 office staff., Results: Clinicians perceived 2 main benefits of practice facilitation. First, facilitators served as a connection to the external health care environment for SIPs, often through teaching and information sharing. Second, facilitators provided electronic health record (EHR)/data expertise, often by teaching functionality and completing technical assistance and tasks. SIPs with more than 3 office staff felt that facilitators provided benefits primarily through teaching, whereas SIPs with 3 or fewer staff felt that facilitators also provided hands-on support. At the intersections of these benefits, there emerged 3 central practice facilitation benefits: (1) creating awareness of quality gaps, (2) connecting practices to information, resources, and strategies, and (3) optimizing the EHR for QI goals., Conclusions: SIP clinicians perceived practice facilitation to be an important resource for connecting their practice to the external health care environment and resources, and helping their practice build QI capacity through teaching, hands-on support, and EHR-driven solutions., (© 2019 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

An estimated 3 to 5 million Americans are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), and approximately 75% of those persons were born between 1945 and 1965 (the so-called baby boomer generation). Because of the largely asymptomatic nature of HCV, up to 50% of those infected are unaware of their disease. Risk-based testing has been largely ineffective. Based on prevalence data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other organizations recommend a onetime HCV antibody test for all baby boomers. However, uptake of this recommendation requires significant changes in clinical practice for already busy primary care clinicians. We studied the effectiveness of a quality improvement initiative based on continuous audit and feedback combined with education for improving testing in alignment with guidelines; the control group was a cohort of clinicians whose only reminder was an institution-wide electronic health record prompt. Our data show improved testing rates among all clinician groups, but more significant improvement occurred among providers who received continuous feedback about their clinical performance coupled with education.

Background: Little is known about the prevalence and correlates of burnout among providers who work in small independent primary care practices (<5 providers)., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by using data collected from 235 providers practicing in 174 small independent primary care practices in New York City., Results: The rate of provider-reported burnout was 13.5%. Using bivariate logistic regression, we found higher adaptive reserve scores were associated with lower odds of burnout (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85; P = .034)., Conclusion: The burnout rate was relatively low among our sample of providers compared with previous surveys that focused primarily on larger practices. The independence and autonomy providers have in these small practices may provide some protection against symptoms of burnout. In addition, the relationship between adaptive reserve and lower rates of burnout point toward potential interventions for reducing burnout that include strengthening primary care practices' learning and development capacity., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: We wanted to describe small, independent primary care practices' performance in meeting the Million Hearts ABCSs (aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking screening and counseling), as well as on a composite measure that captured the extent to which multiple clinical targets are achieved for patients with a history of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We also explored relationships between practice characteristics and ABCS measures., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, bivariate analysis using baseline data from 134 practices in New York City. ABCS data were extracted from practices' electronic health records and aggregated to the site level. Practice characteristics were obtained from surveys of clinicians and staff at each practice., Results: The proportion of at-risk patients meeting clinical goals for each of the ABCS measures was 73.0% for aspirin use, 69.6% for blood pressure, 66.7% for cholesterol management, and 74.2% screened for smoking and counseled. For patients with a history of ASCVD, only 49% were meeting all ABC (aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management) targets (ie, composite measure). Solo practices were more likely to meet clinical guidelines for aspirin (risk ratio [RR] =1.17, P =.007) and composite (RR=1.29, P = .011) than practices with multiple clinicians., Conclusion: Achieving targets for ABCS measures varied considerably across practices; however, small practices were meeting or exceeding Million Hearts goals (ie, 70% or greater). Practices were less likely to meet consistently clinical targets that apply to patients with a history of ASCVD risk factors. Greater emphasis is needed on providing support for small practices to address the complexity of managing patients with multiple risk factors for primary and secondary ASCVD., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: authors report none., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Care management (CM) is a promising team-based, patient-centered approach "designed to assist patients and their support systems in managing medical conditions more effectively." As little is known about its implementation, this article describes CM implementation and associated lessons from 12 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-sponsored projects. Two rounds of data collection resulted in project-specific narratives that were analyzed using an iterative approach analogous to framework analysis. Informants also participated as coauthors. Variation emerged across practices and over time regarding CM services provided, personnel delivering these services, target populations, and setting(s). Successful implementation was characterized by resource availability (both monetary and nonmonetary), identifying as well as training employees with the right technical expertise and interpersonal skills, and embedding CM within practices. Our findings facilitate future context-specific implementation of CM within medical homes. They also inform the development of medical home recognition programs that anticipate and allow for contextual variation.

Background: The Primary Care Information Project (PCIP) is a program administered by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to help primary care providers adopt a fully functional electronic health record (EHR) and focus on population health. PCIP also offers practices assistance with the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) patient-centered medical home (PCMH) recognition application. The objectives of this study were to assess the presence of key dimensions of PCMH among PCIP practices with 5 or fewer providers and to determine whether and to what extent NCQA recognition was related to the presence of these dimensions., Methods: Analyses relied on data collected from a comprehensive practice assessment survey of PCIP practices administered in summer 2012. The survey was developed to assess discrete dimensions of the PCMH model and other practice characteristics. The study population includes practices for which survey results were available among PCIP practices with 5 or fewer providers (63% response rate; n = 83)., Results: At the time of survey, 57% of practices had received some level of NCQA recognition (n = 47). Practices with recognition scored significantly higher on several dimensions, including whole person orientation, team-based care, care coordination and integration, and quality and safety., Conclusions: Results indicate that very small urban practices in New York City are implementing many key features of PCMH. In general, practices with NCQA recognition scored higher on PCMH constructs and domains relative to practices without recognition; however, there is room for improvement on construct and domain scores in both groups.

Purpose: Research on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model and practice redesign has not focused on the unique challenges and strengths of very small primary care practices serving disadvantaged patient populations. We analyzed the practice characteristics, prior experiences, and dimensions of the PCMH model that exist in such practices participating in the Primary Care Information Project (PCIP) of the New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene., Methods: We obtained descriptive data, focusing on PCMH, for 94 primary care practices with 5 or fewer clinicians serving high volumes of Medicaid and minority patient populations in New York City. Data included information extracted from PCIP administrative data and survey data collected specifically for this study., Results: Survey results indicated substantial implementation of key aspects of the PCMH among small practices serving disadvantaged patient populations, despite considerable potential challenges to achieving PCMH implementation. Practices tended to use few formal mechanisms, such as formal care teams and designated care or case managers, but there was considerable evidence of use of informal team-based care and care coordination nonetheless. It appears that many of these practices achieved the spirit, if not the letter, of the law in terms of key dimensions of PCMH., Conclusions: Small practices can achieve important aspects of the PCMH model of primary care, often with informal rather than formal mechanisms and strategies. The use of flexible, less formal strategies is important to keep in mind when considering implementation and assessment of PCMH-like initiatives in small practices.

Background: Primary care practices have remained on the frontline of health care service delivery throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of our study was to understand the early pandemic experience of primary care practices, how they adapted care processes for chronic disease management and preventive care, and the future potential of these practices' service delivery adaptations. Methods: We interviewed 44 providers and staff at 22 high-performing primary care practices located throughout the United States between March and May 2020. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a modified rapid assessment process due to the time-sensitive nature of the study. Results: Practices reported employing a variety of adaptations to care during the COVID-19 pandemic including maintaining safe and socially distanced access through increased use of telehealth visits, using disease registries to identify and proactively outreach to patients, providing remote patient education, and incorporating more home-based monitoring into care. Routine screening and testing slowed considerably, resulting in concerns about delayed detection. Patients with fewer resources, lower health literacy, and older adults were the most difficult to reach and manage during this time. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that primary care structures and processes developed for remote chronic disease management and preventive care are evolving rapidly. Emerging adapted care processes, most notably remote provision of care, are promising and may endure beyond the pandemic, but issues of equity must be addressed (e.g., through payment reform) to ensure vulnerable populations receive the same benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy used to build practice capacity and support practice changes to improve health care outcomes. Yet, few studies have investigated how practice facilitation strategies are tailored to different primary care contexts.Objective: To identify contextual factors that drive facilitators' strategies to meet practice improvement goals, and how these strategies are tailored to practice context.Design: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews analyzed using inductive (open coding) and deductive (thematic) approaches. This study was conducted as part of a larger study, HealthyHearts New York City, which evaluated the impact of practice facilitation on adoption of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines.Participants: 15 facilitators working in two practice contexts: small independent practices (SIPs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).Main Measures: Strategies facilitators use to support and promote practice changes and contextual factors that impact this approach.Key Results: Contextual factors were described similarly across settings and included the policy environment, patient needs, site characteristics, leadership engagement, and competing priorities. We identified four facilitation strategies used to tailor to contextual factors and support practice change: (a) remain flexible to align with practice and organizational priorities; (b) build relationships; (c) provide value through information technology expertise; and (d) build capacity and create efficiencies. Facilitators in SIPs and FQHCs described using the same strategies, often in combination, but tailored to their specific contexts.Conclusions: Despite significant infrastructure and resource differences between SIPs and FQHCs, the contextual factors that influenced the facilitator's change process and the strategies used to address those factors were remarkably similar. The findings emphasize that facilitators require multidisciplinary skills to support sustainable practice improvement in the context of varying complex health care delivery settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]