Group Medical Visits and Clinician Wellbeing

There is strong evidence for clinical benefits of group medical visits (GMVs) (also known as shared medical appointments) for prenatal care, diabetes, chronic pain, and a wide range of other conditions. GMVs can increase access to integrative care while providing additional benefits including increased clinician-patient contact time, cost savings, and support with prevention and self-management of chronic conditions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many clinical sites are experimenting with new models of care delivery including virtual GMVs using telehealth. Little research has focused on which clinicians offer this type of care, how the GMV approach affects the ways they practice, and their job satisfaction. Workplace-based interventions have been shown to decrease burnout in individual physicians. We argue that more research is needed to understand if GMVs should be considered among these workplace-based interventions, given their potential benefits to clinician wellbeing. GMVs can benefit clinician wellbeing in multiple ways, including: (1) Extended time with patients; (2) Increased ability to provide team-based care; (3) Understanding patients\u27 social context and addressing social determinants of health. GMVs can be implemented in a variety of settings in many different ways depending on institutional context, patient needs and clinician preferences. We suggest that GMV programs with adequate institutional support may be beneficial for preventing burnout and improving retention among clinicians and health care teams more broadly, including in integrative health care. Just as group support benefits patients struggling with loneliness and social isolation, GMVs can help address these and other concerns in overwhelmed clinicians

Determinants of implementation for group medical visits for patients with chronic pain: a systematic review

Background Despite the critical need for comprehensive and effective chronic pain care, delivery of such care remains challenging. Group medical visits (GMVs) offer an innovative and efficient model for providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic pain. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) to implementing GMVs for adult patients with chronic pain. Methods The review included peer-reviewed studies reporting findings on implementation of GMVs for chronic pain, inclusive of all study designs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies of individual appointments or group therapy were excluded. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to determine risk of bias. Data related to implementation determinants were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data synthesis was guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results Thirty-three articles reporting on 25 studies met criteria for inclusion and included qualitative observational (n = 8), randomized controlled trial (n = 6), quantitative non-randomized (n = 9), quantitative descriptive (n = 3), and mixed methods designs (n = 7). The studies included in this review included a total of 2364 participants. Quality ratings were mixed, with qualitative articles receiving the highest quality ratings. Common multi-level determinants included the relative advantage of GMVs for chronic pain over other available models, the capability and motivation of clinicians, the cost of GMVs to patients and the health system, the need and opportunity of patients, the availability of resources and relational connections supporting recruitment and referral to GMVs within the clinic setting, and financing and policies within the outer setting. Conclusions Multi-level factors determine the implementation of GMVs for chronic pain. Future research is needed to investigate these determinants more thoroughly and to develop and test implementation strategies addressing these determinants to promote the scale-up of GMVs for patients with chronic pain.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered with PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021231310

Determinants of implementation for group medical visits for patients with chronic pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the critical need for comprehensive and effective chronic pain care, delivery of such care remains challenging. Group medical visits (GMVs) offer an innovative and efficient model for providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic pain. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) to implementing GMVs for adult patients with chronic pain. METHODS: The review included peer-reviewed studies reporting findings on implementation of GMVs for chronic pain, inclusive of all study designs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies of individual appointments or group therapy were excluded. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to determine risk of bias. Data related to implementation determinants were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data synthesis was guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles reporting on 25 studies met criteria for inclusion and included qualitative observational (n = 8), randomized controlled trial (n = 6), quantitative non-randomized (n = 9), quantitative descriptive (n = 3), and mixed methods designs (n = 7). The studies included in this review included a total of 2364 participants. Quality ratings were mixed, with qualitative articles receiving the highest quality ratings. Common multi-level determinants included the relative advantage of GMVs for chronic pain over other available models, the capability and motivation of clinicians, the cost of GMVs to patients and the health system, the need and opportunity of patients, the availability of resources and relational connections supporting recruitment and referral to GMVs within the clinic setting, and financing and policies within the outer setting. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-level factors determine the implementation of GMVs for chronic pain. Future research is needed to investigate these determinants more thoroughly and to develop and test implementation strategies addressing these determinants to promote the scale-up of GMVs for patients with chronic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021231310

Addressing food insecurity and chronic conditions in community health centres: protocol of a quasi-experimental evaluation of Recipe4Health

IntroductionChronic conditions, such as diabetes, obesity, heart disease and depression, are highly prevalent and frequently co-occur with food insecurity in communities served by community health centres in the USA. Community health centres are increasingly implementing 'Food as Medicine' programmes to address the dual challenge of chronic conditions and food insecurity, yet they have been infrequently evaluated.Methods and analysisThe goal of this quasi-experimental study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Recipe4Health, a 'Food as Medicine' programme. Recipe4Health includes two components: (1) a 'Food Farmacy' that includes 16 weekly deliveries of produce and (2) a 'Behavioural Pharmacy' which is a group medical visit. We will use mixed models to compare pre/post changes among participants who receive the Food Farmacy alone (n=250) and those who receive the Food Farmacy and Behavioural Pharmacy (n=140). The primary outcome, fruit and vegetable consumption, and secondary outcomes (eg, food security status, physical activity, depressive symptoms) will be collected via survey. We will also use electronic health record (EHR) data on laboratory values, prescriptions and healthcare usage. Propensity score matching will be used to compare Recipe4Health participants to a control group of patients in clinics where Recipe4Health has not been implemented for EHR-derived outcomes. Data from surveys, EHR, group visit attendance and produce delivery is linked with a common identifier (medical record number) and then deidentified for analysis with use of an assigned unique study ID. This study will provide important preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of primary care-based strategies to address food insecurity and chronic conditions.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (reference protocol ID 57239). Appropriate study result dissemination will be determined in partnership with the Community Advisory Board

Structural Competency: Curriculum for Medical Students, Residents, and Interprofessional Teams on the Structural Factors That Produce Health Disparities

Introduction: Research on disparities in health and health care has demonstrated that social, economic, and political factors are key drivers of poor health outcomes. Yet the role of such structural forces on health and health care has been incorporated unevenly into medical training. The framework of structural competency offers a paradigm for training health professionals to recognize and respond to the impact of upstream, structural factors on patient health and health care. Methods: We report on a brief, interprofessional structural competency curriculum implemented in 32 distinct instances between 2015 and 2017 throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. In consultation with medical and interprofessional education experts, we developed open-ended, written-response surveys to qualitatively evaluate this curriculum\u27s impact on participants. Qualitative data from 15 iterations were analyzed via directed thematic analysis, coding language, and concepts to identify key themes. Results: Three core themes emerged from analysis of participants\u27 comments. First, participants valued the curriculum\u27s focus on the application of the structural competency framework in real-world clinical, community, and policy contexts. Second, participants with clinical experience (residents, fellows, and faculty) reported that the curriculum helped them reframe how they thought about patients. Third, participants reported feeling reconnected to their original motivations for entering the health professions. Discussion: This structural competency curriculum fills a gap in health professional education by equipping learners to understand and respond to the role that social, economic, and political structural factors play in patient and community health

Group Medical Visits as Participatory Care in Community Health Centers

In this article, I examine group medical visits, a clinic-based intervention that aims to improve patient health by combining clinical care, health education and peer support. Research shows that health care inequalities are reproduced through the interplay of interpersonal, institutional, and structural factors. I examine changing social relations made possible by group visits, including peer support and an expanded role for patient knowledge. The qualitative data presented here are part of a mixed-methods study of how group medical visits and integrative medicine are combined and implemented for low-income people with chronic conditions. I find that patients take active roles in each other’s care, supporting, challenging, and advocating in ways that shift patient-provider relationships. Such shifts demand reflection about what kinds of knowledge matter for health. Health care encounters can reproduce inequality for marginalized patients; this study suggests group visits can restructure patient-provider encounters to interrupt healthcare inequalities. </jats:p