Examining Training Motivations Among Public Health Workers

CONTEXT: As public health needs and priorities evolve, maintaining a trained public health workforce is critical to the success of public health efforts. Researchers have examined training needs in various contexts and subpopulations, but a nationally representative study of what motivates public health workers to seek out training has yet to be conducted. By understanding these motivations, public health agencies and policy makers can appeal to worker motivations in both training programs and organizational incentives. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to describe overall training motivations and identify patterns of training motivations among public health workers. This study also explored whether or not training needs differ across prevalent motivational patterns. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the 2017 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS), the study used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify motivational patterns and logistic regression to analyze associations with training needs. RESULTS: The most prominent motivation to seek training was personal growth (82.7% of respondents). LCA identified 4 motivational classes of public health workers: those motivated by organizational pressure and requirements (31.8%), those motivated indiscriminately by all factors (28.4%), those motivated primarily by personal growth (21.7%), and those motivated by organizational accommodations and supports (18.2%). Motivational class was not associated with indicating training needs in any of 8 training domains, nor was it associated with indicating any training need in any domain. CONCLUSIONS: Public health agencies should consider the different motivational classes present in the public health workforce. In particular, motivational classes that represent organizational choices suggest that public health agencies should both motivate workers with organizational requirements and pressure from managers and offer institutional support via paid travel and covered time for training

Health Information Technology and Accountable Care Organizations: A Systematic Review and Future Directions

Background: Since the inception of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), many have acknowledged the potential synergy between ACOs and health information technology (IT) in meeting quality and cost goals. Objective: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to describe what research has been conducted at the intersection of health IT and ACOs and identify directions for future research. Methods: We identified empirical studies discussing the use of health IT via PubMed search with subsequent snowball reference review. The type of health IT, how health IT was included in the study, use of theory, population, and findings were extracted from each study. Results: Our search resulted in 32 studies describing the intersection of health IT and ACOs, mainly in the form of electronic health records and health information exchange. Studies were divided into three streams by purpose; those that considered health IT as a factor for ACO participation, health IT use by current ACOs, and ACO performance as a function of health IT capabilities. Although most studies found a positive association between health IT and ACO participation, studies that address the performance of ACOs in terms of their health IT capabilities show more mixed results. Conclusions: In order to better understand this emerging relationship between health IT and ACO performance, we propose future research should consider more quasi-experimental studies, the use of theory, and merging health, quality, cost, and health IT use data across ACO member organizations

Barriers to Hospital Electronic Public Health Reporting and Implications for the COVID-19 Pandemic

We sought to identify barriers to hospital reporting of electronic surveillance data to local, state, and federal public health agencies and the impact on areas projected to be overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using 2018 American Hospital Association data, we identified barriers to surveillance data reporting and combined this with data on the projected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital capacity at the hospital referral region level. Our results find the most common barrier was public health agencies lacked the capacity to electronically receive data, with 41.2% of all hospitals reporting it. We also identified 31 hospital referral regions in the top quartile of projected bed capacity needed for COVID-19 patients in which over half of hospitals in the area reported that the relevant public health agency was unable to receive electronic data. Public health agencies’ inability to receive electronic data is the most prominent hospital-reported barrier to effective syndromic surveillance. This reflects the policy commitment of investing in information technology for hospitals without a concomitant investment in IT infrastructure for state and local public health agencies

Opt-in consent policies: potential barriers to hospital health information exchange

Objectives: First, to assess whether hospitals in states requiring explicit patient consent (“opt-in”) for health information exchange (HIE) are more likely to report regulatory barriers to HIE. Second, to analyze whether these policies correlate with hospital volume of HIE. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis of US non-federal acute care hospitals in 2016. Methods: We combined legal scholarship surveying HIE-relevant state laws with the AHA Annual IT Supplement for regulatory barriers and hospital characteristics. Data from CMS reports for hospitals attesting to Meaningful Use Stage 2 in 2016 (MU2, renamed “Promoting Interoperability” in 2018) captured hospital HIE volume. We used multivariate logistic regression and linear regression to estimate the association between opt-in state consent policies and reported regulatory barriers and HIE volume, respectively. Results: Hospitals in states with opt-in consent policies were 7.8 percentage points more likely than hospitals in opt-out states to report regulatory barriers to HIE (p=0.03). In subgroup analyses, this finding held among hospitals that did not attest to MU2 (7.7pp, p=0.02). Among hospitals attesting, we did not find a relationship between opt-in policies and regulatory barriers (8.0pp, p=0.13), nor evidence of a relationship between opt-in policies and HIE volume (ß=0.56, p=0.76). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that opt-in consent laws may carry greater administrative burdens compared to opt-out policies. However, less technologically advanced hospitals may bear more of this burden. Furthermore, opt-in policies may not impact HIE volume for hospitals that have already achieved a degree of technological sophistication. Policymakers should carefully consider the incidence of administrative burdens when crafting laws pertaining to HIE

Information Needs and Requirements for Decision Support in Primary Care: An Analysis of Chronic Pain Care

Decision support system designs often do not align with the information environments in which clinicians work. These work environments may increase Clinicians’ cognitive workload and harm their decision making. The objective of this study was to identify information needs and decision support requirements for assessing, diagnosing, and treating chronic noncancer pain in primary care. We conducted a qualitative study involving 30 interviews with 10 primary care clinicians and a subsequent multidisciplinary systems design workshop. Our analysis identified four key decision requirements, eight clinical information needs, and four decision support design seeds. Our findings indicate that clinicians caring for chronic pain need decision support that aggregates many disparate information elements and helps them navigate and contextualize that information. By attending to the needs identified in this study, decision support designers may improve Clinicians’ efficiency, reduce mental workload, and positively affect patient care quality and outcomes

Identifying and addressing barriers to implementing core electronic health record use metrics for ambulatory care: Virtual consensus conference proceedings

Precise, reliable, valid metrics that are cost-effective and require reasonable implementation time and effort are needed to drive electronic health record (EHR) improvements and decrease EHR burden. Differences exist between research and vendor definitions of metrics. PROCESS:  We convened three stakeholder groups (health system informatics leaders, EHR vendor representatives, and researchers) in a virtual workshop series to achieve consensus on barriers, solutions, and next steps to implementing the core EHR use metrics in ambulatory care. CONCLUSION:  Actionable solutions identified to address core categories of EHR metric implementation challenges include: (1) maintaining broad stakeholder engagement, (2) reaching agreement on standardized measure definitions across vendors, (3) integrating clinician perspectives, and (4) addressing cognitive and EHR burden. Building upon the momentum of this workshop\u27s outputs offers promise for overcoming barriers to implementing EHR use metrics

Using event logs to observe interactions with electronic health records: an updated scoping review shows increasing use of vendor-derived measures

Objective: The aim of this article is to compare the aims, measures, methods, limitations, and scope of studies that employ vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures of electronic health record (EHR) use, and to assess measure consistency across studies. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed for articles published between July 2019 and December 2021 that employed measures of EHR use derived from EHR event logs. We coded the aims, measures, methods, limitations, and scope of each article and compared articles employing vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures. Results: One hundred and two articles met inclusion criteria; 40 employed vendor-derived measures, 61 employed investigator-derived measures, and 1 employed both. Studies employing vendor-derived measures were more likely than those employing investigator-derived measures to observe EHR use only in ambulatory settings (83% vs 48%, P = .002) and only by physicians or advanced practice providers (100% vs 54% of studies, P < .001). Studies employing vendor-derived measures were also more likely to measure durations of EHR use (P < .001 for 6 different activities), but definitions of measures such as time outside scheduled hours varied widely. Eight articles reported measure validation. The reported limitations of vendor-derived measures included measure transparency and availability for certain clinical settings and roles. Discussion: Vendor-derived measures are increasingly used to study EHR use, but only by certain clinical roles. Although poorly validated and variously defined, both vendor- and investigator-derived measures of EHR time are widely reported. Conclusion: The number of studies using event logs to observe EHR use continues to grow, but with inconsistent measure definitions and significant differences between studies that employ vendor-derived and investigator-derived measures

Assessment of Satisfaction With the Electronic Health Record Among Physicians in Physician-Owned vs Non–Physician-Owned Practices

Importance: Despite known benefits, electronic health records (EHRs) have had drawbacks for daily practice and the physician experience. There is evidence that physicians practicing in solo or physician-owned practices are more likely to be satisfied with the EHR and experience lower burnout than those practicing in other ownership arrangements; however, it is unclear how practice ownership patterns interact with physicians' experiences with the EHR and documentation in the EHR now that use of these systems is widespread. Objective: To examine the association between practice ownership and physician perceptions of the EHR. Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study included non-federally employed physicians who provided office-based patient care in 2019 and completed the 2019 National Electronic Health Records Survey. The 2019 survey sample consisted of 1524 eligible responses (41.0% unweighted response rate representing 301 603 physicians); of those, 1368 physicians who reported having an EHR and answered questions regarding location ownership were included in the analysis. Data for the 2019 National Electronic Health Records Survey were collected by RTI International from June 14 to December 11, 2019; the current cross-sectional analysis was conducted from October 1 to November 30, 2021. Main outcomes and measures: Satisfaction with the EHR, perceptions of time spent on clinical documentation, and presence of staff support for documentation. Results: Among 1368 respondents (weighted, 270 813 respondents) included in the analysis, 960 respondents (weighted: 185,385 respondents [68.5%]) were male, and 951 respondents (weighted: 200,622 respondents [74.1%]) were over 50 years of age; 766 respondents (weighted, 161 226 respondents [59.5%]) were working in a practice owned by a physician or physician group, and 700 respondents (weighted, 131 284 respondents [48.5%]) were primary care physicians. A total of 602 respondents (weighted, 109 587 physicians [40.5%]) were working in a non-physician-owned practice. Overall, 529 respondents (weighted, 108 093 respondents [68.1%]) working in physician-owned practices reported being satisfied with their EHR vs 320 respondents (weighted, 63 988 respondents [58.5%]) working in non-physician-owned practices (P = .03). Among those working in physician-owned practices, perceptions that time spent on documentation was appropriate (328 physicians [weighted, 71 827 physicians (44.8%)] vs 191 physicians [weighted, 35 447 physicians (32.4%)]; P = .005) and that staff support for documentation was available (289 physicians [weighted, 57 702 physicians (36.0%)] vs 146 physicians [weighted, 29 267 physicians (26.7%)]; P = .02) were significantly higher compared with those working in non-physician-owned practices. Physicians' perceptions of the appropriateness of time spent and the availability of staff support only partially explained the association between practice ownership type and EHR satisfaction. Conclusions and relevance: The results of this nationally representative cross-sectional study suggest that physicians working in physician-owned practices are more likely to be satisfied with the EHR, to have positive perceptions of time spent on documentation, and to have staff support for documentation compared with their counterparts working in non-physician-owned practices. The workflow and cultural forces underlying these differences are important to understand in the setting of known differences in burnout by practice ownership type and ongoing physician group consolidation and acquisition by health care systems

Measures of electronic health record use in outpatient settings across vendors

Electronic health record (EHR) log data capture clinical workflows and are a rich source of information to understand variation in practice patterns. Variation in how EHRs are used to document and support care delivery is associated with clinical and operational outcomes, including measures of provider well-being and burnout. Standardized measures that describe EHR use would facilitate generalizability and cross-institution, cross-vendor research. Here, we describe the current state of outpatient EHR use measures offered by various EHR vendors, guided by our prior conceptual work that proposed seven core measures to describe EHR use. We evaluate these measures and other reporting options provided by vendors for maturity and similarity to previously proposed standardized measures. Working toward improved standardization of EHR use measures can enable and accelerate high-impact research on physician burnout and job satisfaction as well as organizational efficiency and patient health