Ambulatory Intensive Care for Medically Complex Patients at a Health Care Clinic for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness The SUMMIT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Intensive primary care interventions have been promoted to reduce hospitalization rates and improve health outcomes for medically complex patients, but evidence of their efficacy is limited. Objective To assess the efficacy of a multidisciplinary ambulatory intensive care unit (A-ICU) intervention on health care utilization and patient-reported outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants The Streamlined Unified Meaningfully Managed Interdisciplinary Team (SUMMIT) randomized clinical trial used a wait-list control design and was conducted at a health care clinic for patients experiencing homelessness in Portland, Oregon. The first patient was enrolled in August 2016, and the last patient was enrolled in November 2019. Included patients had 1 or more hospitalizations in the prior 6 months and 2 or more chronic medical conditions, substance use disorder, or mental illness. Data analysis was performed between March and May 2021. Intervention The A-ICU included a team manager, a pharmacist, a nurse, care coordinators, social workers, and physicians. Activities included comprehensive 90-minute intake, transitional care coordination, and flexible appointments, with reduced panel size. Enhanced usual care (EUC), consisting of team-based primary care with access to community health workers and mental health, addiction treatment, and pharmacy services, served as the comparator. Participants who received EUC joined the A-ICU intervention after 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was the difference in rates of hospitalization (primary outcome), emergency department (ED) visits, and primary care physician (PCP) visits per person over 6 months (vs the prior 6 months). Patient-reported outcomes included changes in patient activation, experience, health-related quality of life, and self-rated health at 6 months (vs baseline). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using a linear mixed-effects model with a random intercept for each patient to examine the association between study group and outcomes

Management of Acute and Recurrent Gout: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the management of gout. Methods: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials; systematic reviews; and large observational studies published between January 2010 and March 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included pain, joint swelling and tenderness, activities of daily living, patient global assessment, recurrence, intermediate outcomes of serum urate levels, and harms. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute or recurrent gout. Recommendation 1: ACP recommends that clinicians choose corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use low-dose colchicine when using colchicine to treat acute gout. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: ACP recommends against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: ACP recommends that clinicians discuss benefits, harms, costs, and individual preferences with patients before initiating urate-lowering therapy, including concomitant prophylaxis, in patients with recurrent gout attacks. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence)

Getting Performance Metrics Right: A Qualitative Study of Staff Experiences Implementing and Measuring Practice Transformation

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement is a central goal of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, and requires the use of relevant performance measures that can effectively guide comprehensive care improvements. Existing literature suggests performance measurement can lead to improvements in care quality, but may also promote practices that are detrimental to patient care. Staff perceptions of performance metric implementation have not been well-researched in medical home settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care staff (clinicians and other staff) experiences with the use of performance metrics during the implementation of the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) model of care. DESIGN: Observational qualitative study; data collection using role-stratified focus groups and semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and forty-one of 337 (72 %) identified primary care clinic staff in PACT team and clinic administrative/other roles, from 15 VHA clinics in Oregon and Washington. APPROACH: Data coded and analyzed using conventional content analysis techniques. KEY RESULTS: Primary care staff perceived that performance metrics: 1) led to delivery changes that were not always aligned with PACT principles, 2) did not accurately reflect patient-priorities, 3) represented an opportunity cost, 4) were imposed with little communication or transparency, and 5) were not well-adapted to team-based care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care staff perceived responding to performance metrics as time-consuming and not consistently aligned with PACT principles of care. The gaps between the theory and reality of performance metric implementation highlighted by PACT team members are important to consider as the medical home model is more widely implemented

Congestive Heart Failure Self-Management Among US Veterans: The Role of Personal and Professional Advocates

Objective: Understand patients’ experiences with primary care services for congestive heart failure (CHF) and explore the relationship between health services and self-management. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-nine patients with CHF receiving care at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VA). We analyzed data using thematic content analysis. Results: Participants acknowledged the importance of ongoing engagement in the plan of care for CHF. They attributed success in this effort to be greatly influenced by personal advocates. The advocates included both members of the healthcare team with whom they had a continuity relationship and friends or family members who assisted on a daily basis. Participants also identified psychological symptoms as a major barrier to carrying out self-care. Conclusion: Patients identify relationships with health care workers, help from family and friends, and mental health problems as major influences on the ability to manage their CHF. Practice implications: Efforts to optimize CHF self-management should attend to health system and psychosocial barriers to care