Advancing Learning Health Systems Through Embedded Research: The 23rd Annual Conference of the Health Care Systems Research Network

The 23rd annual conference of the Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN, formerly the HMO Research Network) was held in San Diego, California, March 21–23, 2017, attracting 387 attendees. As a consortium of 20 research organizations embedded in or affiliated with large health care delivery organizations, the HCSRN has held annual research conferences since 1994. The overall aim of the conferences is to bring researchers, project staff, research funders and other stakeholders together to share latest scientific findings and foster new research ideas and collaborations. The 2017 conference was hosted by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute. Each host site takes responsibility for the content and structure of the conference, and the 2017 team introduced several new features. In particular, past conferences used concurrent sessions to present research results in different topical areas, such as chronic disease, cancer, health informatics, mental health or precision medicine. This year, concurrent sessions shifted to panel discussions about how research results were achieved, including the use of methods, partnerships and analytic approaches. The 35 panels were organized into tracks such as engagement, data and informatics, partnerships and research implementation. Scientific results from HCSRN projects were presented via 120 posters in two poster sessions. Plenary sessions included a town hall-style panel with different funding agency representatives, an opening presentation on the range of opportunities and benefits to studying health systems, and a concluding presentation on how researchers can apply design thinking in their work

Patient and Physician Race and the Allocation of Time and Patient Engagement Efforts to Mental Health Discussions in Primary Care: An Observational Study of Audiorecorded Periodic Health Examinations

This study investigated racial differences in patient-physician communication around mental health versus biomedical issues. Data were collected from audiorecorded periodic health examinations of adults with mental health needs in the Detroit area (2007-2009). Patients and their primary care physicians conversed for twice as long, and physicians demonstrated greater empathy during mental health topics than during biomedical topics. This increase varied by patient and physician race. Patient race predicted physician empathy, but physician race predicted talk time. Interventions to improve mental health communication could be matched to specific populations based on the separate contributions of patient and physician race

Implementation of Patient Engagement Tools in Electronic Health Records to Enhance Patient-Centered Communication: Protocol for Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND: Patient-physician communication during clinical encounters is essential to ensure quality of care. Many studies have attempted to improve patient-physician communication. Incorporating patient priorities into agenda setting and medical decision-making are fundamental to patient-centered communication. Efficient and scalable approaches are needed to empower patients to speak up and prepare physicians to respond. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) in engaging patients and health care teams has the potential to enhance the integration of patient priorities in clinical encounters. A systematic approach to eliciting and documenting patient priorities before encounters could facilitate effective communication in such encounters. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we report the design and implementation of a set of EHR tools built into clinical workflows for facilitating patient-physician joint agenda setting and the documentation of patient concerns in the EHRs for ambulatory encounters. METHODS: We engaged health information technology leaders and users in three health care systems for developing and implementing a set of EHR tools. The goal of these tools is to standardize the elicitation of patient priorities by using a previsit patient important issue questionnaire distributed through the patient portal to the EHR. We built additional EHR documentation tools to facilitate patient-staff communication when the staff records the vital signs and the reason for the visit in the EHR while in the examination room, with a simple transmission method for physicians to incorporate patient concerns in EHR notes. RESULTS: The study is ongoing. The anticipated completion date for survey data collection is November 2021. A total of 34,037 primary care patients from three health systems (n=26,441; n=5136; and n=2460 separately recruited from each system) used the previsit patient important issue questionnaire in 2020. The adoption of the digital previsit questionnaire during the COVID-19 pandemic was much higher in one health care system because it expanded the use of the questionnaire from physicians participating in trials to all primary care providers midway through the year. It also required the use of this previsit questionnaire for eCheck-ins, which are required for telehealth encounters. Physicians and staff suggested anecdotally that this questionnaire helped patient-clinician communication, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: EHR tools have the potential to facilitate the integration of patient priorities into agenda setting and documentation in real-world primary care practices. Early results suggest the feasibility and acceptability of such digital tools in three health systems. EHR tools can support patient engagement and clinicians\u27 work during in-person and telehealth visits. They could potentially exert a sustained influence on patient and clinician communication behaviors in contrast to prior ad hoc educational efforts targeting patients or clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03385512; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03385512. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30431

Decision or No Decision: How Do Patient–Physician Interactions End and What Matters?

BACKGROUND: A clearly stated clinical decision can induce a cognitive closure in patients and is an important investment in the end of patient–physician communications. Little is known about how often explicit decisions are made in primary care visits. OBJECTIVE: To use an innovative videotape analysis approach to assess physicians’ propensity to state decisions explicitly, and to examine the factors influencing decision patterns. DESIGN: We coded topics discussed in 395 videotapes of primary care visits, noting the number of instances and the length of discussions on each topic, and how discussions ended. A regression analysis tested the relationship between explicit decisions and visit factors such as the nature of topics under discussion, instances of discussion, the amount of time the patient spoke, and competing demands from other topics. RESULTS: About 77% of topics ended with explicit decisions. Patients spoke for an average of 58 seconds total per topic. Patients spoke more during topics that ended with an explicit decision, (67 seconds), compared with 36 seconds otherwise. The number of instances of a topic was associated with higher odds of having an explicit decision (OR = 1.73, p < 0.01). Increases in the number of topics discussed in visits (OR = 0.95, p < .05), and topics on lifestyle and habits (OR = 0.60, p < .01) were associated with lower odds of explicit decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Although discussions often ended with explicit decisions, there were variations related to the content and dynamics of interactions. We recommend strengthening patients’ voice and developing clinical tools, e.g., an “exit prescription,” to improving decision making

Health Care Consumers: Choices and Constraints

This article summarizes the research and data currently available on different dimensions of consumer choice. These dimensions include not only whether to participate in a health care plan and which plan to select if given a choice but also the decisions that lead to having a choice and the implications of making the choice. Data are presented on what choices consumers face, how many are given what kinds of choices, what constraints they face, what we know about how they make these choices, and what information they are given and what they use. The majority of Americans are offered some kind of health insurance plan either through their place of employment or as a dependent on someone else’s employer-sponsored health plan. About half of those offered health insurance are offered a choice, usually of only two or three plans. The majority elect to participate in one of those plans.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68465/2/10.1177_107755879905600102.pd

Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient‐reported measure of shared decision making: Results from three clinical settings in the United States

Abstract Introduction: CollaboRATE is a brief patient survey focused on shared decision making. This paper aims to (i) provide insight on facilitators and challenges to implementing a real‐time patient survey and (ii) evaluate CollaboRATE scores and response rates across multiple clinical settings with varied patient populations. Method All adult patients at three United States primary care practices were eligible to complete CollaboRATE post‐visit. To inform key learnings, we aggregated all mentions of unanticipated decisions, problems and administration errors from field notes and email communications. Mixed‐effects logistic regression evaluated the impact of site, clinician, patient age and patient gender on the CollaboRATE score. Results: While CollaboRATE score increased only slightly with increasing patient age (OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.014‐1.021), female patient gender was associated with significantly higher CollaboRATE scores (OR 1.224, 95% CI 1.073‐1.397). Clinician also predicts CollaboRATE score (random effect variance 0.146). Site‐specific factors such as clinical workflow and checkout procedures play a key role in successful in‐clinic implementation and are significantly related to CollaboRATE scores, with Site 3 scoring significantly higher than Site 1 (OR 1.759, 95% CI 1.216 to 2.545) or Site 2 (z=−2.71, 95% CI −1.114 to −0.178). Discussion This study demonstrates that CollaboRATE can be used in diverse primary care settings. A clinic's workflow plays a crucial role in implementation. Patient experience measurement risks becoming a burden to both patients and administrators. Episodic use of short measurement tools could reduce this burden

'To take care of the patients': Qualitative analysis of Veterans Health Administration personnel experiences with a clinical informatics system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has invested significant resources in designing and implementing a comprehensive electronic health record (EHR) that supports clinical priorities. EHRs in general have been difficult to implement, with unclear cost-effectiveness. We describe VA clinical personnel interactions with and evaluations of the EHR.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>As part of an evaluation of a quality improvement initiative, we interviewed 72 VA clinicians and managers using a semi-structured interview format. We conducted a qualitative analysis of interview transcripts, examining themes relating to participants' interactions with and evaluations of the VA EHR.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Participants described their perceptions of the positive and negative effects of the EHR on their clinical workflow. Although they appreciated the speed and ease of documentation that the EHR afforded, they were concerned about the time cost of using the technology and the technology's potential for detracting from interpersonal interactions.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>VA personnel value EHRs' contributions to supporting communication, education, and documentation. However, participants are concerned about EHRs' potential interference with other important aspects of healthcare, such as time for clinical care and interpersonal communication with patients and colleagues. We propose that initial implementation of an EHR is one step in an iterative process of ongoing quality improvement.</p

A community-integrated home based depression intervention for older African Americans: descripton of the Beat the Blues randomized trial and intervention costs

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Primary care is the principle setting for depression treatment; yet many older African Americans in the United States fail to report depressive symptoms or receive the recommended standard of care. Older African Americans are at high risk for depression due to elevated rates of chronic illness, disability and socioeconomic distress. There is an urgent need to develop and test new depression treatments that resonate with minority populations that are hard-to-reach and underserved and to evaluate their cost and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: Beat the Blues (BTB) is a single-blind parallel randomized trial to assess efficacy of a non-pharmacological intervention to reduce depressive symptoms and improve quality of life in 208 African Americans 55+ years old. It involves a collaboration with a senior center whose care management staff screen for depressive symptoms (telephone or in-person) using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Individuals screened positive (PHQ-9 ≥ 5) on two separate occasions over 2 weeks are referred to local mental health resources and BTB. Interested and eligible participants who consent receive a baseline home interview and then are randomly assigned to receive BTB immediately or 4 months later (wait-list control). All participants are interviewed at 4 (main study endpoint) and 8 months at home by assessors masked to study assignment. Licensed senior center social workers trained in BTB meet with participants at home for up to 10 sessions over 4 months to assess care needs, make referrals/linkages, provide depression education, instruct in stress reduction techniques, and use behavioral activation to identify goals and steps to achieve them. Key outcomes include reduced depressive symptoms (primary), reduced anxiety and functional disability, improved quality of life, and enhanced depression knowledge and behavioral activation (secondary). Fidelity is enhanced through procedure manuals and staff training and monitored by face-to-face supervision and review of taped sessions. Cost and cost effectiveness is being evaluated. DISCUSSION: BTB is designed to bridge gaps in mental health service access and treatments for older African Americans. Treatment components are tailored to specific care needs, depression knowledge, preference for stress reduction techniques, and personal activity goals. Total costs are $584.64/4 months; or$146.16 per participant/per month. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00511680