Deborah J. Cohen

PURPOSE An interdisciplinary, team-based approach to delivering medical, behavioral, and supportive care can help pregnant people with substance use disorder (SUD) manage this chronic condition and care for themselves and their family. We identified the professionals, roles, and functions of these care teams. METHODS We conducted a qualitative observational study of 7 organizations that implemented team-based SUD care for pregnant people. We observed clinical team operations and conducted semistructured interviews with leaders and care team professionals. We used an inductive and comparative approach to analyze data. RESULTS The organizations varied in ownership, type (medical, SUD treatment, behavioral health) and rural-urban location. We identified 14 care team functions and organized them into 5 categories: medical care, behavioral health care, coordination and resources, support and engagement, and quality improvement leadership. Clinicians (family physicians, certified nurse midwives), registered nurses, medical assistants, licensed clinical social workers, certified alcohol and drug counselors, peer support professionals, and doulas carried out these functions. All teams provided care coordination, outreach and engagement, referral to specialists, transitional care, community resource connection, social and emotional support, and advocacy functions. Of the 4 nonmedical organizations, only 2—a behavioral health organization and an SUD treatment organization—carried out the medical care functions; one had a family physician on the team. CONCLUSIONS There are 14 functions that policy makers, payers, health care organization leaders, and individuals should expect from an interdisciplinary care team that is delivering whole-person SUD care to pregnant individuals. Investment in programs that train full-scope family medicine clinicians can strengthen care for people with SUD during pregnancy.

This proof-of-concept study tested the feasibility and acceptability of INTEGRATE-D, an implementation support intervention for primary care clinics to improve the psychosocial care of patients with type 2 diabetes. Cluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial, with a parallel, convergent mixed methods design. Two Intervention Clinics (ICs) were offered tailored training on American Diabetes Association (ADA)-recommended psychosocial care and facilitation to identify and support clinical change. Two Control Clinics (CCs) received no intervention. intervention acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. process-of-care metrics (eg, depression screening, diabetes management) and clinical outcomes measures (PHQ-9 and A1C). Qualitative data were collected to assess implementation and experience with the intervention. ICs were offered training and received 15-months of facilitation. To accommodate COVID-19-related safety restrictions, the intervention was changed to be delivered virtually (eg, remote facilitation and training sessions). Despite an adapted delivery and COVID-19 and staffing stressors, clinics exposed to INTEGRATE-D found it to be acceptable, well-aligned with clinics' needs, and feasible. Qualitative data suggest COVID-19 stressors tempered feasibility. The effect of INTEGRATE-D on process and clinical outcome measures were mixed. Several factors, including differences in ICs and CCs not addressed in randomization and delivery of a less intensive intervention due to the pandemic, may help explain these results. Given the growing number of people with type 2 diabetes and the importance of psychosocial care for these patients, INTEGRATE-D warrants further pilot-testing with a larger sample of clinics and patients, and under conditions where in-person facilitation and expanded training is possible.

Objective To identify primary care structures and processes that have the highest and lowest impact on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes as well as to assess the feasibility of implementing these structures and processes into practice. Design A two-round Delphi study was conducted to establish consensus on the impact and feasibility of 258 primary care structures and processes. Participants 29 primary care providers, health system leaders and health services researchers in the USA. Outcomes Primary outcomes were (1) consensus on the impact of each structure and process on chronic disease management and screening and prevention outcomes, separately and (2) consensus on feasibility of implementation by primary care practices. Results Consensus on high impact and feasibility of implementation was reached on four items for chronic disease management: ‘Providers use motivational interviewing to help patients set goals’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice has onsite providers or staff that speak the most dominant, non-English language spoken by patients’ and ‘Practice includes mental health providers and/or behavioural health specialists in care team’ and seven items for screening and prevention: ‘Practice utilizes standing protocols and orders’, ‘Practice generates reports to alert clinicians to missed targets and to identify gaps in care, such as overdue visits, needed vaccinations, screenings or other preventive services’, ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’, ‘Practice sets performance goals and uses benchmarking to track quality of care’, ‘Practice uses performance feedback to identify practice-specific areas of improvement’, ‘Practice builds quality improvement activities into practice operations’ and ‘Pre-visit planning data are reviewed during daily huddles’. Only ‘Practice has designated staff to manage patient panel’ appeared on both lists. Conclusion Findings suggest that practices need to focus on implementing mostly distinct, rather than common, structures and processes to optimise chronic disease and preventive care.

Accurately measuring primary care spending is essential to improving health care delivery and outcomes.^1,2 Herein, we identify states’ estimates of primary care spending and recommend steps policymakers can take toward standardizing these estimates.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to clinical practice changes, which affected cancer preventive care delivery. Objectives: To investigate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the delivery of colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer (CVC) screenings. Research Design: Parallel mixed methods design using electronic health record data (extracted between January 2019 and July 2021). Study results focused on 3 pandemic-related periods: March–May 2020, June–October 2020, and November 2020–September 2021. Subjects: Two hundred seventeen community health centers located in 13 states and 29 semistructured interviews from 13 community health centers. Measures: Monthly up-to-date CRC and CVC screening rates and monthly rates of completed colonoscopies, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)/fecal occult blood test (FOBT) procedures, Papanicolaou tests among age and sex-eligible patients. Analysis used generalized estimating equations Poisson modeling. Qualitative analysts developed case summaries and created a cross-case data display for comparison. Results: The results showed a reduction of 75% for colonoscopy [rate ratio (RR) = 0.250, 95% CI: 0.224–0.279], 78% for FIT/FOBT (RR = 0.218, 95% CI: 0.208–0.230), and 87% for Papanicolaou (RR = 0.130, 95% CI: 0.125–0.136) rates after the start of the pandemic. During this early pandemic period, CRC screening was impacted by hospitals halting services. Clinic staff moved toward FIT/FOBT screenings. CVC screening was impacted by guidelines encouraging pausing CVC screening, patient reluctance, and concerns about exposure. During the recovery period, leadership-driven preventive care prioritization and quality improvement capacity influenced CRC and CVC screening maintenance and recovery. Conclusions: Efforts supporting quality improvement capacity could be key actionable elements for these health centers to endure major disruptions to their care delivery system and to drive rapid recovery.

Background: Healthcare facilitation, an implementation strategy designed to improve the uptake of effective clinical innovations in routine practice, has produced promising yet mixed results in randomized implementation trials and has not been fully researched across different contexts. Objective: Using mechanism mapping, which applies directed acyclic graphs that decompose an effect of interest into hypothesized causal steps and mechanisms, we propose a more concrete description of how healthcare facilitation works to inform its further study as a meta-implementation strategy. Methods: Using a modified Delphi consensus process, co-authors developed the mechanistic map based on a three-step process. First, they developed an initial logic model by collectively reviewing the literature and identifying the most relevant studies of healthcare facilitation components and mechanisms to date. Second, they applied the logic model to write vignettes describing how facilitation worked (or did not) based on recent empirical trials that were selected via consensus for inclusion and diversity in contextual settings (US, international sites). Finally, the mechanistic map was created based on the collective findings from the vignettes. Findings: Theory-based healthcare facilitation components informing the mechanistic map included staff engagement, role clarification, coalition-building through peer experiences and identifying champions, capacity-building through problem solving barriers, and organizational ownership of the implementation process. Across the vignettes, engagement of leaders and practitioners led to increased socialization of the facilitator’s role in the organization. This in turn led to clarifying of roles and responsibilities among practitioners and identifying peer experiences led to increased coherence and sense-making of the value of adopting effective innovations. Increased trust develops across leadership and practitioners through expanded capacity in adoption of the effective innovation by identifying opportunities that mitigated barriers to practice change. Finally, these mechanisms led to eventual normalization and ownership of the effective innovation and healthcare facilitation process. Impact: Mapping methodology provides a novel perspective of mechanisms of healthcare facilitation, notably how sensemaking, trust, and normalization contribute to quality improvement. This method may also enable more efficient and impactful hypothesis-testing and application of complex implementation strategies, with high relevance for lower-resourced settings, to inform effective innovation uptake.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of the Primary Care Extension Program to ensure access to high-quality primary care in the US.

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.

Introduction: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care. Methods: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable: Cooperatives’s experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices’ performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach. Results: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04), and made greater improvements in practices’ QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes. Discussion: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

Background: Parental factors are associated with children's receipt of recommended care but not adequately described. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of patients with at least two visits who were a primary caregiver for a child who also had at least two visits at the same clinic in 1/2018–12/2019 from two Oregon family medicine clinics. We stratified patients by child age and number of caregiver visits and randomly selected caregivers. Participants were interviewed in accordance with approval by our Institutional Review Board between 12/2020 and 4/2021. The data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results: 12 caregivers (termed parents) were interviewed; half were single parents and three-quarters had a history of substance use disorder and/or a mental health condition. Parents focused on the importance of keeping themselves healthy to keep their families healthy. They described similar reasons for choosing to initiate and continue care for themselves and their children at the same clinic, including: convenience, trust, relationships, and receiving whole-person and whole-family care. Many valued having a healthcare “home” for their entire family. We developed a figure that highlights three themes that capture the interrelated factors parents identified as supporting healthcare use for themselves and their families. These overarching themes included: healthcare initiation; healthcare engagement and continuity; and parent bringing child to the same clinic for healthcare. Conclusion: Our data suggests that long-standing patient-clinic relationships for parents and children can support family-focused healthcare.