Lorraine Kwok

Despite progress to define primary care practice transformation models, there remain gaps in translating evidence-based guidelines into routine clinical care. Primary care providers (MD, DO, NP, PA) and researchers need tools to assess modifiable factors that improve practice performance to inform practice transformation efforts. We aimed to develop a pragmatic tool for assessing practice-level primary care structures and processes that are associated with better care quality and clinical outcomes. We generated 314 candidate items for the Tool for Advancing Practice Performance (TAPP) using data from a comprehensive literature review, Delphi study, and qualitative interviews with high-performing practices. We used empirical criteria and expert review to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity via removing and retaining items. The retained items were formatted into a survey tool, and we further revised the tool based on feedback elicited from cognitive interviews and pilot testing with primary care providers and staff. The final candidate pool comprised 126 items after refinement and expert review. For the survey tool, we adapted and developed survey questions for each of the 126 items. Eight cognitive interview participants reviewed the tool and provided feedback on its content and language. Based on this feedback, we eliminated 13 items because they were poorly or incorrectly understood by participants, resulting in a 113-item tool. Fifteen participants pilot tested the tool and no additional items were eliminated. The TAPP is a novel, low-burden tool that researchers and primary care providers can use to identify areas for improvement at the practice-level. Practices and health systems could use the TAPP to assess their own performance and identify gaps in their structures and processes, and practice networks and health systems can use the tool to assess structures and processes at individual clinics, track this information over time, and evaluate its relationship to care quality and clinical outcomes.

Despite progress to define primary care practice transformation models, there remains gaps in translating evidence-based guidelines into routine clinical care. Primary care providers (MD, DO, NP, PA) and researchers need tools to assess modifiable factors that improve practice performance to inform practice transformation efforts. We aimed to develop a pragmatic tool for assessing practice-level primary care structures and processes that are associated with better care quality and clinical outcomes. We generated 314 candidate items for the Tool for Advancing Practice Performance (TAPP) using data from a comprehensive literature review, Delphi study, and qualitative interviews with high-performing practices. We used empirical criteria and expert review to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity via removing and retaining items. The retained items were formatted into a survey tool, and we further revised the tool based on feedback elicited from cognitive interviews and pilot testing with primary care providers and staff. The final candidate pool comprised 126 items after refinement and expert review. For the survey tool, we adapted and developed survey questions for each of the 126 items. Eight cognitive interview participants reviewed the tool and provided feedback on its content and language. Based on this feedback, we eliminated 13 items because they were poorly or incorrectly understood by participants, resulting in a 113-item tool. Fifteen participants pilot tested the tool and no additional items were eliminated. The TAPP is a novel, low-burden tool that researchers and primary care providers can use to identify areas for improvement at the practice-level. Practices and health systems could use the TAPP to assess their own performance and identify gaps in their structures and processes, and practice networks and health systems can use the tool to assess structures and processes at individual clinics, track this information over time, and evaluate its relationship to care quality and clinical outcomes.

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.

Background: Non-emergent medical problems that arise when a usual provider is unavailable can often result in emergency department or urgent care visits, which can be particularly distressing to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (PIDD). On-demand, synchronous telemedicine may be a promising supplement when immediate care from usual sources is unavailable. Prior research demonstrated that high-quality telemedicine can be effectively delivered to PIDD. The aim of this article is to describe the utilization and staff perspectives on the implementation of the Telemedicine Triage Project (TTP), an innovative model that provides telemedicine consultations for PIDD who reside in state-certified group residences and present with an urgent but non-emergent medical concern when their usual provider is unavailable. Methods: Call frequency data for calendar years 2020 and 2021 were reviewed. The study team conducted semi-structured interviews, with 19 key informants representing organizational- and agency-level leadership and staff. The interview data were analyzed using a protocol-driven, rapid qualitative methodology. Results: Telemedicine consultations increased from 7953 in 2020 to 15,011 calls in 2021, and call volume peaked between 10 am and 1 pm. Key informants reported high satisfaction with TTP; universal benefits and a few barriers to implementation; and strong interest in maintaining the program beyond the grant period. Discussion: Over the first 2 years of its implementation, the TTP program was widely utilized and proved extremely feasible and acceptable to staff. This model is a promising and highly feasible way to provide equitable access to telemedicine for PIDD by addressing barriers to and disparities in access to health care that affect PIDD.

Lifestyle medicine interventions that emphasize healthy behavior changes are growing in popularity in U.S. health systems. Safety-net healthcare settings that serve low-income and uninsured populations most at risk for lifestyle-related disease are ideal venues for lifestyle medicine interventions. Patient-reported outcomes are important indicators of the efficacy of lifestyle medicine interventions. Past research on patient-reported outcomes of lifestyle medicine interventions has occurred outside of traditional healthcare care settings. In this study, we aimed to assess patient-reported outcomes on nutrition knowledge, barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, food and beverage consumption, lifestyle behaviors, self-rated health, and quality-of-life of participants in a pilot plant-based lifestyle medicine program in an urban safety-net healthcare system. We surveyed participants at three time points (baseline, 3 months, 6 months) to measure change over time. After 6 months of participation in the program, nutrition knowledge increased by 7.2 percentage points, participants reported an average of 2.4 fewer barriers to adopting a plant-based diet, the score on a modified healthful plant-based diet index increased by 5.3 points, physical activity increased by 0.7 days per week while hours of media consumption declined by 0.7 h per day, and the percentage of participants who reported that their quality of sleep was “good” or “very good” increased by 12.2 percentage points. Our findings demonstrate that a lifestyle medicine intervention in a safety-net healthcare setting can achieve significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Key lessons for other lifestyle medicine interventions include using a multidisciplinary team; addressing all pillars of lifestyle medicine; and the ability for patients to improve knowledge, barriers, skills, and behaviors with adequate support.