Challenges and Strategies for Patient Safety in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

Although most health care occurs in the ambulatory setting, limited research examines how providers and patients think about and enact ambulatory patient safety. This multimethod qualitative study seeks to identify perceived challenges and strategies to improve ambulatory safety from the perspectives of clinicians, staff, and patients. Data included interviews (N = 101), focus groups (N = 65), and observations of safety processes (N = 79) collected from 10 patient-centered medical homes. Key safety issues included the lack of interoperability among health information systems, clinician-patient communication failures, and challenges with medication reconciliation. Commonly cited safety strategies leveraged health information systems or involved dedicated resources (eg, providing access to social workers). Patients also identified strategies not mentioned by clinicians, emphasizing the need for their involvement in developing safety solutions. This work provides insight into safety issues of greatest concern to clinicians, staff, and patients and strategies to improve safety in the ambulatory setting.

Implementation and Effectiveness of Integrating Palliative Care Into Ambulatory Care of Noncancer Serious Chronic Illness: Mixed Methods Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a mixed methods review to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of models for integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for US adults with noncancer serious chronic illness. METHODS: We searched 3 electronic databases from January 2000 to May 2020 and included qualitative, mixed methods studies and randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. For each study, 2 reviewers abstracted data and independently assessed for quality. We conducted meta-analyses as appropriate and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for quantitative outcomes. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis included 14 studies of 2,934 patients. Compared to usual care, models evaluated were not more effective for improving patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (standardized mean difference [SMD] of 4 of 8 studies, 0.19; 95% CI, ‒0.03 to 0.41) (SOE: moderate) or for patient depressive symptom scores (SMD of 3 of 9 studies, ‒0.09; 95% CI, ‒0.35 to 0.16) (SOE: moderate). Models might have little to no effect on patient satisfaction (SOE: low) but were more effective for increasing advance directive (AD) documentation (relative risk, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.94) (SOE: moderate). Qualitative analysis included 5 studies of 146 patients. Patient preferences for appropriate timing of palliative care varied; costs, additional visits, and travel were considered barriers to implementation. CONCLUSION: Models might have little to no effect on decreasing overall symptom burden and were not more effective than usual care for improving HRQOL or depressive symptom scores but were more effective for increasing AD documentation. Additional research should focus on identifying and addressing characteristics and implementation factors critical to integrating models to improve ambulatory, patient-centered outcomes.

Patient perceptions of safety in primary care: a qualitative study to inform care.

Patients' perspectives on patient safety have rarely been incorporated into quality initiatives in primary care. Our objective was to understand the patient perspective on patient safety in patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). We conducted 12 patient focus groups/interviews in nine sites with 65 patients at a geographically diverse sample of National Committee on Quality Assurance Level 3 recognized PCMHs across three states. Using a patient safety framework, we coded and analyzed interviews for overarching themes and subthemes across patient safety domains. Overarching themes focused on (1) both clear and timely communication with and between clinicians and (2) trust in the care team, including being heard, respected, and treated as a whole person. Other themes important to specific patient safety domains included sharing of and access to information, patient education and patient-centered medication reconciliation process, clear documentation for the diagnostic process, patient-centered comprehensive visits, and timeliness of care. Communication and trust are key to patient perceptions of safe primary care. Focusing on these themes across safety domains may help to make primary care both more patient-centered and safer, and should be considered in future ambulatory safety initiatives.

Advance Care Planning Shared Decision-Making Tools for Non-Cancer Chronic Serious Illness: A Mixed Method Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Shared decision-making tools can facilitate advance care planning and goals of care conversations in non-cancer serious illness. More information on integrating these tools in ambulatory care could better support clinicians and patients/caregivers in these conversations. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated effectiveness and implementation of integrating palliative care shared decision-making tools into ambulatory care for U.S. adults with serious, life-threatening illness and their caregivers. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2000 - May 2020) for quantitative controlled, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened articles, abstracted data, and independently assessed risk of bias or study quality. For quantitative trials, we graded strength of evidence for key outcomes: patient/caregiver satisfaction, depression or anxiety, concordance between patient preferences for care and care received, and healthcare utilization, including advance directive documentation. RESULTS: We included 6 quantitative effectiveness randomized, controlled trials and 5 qualitative implementation studies across primary care and specialty populations. Shared decision-making tools all addressed goals-of-care communication or advance care planning. Palliative care shared decision-making tools may be effective for improving patient satisfaction with communication and advance directive documentation. We were unable to draw conclusions about concordance between preferences and care received. Patients and caregivers preferred advance care planning discussions grounded in patient and caregiver experiences with individualized timing. CONCLUSIONS: For non-cancer serious illness, advance care planning shared decision-making tools may improve several outcomes. Future trials should evaluate concordance with care received and other health care utilization. KEY MESSAGE: This mixed-methods review concludes that when integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for serious illness and conditions other than cancer, advance care planning shared decision-making tools may improve patient satisfaction and advance directive documentation.

Patient Safety in Primary Care: Conceptual Meanings to the Health Care Team and Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety in primary care is an emerging priority, and experts have highlighted medications, diagnoses, transitions, referrals, and testing as key safety domains. This study aimed to (1) describe how frontline clinicians, administrators, and staff conceptualize patient safety in primary care; and (2) compare and contrast these conceptual meanings from the patient's perspective. METHODS: We conducted interviews with 101 frontline clinicians, administrators and staff, and focus groups with 65 adult patients at 10 patient-centered medical homes. We used thematic analysis to approach coding. RESULTS: Findings indicate that frontline personnel conceptualized patient safety more in terms of work functions, which reflect the grouping of tasks or responsibilities to guide how care is being delivered. Frontline personnel and patients conceptualized patient safety in largely consistent ways. DISCUSSION: Function-based conceptualizations of patient safety in primary care may better reflect frontline personnel and patients' experiences than domain-based conceptualizations, which are favored by experts.

Assessing Early Supportive Care Needs among Son or Daughter Haploidentical Transplantation Donors.

Increasingly, adolescent, young adult, and adult children are relied upon as donors for their parents undergoing blood and marrow stem cell transplant. How family functioning impacts donors' decision making and whether haploidentical donor children have unique supportive care needs is unknown. In this qualitative research study, we conducted 15 semistructured telephone interviews among individuals who underwent blood or marrow stem cell donation for their parent. Interviews explored donors' perspectives of the transplant experience across the trajectory from screening through early post-transplant follow-up and elicited unmet needs. Major themes included: (1) perception of choice, (2) act of giving back, (3) burdens of donation, (4) anticipated health benefit to parent, and (5) impact of donation on parent/child relationship. The majority of participants described high family functioning, but strain was also evident. Family functioning rarely was reported as affecting the decision to donate, with all donors expressing a sense of obligation. Participants were overwhelmingly satisfied with their decision and the ability to give back to their parent. Suggestions for the health care team to improve the donation experience focused on increased education about potential delays in screening, better description of possible complications for recipients, and provision of emotional support following donation.

Sharing in care: engaging care partners in the care and communication of breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Family is often overlooked in cancer care. We developed a patient-family agenda setting intervention to engage family in cancer care communication. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (NCT03283553) of patients on active treatment for breast cancer and their family "care partner." Intervention dyads (n = 69) completed a self-administered checklist to clarify care partner roles, establish a shared visit agenda, and facilitate MyChart patient portal access. Control dyads (n = 63) received usual care. We assessed intervention acceptability and initial effects from post-visit surveys and MyChart utilization at 6 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, most patients (89.4%) but few care partners (1.5%) were registered for MyChart. Most patients (79.4%) wanted their care partner to have access to their records and 39.4% of care partners reported accessing MyChart. In completing the checklist, patients and care partners endorsed active communication roles for the care partner and identified a similar visit agenda: most (> 90%) reported the checklist was easy, useful, and recommended it to others. At 6 weeks, intervention (vs control) care partners were more likely to be registered for MyChart (75.4% vs 1.6%; p < 0.001), to have logged in (43.5% vs 0%; p < 0.001) and viewed clinical notes (30.4% vs 0%; p < 0.001), but were no more likely to exchange direct messages with clinicians (1.5% vs 0%; p = 0.175). No differences in patients' MyChart use were observed, but intervention patients more often viewed clinical notes (50.7% vs 9.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A patient-family agenda setting intervention was acceptable and affected online practices of cancer patients and care partners.