The Ability of Primary Care Practices to Measure and Report on Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: Creating useful clinical quality measure (CQM) reports in a busy primary care practice is known to depend on the capability of the electronic health record (EHR). Two other domains may also contribute: supportive leadership to prioritize the work and commit the necessary resources, and individuals with the necessary health information technology (IT) skills to do so. Here we describe the results of an assessment of the above 3 domains and their associations with successful CQM reporting during an initiative to improve smaller primary care practices' cardiovascular disease CQMs. METHODS: The study took place within an AHRQ EvidenceNOW initiative of external support for smaller practices across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Practice facilitators who provided this support completed an assessment of the 3 domains previously described for each of their assigned practices. Practices submitted 3 CQMs to the study team: appropriate aspirin prescribing, use of statins when indicated, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation. RESULTS: Practices with advanced EHR reporting capability were more likely to report 2 or more CQMs. Only one-third of practices were "advanced" in this domain, and this domain had the highest proportion of practices (39.1%) assessed as "basic." The presence of advanced leadership or advanced skills did not appreciably increase the proportion of practices that reported 2 or more CQMs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support previous reports of limited EHR reporting capabilities within smaller practices but extend these findings by demonstrating that practices with advanced capabilities in this domain are more likely to produce CQM reports.

Improving Diabetes Control in a Medicaid Managed Care Population With Complex Needs.

INTRODUCTION: People enrolled in Medicaid managed care who struggle with diabetes control often have complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. Here the authors report the results of a program designed to partner with primary care teams to address those needs. METHODS: A nonprofit organization partnered with a Medicaid managed care plan and a Federally Qualified Health Center in California to enroll people with A1cs >9% in a 12-month program. The program team included a community health worker, certified diabetes care and education specialist/registered dietitian, behavioral health counselor, and registered nurse. They developed patient-led action plans, connected patients to community resources, and supported behavior changes to improve diabetes control. Baseline assessments of behavioral health conditions and social needs were collected. Monthly A1c values were tracked for participants and a comparison group. RESULTS: Of the 51 people enrolled, 83% had at least 1 behavioral health condition. More than 90% reported at least 1 unmet social need. The average monthly A1c among program participants was 0.699 lower than the comparison group post-enrollment (P = .0008), and the disparity in A1c between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White participants at enrollment declined. DISCUSSION: Participants had high levels of unmet medical, behavioral, and social needs. Addressing these needs resulted in a rapid and sustained improvement in A1c control compared to non-enrollees and a reduction in disparity of control among Hispanic participants. CONCLUSION: By partnering with a primary care team, a program external to Federally Qualified Health Center primary care can improve clinical outcomes for people with complex needs living with diabetes.

Integrating MOUD and Primary Care: Outcomes of a Multicenter Learning Collaborative.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Opioid use and overdose remain a central and worsening public health emergency in the United States and abroad. Efforts to expand treatment have struggled to match the rising incidence of opioid use disorder (OUD), and treating patients in primary care settings represents one of the most promising opportunities to meet this need. Learning collaboratives (LCs) are one evidence-based strategy to improve implementation of medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in primary care. METHODS: We developed and studied a multidisciplinary MOUD learning collaborative involving six underserved primary care clinics. We used a mixed-methods approach to assess needs, develop curriculum, and evaluate outcomes from these clinics. RESULTS: We recruited six clinics to participate in the collaborative. Half had an established MOUD program. Approximately 80% of participants achieved their organizational quality improvement goals for the collaborative. After the collaborative, participants also reported a significant increase in their perceived competence to implement/improve a MOUD program (pre-LC competence=2.80, post-LC competence=6.33/10, P=.02). The most consistent barrier we identified was stigma around OUD and its effects on patients' ability to access services and staff/provider ability to provide services. The most frequent enablers of program success were trainee interest, organizational leadership support, and a dedicated MOUD care team. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations used clinical and systems improvement knowledge to enhance their existing programs or to take steps to create new programs. All participants identified the need for additional staff/clinician training, especially to overcome stigma around OUD. The outcomes demonstrated the crucial importance of long-term organizational support for program success.

Toward the Deimplementation of Computed Tomography Urogram for Patients With Low- to Intermediate-risk Microscopic Hematuria: A Mixed-method Study of Factors Influencing Continued Use.

INTRODUCTION: Citing high costs, limited diagnostic benefit, and ionizing radiation-associated risk from CT urogram, in 2020 the AUA revised its guidelines from recommending CT urogram for all patients with microscopic hematuria to a deintensified risk-stratified approach, including the deimplementation of low-value CT urogram (ie, not recommending CT urogram for patients with low- to intermediate-risk microscopic hematuria). Adherence to revised guidelines and reasons for continued low-value CT urogram are unknown. METHODS: With the overarching objective of improving guideline implementation, we used a mixed-method convergent explanatory design with electronic health record data for a retrospective cohort at a single academic tertiary medical center in the southeastern United States and semistructured interviews with urology and nonurology providers to describe determinants of low-value CT urogram following guideline revision. RESULTS: Of 391 patients with microscopic hematuria, 198 (51%) had a low-value CT urogram (136 [69%] pre-guideline revision, 62 [31%] postrevision). The odds of ordering a low-value CT urogram were lower after guideline revisions, but the change was not statistically significant (OR: 0.44, P = .08); odds were 1.89 higher (P = .06) among nonurology providers than urology providers, but the difference was not statistically significant. Provider interviews suggested low-value CT urogram related to nonurology providers' limited awareness of revised guidelines, the role of clinical judgment in microscopic hematuria evaluation, and professional and patient influences. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest low-value CT urogram deimplementation may be improved with guidelines and implementation support directed at both urology and nonurology providers and algorithms to support guideline-concordant microscopic hematuria evaluation approaches. Future studies should test these strategies.

How does facilitation in healthcare work? Using mechanism mapping to illuminate the black box of a meta-implementation strategy.

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.

Community Health Worker-led Implementation of the Stanford Youth Diabetes Coaching Program in Underserved Latinx Communities.

BACKGROUND: The Stanford Youth Diabetes Coaching Program (SYDCP) is an evidence-based program led by health care professionals to teach healthy youth who then coach family members with diabetes or other chronic conditions. This purpose of this study is to evaluate a Community Health Worker (CHW)-led implementation of the SYDCP for low-income Latinx students from underserved agricultural communities. METHOD: CHWs were trained and virtually led 10 training sessions virtually during the COVID-19 for Latinx students who were recruited from high schools in agricultural regions of Washington state. Feasibility measures include recruitment, retention, class attendance, and successful coaching of a family member or friend. Acceptability was measured by responses on the post-training survey. Effectiveness was evaluated by pre-post changes in measures used in prior studies of the SYDCP such as level of activation and diabetes knowledge. RESULTS: Thirty-four students were recruited, 28 completed the training and 23 returned both pre- and post-surveys. Over 80% of students attended 7 or more classes. All met with a family or friend and 74% met with them weekly. Approximately 80% of the students rated the program's usefulness as "very good" or "excellent." Pre-post increases in diabetes knowledge, nutrition-related behaviors, resilience, and activation were significant and similar to those observed in prior published studies of the SYDCP. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a CHW-led implementation of the SYDCP in underserved Latinx communities using a virtual remote model.

Factors That Affect Opioid Quality Improvement Initiatives in Primary Care: Insights from Ten Health Systems.

OBJECTIVE: To improve patient safety and pain management, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (CDC Guideline). Recognizing that issuing a guideline alone is insufficient for transforming practice, CDC supported an Opioid Quality Improvement (QI) Collaborative, consisting of 10 health care systems that represented more than 120 practices across the United States. The research team identified factors related to implementation success using domains described by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) implementation science framework. METHODS: Data from interviews, notes from check-in calls, and documents provided by systems were used. The researchers collected data throughout the project through interviews, meeting notes, and documents. RESULTS: The iPARIHS framework was used to identify factors that affected implementation related to the context, innovation (implementing recommendations from the CDC Guideline), recipient (clinicians), and facilitation (QI team). Contextual characteristics were at the clinic, health system, and broader external context, including staffing and leadership support, previous QI experience, and state laws. Characteristics of the innovation were its adaptability and challenges operationalizing the measures. Recipient characteristics included belief in the importance of the innovation but challenges engaging in the initiative. Finally, facilitation characteristics driving differential outcomes included staffing and available time of the QI team, the ability to make changes, and experience with QI. CONCLUSION: As health care systems continue to implement the CDC Guideline, these insights can advance successful implementation efforts by describing common implementation challenges and identifying strategies to prepare for and overcome them.

Tailoring Implementation Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator Adoption in Primary Care Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: When implementing interventions in primary care, tailoring implementation strategies to practice barriers can be effective, but additional work is needed to understand how to best select these strategies. This study sought to identify clinicians' contributions to the process of tailoring implementation strategies to barriers in clinical settings. METHODS: We conducted a modified nominal group exercise involving 8 implementation scientists and 26 primary care clinicians in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network. Each group identified implementation strategies it felt would best address barriers to using a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator previously identified across 44 primary care clinics from the Healthy Hearts Northwest pragmatic trial (2015 to 2018). These barriers had been mapped beforehand to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. We examined similarities and differences in the strategies that 30% or more of each group identified (agreed-on strategies) for each barrier and for barriers in each CFIR domain. We used the results to demonstrate how strategies might be tailored to individual clinics. RESULTS: Clinicians selected 23 implementation strategies to address 1 or more of the 13 barriers; implementation scientists selected 35. The 2 groups agreed on at least 1 strategy for barriers in each CFIR domain: Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Intervention Characteristics, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process. Conducting local needs assessment and assessing for readiness/identifying barriers and facilitators were the 2 most common implementation strategies chosen only by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician stakeholders identified implementation strategies that augmented those chosen by implementation scientists, suggesting that codesign of implementation processes between implementation scientists and clinicians may strengthen the process of tailoring strategies to overcome implementation barriers.

Can clinician champions reduce potentially inappropriate medications in people living with dementia? Study protocol for a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: For people living with dementia (PLWD) the overuse of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) remains a persistent problem. De-prescribing trials in the elderly have mixed results. Clinician champions may be uniquely suited to lead efforts to address this challenge. Here we describe the study protocol for a 24-month embedded pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial within two accountable care organizations (ACOs) of such a clinician champion intervention. The specific aims are to (1) assess the effectiveness of a clinician champion on de-implementing PIMs in PLWD, (2) determine if the intervention is associated with a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations attributed to a fall, and (3) examine five implementation outcomes: appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and equity. METHODS/DESIGN: Two ACOs agreed to participate: United States Medical Management (USMM) and Oschner Health System. The unit of randomization will be the primary care clinic. A clinician champion will be recruited from each of the intervention clinics to participate in a 6-month training program and then work with clinicians and staff in their clinic for 12 months to reduce the use of PIMs in their PLWD population. For aims 1 and 2, Medicare claims data will be used to assess outcomes. The outcome for aim #1 will be medication possession rates per quarter, for the three therapeutic classes of PIMs among patients with dementia in intervention clinics versus control clinics. For aim #2, we will assess the incidence of falls using a previously validated algorithm. For both aims 1 and 2, we will construct hierarchical models with time period observations nested within patient using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors. The key variable of interest will be the treatment indicator assigned based on practice. For aim #3, we will conduct qualitative thematic analysis of documentation by the clinician champions in their project workbooks to evaluate the five implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION: This embedded pragmatic trial will add to our existing knowledge regarding the effectiveness of a clinician champion strategy to de-prescribe potentially inappropriate medication among patients with dementia as well as its appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05359679 , Registered May 4, 2022.

What strategies are used by clinician champions to reduce low-value care?

Background: Clinician champions are front-line clinicians who advocate for and influence practice change in their local context. The strategies they use when leading efforts to reduce the use of low-value care have not been well described. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe strategies used by six clinician champions who led a low-value care initiative in their clinical setting. Methods: Qualitative data collected during an overuse reduction initiative led by clinician champions were used to identify strategies, guided by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change compilation of strategies. Clinician champions were asked to rank the importance of these activities and indicate which one of the six most important activities they would be willing to discuss in an interview. A 30-min semi-structured interview was conducted with each clinician about the activity they selected and thematically analyzed. Results: Twelve Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies were identified. The top six strategies discussed during interviews were: build a coalition, conduct a local needs assessment, develop a formal implementation blueprint, conduct educational meetings, use facilitation, and develop clinical reminders. Common themes that emerged across all interviews were the use of data to engage clinicians in conversations, including the patient's perspective in designing the interventions, and investing the time upfront to plan and launch the initiative because of the inherent challenges of relinquishing a service. Conclusions: Clinician champions identified multiple strategies as important when de-implementing a low-value service. Many were used to engage in conversations with stakeholders, including leadership, providers, and patients, to increase buy-in and support, challenge beliefs, promote behavior change, and gather insights about next steps in their effort. Future work is needed to better understand how prepare clinicians for this role and to understand the mechanisms through which these strategies might be effective.

Considerations Before Selecting a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design for a Practice Improvement Study.

PURPOSE: Despite the growing popularity of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) for practice-based research, the design's advantages and challenges are not well documented. The objective of this study was to identify the advantages and challenges of the SW-CRT design for large-scale intervention implementations in primary care settings. METHODS: The EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, included a large collection of SW-CRTs. We conducted qualitative interviews with 17 key informants from EvidenceNOW grantees to identify the advantages and challenges of using SW-CRT design. RESULTS: All interviewees reported that SW-CRT can be an effective study design for large-scale intervention implementations. Advantages included (1) incentivized recruitment, (2) staggered resource allocation, and (3) statistical power. Challenges included (1) time-sensitive recruitment, (2) retention, (3) randomization requirements and practice preferences, (4) achieving treatment schedule fidelity, (5) intensive data collection, (6) the Hawthorne effect, and (7) temporal trends. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges experienced by EvidenceNOW grantees suggest that certain favorable real-world conditions constitute a context that increases the odds of a successful SW-CRT. An existing infrastructure can support the recruitment of many practices. Strong retention plans are needed to continue to engage sites waiting to start the intervention. Finally, study outcomes should be ones already captured in routine practice; otherwise, funders and investigators should assess the feasibility and cost of data collection.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance. RESULTS: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA. CONCLUSION: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.

Place Matters: Closing the Gap on Rural Primary Care Quality Improvement Capacity-the Healthy Hearts Northwest Study.

CONTEXT: To compare rural independent and health system primary care practices with urban practices to external practice facilitation support in terms of recruitment, readiness, engagement, retention, and change in quality improvement (QI) capacity and quality metric performance. METHODS: The setting consisted of 135 small or medium-sized primary care practices participating in the Healthy Hearts Northwest quality improvement initiative. The practices were stratified by geography, rural or urban, and by ownership (independent [physician-owned] or system-owned [health/hospital system]). The quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey tool was used to measure QI at baseline and after 12 months of practice facilitation. Changes in 3 clinical quality measures (CQMs)-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control, and tobacco use screening and cessation-were measured at baseline in 2015 and follow-up in 2017. RESULTS: Rural practices were more likely to enroll in the study, with 1 out of 3.5 rural recruited practices enrolled, compared with 1 out of 7 urban practices enrolled. Rural independent practices had the lowest QI capacity at baseline, making the largest gain in establishing a regular QI process involving cross-functional teams. Rural independent practices made the greatest improvement in meeting the BP control CQM, from 55.5% to 66.1% (P ≤ .001) and the smoking cessation metric, from 72.3% to 86.7% (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Investing practice facilitation and sustained QI strategies in rural independent practices, where the need is high and resources are low, will yield benefits that outweigh centrally prescribed models.

Clinical Quality Measure Exchange is Not Easy.

PURPOSE: The Trial of Aggregate Data Exchange for Maintenance of Certification and Raising Quality was a randomized controlled trial which first had to test whether quality reporting could be a by-product of clinical care. We report on the initial descriptive study of the capacity for and quality of exchange of whole-panel, standardized quality measures from health systems. METHODS: Family physicians were recruited from 4 health systems with mature quality measurement programs and agreed to submit standardized, physician-level quality measures for consenting physicians. Identified measure or transfer errors were captured and evaluated for root-cause problems. RESULTS: The health systems varied considerably by patient demographics and payer mix. From the 4 systems, 256 family physicians elected to participate. Of 19 measures negotiated for use, 5 were used by all systems. There were more than 15 types of identified errors including breaks in data delivery, changes in measures, and nonsensical measure results. Only 1 system had no identified errors. CONCLUSIONS: The secure transfer of standardized, physician-level quality measures from 4 health systems with mature measure processes proved difficult. There were many errors that required human intervention and manual repair, precluding full automation. This study reconfirms an important problem, namely, that despite widespread health information technology adoption and federal meaningful use policies, we remain far from goals to make clinical quality reporting a reliable by-product of care.

A Taxonomy for External Support for Practice Transformation.

BACKGROUND: There is no commonly accepted comprehensive framework for describing the practical specifics of external support for practice change. Our goal was to develop such a taxonomy that could be used by both external groups or researchers and health care leaders. METHODS: The leaders of 8 grants from Agency for Research and Quality for the EvidenceNOW study of improving cardiovascular preventive services in over 1500 primary care practices nationwide worked collaboratively over 18 months to develop descriptions of key domains that might comprehensively characterize any external support intervention. Combining literature reviews with our practical experiences in this initiative and past work, we aimed to define these domains and recommend measures for them. RESULTS: The taxonomy includes 1 domain to specify the conceptual model(s) on which an intervention is built and another to specify the types of support strategies used. Another 5 domains provide specifics about the dose/mode of that support, the types of change process and care process changes that are encouraged, and the degree to which the strategies are prescriptive and standardized. A model was created to illustrate how the domains fit together and how they would respond to practice needs and reactions. CONCLUSIONS: This taxonomy and its use in more consistently documenting and characterizing external support interventions should facilitate communication and synergies between 3 areas (quality improvement, practice change research, and implementation science) that have historically tended to work independently. The taxonomy was designed to be as useful for practices or health systems managing change as it is for research.

Barriers to Implementing Cardiovascular Risk Calculation in Primary Care: Alignment With the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease risk calculators can inform and guide preventive strategies and treatment decisions by clinicians and patients. However, their uptake in primary care has been slow despite the recommendation in national cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Identifying the barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is essential for promoting their adoption. METHODS: The authors qualitatively analyzed structured physician educator notes written during an outreach education intervention with 44 small- and medium-sized primary care clinics that participated in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality‒funded EvidenceNOW Healthy Hearts Northwest trial. The authors coded barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculation and aligned them to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: The authors identified 13 barriers from the physician educators' notes. The majority (n=8, 62%) mapped to the framework's Inner Setting domain. The 5 most commonly noted barriers were (1) time constraints to use a calculator (N=23 clinics), (2) limitations to accessing a calculator or the necessary information to use a calculator (N=22 clinics), (3) no or minimal buy-in from clinicians or staff to use a calculator (N=19 clinics), (4) reported patient fear of side effects from statin medications or patient dislike of taking medications per the guidelines (N=17 clinics), and (5) lack of documented clinic workflow for using a calculator (N=16 clinics). CONCLUSIONS: To improve the uptake of cardiovascular disease risk calculation in primary care, future cardiovascular disease prevention and implementation research should consider tailoring interventions to the common barriers to implementing cardiovascular disease risk calculation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02839382.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing changes in opioid prescribing in rural primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are more commonly prescribed for chronic pain in rural settings in the USA, yet little is known about how the rural context influences efforts to improve opioid medication management. METHODS: The Six Building Blocks is an evidence-based program that guides primary care practices in making system-based improvements in managing patients using long-term opioid therapy. It was implemented at 6 rural and rural-serving organizations with 20 clinic locations over a 15-month period. To gain further insight about their experience with implementing the program, interviews and focus groups were conducted with staff and clinicians at the six organizations at the end of the 15 months and transcribed. Team members used a template analysis approach, a form of qualitative thematic analysis, to code these data for barriers, facilitators, and corresponding subcodes. RESULTS: Facilitators to making systems-based changes in opioid management within a rural practice context included a desire to help patients and their community, external pressures to make changes in opioid management, a desire to reduce workplace stress, external support for the clinic, supportive clinic leadership, and receptivity of patients. Barriers to making changes included competing demands on clinicians and staff, a culture of clinician autonomy, inadequate data systems, and a lack of patient resources in rural areas. DISCUSSION: The barriers and facilitators identified here point to potentially unique determinants of practice that should be considered when addressing opioid prescribing for chronic pain in the rural setting.

Study protocol for evaluating Six Building Blocks for opioid management implementation in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: The Six Building Blocks for improving opioid management (6BBs) is a program for improving the management of patients in primary care practices who are on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. The 6BBs include building leadership and consensus; aligning policies, patient agreements, and workflows; tracking and monitoring patient care; conducting planned, patient-centered visits; tailoring care for complex patients; and measuring success. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the development of a 6BBs implementation guide: a step-by-step approach for independently implementing the 6BBs in a practice. This mixed-method study seeks to assess practices' use of the implementation guide to implement the 6BBs and the effectiveness of 6BBs implementation on opioid management processes of care among practices using the implementation guide. METHODS: Data collection is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Proctor's taxonomy of implementation outcomes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. A diverse group of health care organizations with primary care clinics across the USA will participate in the study over 15 months. Qualitative data collection will include semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at each organization at two time points, notes from routine check-in calls, and document review. These data will be used to understand practices' motivation for participation, history with opioid management efforts, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and implementation progress. Quantitative data collection will consist of a provider and staff survey, an implementation milestones assessment, and quarterly opioid prescribing quality measures. These data will supplement our understanding of implementation progress and will allow us to assess changes over time in providers' opioid prescribing practices, prescribing self-efficacy, challenges to providing guideline-driven care, and practices' opioid prescribing quality measures. Qualitative data will be coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and clustered multivariate regression. DISCUSSION: This study contributes to the knowledge of the implementation and effectiveness of a team-based approach to opioid management in primary care practices. Information gleaned from this study can be used to inform efforts to curtail opioid prescribing and assist primary care practices considering implementing the 6BBs.

The Ability of Practices to Report Clinical Quality Measures: More Evidence of the Size Paradox?

PURPOSE: To assess whether primary care practices with and without support from a larger organization differ in their ability to produce timely reports on cardiovascular disease quality measures. BACKGROUND: Although many primary care practices are now part of larger organizations, it is not clear whether such a shift will improve the ability of those who work in these primary care settings to easily access and use their own data for improvement. METHODS: Smaller primary care practices were enrolled in a trial of external practice support to build quality improvement (QI) capacity. A request for clinical quality measure (eCQM) data were sent to each practice and study outcomes were defined based on the date on which practices first submitted valid data for at least 1 of the 3 measures. A practice survey completed by a clinic manager captured practice characteristics, including the presence of QI support from a larger organization. RESULTS: Of the 209 enrolled practices, 205 had complete data for analysis. Practices without central QI support had higher rates of eCQM submission at 30 days (38% vs 20%) and 60 days, (63% vs 48%) than practices with central QI support. Practices with central QI support took longer to submit data (median, 57 days) compared with practices without centralized support (median, 40 days) although this difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: The ability of smaller practices without centralized QI support to report their eCQMs more quickly may have implications for their subsequent ability to improve these measures.