Building and strengthening infrastructure for data exchange: lessons from the beacon communities.

INTRODUCTION: The Beacon Community Cooperative Agreement Program supports interventions, including care-delivery innovations, provider performance measurement and feedback initiatives, and tools for providers and consumers to enhance care. Using a learning health system framework, we examine the Beacon Communities' processes in building and strengthening health IT (HIT) infrastructures, specifically successes and challenges in sharing patient information to improve clinical care. BACKGROUND: In 2010, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) launched the three-year program, which provided $250 million to 17 Beacon Communities to invest in HIT and health information exchange (HIE) infrastructure. Beacon Communities used this funding to develop and disseminate HIT-enabled quality improvement practices found effective in particular community and practice environments. METHODS: NORC conducted 7 site visits, November 2012-March 2013, selecting Communities to represent diverse program features. From August-October 2013, NORC held discussions with the remaining 10 Communities. Following each visit or discussion, NORC summarized the information gathered, including transcripts, team observations, and other documents the Community provided, to facilitate a within-Community analysis of context and stakeholders, intervention strategies, enabling factors, and challenges. RESULTS: Although each Community designed and implemented data-sharing strategies in a unique environment, similar challenges and enabling factors emerged across the Beacons. From a learning health system perspective, their strategies to build and strengthen data-sharing infrastructures address the following crosscutting priorities: promoting technical advances and innovations by helping providers adapt EHRs for data exchange and performance measurement with customizable IT and offering technical support to smaller, independent providers; engaging key stakeholders; and fostering transparent governance and stewardship of the infrastructure with neutral conveners. CONCLUSION: While all the Communities developed or strengthened data-exchange infrastructure, each did this in a unique environment of existing health care market and legal factors. The Communities, however, encountered similar challenges and enabling factors. Organizations undertaking collaborative data sharing, performance measurement and clinical transformation can learn from the Beacon Communities' experience.

HIV screening practices in U.S. hospitals, 2009-2010.

OBJECTIVE: A 2004 national survey of hospitals showed that 23.4% of hospitals screened for HIV in at least one department, most frequently in labor and delivery departments. However, less than 2% of these hospitals screened patients in inpatient units, urgent care clinics, or emergency departments. In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended HIV screening for all individuals 13-64 years of age in health-care settings. We determined the frequency of hospital adoption of these CDC recommendations. METHODS: We surveyed hospital infection-control personnel at a randomly selected sample of U.S. general medical and surgical hospitals in 2009-2010. RESULTS: Of the 1,476 hospitals selected for the survey, 754 (51.1%) responded to the survey; of those responding, 703 (93.2%) offered HIV tests for patients at the hospital and 206 (27.3%) screened for HIV in at least one department. Screening was most common in larger hospitals (45.7%), hospitals in large metropolitan areas (50.5%), and teaching hospitals (44.4%); it was least common in public hospitals (19.1%). By department, screening was most common in labor and delivery departments (34.6%) and substance abuse clinics (20.7%); it was least common in emergency departments (11.9%), inpatient units (9.6%), and psychiatry/mental health departments (9.4%). More than half of hospitals were not considering implementing CDC's recommendations within the next 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2004, HIV screening in hospitals increased overall and by department. However, the majority of U.S. hospitals have not adopted the CDC recommendations.

HIV screening programs in US emergency departments: a cross-site comparison of structure, process, and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: We present findings from a multisite evaluation that systematically compares HIV screening programs in 6 emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: From 2007 to 2008, we collected previous-year data on structural factors, process attributes, testing outcomes, and cost-effectiveness from 6 ED HIV testing programs operating for 6 months or longer. We administered questionnaires to program directors, conducted site visits, and interviewed key informants. RESULTS: HIV care providers (n=3 sites), emergency physicians (n=2), or health departments (n=1) initiated the testing programs. ED leadership and providers helped design and implement the programs (n=5), and emergency physicians or administrators provided daily oversight (n=5). Testing strategies included targeted (patients selected from at-risk populations; n=2), nontargeted (patients selected without regard to risk or intention of testing all; n=3), and universal (all patients selected; n=1) screening. Testing was conducted by supplemental staff (n=4) and existing hospital staff (n=2). ED testing programs were funded by grants (n=3), city HIV prevention/care budgets (n=2), or the hospital (n=1). The median percentage of census tested was 4.7% (range 2.1% to 8.4%). The median rate of preliminary positive test results was 1.2% (range 1.0% to 7.3%). The median confirmed new HIV diagnosis rate was 0.9% (range 0.8% to 6.4%). The median linkage to care rate was 92.0% (range 50% to 100%). The median cost per patient receiving a new diagnosis and linked to care was $10,200 (range $3,400 to $12,300). CONCLUSION: Although structure and process of screening programs varied across EDs, outcomes were similar, which suggests that with current ED environments, testing methods, and resources available, the capacity and structure to increase testing in EDs has limits. These ED HIV screening programs were cost-effective according to standard thresholds.

Public health and clinical impact of increasing emergency department-based HIV testing: perspectives from the 2007 conference of the National Emergency Department HIV Testing Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding perceived benefits and disadvantages of HIV testing in emergency departments (EDs) is imperative to overcoming barriers to implementation. We codify those domains of public health and clinical care most affected by implementing HIV testing in EDs, as determined by expert opinion. METHODS: Opinions were systematically collected from attendees of the 2007 National ED HIV Testing Consortium meeting. Structured evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis was conducted to assess the impact of ED-based HIV testing on public health. A modified Delphi method was used to assess the impact of ED-based HIV testing on clinical care from both individual patient and individual provider perspectives. RESULTS: Opinions were provided by 98 experts representing 42 academic and nonacademic institutions. Factors most frequently perceived to affect public health were (strengths) high volume of ED visits and high prevalence of HIV, (weaknesses) undue burden on EDs, (opportunities) reduction of HIV stigma, and (threats) lack of resources in EDs. Diagnostic testing and screening for HIV were considered to have a favorable impact on ED clinical care from both individual patient and individual provider perspectives; however, negative test results were not perceived to have any benefit from the provider's perspective. The need for HIV counseling in the ED was considered to have a negative impact on clinical care from the provider's perspective. CONCLUSION: Experts in ED-based HIV testing perceived expanded ED HIV testing to have beneficial impacts for both the public health and individual clinical care; however, limited resources were frequently cited as a possible impediment. Many issues must be resolved through further study, education, and policy changes if the full potential of HIV testing in EDs is to be realized.

Many physicians are willing to use patients' electronic personal health records, but doctors differ by location, gender, and practice.

Electronic personal health records could become important tools for patients to use in managing and monitoring their health information and communicating with clinicians. With the emergence of new products and federal incentives that might indirectly encourage greater use of personal health records, policy makers should understand the views of physicians on using these records. In a national survey of physicians in 2008-09, we found that although 64 percent have never used a patient's electronic personal health record, 42 percent would be willing to try. Strikingly, rural physicians expressed much more willingness to use such records compared to urban or suburban physicians. Female physicians were significantly less willing to use these tools than their male peers (34 percent versus 46 percent). Physicians broadly have concerns about the impact on patients' privacy, the accuracy of underlying data, their potential liability for tracking all of the information that might be entered into a personal health record, and the lack of payment to clinicians for using or reviewing these patient records.

Measurement of influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel in US hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize practices related to measuring influenza vaccination rates among healthcare personnel in US hospitals. DESIGN: Descriptive survey. SETTING: Nonfederal, short-stay hospitals that provide general medical and surgical services, identified by use of the 2004 American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare personnel from 996 randomly sampled US hospitals stratified by region and bed size. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in 2006 to infection control coordinators to gather data on policies and practices related to the provision of the influenza vaccine and on the measurement and reporting of influenza vaccination rates. Descriptive statistics and associations were calculated, and logistic regression was conducted. RESULTS: The response rate was 56% (ie, 555 of 996 US hospitals responded to the questionnaire). Weighting accounted for sampling design and nonresponse. Most hospitals provided the influenza vaccine to employees (100%), credentialed medical staff (ie, independent practitioners; 94%), volunteers (86%), and contract staff (83%); provision for students and residents was less frequent (58%). Only 69% of hospitals measured vaccination rates (mean coverage rate, 55%). Most hospitals that measured coverage included employees (98%) in the vaccination rates, whereas contract staff (53%), credentialed medical staff (56%), volunteers (56%), and students and residents (30%) were less commonly included. Among hospitals measuring coverage, 44% included persons for which vaccine was contraindicated, and 51% included persons who refused vaccination. After adjustment for region and size, hospitals with vaccination plans written into policy (odds ratio, 2.0 [95% confidence interval, 1.22-7.67]) or that addressed internally reporting coverage (odds ratio, 4.8 [95% confidence interval, 2.97-7.66]) were more likely to measure coverage than were hospitals without such plans. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals vary in terms of the groups of individuals included in influenza vaccination coverage measurements. Standardized measures may improve comparability of hospital-reported vaccination rates. Measuring coverage in a manner that facilitates identification of occupational groups with low vaccination rates may inform development of targeted interventions.

HIV testing and referral to care in U.S. hospitals prior to 2006: results from a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to provide a benchmark for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing availability and practices in U.S. hospitals prior to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) 2006 revised recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a survey of nonfederal general hospitals in the U.S. in 2004. Chi-square tests detected significant associations with hospital characteristics. Questionnaires were completed electronically via a secure Internet site or on paper. Nonresponse analysis was conducted and data were weighted to adjust for nonresponse. RESULTS: HIV testing (on the basis of clinical symptoms or behavioral risk factors) was available in more than half of hospital inpatient units (62%), employee health departments (58%), and emergency departments (57%). Twenty-three percent offered routine screening (testing for people in a defined population regardless of clinical symptoms or behavioral risk), most commonly in labor and delivery. Teaching status, region, size, and type of metropolitan area were associated with the availability of HIV testing and routine screening (p<0.01). Hospitals used a variety of methods to link patients to care: referral to a hospital-based clinic (36%); on-site, same-day evaluation (35%); and referral to an unaffiliated HIV or community clinic (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals offered HIV testing on the basis of clinical suspicion or risk, but were far from meeting CDC's current recommendation to routinely test all patients aged 13 to 64. Hospital size, teaching status, and geographic location were associated with HIV testing availability and testing practices. Our understanding of current practice identifies opportunities for public health action at the practitioner, organization, and systems levels.

The value of collaboration in eliminating barriers to preventive care and screening among underserved populations.

Collaboration among a community's institutions and its residents can help increase the use of appropriate screening, preventive, and primary care services. To improve the health of the community, institutions must reach out to their colleagues and other stakeholders. They must not only deal with the structure of the healthcare delivery system but also be responsive to the characteristics of the local population groups they are trying to serve. Over the last several years, a group of 25 community-based partnerships across the country have used a multifaceted model to guide their work in making their communities healthier. Through a wide variety of initiatives tailored to local needs, they have not only improved people's health but also provided a series of benefits to the partnering organizations and the community as a whole.