From Revolution to Evolution: Early Experience with Virtual-First, Outcomes-Based Primary Care.

Primary care is foundational to health systems and a common good. The workforce is threatened by outdated approaches to organizing work, payment, and technology. Primary care work should be restructured to support a team-based model, optimized to efficiently achieve the best population health outcomes. In a virtual-first, outcomes-based primary care model, a majority of professional time for primary care team members is protected for virtual, asynchronous patient interactions, collaboration across clinical disciplines, and real-time management of patients with acute and complex concerns. Payments must be re-structured to cover the cost of, and reward the value created by, this advanced model. Technology investments should shift from legacy electronic health records to patient relationship management systems, built to support continuous, outcome-based care. These changes enable primary care team members to focus on building engaged, trusting relationships with patients and their families and collaborating on complex management decisions, and reconnecting team members with joy in clinical practice.

Primary Care 2030: Creating an Enabling Ecosystem for Disruptive Primary Care Models to Achieve Universal Health Coverage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Background: Forty years after Alma Ata, there is renewed commitment to strengthen primary health care as a foundation for achieving universal health coverage, but there is limited consensus on how to build strong primary health care systems to achieve these goals. Methods: We convened a diverse group of global stakeholders for a high-level dialogue on how to create an enabling ecosystem for disruptive primary care innovation. We focused our discussion on four themes: workforce innovation and strengthening; impactful use of data and technology; private sector engagement; and innovative financing mechanisms. Findings: Here, we present a summary of our convening's proceedings, with specific recommendations for strengthening primary health care systems within each of these four domains. Conclusions: In the wake of the Astana Declaration, there is global consensus that high-quality primary health care must be the foundation for universal health coverage. Significant disruptive innovation will be required to realize this goal. We offer our recommendations to the global community to catalyze further discourse and inform policy-making and program development on the path to Health for All by 2030.

Readiness, Availability and Utilization of Rural Vietnamese Health Facilities for Community Based Primary Care of Non-communicable Diseases: A CrossSectional Survey of 3 Provinces in Northern Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Vietnam's network of commune health centers (CHCs) have historically managed acute infectious diseases and implemented national disease-specific vertical programs. Vietnam has undergone an epidemiological transition towards non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Limited data exist on Vietnamese CHC capacity to prevent, diagnose, and treat NCDs. In this paper, we assess NCD service readiness, availability, and utilization at rural CHCs in 3 provinces in northern Vietnam. METHODS: Between January 2014 and April 2014, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 89 rural CHCs from 3 provinces. Our study outcomes included service readiness, availability of equipment and medications, and utilization for five NCD conditions: hypertension, diabetes, chronic pulmonary diseases, cancer, and mental illnesses. RESULTS: NCD service availability was limited, except for mental health. Only 25% of CHCs indicated that they conducted activities focused on NCD prevention. Patient utilization of CHCs was approximately 223 visits per month or 8 visits per day. We found a statistically significant difference (P<.05) for NCD service availability, medication availability and CHC utilization among the 3 provinces studied. CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-site study on NCD service availability in Vietnam and the first study in a mountainous region consisting predominately of ethnic minorities. Despite strong government support for NCD prevention and control, Vietnam's current network of CHCs has limited NCD service capacity.

Primary Care Collaboration to Improve Diagnosis and Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death, reducible by screening and early diagnosis, yet many patients fail to receive recommended screening. As part of an academic improvement collaborative, 25 primary care practices worked to improve CRC screening and diagnosis. METHODS: The project featured triannual learning sessions, monthly conference calls, practice coach support, and monthly reporting. The project phases included literature review and interviews with national leaders/organizations, development of driver diagrams to identify key factors and change ideas, project launch and practice team planning, and a practice improvement phase. RESULTS: The project activities included (1) inventory of barriers and best practices, (2) driver diagram to drive improvements, (3) list of changes to try, (4) compilation of lessons learned, and (5) five key changes to optimize screening and follow-up. Practices leveraged prior transformation efforts to track patients for screening and follow-up during and between office visits. By mapping processes, testing changes, and collecting data, sites targeted opportunities to improve quality, safety, efficiency, and patient and care team experience. Successful change interventions centered around partnering with gastroenterology, engaging leadership, leveraging registries and health information technology, promoting alternative screening options, and partnering with and supporting patients. Several practices achieved improvement in screening rates, while others demonstrated no change from baseline during the 10-month testing and implementation phase (July 2014-April 2015). CONCLUSION: The collaborative effectively engaged teams in a broad set of process improvements with key lessons learned related to barriers, information technology challenges, outreach challenges/strategies, and importance of stakeholder and patient engagement.

The Coming Primary Care Revolution.

The United States has the most expensive, technologically advanced, and sub-specialized healthcare system in the world, yet it has worse population health status than any other high-income country. Rising healthcare costs, high rates of waste, the continued trend towards chronic non-communicable disease, and the growth of new market entrants that compete with primary care services have set the stage for fundamental change in all of healthcare, driven by a revolution in primary care. We believe that the coming primary care revolution ought to be guided by the following design principles: 1) Payment must adequately support primary care and reward value, including non-visit-based care. 2) Relationships will serve as the bedrock of value in primary care, and will increasingly be fostered by teams, improved clinical operations, and technology, with patients and non-physicians assuming an ever-increasing role in most aspects of healthcare. 3) Generalist physicians will increasingly focus on high-acuity and high-complexity presentations, and primary care teams will increasingly manage conditions that specialists managed in the past. 4) Primary care will refocus on whole-person care, and address health behaviors as well as vision, hearing, dental, and social services. Design based on these principles should lead to higher-value healthcare, but will require new approaches to workforce training.

A model for training medical student innovators: the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care Abundance Agents of Change program.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care established the Abundance Agents of Change (AoC) program to promote interprofessional learning and innovation, increase partnership between 15 academic and community health centers (CHCs) in Boston's most under-served communities, and increase medical student interest in primary care careers. METHODS: The AoC is modeled in the form of a 'grants challenge', offering $20,000 to interprofessional student teams to develop an innovative solution that addresses a healthcare delivery need identified by CHCs. The program's initial two years were characterized by a four-stage process which included working with CHCs and crafting a request for proposals, forming interprofessional 20 student teams comprising students from across and outside of Harvard University, training students using a systems-based innovation curriculum, and performing program evaluation. RESULTS: Our evaluation data from cohorts 1 and 2 of the AoC program demonstrate that we succeeded in training students as innovators and members of interprofessional teams. We also learned valuable lessons regarding creating better alignment with CHC priorities, extending the program cycle from 12 to 18 months, and changing the way funding is disbursed to 25 students, which will be incorporated in later versions of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience and evaluation data, we believe that this program is a replicable way to train students as innovators and members of interprofessional teams to address the current complex healthcare environment.

A population management system for improving colorectal cancer screening in a primary care setting.

RATIONALE: Provision of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in primary care is suboptimal; failure to observe screening guidelines poses unnecessary risks to patients and doctors. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Implement a population management system for CRC screening; evaluate impact on compliance with evidence-based guidelines. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental, prospective quality improvement study design using pre-post-analyses with concurrent controls. SETTING: Six suites within an academic primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: 5320 adults eligible for CRC screening treated by 70 doctors. INTERVENTION: In three intervention suites, doctors reviewed real-time rosters of patients due for CRC screening and chose practice delegate outreach or default reminder letter. Delegates tracked overdue patients, made outreach calls, facilitated test ordering, obtained records and documented patient deferral, exclusion or decline. In three control suites, doctors followed usual preventive care practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CRC screening compliance (including documented decline, deferral or exclusion) and CRC screening completion rates over 5 months. RESULTS: At baseline, there was no significant difference in CRC screening compliance (I: 80.4% and C: 79.6%, P = 0.439) and CRC screening completion rates (I: 78.3% and C: 77.3%, P = 0.398) between intervention and control groups. Post-intervention, compliance rates (I: 88.1% and C: 80.5%, P < 0.01) and completion rates (I: 81.0% and C: 78.1%, P < 0.05) were significantly higher in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: A population management system using closed-loop communication may improve CRC screening compliance and completion rates within academic primary care practices. Team-based care using well-designed IT systems can enable sharing of patient care responsibilities and improve patient outcomes.

An integrated approach to surgery and primary care systems strengthening in low- and middle-income countries: building a platform to deliver across the spectrum of disease.

BACKGROUND: Surgical services in low- and middle income countries (LMICs) must be considered within the context of a coordinated strategy for building primary care systems. Weak front-line primary care systems lead to delayed presentation and poor follow-up of patients with surgical illness, increasing the risk of poor outcomes. METHODS: Here we propose a framework to integrating surgery and primary care, organized around basic primary care principles of access, longitudinal care, coordination, integration and equity. RESULTS: Making surgical care accessible will require frontline provider capacity to screen for and recognize common surgical conditions, as well as to deliver certain basic surgical services themselves. Making this care effective will require strengthening the capacity of interdisciplinary teams to provide longitudinal care, involving coordinated networks for referral, communication with and mentorship by more specialized providers, and postoperative follow-up. Innovative approaches to information and communication technology can help to overcome the transportation and infrastructure barriers that jeopardize both access and effectiveness. Explicit integration of surgical and primary care programs at the managerial and administrative levels, as well as at the point-of-care, will also be critical. Taking a pro-equity approach can ensure that populations with the greatest unmet needs are effectively reached. CONCLUSION: Utilizing the pillars of effective primary care as a guiding framework to design, implement, and scale surgical programs in LMICs offers an opportunity for strengthening and enhancing the quality of health systems as a whole.

Health Systems Innovation at Academic Health Centers: Leading in a New Era of Health Care Delivery.

Challenged by demands to reduce costs and improve service delivery, the U.S. health care system requires transformational change. Health systems innovation is defined broadly as novel ideas, products, services, and processes-including new ways to promote healthy behaviors and better integrate health services with public health and other social services-which achieve better health outcomes and/or patient experience at equal or lower cost. Academic health centers (AHCs) have an opportunity to focus their considerable influence and expertise on health systems innovation to create new approaches to service delivery and to nurture leaders of transformation. AHCs have traditionally used their promotions criteria to signal their values; creating a health systems innovator promotion track could be a critical step towards creating opportunities for innovators in academic medicine. In this Perspective, the authors review publicly available promotions materials at top-ranked medical schools and find that while criteria for advancement increasingly recognize systems innovation, there is a lack of specificity on metrics beyond the traditional yardstick of peer-reviewed publications. In addition to new promotions pathways and alternative evidence for the impact of scholarship, other approaches to fostering health systems innovation at AHCs include more robust funding for career development in health systems innovation, new curricula to enable trainees to develop skills in health systems innovation, and new ways for innovators to disseminate their work. AHCs that foster health systems innovation could meet a critical need to contribute both to the sustainability of our health care system and to AHCs' continued leadership role within it.

The Harvard Medical School Academic Innovations Collaborative: transforming primary care practice and education.

PROBLEM: Academic medical centers (AMCs) need new approaches to delivering higher-quality care at lower costs, and engaging trainees in the work of high-functioning primary care practices. APPROACH: In 2012, the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care, in partnership with with local AMCs, established an Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC) with the goal of transforming primary care education and practice. This novel two-year learning collaborative consisted of hospital- and community-based primary care teaching practices, committed to building highly functional teams, managing populations, and engaging patients. The AIC built on models developed by Qualis Health and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, optimized for the local AMC context. Foundational elements included leadership engagement and development, application of rapid-cycle process improvement, and the creation of teams to care for defined patient populations. Nineteen practices across six AMCs participated, with nearly 260,000 patients and 450 resident learners. The collaborative offered three 1.5-day learning sessions each year featuring shared learning, practice coaches, and improvement measures, along with monthly data reporting, webinars, and site visits. OUTCOMES: Validated self-reports by transformation teams showed that practices made substantial improvement across all areas of change. Important factors for success included leadership development, practice-level resources, and engaging patients and trainees. NEXT STEPS: The AIC model shows promise as a path for AMCs to catalyze health system transformation through primary care improvement. In addition to further evaluating the impact of practice transformation, expansion will require support from AMCs and payers, and the application of similar approaches on a broader scale.

Implementation of a collaborative care management program with buprenorphine in primary care: a comparison between opioid-dependent patients and patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a collaborative care management program with buprenorphine in a primary care clinic. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: A busy urban academic primary care clinic affiliated with a tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-dependent patients or patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically were recruited for the study. A total of 45 participants enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were treated with buprenorphine and managed by a supervising psychiatrist, pharmacist care manager, and health coaches. The care manager conducted buprenorphine inductions and all follow-up visits. Health coaches offered telephonic support. The psychiatrist supervised both the care manager and health coaches. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were treatment retention at 6 months, and change in the proportion of aberrant toxicology results and opioid craving scores from baseline to 6 months. After data collection, clinical outcomes were compared between opioid-dependent patients and patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically. Overall, 55.0 percent of participants (25/45) remained in treatment at 6 months. Primary care physicians (PCPs)' attitudes about opioid dependence treatment were surveyed at baseline and at 18 months. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (95.6 percent) accepted treatment and 25 (55.0 percent) remained in treatment at 6 months. The proportion of aberrant urine toxicology results decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months (p < 0.01). Craving scores significantly decreased from baseline to 6 months (p < 0.01). Opioid-dependent patients, as opposed to patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically, were significantly more likely to complete 6 months of treatment (p < 0.05). PCPs' confidence in treating opioid dependence in primary care increased significantly from baseline to 18 months postimplementation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care management for opioid dependence with buprenorphine may be feasible in a primary care clinic. More research is needed to understand the role of buprenorphine in managing patients with chronic pain using opioids nonmedically.

Integrated care as a means to improve primary care delivery for adults and adolescents in the developing world: a critical analysis of Integrated Management of Adolescent and Adult Illness (IMAI).

BACKGROUND: More than three decades after the 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata enshrined the goal of 'health for all', high-quality primary care services remain undelivered to the great majority of the world's poor. This failure to effectively reach the most vulnerable populations has been, in part, a failure to develop and implement appropriate and effective primary care delivery models. This paper examines a root cause of these failures, namely that the inability to achieve clear and practical consensus around the scope and aims of primary care may be contributing to ongoing operational inertia. The present work also examines integrated models of care as a strategy to move beyond conceptual dissonance in primary care and toward implementation. Finally, this paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of a particular model, the World Health Organization's Integrated Management of Adolescent and Adult Illness (IMAI), and its potential as a guidepost toward improving the quality of primary care delivery in poor settings. DISCUSSION: Integration and integrated care may be an important approach in establishing a new paradigm of primary care delivery, though overall, current evidence is mixed. However, a number of successful specific examples illustrate the potential for clinical and service integration to positively impact patient care in primary care settings. One example deserving of further examination is the IMAI, developed by the World Health Organization as an operational model that integrates discrete vertical interventions into a comprehensive delivery system encompassing triage and screening, basic acute and chronic disease care, basic prevention and treatment services, and follow-up and referral guidelines. IMAI is an integrated model delivered at a single point-of-care using a standard approach to each patient based on the universal patient history and physical examination. The evidence base on IMAI is currently weak, but whether or not IMAI itself ultimately proves useful in advancing primary care delivery, it is these principles that should serve as the basis for developing a standard of integrated primary care delivery for adults and adolescents that can serve as the foundation for ongoing quality improvement. SUMMARY: As integrated primary care is the standard of care in the developed world, so too must we move toward implementing integrated models of primary care delivery in poorer settings. Models such as IMAI are an important first step in this evolution. A robust and sustained commitment to innovation, research and quality improvement will be required if integrated primary care delivery is to become a reality in developing world.

From scaling up to sustainability in HIV: potential lessons for moving forward.

BACKGROUND: In 30 years of experience in responding to the HIV epidemic, critical decisions and program characteristics for successful scale-up have been studied. Now leaders face a new challenge: sustaining large-scale HIV prevention programs. Implementers, funders, and the communities served need to assess what strategies and practices of scaling up are also relevant for sustaining delivery at scale. METHODS: We reviewed white and gray literature to identify domains central to scaling-up programs and reviewed HIV case studies to identify how these domains might relate to sustaining delivery at scale. RESULTS: We found 10 domains identified as important for successfully scaling up programs that have potential relevance for sustaining delivery at scale: fiscal support; political support; community involvement, integration, buy-in, and depth; partnerships; balancing flexibility/adaptability and standardization; supportive policy, regulatory, and legal environment; building and sustaining strong organizational capacity; transferring ownership; decentralization; and ongoing focus on sustainability. We identified one additional potential domain important for programs sustaining delivery at scale: emphasizing equity. CONCLUSIONS: Today, the public and private sector are examining their ability to generate value for populations. All stakeholders are aiming to stem the tide of the HIV epidemic. Implementers need a framework to guide the evolution of their strategies and management practices. Greater research is needed to refine the domains for policy and program implementers working to sustain HIV program delivery at scale.

Decision-making strategies: ignored to the detriment of healthcare training and delivery?

Context: People do not always make health-related decisions which reflect their best interest - best interest being defined as the decision they would make if they carefully considered the options and fully understood the information available. A substantial literature has developed in behavioral economics and social psychology that seeks to elucidate the patterns in individual decision-making. While this is particularly relevant to healthcare, the insights from these fields have only been applied in a limited way. To address the health challenges of the twenty-first century, healthcare providers and healthcare systems designers need to more fully understand how individuals are making decisions. Methods: We provide an overview of the theories of behavioral economics and social psychology that relate to how individuals make health-related decisions. The concentration on health-related decisions leads to a focus on three topics: (1) mental shortcuts and motivated reasoning; (2) implications of time; and (3) implications of affect. The first topic is relevant because health-related decisions are often made in a hurry without a full appreciation of the implications and the deliberation they warrant. The second topic is included because the link between a decision and its health-related outcomes can involve a significant time lag. The final topic is included because health and affect are so often linked. Findings: The literature reviewed has implications for healthcare training and delivery. Selection for medical training must consider the skills necessary to understand and adapt to how patients make decisions. Training on the insights garnered from behavioral economics and social psychology would better prepare healthcare providers to effectively support their clients to lead healthy lives. Healthcare delivery should be structured to respond to the way in which decisions are made. Conclusions: These patterns in decision-making call into question basic assumptions our healthcare system makes about the best way to treat patients and deliver care. This literature has implications for the way we train physicians and deliver care.

Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Web-based patient information is widespread and information on the benefits and risks of treatments is often difficult to understand. We therefore evaluated different risk presentation formats - numerical, graphical and others - addressing the pros and cons of tight control versus usual treatment approaches for diabetes. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Online. Publicity disseminated via Diabetes UK. PARTICIPANTS: People with diabetes or their carers. INTERVENTIONS: Control group information based on British Medical Journal 'Best Treatments'. Four intervention groups received enhanced information resources: (1) detailed numerical information (absolute/relative risk, numbers-needed-to-treat); (2) 'anchoring' to familiar risks or descriptions; (3) graphical (bar charts, thermometer scales, crowd figure formats); (4) combination of 1-3. OUTCOMES: Decision conflict scale (DCS, a measure of uncertainty); satisfaction with information; further free text responses for qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ten people visited the website and were randomised. Five hundred and eight completed the questionnaire for quantitative data. Mean DCS scores ranged from 2.12 to 2.24 for the five randomisation groups, indicating neither clear delay or vacillation about decisions (usually DCS>2.5) nor tending to make decisions (usually DCS<2.0). There were no statistically significant effects of the interventions on DCS, or satisfaction with information. Two hundred and fifty-six participants provided responses for qualitative analysis: most found graphical representations helpful, specifically bar chart formats; many found other graphic formats (thermometer style, crowd figures/smiley faces) and 'anchoring' information unhelpful, and indicated information overload. Many negative experiences with healthcare indicate a challenging context for effective information provision and decision support. CONCLUSION: Online evaluation of different risk representation formats was feasible. There was a lack of intervention effects on quantitative outcomes, perhaps reflecting already well-informed participants from the Diabetes UK patient organisation. The large qualitative dataset included many comments about what participants found helpful as formats for communicating risk information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These findings assist the design of online decision aids and the representation of risk information. The challenge is to provide more information, in appropriate and clear formats, but without risking information overload. Interactive web designs hold much promise to achieve this.