Prevalence and appropriateness of in-person versus not-in-person ambulatory antibiotic prescribing in an integrated academic health system: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory antibiotic stewardship generally aims to address the appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed at in-person visits. The prevalence and appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed outside of in-person visits is poorly studied. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of all ambulatory antibiotic prescribing in an integrated health delivery system in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Antibiotic prescribers and patients receiving oral antibiotic prescriptions between January 2016 and December 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of antibiotics prescribed with in-person visits or not-in-person encounters (e.g., telephone, refills). Proportion of prescriptions in in 5 mutually exclusive appropriateness groups: 1) chronic antibiotic use; 2) antibiotic-appropriate; 3) potentially antibiotic-appropriate; 4) non-antibiotic-appropriate; and 5) not associated with a diagnosis. RESULTS: Over the 4-year study period, there were 714,057 antibiotic prescriptions ordered for 348,739 unique patients by 2,391 clinicians in 467 clinics. Patients had a mean age of 41 years old, were 61% female, and 78% White. Clinicians were 58% women; 78% physicians; and were 42% primary care, 39% medical specialists, and 12% surgical specialists. Overall, 81% of antibiotics were prescribed with in-person visits and 19% without in-person visits. The most common not-in-person encounter types were telephone (10%), orders only (5%), and refill encounters (3%). Of all antibiotic prescriptions, 16% were for chronic use, 15% were antibiotic-appropriate, 39% were potentially antibiotic-appropriate, 22% were non-antibiotic-appropriate, and 8% were not associated with a diagnosis. Antibiotics prescribed in not-in-person encounters were more likely to be chronic (20% versus 15%); less likely to be associated with appropriate or potentially appropriate diagnoses (30% versus 59%) or non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses (8% versus 25%); and more likely to be associated with no diagnosis (42% versus <1%). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory stewardship interventions that focus only on in-person visits may miss a large proportion of antibiotic prescribing, inappropriate prescribing, and antibiotics prescribed in the absence of any diagnosis.

Look-Back and Look-Forward Durations and the Apparent Appropriateness of Ambulatory Antibiotic Prescribing.

Ambulatory antibiotic stewards, researchers, and performance measurement programs choose different durations to associate diagnoses with antibiotic prescriptions. We assessed how the apparent appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing changes when using different look-back and look-forward periods. Examining durations of 0 days (same-day), -3 days, -7 days, -30 days, ±3 days, ±7 days, and ±30 days, we classified all ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions in the electronic health record of an integrated health care system from 2016 to 2019 (714,057 prescriptions to 348,739 patients by 2391 clinicians) as chronic, appropriate, potentially appropriate, inappropriate, or not associated with any diagnosis. Overall, 16% percent of all prescriptions were classified as chronic infection related. Using only same-day diagnoses, appropriate, potentially appropriate, inappropriate, and not-associated antibiotics, accounted for 14%, 36%, 22%, and 11% of prescriptions, respectively. As the duration of association increased, the proportion of appropriate antibiotics stayed the same (range, 14% to 18%), potentially appropriate antibiotics increased (e.g., 43% for -30 days), inappropriate stayed the same (range, 22% to 24%), and not-associated antibiotics decreased (e.g., 2% for -30 days). Using the longest look-back-and-forward duration (±30 days), appropriate, potentially appropriate, inappropriate, and not-associated antibiotics, accounted for 18%, 44%, 20%, and 2% of prescriptions, respectively. Ambulatory programs and studies focused on appropriate or inappropriate antibiotic prescribing can reasonably use a short duration of association between an antibiotic prescription and diagnosis codes. Programs and studies focused on potentially appropriate antibiotic prescribing might consider examining longer durations.

A Qualitative Description of Clinician Free-Text Rationales Entered within Accountable Justification Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Requiring accountable justifications-visible, clinician-recorded explanations for not following a clinical decision support (CDS) alert-has been used to steer clinicians away from potentially guideline-discordant decisions. Understanding themes from justifications across clinical content areas may reveal how clinicians rationalize decisions and could help inform CDS alerts. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the free-text justifications entered by primary care physicians from three pilot interventions designed to reduce opioid prescribing and, in older adults, high-risk polypharmacy and overtesting. Clinicians encountered alerts when triggering conditions were met within the chart. Clinicians were asked to change their course of action or enter a justification for the action that would be displayed in the chart. We extracted all justifications and grouped justifications with common themes. Two authors independently coded each justification and resolved differences via discussion. Three physicians used a modified Delphi technique to rate the clinical appropriateness of the justifications. RESULTS: There were 560 justifications from 50 unique clinicians. We grouped these into three main themes used to justify an action: (1) report of a particular diagnosis or symptom (e.g., for "anxiety" or "acute pain"); (2) provision of further contextual details about the clinical case (e.g., tried and failed alternatives, short-term supply, or chronic medication); and (3) noting communication between clinician and patient (e.g., "risks and benefits discussed"). Most accountable justifications (65%) were of uncertain clinical appropriateness. CONCLUSION: Most justifications clinicians entered across three separate clinical content areas fit within a small number of themes, and these common rationales may aid in the design of effective accountable justification interventions. Justifications varied in terms of level of clinical detail. On their own, most justifications did not clearly represent appropriate clinical decision making.

Primary Care Nurse Practitioner Work Environments and Hospitalizations and ED Use Among Chronically Ill Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners (NPs) play a critical role in delivering primary care, particularly to chronically ill elderly. Yet, many NPs practice in poor work environments which may affect patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the relationship between NP work environments in primary care practices and hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) use among chronically ill elderly. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used a cross-sectional design to collect survey data from NPs about their practices. The survey data were merged with Medicare claims data. SUBJECTS: In total, 979 primary care practices employing NPs and delivering care to chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries (n=452,931) from 6 US states were included. MEASURES: NPs completed the Nurse Practitioner-Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire-a valid and reliable measure for work environment. Data on hospitalizations and ED use was obtained from Medicare claims. We used Cox regression models to estimate risk ratios. RESULTS: After controlling for covariates, we found statistically significant associations between practice-level NP work environment and 3 outcomes: Ambulatory Care Sensitive (ACS) ED visits, all-cause ED visits, and all-cause hospitalizations. With a 1-unit increase in the work environment score, the risk of an ACS-ED visit decreased by 4.4% [risk ratio (RR)=0.956; 99% confidence interval (CI): 0.918-0.995; P=0.004], an ED visit by 3.5% (RR=0.965; 99% CI: 0.933-0.997; P=0.005), and a hospitalization by 4.0% (RR=0.960;99% CI: 0.928-0.993; P=0.002). There was no relationship between NP work environment and ACS hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Favorable NP work environments are associated with lower hospital and ED utilization. Practice managers should focus on NP work environments in quality improvement strategies.

Development of High-Risk Geriatric Polypharmacy Electronic Clinical Quality Measures and a Pilot Test of EHR Nudges Based on These Measures.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate polypharmacy, prevalent among older patients, is associated with substantial harms. OBJECTIVE: To develop measures of high-risk polypharmacy and pilot test novel electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges grounded in behavioral science to promote deprescribing. DESIGN: We developed and validated seven measures, then conducted a three-arm pilot from February to May 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Validation used data from 78,880 patients from a single large health system. Six physicians were pre-pilot test environment users. Sixty-nine physicians participated in the pilot. MAIN MEASURES: Rate of high-risk polypharmacy among patients aged 65 years or older. High-risk polypharmacy was defined as being prescribed ≥5 medications and satisfying ≥1 of the following high-risk criteria: drugs that increase fall risk among patients with fall history; drug-drug interactions that increase fall risk; thiazolidinedione, NSAID, or non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker in heart failure; and glyburide, glimepiride, or NSAID in chronic kidney disease. INTERVENTIONS: Physicians received EHR alerts when renewing or prescribing certain high-risk medications when criteria were met. One practice received a "commitment nudge" that offered a chance to commit to addressing high-risk polypharmacy at the next visit. One practice received a "justification nudge" that asked for a reason when high-risk polypharmacy was present. One practice received both. KEY RESULTS: Among 55,107 patients 65 and older prescribed 5 or more medications, 6256 (7.9%) had one or more high-risk criteria. During the pilot, the mean (SD) number of nudges per physician per week was 1.7 (0.4) for commitment, 0.8 (0.5) for justification, and 1.9 (0.5) for both interventions. Physicians requested to be reminded to address high-risk polypharmacy for 236/833 (28.3%) of the commitment nudges and acknowledged 441 of 460 (95.9%) of justification nudges, providing a text response for 187 (40.7%). CONCLUSIONS: EHR-based measures and nudges addressing high-risk polypharmacy were feasible to develop and implement, and warrant further testing.

Effect of Peer Benchmarking on Specialist Electronic Consult Performance in a Los Angeles Safety-Net: a Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the advent of COVID-19, accelerated adoption of systems that reduce face-to-face encounters has outpaced training and best practices. Electronic consultations (eConsults), structured communications between PCPs and specialists regarding a case, have been effective in reducing face-to-face specialist encounters. As the health system rapidly adapts to multiple new practices and communication tools, new mechanisms to measure and improve performance in this context are needed. OBJECTIVE: To test whether feedback comparing physicians to top performing peers using co-specialists' ratings improves performance. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial PARTICIPANTS: Eighty facility-specialty clusters and 214 clinicians INTERVENTION: Providers in the feedback arms were sent messages that announced their membership in an elite group of "Top Performers" or provided actionable recommendations with feedback for providers that were "Not Top Performers." MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were changes in peer ratings in the following performance dimensions after feedback was received: (1) elicitation of information from primary care practitioners; (2) adherence to institutional clinical guidelines; (3) agreement with peer's medical decision-making; (4) educational value; (5) relationship building. KEY RESULTS: Specialists showed significant improvements on 3 of the 5 consultation performance dimensions: medical decision-making (odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.14, p<.05), educational value (1.86, 1.17-2.96) and relationship building (1.63, 1.13-2.35) (both p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has shed light on clinicians' commitment to professionalism and service as we rapidly adapt to changing paradigms. Interventions that appeal to professional norms can help improve the efficacy of new systems of practice. We show that specialists' performance can be measured and improved with feedback using aspirational norms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03784950.

The protocol of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety trial 2 (AESOPS-2): Availability of opioid harm.

BACKGROUND: High levels of opioid prescribing in the United States has resulted in an alarming trend in opioid-related harms. The objective of Trial 2 of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety (AESOPS-2) is to dampen the intensity and frequency of opioid prescribing in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation to "go low and slow". We aim to accomplish this by notifying clinicians of harmful patient outcomes, which we expect to increase the mental availability of risks associated with opioid use. METHODS: The trial is multi-site. Random assignment determines if prescribers to persons who suffer an opioid overdose (fatal or nonfatal) learn of this event (intervention) or practice usual care (control). Clinicians in the intervention group receive a letter notifying them of their patient's overdose. The primary outcome is the change in clinician weekly milligram morphine equivalent (MME) prescribed in a 6-month period before and after receiving the letter. Additional outcomes are the change in the proportion of patients prescribed at least 50 daily MME and in the proportion of patients referred to medication assisted treatment. Group differences in these outcomes will be compared using an intent-to-treat difference-in-differences framework with a mixed-effects regression model to estimate clinician MME. DISCUSSION: The AESOPS-2 trial will provide new knowledge about whether increasing prescribers' awareness of patients' opioid-related overdoses leads to a reduction in opioid prescribing. Additionally, this trial may better inform how to reduce opioid use disorder and opioid overdoses by lowering population exposure to these drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04758637.

The protocol of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety Trial 1 (AESOPS-1): Electronic health record nudges.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence that long-term opioid use offers benefit for noncancer pain and an abundance of evidence of harm. Despite clinical guidelines and education, prescribing continues at a higher rate than before the opioids crisis. The objective of trial 1 of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety (AESOPS-1) is to discourage unnecessary opioid prescribing in primary care by applying "behavioral insights"-empirically-tested social and psychological interventions that affect choice. METHODS: AESOPS-1 randomizes primary care clinics in Illinois and California to behavioral intervention or control. Both arms receive opioid guideline education. Clinics randomized to the behavioral intervention arm receive nudges within the electronic health record (EHR) including: 1) an "accountable justification" entered in the chart, 2) a precommitment to address high-risk prescriptions, and 3) a "PainTracker" that broadens discussions about pain. The control arm receives no EHR-based intervention. The primary outcome is the change in weekly milligram morphine equivalents (MME) prescribed. The secondary outcome is the change in the proportion of patients prescribed at least 50 daily MME. To evaluate these outcomes, we will use a difference-in-differences mixed-effects regression model on clinician MME weekly or daily dose. The analysis will be "intent-to-treat." The intervention period is 18-months, with a 6-month follow-up period to measure persistence of effects. DISCUSSION: The AESOPS-1 trial will evaluate the effect of EHR-based interventions in reducing noncancer opioid prescribing in primary care. AESOPS-1 may demonstrate practical and scalable strategies to lower unnecessary population exposure to opioids.

Development and Psychometric Analysis of the Revised Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey.

This article describes the development and psychometric testing of the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care (PPIC 2.1) survey, which we administered to 12,364 Medicare beneficiaries who received treatment from 150 randomly selected physician organizations, receiving 3,067 responses (26%). Psychometric analyses, performed using two methods to adjust for respondent inherent optimism (as a measure of response tendency), supported a 6-factor, 22-item model with excellent fit. These factors were (1) Staff Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History, (2) Provider Support for the Patient's Self-Directed Care, (3) Test Result Communication, (4) Provider Knowledge of the Patient, (5) Provider Support for Medication Adherence and Home Health Management, and (6) Specialist Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History. Per Spearman-Brown prophesy calculations, reliability would exceed 0.7 for all factors at 33 or more responses per organization. The PPIC 2.1 survey can distinguish six dimensions of integrated patient care with high physician organization-level reliability at reasonable sample sizes.

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing a Patient-Centered Oncology Care Model.

PURPOSE: Oncology practices often serve as the "medical home" for patients but may not have systems to support all aspects of patient-centered care. We piloted a new set of oncology medical home standards that call for accessible, continuous, coordinated, and team-based care. We examined how adoption of the standards varies across a variety of practices and compared practice self-report with external evaluation of implementation. METHODS: Five medical oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania implemented the standards from 2014 into 2016. Implementation support included training webinars and technical assistance. External reviewers evaluated practices' implementation of the standards. We conducted site visits to interview providers and patients. RESULTS: Between baseline and follow-up, practice self-assessments and independent audits showed practices increased implementation of the patient-centered oncology standards. The largest improvement was seen in continuous quality improvement (QI). Practices were less successful in implementing care coordination: achievement on two standards (access and evidence-based decision support) declined from baseline to follow-up. Qualitative analyses revealed that practices focused QI in five areas: goals of care, engaging patients in QI, financial counseling, symptom management, and care coordination. Interviewees talked about facilitators, such as leadership support and physician buy-in, and barriers to transformation, including inadequate resources and staffing. Health information technology both supported and limited implementation. CONCLUSION: Oncology practices showed some progress in their implementation of patient-centered care processes over the course of the pilot program. Systems for tracking and documenting improvement, training for staff and clinicians, leadership support, and alignment of financial incentives are critical to transformation.

Effects of Health Care Payment Models on Physician Practice in the United States: Follow-Up Study.

This study, sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA), describes how alternative payment models (APMs) affect physicians, physicians' practices, and hospital systems in the United States and also provides updated data to the original 2014 study. Payment models discussed are core payment (fee for service, capitation, episode-based and bundled), supplementary payment (shared savings, pay for performance, retainer-based), and combined payment (medical homes and accountable care organizations). The effects of changes since 2014 in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and of new alternative payment models (APMs), such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Quality Payment Program (QPP), are also examined. This project uses the same qualitative multiple-case study method as the 2014 study, relying primarily on semistructured interviews with physician practice leaders, physicians, and other observers. Findings describe the challenges posed by APMs, strategies adopted to deal with APMs, the effects of rapidly changing and increasingly complex payment models, and how risk aversion influences physician practices' decisions to engage in new payment models. Project findings are intended to help guide efforts by the AMA and other stakeholders to improve current and future APMs and help physician practices succeed in them.

Practice Expenses Associated with Comprehensive Primary Care Capabilities.

Through the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) and Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) programs, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has encouraged primary care practices to invest in "comprehensive primary care" capabilities. Empirical evidence suggests these capabilities are under-reimbursed or not reimbursed under prevailing fee-for-service payment models. To help CMS design alternative payment models (APMs) that reimburse the costs of these capabilities, the authors developed a method for estimating related practice expenses. Fifty practices, sampled for diversity across CPC+ participation status, geographic region, rural status, size, and parent-organization affiliation, completed the study. Researchers developed a mixed-methods strategy, beginning with interviews of practice leaders to identify their capabilities and the types of costs incurred. This was followed by researcher-assisted completion of a workbook tailored to each practice, which gathered related labor and nonlabor costs. In a final interview, practice leaders reviewed cost estimates and made any needed corrections before approval. A main goal was to address a persistent question faced by CMS: When practices reported widely divergent costs for a given capability, was that divergence due to practices having different prices for the same capability or from their having substantially different capabilities? The cost estimation method developed in this project collected detailed data on practice capabilities and their costs. However, the small sample did not allow quantitative estimation of the contributions of service level and pricing to the variation in overall costs. This cost estimation method, deployed on a larger scale, could generate robust data to inform new payment models aimed at incentivizing and sustaining comprehensive primary care.

Factors Influencing Physician Practices' Adoption of Behavioral Health Integration in the United States: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral health integration is uncommon among U.S. physician practices despite recent policy changes that may encourage its adoption. OBJECTIVE: To describe factors influencing physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with leaders and clinicians from physician practices that adopted behavioral health integration, supplemented by contextual interviews with experts and vendors in behavioral health integration. SETTING: 30 physician practices, sampled for diversity on specialty, size, affiliation with parent organizations, geographic location, and behavioral health integration model (collaborative or co-located). PARTICIPANTS: 47 physician practice leaders and clinicians, 20 experts, and 5 vendors. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative analysis (cyclical coding) of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four overarching factors affecting physician practices' implementation of behavioral health integration were identified. First, practices' motivations for integrating behavioral health care included expanding access to behavioral health services, improving other clinicians' abilities to respond to patients' behavioral health needs, and enhancing practice reputation. Second, practices tailored their implementation of behavioral health integration to local resources, financial incentives, and patient populations. Third, barriers to behavioral health integration included cultural differences and incomplete information flow between behavioral and nonbehavioral health clinicians and billing difficulties. Fourth, practices described the advantages and disadvantages of both fee-for-service and alternative payment models, and few reported positive financial returns. LIMITATION: The practice sample was not nationally representative and excluded practices that did not implement or sustain behavioral health integration, potentially limiting generalizability. CONCLUSION: Practices currently using behavioral health integration face cultural, informational, and financial barriers to implementing and sustaining behavioral health integration. Tailored, context-specific technical support to guide practices' implementation and payment models that improve the business case for practices may enhance the dissemination and long-term sustainability of behavioral health integration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American Medical Association and The Commonwealth Fund.

Getting Value From Electronic Health Records: Research Needed to Improve Practice.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are now widely adopted in the United States, but health systems have barely begun using them to deliver high-value care. More directed and rigorous research is needed to fulfill the promise of EHRs to not only store information but also support the delivery of better care. This article describes 4 potential benefits of EHR-based research: improving clinical decisions, supporting triage decisions, enabling collaboration among the care team (including patients), and increasing productivity via automation of tasks. Six recommendations are made for conducting and reporting research to catalyze value creation: develop interventions systematically by using user-centered design and a building-block approach; assess value in terms of cost, quality, outcomes, and work required of providers and patients; consider the time horizon for the intervention; test best practices for implementation in a range of real-world contexts; assess subtleties of behavior change tools used to improve high-value behaviors; and report the intervention in enough detail that it can be replicated, including context. Just as research played a critical role in developing early EHR prototypes and demonstrating their value to justify dissemination, research will continue to be essential in the next phase: expanding EHR-based interventions and maximizing their role in creating value.

Identification of Alternative Physician Assistant Recertification Models: An Analysis of the Landscape and Evidence Surrounding Approaches to Recertification in the Health Professions.

Health professional recertification is intended to be a mechanism for demonstration and fostering of professional knowledge and competence. Recertification requirements vary among health professions and are evolving over time. RAND Corporation researchers assessed the landscape of recertification requirements for physician assistants (PAs), advanced practice nurses (APNs), and physicians in the United States and other countries through an environmental scan, reviewed the literature regarding the impact of recertification requirements on patients and health professionals, and conducted semi-structured interviews with certifying organization representatives. Recertification requirements vary, including continuing education, exams or assessments, and other activities. Closed-book exams are most common in the United States. PA recertification currently requires a high-stakes closed-book exam; a pilot of a longitudinal assessment with smaller, regularly spaced batches of questions is planned. Many allopathic physician specialty boards are transitioning from recertification exams to longitudinal assessments; most osteopathic specialty boards require recertification exams. An exam is required for certified registered nurse anesthetist recertification, but not for other APNs. Evidence regarding the effects of recertification requirements on health professionals and patients for PAs, APNs, and professionals outside the United States is limited. The evidence mainly focuses on U.S. allopathic physicians. Physicians have mixed opinions about trade-offs between burden and professional benefit, and some, but not all, studies find associations between recertification and indicators of better care. Major themes reflected in interviews with certifying organizations included a desire to balance evaluative and educational goals, the tension felt between public responsibility and health professional preferences, and burden and applicability to practice.

Clinician-Level Variation in Three Measures Representing Overuse Based on the American Geriatrics Society Choosing Wisely Statement.

IMPORTANCE: The extent of clinician-level variation in the overuse of testing or treatment in older adults is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine clinician-level variation for three new measures of potentially inappropriate use of medical services in older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of overall means and clinician-level variation in performance on three new measures. SUBJECTS: Adults aged 65 years and older who had office visits with outpatient primary or immediate care clinicians within a single academic medical center health system between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. MEASURES: Two electronic clinical quality measures representing potentially inappropriate use of medical services in older adults: prostate-specific antigen testing against guidelines (PSA) in men aged 76 and older; urinalysis or urine culture for non-specific reasons in women aged 65 and older; and one intermediate outcome measure: hemoglobin A1c less than 7.0 in adults aged 75 and older with diabetes mellitus treated with insulin or oral hypoglycemic medication. RESULTS: Sixty-nine clinicians and 2009 patients contributed observations to the PSA measure, 144 clinicians and 5933 patients contributed to the urinalysis/urine culture measure, and 42 clinicians and 665 patients contributed to the diabetes measure. Meaningful clinician-level performance variation was greatest for the PSA measure (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.27), followed by the urinalysis/urine culture measure (ICC = 0.18), and the diabetes measure (ICC = 0.024). The range of possible overuse across clinician quartiles was 8-54% for the PSA measure, 3-35% for the urinalysis/urine culture measure, and 13-49% for the diabetes measure. The odds ratios of overuse in the highest quartile compared with the lowest for the PSA, urinalysis/urine culture, and diabetes measures were 99.3 (95% CI 43 to 228), 15.7 (10 to 24), and 6.0 (3.3 to 11), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within the same health system, rates of potential overuse in elderly patients varied greatly across clinicians, particularly for the process measures examined.

Physician-Nurse Practitioner Teamwork in Primary Care Practices in New York: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices increasingly rely on the growing workforce of nurse practitioners (NPs) to meet primary care demand. Understanding teamwork between NPs and physicians in primary care practices is critically important. OBJECTIVE: We assessed teamwork between NPs and physicians practicing within the same primary care practice and determined how teamwork affects their job satisfaction, intent to leave their current job, and quality of care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design was used to collect data from both NPs and physicians in New York State in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: 584 participants (398 NPs and 186 physicians) from 476 primary care practices completed the survey yielding a 27% response rate for NPs and 12% for physicians. MAIN MEASURES: The survey tool contained validated measures of teamwork and three outcomes: job satisfaction, intent to leave, and perceived quality of care. Simple and multi-level multivariable regression models were built. KEY RESULTS: Most participants (76%) were either moderately satisfied or very satisfied with their job (NP sample: 75%; physician sample: 77%) and about 10% intended to leave their current job (NP sample: 11%; physician sample: 9%). The average perceived quality of care was the same across NP and physician samples with a mean of 8.5 on a 11 point scale. After controlling for confounders, a higher organizational-level teamwork score was associated with higher job satisfaction (cumulative OR: 3.00; 95% CI: 1.85-4.88), lower odds of intent to leave (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.09-0.74), and higher perceived quality of care (b=1.00; 95% CI: 0.77-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: This study produced evidence about NP-physician teamwork in primary care practices. We found the vast majority of NPs and physicians reported favorable teamwork, and that teamwork affects clinician job satisfaction and intent to leave as well as perceived quality of care in their practices.