Patients' Progress and Confidence Addressing Root Causes of Poor Health in Primary Care.

Context: Patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) may have unmet behavioral, mental, and social needs which can be difficult to address in primary care. Care planning provides a framework for patients to be screened, collaborate on a care plan, and access a patient navigator who can support them achieving their personal health goals. Objective: To compare patients' progress and confidence in addressing personal care plans for different topics. Study Design and Analysis: Clinician level randomized control trial and descriptive analyses. Dataset: My Own Health Report (MOHR) study and navigator field notes. Population Studied: As part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a feasible approach to patient care planning, 24 clinicians from 12 practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) in the Greater Richmond metro and the Northern Virginia areas participated in a care planning intervention. 91 patients in the intervention arm received support from a patient navigator for making and working on a goal. We focused on patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions that have complex needs. Intervention/Instrument: Community-clinical linkage support and navigator field notes in My Own Health Report (MOHR). Outcome Measures: We determined confidence and progress ratings (ranked by patients on 1-10 point scale), health risk assessment responses, and care plan topics selected by patients. Results: Patients feel more confident addressing nutrition than weight loss (mean = 8.07 vs 6.31, p=0.0031). Patients tended to report better prior progress on nutrition care plans (mean = 3.80) than physical activity (mean =2.95, p=0.0024) and weight loss (mean=2.93, p=0.004). Conclusions: Helping patients create care plans on topics they feel most comfortable addressing may better address root causes of poor health associated with chronic conditions. Connecting them with a patient navigator for the short-term may have long-term benefits for patients and care teams.

Patient Preferences for Discussing and Acting on Health-Related Needs in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Addressing social needs, health behaviors, and mental health may help patients more than traditional medical care. However, these root causes of poor health are difficult to address and the role of primary care is unclear. This qualitative study assesses patient's willingness and motivations to discuss and accept assistance for these needs from their primary care team. METHODS: In July and August of 2020, semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with family medicine patients (n = 6) and residents of low resource neighborhoods (n = 11) in Richmond, Virginia. Interviews were conducted over Zoom. We conducted a qualitative analysis of patient and resident interview transcripts. A rapid qualitative analysis approach and immersion-crystallization processes were used to identify themes and categories. RESULTS: Interviewees reported varying degrees of comfort discussing topics with their health care team. They were less comfortable discussing needs they considered outside the realm of "traditional primary care" including finances, transportation, and housing, but interviewees expressed willingness to discuss these needs under certain conditions. Important factors were a strong patient-clinician relationship to create a trusted and safe space for discussion, adequate time for discussion during visits, communication of practices' ability to provide resources to help patients, and ensuring appropriate high quality referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care provides opportunity for identifying and addressing needs that adversely impact health. Some needs are more sensitive for patients to work with their care team on, though, there was willingness to work on any need when a strong provider relationship and clinic structure for providing support were in place. This study highlights critical care delivery factors which may be used to enhance patient comfort accepting support for their needs and ultimately improve clinical care and chronic disease management.

The Distressed State of Primary Care in Virginia Pre-Medicaid Expansion and Pre-Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is crucial to the health of individuals and communities, but it faces numerous structural and systemic challenges. Our study assessed the state of primary care in Virginia to prepare for Medicaid expansion. It also provides insight into the frontline of health care prior to an unprecedented global COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We surveyed 1622 primary care practices to understand organizational characteristics, scope of care, capacity, and organizational stress. RESULTS: Practices (484) varied in type, ownership, location, and care for medically underserved and diverse patient populations. Most practices accepted uninsured and Medicaid patients. Practices reported a broad scope of care, including offering behavioral health and medication-assisted therapy for opioid addiction. Over half addressed social needs like transportation and unstable housing. One in three practices experienced a significant stress in 2019, prepandemic, and only 18.8% of practices anticipated a stress in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care serves as the foundation of our health care system and is an essential service, but it is severely stressed, under-resourced, and overburdened in the best of times. Primary care needs strategic workforce planning, adequate access to resources, and financial investment to sustain its value and innovation.

Understanding the Value of the Wellness Visit: A Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical preventive services can reduce mortality and morbidity, but Americans receive only half of the recommended care. Although wellness visits protect time for clinicians to review needs and discuss care with patients, studies have not shown that having a wellness visit improves health outcomes. This study seeks to understand the types of discussions and volume of care delivered during wellness visits. METHODS: Using a sample of 1,008 patients scheduled for a wellness visit from 22 primary care clinicians across 3 states from 2018 to 2019, electronic health records were reviewed, and a subset of visits was audio recorded. The discussion and delivery of clinical preventive services, as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, were measured, and new diagnoses were identified from the clinical preventive services. Analyses were completed in 2020. RESULTS: Even though patients were up to date with 80% of the recommended clinical preventive services 3 months after the visit, only 0.5% of patients were up to date with all the recommended clinical preventive services. On average, 6.9 clinical preventive service discussions occurred during each wellness visit on the basis of electronic health records review, and 7.7 clinical preventive services discussions occurred on the basis of audio recordings. An average of 0.4 new diagnoses was identified, including cancer diagnoses, cardiovascular risks, and infections. CONCLUSIONS: Wellness visits are an important time for patients and clinicians to discuss prevention strategies and to deliver recommended clinical preventive services, leading to the identification of previously unrecognized diagnoses. This will improve patients' health. Policies and incentives that promote wellness visits are important, and efforts are needed to deliver them to those most in need.

Uptake of Statin Guidelines to Prevent and Treat Cardiovascular Disease.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2013, cholesterol treatment guidelines changed the approach to statin therapy by recommending fixed doses of low-, medium-, or high-intensity statins based on cardiovascular risk. We sought to evaluate the guideline's adoption in a diverse group of practices. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, we analyzed electronic health record data the year before and 2 years following guideline publication in 45 practices across 8 states. We examined associations based on patient, clinician, and practice characteristics and interviewed 24 clinicians and practice leaders to inform findings. RESULTS: The proportion of patients adherent with all recommendations 2 years after the guideline only increased from 18.5% to 20.3% (P < .01). There were clinically insignificant increases in statin use across risk strata (1.7% to 3.5%) and small increases in high-intensity statin use (2.6% to 4.6%). Only half of patients with cardiovascular disease (52.9%) were on any statin, not much different from patients at moderate (49.6% to 50.9%) or low (41.6% to 48.7%) risk. Multiple patient (risk, use of health care), clinician (age), and practice (type, rurality) factors were associated with statin use. Clinicians reported patient resistance to statins but liked having a risk calculator to guide discussions. CONCLUSION: Despite general agreement with statin benefit, the guideline was poorly implemented. Marginal differences in statin use between the highest and lower risk strata of patients is concerning. Rather than intensifying statin potency and recommending more patients take statins, guidelines may want to focus on ensuring that those who will benefit most get treatment.

Patient, Clinician, and Communication Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer is beneficial. Yet, screening remains suboptimal, and underserved populations are at greater risk for not being appropriately screened. Although many barriers to screening are understood, less is known about how the decision-making process on whether to receive colonoscopy or stool testing influences screening. METHODS: As part of a randomized controlled trial to test engaging underserved populations in preventive care through online, personalized, educational material, 2417 patients aged 50 to 74 years were randomly selected from the 70,998 patients with an office visit the year prior and mailed a survey to assess decision-making for colorectal cancer screening. Twenty practices in practice-based research networks from 5 diverse states participated. Survey data were supplemented with electronic health record data. RESULTS: Among respondents, 64% were or became up to date with screening within 3 months of their office visit. The main factor associated with being up to date was the length of the patient-clinician relationship (<6 months vs 5+ years: odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80). Sharing the decision about screening options with the clinician was a predictor for being up to date compared with patients who made the decision for themselves (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.44). Only 36% of patients reported being given a choice about screening options. Traditional factors like race, employment, insurance, and education were not associated with screening. CONCLUSIONS: Having a long-term relationship with a primary care clinician and sharing decisions may be key drivers to ensure evidence-based preventive care for underserved populations.

Practice facilitation to promote evidence-based screening and management of unhealthy alcohol use in primary care: a practice-level randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Evidence demonstrates that screening for unhealthy alcohol use and providing persons engaged in risky drinking with brief behavioral and counseling interventions improves health outcomes, collectively termed screening and brief interventions. Medication assisted therapy (MAT) is another effective method for treatment of moderate or severe alcohol use disorder. Yet, primary care clinicians are not regularly screening for or treating unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are initiating a clinic-level randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate how primary care clinicians can impact unhealthy alcohol use through screening, counseling, and MAT. One hundred and 25 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) will be engaged; each will receive practice facilitation to promote screening, counseling, and MAT either at the beginning of the trial or at a 6-month control period start date. For each practice, the intervention includes provision of a practice facilitator, learning collaboratives with three practice champions, and clinic-wide information sessions. Clinics will be enrolled for 6-12 months. After completion of the intervention, we will conduct a mixed methods analysis to identify changes in screening rates, increase in provision of brief counseling and interventions as well as MAT, and the reduction of alcohol intake for patients after practices receive practice facilitation. DISCUSSION: This study offers a systematic process for dissemination and implementation of the evidence-based practice of screening, counseling, and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. Practices will be asked to implement a process for screening, counseling, and treatment based on their practice characteristics, patient population, and workflow. We propose practice facilitation as a robust and feasible intervention to assist in making changes within the practice. We believe that the process can be replicated and used in a broad range of clinical settings; we anticipate this will be supported by our evaluation of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023, Registered 5 February 2020.