Conducting a Comprehensive Assessment of the Public Health Workforce: Lessons Learned and Opportunities for the Future.

Indiana was one of the earliest states to conduct a comprehensive public health workforce assessment in preparation for the use of federal funds for infrastructure strengthening. Experiences from this assessment provide insights that may be useful to other public health agencies and partners. This brief summarizes key lessons and highlights opportunities for improved workforce assessments. For example, the lack of standardized job titles within local health departments (LHDs) can be mitigated by collecting the top 3 job tasks employees engage in daily and reassigning standardized titles based on nationally collected workforce data. This facilitates comparisons across LHD employees nationally. In addition, many employees felt their job tasks did not align well with the Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS) areas and capabilities, which contributed to the likely overestimation of effort. Further consideration of how to better align and/or integrate FPHS assessment within current practice is needed in addition to improved ways of assessing efforts toward FPHS.

Examining primary care provider experiences with using a clinical decision support tool for pain management.

Objective: To evaluate primary care provider (PCP) experiences using a clinical decision support (CDS) tool over 16 months following a user-centered design process and implementation. Materials and Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the Chronic Pain OneSheet (OneSheet), a chronic pain CDS tool. OneSheet provides pain- and opioid-related risks, benefits, and treatment information for patients with chronic pain to PCPs. Using the 5 Rights of CDS framework, we conducted and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 19 PCPs across 2 academic health systems. Results: PCPs stated that OneSheet mostly contained the right information required to treat patients with chronic pain and was correctly located in the electronic health record. PCPs used OneSheet for distinct subgroups of patients with chronic pain, including patients prescribed opioids, with poorly controlled pain, or new to a provider or clinic. PCPs reported variable workflow integration and selective use of certain OneSheet features driven by their preferences and patient population. PCPs recommended broadening OneSheet access to clinical staff and patients for data entry to address clinician time constraints. Discussion: Differences in patient subpopulations and workflow preferences had an outsized effect on CDS tool use even when the CDS contained the right information identified in a user-centered design process. Conclusions: To increase adoption and use, CDS design and implementation processes may benefit from increased tailoring that accommodates variation and dynamics among patients, visits, and providers.

Assessing the use of a clinical decision support tool for pain management in primary care.

Objective: Given time constraints, poorly organized information, and complex patients, primary care providers (PCPs) can benefit from clinical decision support (CDS) tools that aggregate and synthesize problem-specific patient information. First, this article describes the design and functionality of a CDS tool for chronic noncancer pain in primary care. Second, we report on the retrospective analysis of real-world usage of the tool in the context of a pragmatic trial. Materials and methods: The tool known as OneSheet was developed using user-centered principles and built in the Epic electronic health record (EHR) of 2 health systems. For each relevant patient, OneSheet presents pertinent information in a single EHR view to assist PCPs in completing guideline-recommended opioid risk mitigation tasks, review previous and current patient treatments, view patient-reported pain, physical function, and pain-related goals. Results: Overall, 69 PCPs accessed OneSheet 2411 times (since November 2020). PCP use of OneSheet varied significantly by provider and was highly skewed (site 1: median accesses per provider: 17 [interquartile range (IQR) 9-32]; site 2: median: 8 [IQR 5-16]). Seven "power users" accounted for 70% of the overall access instances across both sites. OneSheet has been accessed an average of 20 times weekly between the 2 sites. Discussion: Modest OneSheet use was observed relative to the number of eligible patients seen with chronic pain. Conclusions: Organizations implementing CDS tools are likely to see considerable provider-level variation in usage, suggesting that CDS tools may vary in their utility across PCPs, even for the same condition, because of differences in provider and care team workflows.

Evaluation of electronic recruitment efforts of primary care providers as research subjects during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting healthcare providers as research subjects often rely on in-person recruitment strategies. Little is known about recruiting provider participants via electronic recruitment methods. In this study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe and evaluate a primarily electronic approach to recruiting primary care providers (PCPs) as subjects in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a decision support intervention. METHODS: We adapted an existing framework for healthcare provider research recruitment, employing an electronic consent form and a mix of brief synchronous video presentations, email, and phone calls to recruit PCPs into the RCT. To evaluate the success of each electronic strategy, we estimated the number of consented PCPs associated with each strategy, the number of days to recruit each PCP and recruitment costs. RESULTS: We recruited 45 of 63 eligible PCPs practicing at ten primary care clinic locations over 55 days. On average, it took 17 business days to recruit a PCP (range 0-48) and required three attempts (range 1-7). Email communication from the clinic leaders led to the most successful recruitments, followed by brief synchronous video presentations at regularly scheduled clinic meetings. We spent approximately $89 per recruited PCP. We faced challenges of low email responsiveness and limited opportunities to forge relationships. CONCLUSION: PCPs can be efficiently recruited at low costs as research subjects using primarily electronic communications, even during a time of high workload and stress. Electronic peer leader outreach and synchronous video presentations may be particularly useful recruitment strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04295135 . Registered 04 March 2020.

Factors that differentiate COVID-19 vaccine intentions among Indiana parents: Implications for targeted vaccine promotion.

Given low rates of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine for children 12-17 and 5-11 years old, research is needed to understand parental behaviors and behavioral intentions related to COVID-19 vaccination for their children. In the state of Indiana, we conducted a non-random, online survey of parents or caregivers (N = 10,266) about their COVID-19 vaccine intentions or behaviors, demographic characteristics, and potential motivating reasons for getting the vaccine. In terms of behaviors/intentions, 44.8% of participants indicated they were vaccine acceptors (i.e., had already had their children vaccinated or would as soon as it was possible), 13.0% indicated they were vaccine hesitators (i.e., wanted to wait and see), and 42.2% indicated they were vaccine rejecters (i.e., would not vaccinate or only would if mandated). Compared to vaccine rejecters, vaccine hesitators were more likely to be motivated by perceptions of vaccine safety and efficacy, normative influences such as close friends/family who had been vaccinated and a recommendation from a provider, as well as if they were vaccinated themselves. These findings have implications for the development of targeted vaccine promotion strategies, such as social norms messaging and a focus on vaccine safety, in order to increase COVID-19 vaccination for eligible children.

The Challenges of Conducting Intrastate Policy Surveillance: A Methods Note on County and City Laws in Indiana.

Policy surveillance is critical in examining the ways law functions as a structural and social determinant of health. To date, little policy surveillance research has focused on examining intrastate variations in the structure and health impact of laws. Intrastate policy surveillance poses unique methodological challenges because of the complex legal architecture within states and inefficient curation of local laws.We discuss our experience with these intrastate policy surveillance challenges in Indiana, a state with 92 counties and several populous cities, a complicated history of home rule, systemically underfunded local governments, and variations in demography, geography, and technology adoption. In our case study, we expended significant time and resources to obtain county and city ordinances through online code libraries, jurisdiction Web sites, and (most notably) visits to offices to scan documents ourselves.A concerted effort is needed to ensure that local laws of all kinds are stored online in organized, searchable, and open access systems. Such an effort is vital to achieve the aspirational goals of policy surveillance at the intrastate level.

End user information needs for a SMART on FHIR-based automated transfer form to support the care of nursing home patients during emergency department visits.

Nursing home (NH) patients are extensive users of emergency department (ED) services. Problematically, poor information sharing and incomplete access to information complicates the delivery of care in EDs for NH patients. Paper-based transfer forms can support information sharing, but have significant limitations. Standards-based automated transfer-forms that leverage health information exchange data may address the limitations of paper-based forms and better support care delivery. This study developed a prototype SMART on FHIR automated transfer form for NH patients using priority data elements identified through individual interviews, a review of existing transfer forms, a targeted survey of end users, and a design workshop. Analyses were grounded in the 5 Rights of clinical decision support framework. The most valuable data elements included: emergency contact/healthcare proxy, current medication list, reason for transfer to the ED, baseline neurological state, and relevant diagnoses / medical history. The working prototype was successfully deployed within an Amazon Web Service environment.