Patient Experiences and Perceptions of Care Coordination in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient perceptions of care coordination in primary care can help improve responsiveness to patients' needs, outcomes, and quality of care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore patient experiences and perceptions of care coordination in primary care. METHOD: Interviews with 13 patients from 10 clinics were conducted and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Three primary themes arose: care coordinators provide a gateway to accessing needed care; patients needed and valued the support and trusted advice of their care coordinators; and patients valued care coordinators' help with navigating, engaging, and educating them about their care. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding what patients value in care delivery can help frame a vision for a more responsive approach in delivering primary care, as well as create a pathway to quality improvement, moving toward a truly patient-centered focus in primary care.

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose: The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement. Methods: Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers. Results: During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome. Conclusions: Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

Care coordination in primary care: mapping the territory.

OBJECTIVE: To document the current approaches to care coordination among different types of care systems in Minnesota. STUDY DESIGN: Observational survey of leaders of most of the care systems in Minnesota that have implemented care coordination. METHODS: Survey questions about organizational structure, size, and approach to care coordination were sent to the leaders of 42 care systems with a total of 327 primary care clinics. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by leaders at every care system participating in this study (100% response rate); 16 small care systems (each with 1-2 clinics) had a total of 26 primary care clinics, 15 medium care systems (3-9 clinics) had 57 clinics, and 11 large care systems (> 9 clinics) had 244 clinics. The large care systems had larger clinics (clinicians per clinic, 8.6 in large vs 4.3 in small and 5.2 in medium; P = .03) and more clinicians per care coordinator (5.7 vs 3.3 and 4.0; P = .04). They also more frequently included a social worker in their care coordination team: 82% vs 25% of small and 40% of medium care systems (P = .01). However, the services provided and complexity tools used were similar. Nearly all reported addressing both medical and social needs for their complex patients with multiple chronic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are large differences in resources and capabilities between large and small care systems, they were not associated with much difference in the approach taken to care coordination. This map of the care coordination territory in Minnesota has the potential to be valuable to researchers and care system leaders for understanding current implementation trends and directing further evaluations.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Patients Receiving Care Coordination in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Care coordination addresses the needs of patients with complex chronic illness and psychosocial issues, coordinating their care and social needs. It is not known how such patients receiving these services managed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study was to learn how the health, health care, social needs, and finances of patients receiving care coordination were affected by the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 patients receiving care coordination in primary care across a statewide sample about how the COVID-19 pandemic affected their life in general, including their overall health, social connections, finances and employment, and mental health. A content analysis approach was applied in the data analysis. RESULTS: We identified 4 primary themes in patient interviews including: (1) patients reported few to no impacts on their physical health status or health care services; (2) patients felt disconnected from family, friends, and community in ways that affected their mental health and wellbeing; (3) there were little to no pandemic related impacts for those on fixed incomes or government supports; and (4) care coordinators provided a significant and reliable source of help, support, and comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Care coordination provided a supporting framework for the health and the health care needs of these patients, helping them navigate resources and maintain their physical health during the pandemic. Care coordinators were seen as providing needed communication, connection, and support that was especially needed during a time of social isolation and disconnection.

Is the Promise of PROMs Being Realized? Implementation Experience in a Large Orthopedic Practice.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), increasingly used for research and quality measurement, are lauded for their potential to improve patient-centered care, both through aggregate reporting and when integrated into clinical practice. However, there are few published studies of the resultant use of PROMs in clinical practice. This case study describes the implementation and use of PROMS in a Midwestern multispecialty medical group orthopedic practice among patients undergoing total knee and hip surgery. Specifically, rates of PROMs use by care teams are tracked over time once made available in the electronic health record. During this time, the orthopedics department achieved a patient PROMS survey response rate of 68% at baseline, 58% 3 months post-surgery, and 55% 12 months post-surgery. However, these data were only accessed by the care teams for fewer than 1% of associated clinical encounters. This suggests that making PROMs available for care team review in the electronic health record, even when coupled with relatively high response rates from patients and departmental leadership support is not enough to encourage integration of PROMs into clinical care for patients. Additional effort is required to identify barriers to PROMs use in clinical care and to test methods to enhance use.

Strategies for Dose Optimization: Views From Health Care Systems.

BACKGROUND: Advances in CT have facilitated widespread use of medical imaging while increasing patient lifetime exposure to ionizing radiation. PURPOSE: To describe dose optimization strategies used by health care organizations to optimize radiation dose and image quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative study of semistructured interviews conducted with 26 leaders from 19 health care systems in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Interviews focused on strategies that were used to optimize radiation dose at the organizational level. A directed content analysis approach was used in data analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified seven organizational strategies used by these leaders for optimizing CT dose: (1) engaging radiologists and technologists, (2) establishing a CT dose committee, (3) managing organizational change, (4) providing leadership and support, (5) monitoring and benchmarking, (6) modifying CT protocols, and (7) changes in equipment and work rules. CONCLUSIONS: Leaders in these health systems engaged in specific strategies to optimize CT dose within their organizations. The strategies address challenges health systems encounter in optimizing CT dose at the organizational level and offer an evolving framework for consideration in dose optimization efforts for enhancing safety and use of medical imaging.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders? METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process. RESULTS: Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively? METHODS: In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (ß = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (ß = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Personalized outcomes for hip and knee replacement: the patients point of view.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being incorporated into clinical and surgical care for assessing outcomes. This study examined outcomes important to patients in their decision to have hip or knee replacement surgery, their perspectives on PROMs and shared decision-making, and factors they considered important for postoperative care. METHODS: A cross-sectional study employing survey methods with a stratified random sample of adult orthopedic patients who were scheduled for or recently had hip or knee replacement surgery. RESULTS: In a representative sample of 226 respondents, patients identified personalized outcomes important to them that they wanted from their surgery including the ability to walk without pain/discomfort, pain relief, and returning to an active lifestyle. They preferred a personalized outcome (54%) that they identified, compared to a PROM score, for tracking progress in their care and thought it important that their surgeon know their personal outcomes (63%). Patients also wanted to engage in shared decision-making (79%) about their post-surgical care and identified personal factors important to their aftercare, such as living alone and caring for pets. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified unique personalized outcomes they desired from their care and that they wanted their orthopedic surgeons to know about. Asking patients to identify their personalized outcomes could add value for both patients and surgeons in clinical care, facilitating more robust patient involvement in shared decision-making.

Barriers to CT Dose Optimization: The Challenge of Organizational Change.

BACKGROUND: The use of diagnostic imaging with computed tomography (CT) has risen significantly, increasing cumulative life-time exposure to ionizing radiation for patients and raising concerns about increased cancer risk. Lowering the doses would reduce concerns about associated cancer risks. PURPOSE: To determine organizational leaders' perceptions of barriers to optimizing radiation dose in CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study using semistructured interviews conducted with 26 organizational leaders from 19 health care systems in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Interviews focused on approaches the organizations used to optimize radiation dose and barriers encountered. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Analysis identified six primary barriers to dose optimization: (1) resistance to change, (2) limited time and resources, (3) complex organizational structure, (4) lack of leadership support, (5) variations in CT equipment, and (6) variability in CT protocols. CONCLUSION: Barriers to optimizing CT dose across diverse health care organizations were described by organizational leaders tasked with implementing and improving CT imaging. They identified six consistent themes that reflected barriers to optimizing radiation dose at the organizational level. These barriers impeded efforts by health care organizations to optimize radiation doses to patients from CT imaging. Identifying barriers early in any improvement process is an important first step in making meaningful and sustained change.

What Outcomes Matter to Patients After Joint or Spine Surgery?

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical care, but there have been few studies of what patients identify as the most important outcomes. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, spinal discectomy/laminotomy, or a spinal fusion. Interviews focused on outcomes patients identified as important, perceived usefulness of standardized PROMs measures, and contextual situations important to their care. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Patients identified desired outcomes that were unique and important to them. Their preferred outcomes focused in the areas of freedom from pain, getting back to their normal life, and returning to an active lifestyle. Patients cared more about their individual preferred outcomes, which had more meaning for them, than a standardized PROM score. Patients also identified particular contextual situations that their care team was assumed to know about but that may not have been known. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identify specific preferred outcomes from these surgical procedures that are important and meaningful to them and that frame whether they see their surgery as a success. They also identified personal factors that they assume their surgeons know about, which affect their care and recovery. These findings underscore the importance of engaging patients in discussions about their preferences and contextual factors both prior to and after surgery.

Organizational Factors and Quality Improvement Strategies Associated With Lower Radiation Dose From CT Examinations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify organizational factors and quality improvement strategies associated with lower radiation doses from abdominal CT. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey was administered to radiology leaders, along with simultaneous measurement of CT radiation dose among 19 health care organizations with 100 imaging centers throughout the United States, Europe, and Japan, using a common dose management software system. After adjusting for patient age, gender, and size, quality improvement strategies were tested for association with mean abdominal CT radiation dose and the odds of a high-dose examination. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 90 imaging centers (90%), and 182,415 abdominal CT scans were collected during the study period. Radiation doses varied considerably across organizations and centers. Univariate analyses identified eight strategies and systems that were significantly associated with lower average doses or lower frequency of high doses for abdominal CT examinations: tracking patient safety measures, assessing the impact of CT changes, identifying areas for improvement, setting specific goals, organizing improvement teams, tailoring decisions to sites, testing process changes before full implementation, and standardizing workflow. These processes were associated with an 18% to 37% reduction in high-dose examinations (P < .001-.03). In multivariate analysis, having a tracking system for patient safety measures, supportive radiology leaders, and obtaining clear images were associated with a 47% reduction in high-dose examinations. CONCLUSIONS: This documentation of the relation between quality improvement strategies and radiation exposure from CT examinations has identified important information for others interested in reducing the radiation exposure of their patients.

Analysis of Computed Tomography Radiation Doses Used for Lung Cancer Screening Scans.

Importance: The American College of Radiology (ACR) has recognized the importance of minimizing radiation doses used for lung cancer screening (LCS) computed tomography (CT). However, without standard protocols, doses could still be unnecessarily high, reducing screening margin of benefit. Objective: To characterize LCS CT radiation doses and identify factors explaining variation. Design, Setting, and Participants: We prospectively collected LCS examination dose metrics, from 2016 to 2017, at US institutions in the University of California, San Francisco International Dose Registry. Institution-level factors were collected through baseline survey. Mixed-effects linear and logistic regression models were estimated using forward variable selection. Results are presented as percentage excess dose and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The analysis was conducted between 2018 and 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Log-transformed measures of (1) mean volume CT dose index (CTDIvol, mGy), reflecting the average radiation dose per slice; (2) mean effective dose (ED, mSv), reflecting the total dose received and estimated future cancer risk; (3) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above ACR benchmarks (CTDIvol >3 mGy, ED >1 mSv); and (4) proportion of CT scans using radiation doses above 75th percentile of registry doses (CTDIvol >2.7 mGy, ED >1.4 mSv). Results: Data were collected for 12 529 patients undergoing LCS CT scans performed at 72 institutions. Overall, 7232 participants (58%) were men, and the median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 60-70). Of 72 institutions, 15 (21%) had median CTDIvol and 47 (65%) had median ED above ACR guidelines. Institutions allowing any radiologists to establish protocols had 44% higher mean CTDIvol (mean dose difference [MDD], 44%; 95% CI, 19%-69%) and 27% higher mean ED (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 5%-50%) vs those limiting who established protocols. Institutions allowing any radiologist to establish protocols had higher odds of examinations exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 2.0-71.4), and 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 19.0; 95% CI, 1.9-186.7) or ED (OR, 8.5; 95% CI, 1.7-42.9). Having lead radiologists establish protocols resulted in lower odds of doses exceeding ACR ED guidelines (OR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.1). Employing external vs internal medical physicists was associated with increased odds of exceeding ACR CTDIvol guidelines (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.8-20.8). Having medical physicists establish protocols was associated with decreased odds of exceeding 75th percentile of registry CTDIvol (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.59). Institutions reporting protocol updates as needed had 27% higher mean CTDIvol (MDD, 27%; 95% CI, 8%-45%). Conclusions and Relevance: Facilities varied in LCS CT radiation dose distributions. Institutions limiting protocol creation to lead radiologists and having internal medical physicists had lower doses.

Potentially Preventable Hospital and Emergency Department Events: Lessons from a Large Innovation Project.

INTRODUCTION: There are few proven strategies to reduce the frequency of potentially preventable hospitalizations and Emergency Department (ED) visits. To facilitate strategy development, we documented these events among complex patients and the factors that contribute to them in a large care-improvement initiative. METHODS: Observational study with retrospective audits and selective interviews by the patients' care managers among 12 diverse medical groups in California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington that participated in an initiative to implement collaborative care for patients with both depression and either uncontrolled diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension, or both. We reviewed information about 373 adult patients with the required conditions who belonged to these medical groups and had experienced 389 hospitalizations or ED visits during the 12-month study period from March 30, 2014, through March 29, 2015. The main outcome measures were potentially preventable hospitalizations or ED visit events. RESULTS: Of the studied events, 28% were considered to be potentially preventable (39% of ED visits and 14% of hospitalizations) and 4.6% of patients had 40% of events. Only type of insurance coverage; patient lack of resources, caretakers, or understanding of care; and inability to access clinic care were more frequent in those with potentially preventable events. Neither disease control nor ambulatory care-sensitive conditions were associated with potentially preventable events. CONCLUSION: Among these complex patients, patient characteristics, disease control, and the presence of ambulatory care-sensitive conditions were not associated with likelihood of ED visits or hospital admissions, including those considered to be potentially preventable. The current focus on using ambulatory care-sensitive conditions as a proxy for potentially preventable events needs further evaluation.

Reducing diabetes distress and improving self-management with mindfulness.

Stress associated with diabetes makes managing diabetes harder. We investigated whether mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) could reduce diabetes distress and improve management. We recruited 38 participants to complete an MBSR program. Surveys and lab values were completed at baseline and post-intervention. Participants showed significant improvement in diabetes-related distress (Cohen's d -.71, p < .002), psychosocial self-efficacy (Cohen's d .80, p < .001), and glucose control (Cohen's d -.79, p < .001). Significant improvements in depression, anxiety, stress, coping, self-compassion, and social support were also found. These results suggest that MBSR may offer an effective method for helping people better self-manage their diabetes and improve mental health.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement: Does It Require Information From Patients?

PURPOSE: Since collecting outcome measure data from patients can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject to memory and nonresponse bias, we sought to learn whether outcomes important to patients can be obtained from data in the electronic health record (EHR) or health insurance claims. METHODS: We previously identified 21 outcomes rated important by patients who had advanced imaging tests for back or abdominal pain. Telephone surveys about experiencing those outcomes 1 year after their test from 321 people consenting to use of their medical record and claims data were compared with audits of the participants' EHR progress notes over the time period between the imaging test and survey completion. We also compared survey data with algorithmically extracted data from claims files for outcomes for which data might be available from that source. RESULTS: Of the 16 outcomes for which patients' survey responses were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes for back pain and 3 for abdominal pain had kappa scores above a very modest level of ≥ 0.2 for chart audit of EHR data and none for algorithmically obtained EHR/claims data. Of the other 5 outcomes for which claims data were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes from patient surveys and 3 outcomes from chart audits had kappa scores ≥ 0.2. CONCLUSIONS: For the types of outcomes studied here, medical record or claims data do not provide an adequate source of information except for a few outcomes where patient reports may be less accurate.

Impact of A National Collaborative Care Initiative for Patients With Depression and Diabetes or Cardiovascular Disease.

(Reprinted with permission from General Hospital Psychiatry 44 (2017) 77-85).

Impact of a national collaborative care initiative for patients with depression and diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE: The spread of evidence-based care is an important challenge in healthcare. We evaluated spread of an evidence-based large-scale multisite collaborative care model for patients with depression and diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease (COMPASS). METHODS: Primary care patients with depression and comorbid diabetes or cardiovascular disease were recruited. Collaborative care teams used care management tracking systems and systematic case reviews to track and intensify treatment for patients not improving. Targeted outcomes were depression remission and response (assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and control of diabetes (assessed by HbA1c) and blood pressure. Patients and clinicians were surveyed about satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Eighteen care systems and 172 clinics enrolled 3609 patients across the US. Of those with uncontrolled disease at enrollment, 40% achieved depression remission or response, 23% glucose control and 58% blood pressure control during a mean follow-up of 11 months. There were large variations in outcomes across medical groups. Patients and clinicians were satisfied with COMPASS care. CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS was successfully spread across diverse care systems and demonstrated improved outcomes for complex patients with previously uncontrolled chronic disease. Future large-scale implementation projects should create robust processes to identify and reduce expected variation in implementation to consistently provide improved care.

Clinician burnout and satisfaction with resources in caring for complex patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care clinicians' self-reported satisfaction, burnout and barriers for treating complex patients. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 1554 primary care clinicians in 172 primary care clinics in 18 health care systems across 8 states prior to the implementation of a collaborative model of care for patients with depression and diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Of the clinicians who responded to the survey (n=709; 46%), we found that a substantial minority (31%) were experiencing burnout that was associated with lower career satisfaction (P<.0001) and lower satisfaction with resources to treat complex patients (P<.0001). Less than 50% of clinicians rated their ability to treat complex patients as very good to excellent with 21% rating their ability as fair to poor. The majority of clinicians (72%) thought that a collaborative model of care would be very helpful for treating complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout remains a problem for primary care clinicians and is associated with low job satisfaction and low satisfaction with resources to treat complex patients. A collaborative care model for patients with mental and physical health problems may provide the resources needed to improve the quality of care for these patients.