An age-friendly approach to primary care in an academic health system.

BACKGROUND: Age-friendly care, addressing what matters most, medications, mentation, and mobility, is a successful model for improving older adult care. We describe the initial outcomes of age-friendly care implementation in five primary care clinics in an academic health system. METHODS: In partnership with a regional quality improvement (QI) organization, we used practice facilitation to implement age-friendly care from July 2020 to June 2023. Clinic workflows and electronic health record (EHR) templates were modified to capture six QI measures for patients ≥65 years: Documenting what matters most to patients Advance care planning (ACP) Annual cognitive screening Caregiver referral to dementia community resources Fall-risk screening Co-prescription of opioid and sedative-hypnotic drugs Providers were alerted if patients had positive screens and given support tools for clinical decision-making. QI measures from January-June 2023 were compared to the year prior to implementation. Providers and staff were interviewed about implementation barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: All six measures improved in Geriatrics and and other clinics showed improvement in ACP and cognitive screening. All clinics had high fall-risk screening rates (≥85%). The least improved measure was co-prescription of opioids and sedative-hypnotics with co-prescription rates ranging from 7% to 39%. Implementation hinged on leadership prioritization, practice facilitator guidance, clinical team buy-in, EHR functionality, and clinical performance review. Three clinics received Age-Friendly Health System recognition. CONCLUSIONS: A QI approach using practice facilitation and EHR templates improved some but not all age-friendly care measures. Future interventions will focus on training in high-risk medication tapering and elicitation of health goals.

Advancing health and environmental disease tracking: a 5-year follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to gain an understanding of the extent to which environmental public health tracking (EPHT) has progressed since the release of the 2000 Pew Environmental Health Commission report examining the nation's EPHT infrastructure. METHODS: As a follow-up to the Pew Commission report, we conducted a telephone survey of state practitioners in an effort to assess EPHT trends and changes in state-level capacities and activities over the past several years. RESULTS: We found that new and enhanced federal-state partnerships; improved surveillance, data analysis, and communication capacities; and enhanced support of tracking personnel have provided a foundation for progress in the area of EPHT. Also, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's support of EPHT has strengthened the national environmental public health infrastructure and capacity to track environmental hazards, exposures, and health. CONCLUSIONS: Improved funding, data access, and translation of data to prevention activities are critical to sustaining progress in EPHT and developing the evidence base necessary for assessing the longer-term impacts and efficacy of EPHT and related environmental health improvements.