Elizabeth C. Clark

Typical Electronic Health Record Use in Primary Care Practices and the Quality of Diabetes Care

PURPOSE Recent efforts to encourage meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) assume that widespread adoption will improve the quality of ambulatory care, especially for complex clinical conditions such as diabetes. Cross-sectional studies of typical uses of commercially available ambulatory EHRs provide conflicting evidence for an association between EHR use and improved care, and effects of longer-term EHR use in community-based primary care settings on the quality of care are not well understood. METHODS We analyzed data from 16 EHR-using and 26 non–EHR-using practices in 2 northeastern states participating in a group-randomized quality improvement trial. Measures of care were assessed for 798 patients with diabetes. We used hierarchical linear models to examine the relationship between EHR use and adherence to evidence-based diabetes care guidelines, and hierarchical logistic models to compare rates of improvement over 3 years. RESULTS EHR use was not associated with better adherence to care guidelines or a more rapid improvement in adherence. In fact, patients in practices that did not use an EHR were more likely than those in practices that used an EHR to meet all of 3 intermediate outcomes targets for hemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure at the 2-year follow-up (odds ratio = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12–2.51). Although the quality of care improved across all practices, rates of improvement did not differ between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Consistent use of an EHR over 3 years does not ensure successful use for improving the quality of diabetes care. Ongoing efforts to encourage adoption and meaningful use of EHRs in primary care should focus on ensuring that use succeeds in improving care. These efforts will need to include provision of assistance to longer-term EHR users.

Electronic Health Record Impact on Work Burden in Small, Unaffiliated, Community-Based Primary Care Practices

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDThe use of electronic health records (EHR) is widely recommended as a means to improve the quality, safety and efficiency of US healthcare. Relatively little is known, however, about how implementation and use of this technology affects the work of clinicians and support staff who provide primary health care in small, independent practices.OBJECTIVETo study the impact of EHR use on clinician and staff work burden in small, community-based primary care practices.DESIGNWe conducted in-depth field research in seven community-based primary care practices. A team of field researchers spent 9–14 days over a 4–8 week period observing work in each practice, following patients through the practices, conducting interviews with key informants, and collecting documents and photographs. Field research data were coded and analyzed by a multidisciplinary research team, using a grounded theory approach.PARTICIPANTSAll practice members and selected patients in seven community-based primary care practices in the Northeastern US.KEY RESULTSThe impact of EHR use on work burden differed for clinicians compared to support staff. EHR use reduced both clerical and clinical staff work burden by improving how they check in and room patients, how they chart their work, and how they communicate with both patients and providers. In contrast, EHR use reduced some clinician work (i.e., prescribing, some lab-related tasks, and communication within the office), while increasing other work (i.e., charting, chronic disease and preventive care tasks, and some lab-related tasks). Thoughtful implementation and strategic workflow redesign can mitigate the disproportionate EHR-related work burden for clinicians, as well as facilitate population-based care.CONCLUSIONSThe complex needs of the primary care clinician should be understood and considered as the next iteration of EHR systems are developed and implemented.

Coordination of Health Behavior Counseling in Primary Care

PURPOSE We wanted to examine how coordinated care is implemented in primary care practices to address patients’ health behavior change needs. METHODS Site visit notes, documents, interviews, and online implementation diaries were collected from July 2005 to September 2007 from practice-based research networks (PBRNs) participating in Prescription for Health: Promoting Healthy Behaviors in Primary Care Research Networks (P4H). An iterative group process was used to conduct a cross-case comparative analysis of 9 interventions. Published patient outcomes reports from P4H interventions were referenced to provide information on intervention effectiveness. RESULTS In-practice health risk assessment (HRA) and brief counseling, coupled with referral and outreach to a valued and known counseling resource, emerged as the best way to consistently coordinate and encourage follow-through for health behavior counseling. Findings from published P4H outcomes suggest that this approach led to improvement in health behaviors. Automated prompts and decision support tools for HRA, brief counseling and referral, training in brief counseling strategies, and co-location of referral with outreach facilitated implementation. Interventions that attempted to minimize practice or clinician burden through telephone and Web-based counseling systems or by expanding the medical assistant role in coordination of health behavior counseling experienced difficulties in implementation and require more study to determine how to optimize integration in practices. CONCLUSIONS Easy-to-use system-level solutions that have point-of-delivery reminders and decision support facilitate coordination of health behavior counseling for primary care patients. Infrastructure is needed if broader integration of health behavior counseling is to be achieved in primary care.

Decision-Making Processes of Patients Who Use the Emergency Department for Primary Care Needs

Emergency department (ED) use for non-urgent needs is widely viewed as a contributor to various health care system flaws and inefficiencies. There are few qualitative studies designed to explore the complexity of patients’ decision-making process to use the ED vs. primary care alternatives. In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 patients who were discharged from the low acuity area of a university hospital ED. A grounded theory approach including cycles of immersion/crystallization was used to identify themes and reportable interpretations. Patients reported multiple decision-making considerations that hinged on whether or not they knew about primary care options. A model is developed depicting the complexity and variation in patients’ decision-making to use the ED. Optimizing health system navigation and use requires improving objective factors such as access and costs as well as subjective perceptions of patients’ health care, which are also a prominent part of their decision-making process.

Electronic Medical Records Are Not Associated With Improved Documentation in Community Primary Care Practices

The adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) in ambulatory settings has been widely recommended. It is hoped that EMRs will improve care; however, little is known about the effect of EMR use on care quality in this setting. This study compares EMR versus paper medical record documentation of basic health history and preventive service indicators in 47 community-based practices. Differences in practice-level documentation rates between practices that did and did not use an EMR were examined using the Kruskal—Wallis nonparametric test and robust regression, adjusting for practice-level covariates. Frequency of documentation of health history and preventive service indicator items were similar in the 2 groups of practices. Although EMRs provide the capacity for more robust record keeping, the community-based practices here do not use EMRs to their full capacity. EMR usage does not guarantee more systematic record keeping and thus may not lead to improved quality in the community practice setting.

Up close and (inter)personal: insights from a primary care practice's efforts to improve office relationships over time, 2003-2009.

A growing body of literature suggests that interpersonal relationships between personnel in health care organizations can have an impact on the quality of care provided. Some research recommends that the fundamental practice transformation that is being urged in this current climate of health care reform may be aided by strong interpersonal practice relationships and communication. There is much to be learned, however, about what is involved in the process of addressing and improving interpersonal relationships in primary care practices. This case study offers insights into this process by examining 1 primary care practices efforts to address interpersonal office issues over the course of its participation in 2 back-to-back quality improvement (QI) intervention studies. Our analysis is based on extensive qualitative data on this practice (observational data, interviews, and audio-recorded QI meetings) from 2003 to 2009. By tracing common themes and patterns of interaction over an extended period of time, we identify a variety of facilitators of and barriers to addressing interpersonal issues in the practice setting. We conclude by suggesting some implications from this case for future QI research.

The association of family continuity with infant health service use.

Purpose: Continuity of care is a fundamental component of family medicine that has been shown to improve health care quality. Family continuity, when different family members are seen by the same clinician or practice, has not been well studied. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicaid enrollees in Oregon using administrative data. Infants were determined to have family continuity if they received well-baby care at the same clinic as that in which their mothers received prenatal care. Results: Of the 1591 infants identified for participation in this study, 749 (47.1%) had family continuity. Infants had a mean of 4.55 well-child visits, 1.23 emergency department visits, and 0.17 hospitalizations in the first 13 months of life. Multivariate analyses found that infants with family continuity had increased numbers of well-child visits (relative risk, 1.05; P = .041), increased numbers of emergency department visits (relative risk, 1.36; P < .0001), and no difference in the number of hospitalizations (relative risk, 0.85; P = .282) when compared with infants without family continuity. Conclusions: Family continuity, when measured at the clinic level, is associated with a variable effect on infant health service use. This finding suggests that clinic-level continuity is not sufficient for achieving all the benefits of continuity.

Barriers and Facilitators to Expanding Roles of Medical Assistants in Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs)

Background: Many primary care practices participating in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) transformation initiatives are expanding the work roles of their medical assistants (MAs). Little is known about attitudes of MAs or barriers and facilitators to these role changes. Methods: Secondary data analysis of qualitative cross-case comparison study of 15 New Jersey primary care practices participating in a PCMH project during 2012 to 2013. Observation field notes and in-depth and key informant interviews (with physicians, office managers, staff and care coordinators) were iteratively analyzed using grounded theory. Results: MA roles and responsibilities changed from a mostly reactive role, completing tasks dependent on physician orders during the patient visit and facilitating patient flow through the office, to a more proactive one, conducting previsit planning, engaging in the overall care for patients, and assisting with population management. MAs differed in their attitudes about increased responsibilities, with some welcoming the opportunity to take on expanded roles, others resenting their increased responsibilities, and some expressing insufficient understanding regarding why new tasks and procedures were being implemented. Major barriers to MA role shifts included 1) insufficient understanding of the PCMH concept, 2) lack of time for added responsibilities, 3) additional workload without additional compensation, 4) disparate levels of medical knowledge and training, 5) reluctance of clinicians to delegate tasks, 6) uncertainty in making new workflow changes routine, 7) staff turnover, and 8) change fatigue. MAs were more positive about their role shifts when they 1) understood how their responsibilities fit within broader PCMH practice transformation goals; 2) received formal training in new tasks; 3) had detailed protocols and standing orders; 4) initiated role changes with small, achievable goals; 5) had open communication with clinicians and practice leaders; and 5) received additional compensation or paths to career advancement. Conclusions: Practice leaders need to be conscious of obstacles when they increase expectations of MAs, and they must be willing to invest time and resources into developing their MA workforce. An environment that allows open dialog with MAs and rewards and compensation that recognizes their increased efforts will help make expansion of MA roles occur more smoothly and efficiently.