Faculty Bibliography

Many health care providers and systems are developing and implementing processes to screen patients for social determinants of health and to refer patients to appropriate nonclinical and community-based resources. The largest public health care system in the United States, New York City Health + Hospitals, piloted such a program in 2017. A qualitative evaluation yielded insights into the implementation and feasibility of such screening and referral programs in health care systems serving low-income, minority, immigrant, and underserved populations.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Practice facilitation is a promising practice transformation strategy, but further examination of its effectiveness in improving adoption of guidelines for multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors is needed. The objective of the study is to determine whether practice facilitation is effective in increasing the proportion of patients meeting the Million Hearts ABCS outcomes: (A) aspirin when indicated, (B) blood pressure control, (C) cholesterol management, and (S) smoking screening and cessation intervention. DESIGN/METHODS:The study used a stepped-wedge cluster RCT design with 4 intervention waves. Data were extracted for 13 quarters between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2018, which encompassed the control, intervention, and follow-up periods for all waves, and analyzed in 2019. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A total of 257 small independent primary care practices in New York City were randomized into 1 of 4 waves. INTERVENTION/METHODS:The intervention consisted of practice facilitators conducting at least 13 practice visits over 1 year, focused on capacity building and implementing system and workflow changes to meet cardiovascular disease care guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The main outcomes were the Million Hearts' ABCS measures. Two additional measures were created: (1) proportion of tobacco users who received a cessation intervention (smokers counseled) and (2) a composite measure that assessed the proportion of patients meeting treatment targets for A, B, and C (ABC composite). RESULTS:The S measure improved when comparing follow-up with the control period (incidence rate ratio=1.152, 95% CI=1.072, 1.238, p<0.001) and when comparing follow-up with intervention (incidence rate ratio=1.060, 95% CI=1.013, 1.109, p=0.007). Smokers counseled improved when comparing the intervention period with control (incidence rate ratio=1.121, 95% CI=1.037, 1.211, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS:Increasing the impact of practice facilitation programs that target multiple risk factors may require a longer, more intense intervention and greater attention to external policy and practice context. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02646488.

BACKGROUND:Practice facilitation is an implementation strategy used to build practice capacity and support practice changes to improve health care outcomes. Yet, few studies have investigated how practice facilitation strategies are tailored to different primary care contexts. OBJECTIVE:To identify contextual factors that drive facilitators' strategies to meet practice improvement goals, and how these strategies are tailored to practice context. DESIGN/METHODS:Semi-structured, qualitative interviews analyzed using inductive (open coding) and deductive (thematic) approaches. This study was conducted as part of a larger study, HealthyHearts New York City, which evaluated the impact of practice facilitation on adoption of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment guidelines. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:15 facilitators working in two practice contexts: small independent practices (SIPs) and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:Strategies facilitators use to support and promote practice changes and contextual factors that impact this approach. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Contextual factors were described similarly across settings and included the policy environment, patient needs, site characteristics, leadership engagement, and competing priorities. We identified four facilitation strategies used to tailor to contextual factors and support practice change: (a) remain flexible to align with practice and organizational priorities; (b) build relationships; (c) provide value through information technology expertise; and (d) build capacity and create efficiencies. Facilitators in SIPs and FQHCs described using the same strategies, often in combination, but tailored to their specific contexts. CONCLUSIONS:Despite significant infrastructure and resource differences between SIPs and FQHCs, the contextual factors that influenced the facilitator's change process and the strategies used to address those factors were remarkably similar. The findings emphasize that facilitators require multidisciplinary skills to support sustainable practice improvement in the context of varying complex health care delivery settings.

OBJECTIVE:HealthyHearts NYC was a stepped wedge randomized control trial that tested the effectiveness of practice facilitation on the adoption of cardiovascular disease guidelines in small primary care practices. The objective of this study was to identify was to identify attributes of small practices that signaled they would perform well in a practice facilitation intervention implementation. METHODS:A mixed methods multiple-case study design was used. Six small practices were selected representing 3 variations in meeting the practice-level benchmark of >70% of hypertensive patients having controlled blood pressure. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify themes and assign case ratings. Cross-case rating comparison was used to identify attributes of high performing practices. RESULTS:Our first key finding is that the high-performing and improved practices in our study looked and acted similarly during the intervention implementation. The second key finding is that 3 attributes emerged in our analysis of determinants of high performance in small practices: (1) advanced use of the EHR; (2) dedicated resources and commitment to quality improvement; and (3) actively engaged lead clinician and office manager. CONCLUSIONS:These attributes may be important determinants of high performance, indicating not only a small practice's capability to engage in an intervention but possibly also its readiness to change. We recommend developing tools to assess readiness to change, specifically for small primary care practices, which may help external agents, like practice facilitators, better translate intervention implementations to context.

Individuals living with complex diabetes experience limited access to endocrine care due to a nationwide shortage of endocrinologists. Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) is an innovative, scalable model of health care that extends specialty care to medically underserved areas through ongoing telementorship of community primary care providers. We evaluated the effects of an endocrine-focused ECHO program (Endo ECHO) on patients with type 1 and complex type 2 diabetes, and report here on changes in patient-reported measures of health care access and quality from baseline to one year aft er program enrollment. Patients were eligible for Endo ECHO if they were 18 years or older with complex diabetes. Aft er participating in Endo ECHO, access to health care and diabetes-related quality of care improved dramatically. Our results suggest that Endo ECHO may be a suitable intervention for extending best practices in diabetes care to medically underserved patients.

Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (Project ECHO) offers an innovative and low-cost approach to enhancing the management of complex conditions among primary care providers. The NYC Health + Hospitals Buprenorphine ECHO (H + H ECHO) program offers primary care providers (PCPs) training and support in managing opioid use disorder (OUD). This exploratory study assessed the feasibility of a 16-session video conferencing platform led by Addiction Medicine experts in improving addiction knowledge, perceived self-efficacy, and buprenorphine prescribing among PCPs located in 17 publicly-funded ambulatory care clinics. A pre- and post-training survey assessed changes in knowledge and self-efficacy. Buprenorphine prescribing patterns were also captured pre-post training. Training sessions consisted of a review of the agenda by the H + H ECHO hub team, 15-30 min didactic lectures led by specialists, followed by a patient case presentation. Participants attended an average of 9 lectures (range, 1-15 sessions) and 53% of trainees attended at least 10 of the 16 sessions. Perceived self-efficacy improved post-H + H ECHO (73.2%) versus pre-training survey results (58.1%). There were minimal increases in knowledge post-training (58.4%) versus pre-training (51.4%). Only three additional providers reported prescribing Buprenorphine post-training (n = 10) versus pre-training (n = 7). Suggestions for improving H + H ECHO included trainings addressing stigma, administrative support, improved referrals to office-based opioid treatment (OBOT), integration of non-physician staff (i.e., case management, social work), and combining multimodal learning strategies (i.e., podcasts, web-based modules) with videoconferencing. This study demonstrates the feasibility of H + H ECHO among PCPs in publicly-funded clinics and improvements in self-efficacy. Studies are needed to identify alternative strategies to improve knowledge and prescribing of buprenorphine post-H + H ECHO.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Small independent primary care practices (SIPs) often lack the resources to implement system changes. HealthyHearts NYC, funded through the EvidenceNOW initiative of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, studied the effectiveness of practice facilitation to improve cardiovascular disease- related care in 257 SIPs. We sought to understand SIP clinicians' perspectives on the benefits of practice facilitation. METHODS:We conducted in-depth interviews with 19 SIP clinicians enrolled in HealthyHearts NYC. Interviews were transcribed and coded using deductive and inductive approaches. To understand whether the perceived benefits of practice facilitation differ based on the availability of internal staff for quality improvement (QI), we compared themes pertaining to benefits between practices with 3 or fewer office staff vs more than 3 office staff. RESULTS:Clinicians perceived 2 main benefits of practice facilitation. First, facilitators served as a connection to the external health care environment for SIPs, often through teaching and information sharing. Second, facilitators provided electronic health record (EHR)/data expertise, often by teaching functionality and completing technical assistance and tasks. SIPs with more than 3 office staff felt that facilitators provided benefits primarily through teaching, whereas SIPs with 3 or fewer staff felt that facilitators also provided hands-on support. At the intersections of these benefits, there emerged 3 central practice facilitation benefits: (1) creating awareness of quality gaps, (2) connecting practices to information, resources, and strategies, and (3) optimizing the EHR for QI goals. CONCLUSIONS:SIP clinicians perceived practice facilitation to be an important resource for connecting their practice to the external health care environment and resources, and helping their practice build QI capacity through teaching, hands-on support, and EHR-driven solutions.

An estimated 3 to 5 million Americans are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), and approximately 75% of those persons were born between 1945 and 1965 (the so-called baby boomer generation). Because of the largely asymptomatic nature of HCV, up to 50% of those infected are unaware of their disease. Risk-based testing has been largely ineffective. Based on prevalence data, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other organizations recommend a onetime HCV antibody test for all baby boomers. However, uptake of this recommendation requires significant changes in clinical practice for already busy primary care clinicians. We studied the effectiveness of a quality improvement initiative based on continuous audit and feedback combined with education for improving testing in alignment with guidelines; the control group was a cohort of clinicians whose only reminder was an institution-wide electronic health record prompt. Our data show improved testing rates among all clinician groups, but more significant improvement occurred among providers who received continuous feedback about their clinical performance coupled with education.

BACKGROUND:Little is known about the prevalence and correlates of burnout among providers who work in small independent primary care practices (<5 providers). METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by using data collected from 235 providers practicing in 174 small independent primary care practices in New York City. RESULTS:= .034). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The burnout rate was relatively low among our sample of providers compared with previous surveys that focused primarily on larger practices. The independence and autonomy providers have in these small practices may provide some protection against symptoms of burnout. In addition, the relationship between adaptive reserve and lower rates of burnout point toward potential interventions for reducing burnout that include strengthening primary care practices' learning and development capacity.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We wanted to describe small, independent primary care practices' performance in meeting the Million Hearts ABCSs (aspirin use, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking screening and counseling), as well as on a composite measure that captured the extent to which multiple clinical targets are achieved for patients with a history of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We also explored relationships between practice characteristics and ABCS measures. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional, bivariate analysis using baseline data from 134 practices in New York City. ABCS data were extracted from practices' electronic health records and aggregated to the site level. Practice characteristics were obtained from surveys of clinicians and staff at each practice. RESULTS:= .011) than practices with multiple clinicians. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Achieving targets for ABCS measures varied considerably across practices; however, small practices were meeting or exceeding Million Hearts goals (ie, 70% or greater). Practices were less likely to meet consistently clinical targets that apply to patients with a history of ASCVD risk factors. Greater emphasis is needed on providing support for small practices to address the complexity of managing patients with multiple risk factors for primary and secondary ASCVD.