Faculty Bibliography

Despite limited program evaluations of Medicaid accountable care organizations (ACOs), no studies have examined if cost-saving goals negatively affect quality of life and health care experiences of low-income enrollees. The Hennepin Health ACO uses an integrated care model to address the physical, behavioral, and social needs of Medicaid expansion enrollees. As part of a larger evaluation, we conducted semistructured interviews with 35 primary care using Hennepin Health members enrolled for 2 or more years. Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, we assessed enrollee complexity and use of the care model and improvements in quality of life. We found improved quality of life was consistently associated with strong bonds to primary care, consistent mental health care, and support from extended care team members. Comprehensive, integrated care models within ACOs may improve quality of life for low-income Medicaid enrollees through coordinated primary and mental health care.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To examine the factor structure and differential item functioning (DIF) of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS version 2.0), a measure of treatment burden. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:change criterion of ≥0.02 to flag items with DIF. Cronbach's alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to determine the reliability of PETS domains. RESULTS:changes <0.02. Cronbach's alphas for all multi-item domain scales were ≥0.80, and ICCs of ten scales were ≥0.70, meeting the threshold for adequate test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Findings support the construct validity and reliability of PETS version 2.0. The fit of a factor model featuring superordinate (ie, second-order) factors of workload and impact supports index scoring that will simplify reporting of PETS scores. DIF analyses indicate that items from these indices can be interpreted in the same way, regardless of gender, education, or health literacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended clinicians' sense of order and control, creating the potential for stress in the short term and burnout over the long term. This commentary offers suggestions to encourage a culture that will sustain the clinician workforce during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND:The relationship between worklife factors, clinician outcomes, and time pressure during office visits is unclear. OBJECTIVE:To quantify associations between time pressure, workplace characteristics ,and clinician outcomes. DESIGN:Prospective analysis of data from the Healthy Work Place randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS:168 physicians and advanced practice clinicians in 34 primary care practices in Upper Midwest and East Coast. MAIN MEASURES AND METHODS:Time pressure was present when clinicians needed more time than allotted to provide quality care. Other metrics included work control, work pace (calm to chaotic), organizational culture and clinician satisfaction, stress, burnout, and intent to leave the practice. Hierarchical analysis assessed relationships between time pressure, organizational characteristics, and clinician outcomes. Adjusted differences between clinicians with and without time pressure were expressed as effect sizes (ESs). KEY RESULTS:Sixty-seven percent of clinicians needed more time for new patients and 53% needed additional time for follow-up appointments. Time pressure in new patient visits was more prevalent in general internists than in family physicians (74% vs 55%, p < 0.05), women versus men (78% vs 55%, p < 0.01), and clinicians with larger numbers of complex psychosocial (81% vs 59%, p < 0.01) and Limited English Proficiency patients (95% vs 57%, p < 0.001). Time pressure in new patient visits was associated with lack of control, clinician stress, and intent to leave (ESs small to moderate, p < 0.05). Time pressure in follow-up visits was associated with chaotic workplaces and burnout (small to moderate ESs, p's < 0.05). Time pressure improved over time in workplaces with values alignment and an emphasis on quality. CONCLUSIONS:Time pressure, more common in women and general internists, was related to chaos, control and culture, and stress, burnout, and intent to leave. Future studies should evaluate these findings in larger and more geographically diverse samples.

IMPORTANCE:Addressing physician suicide requires understanding its association with possible risk factors such as burnout and depression. OBJECTIVE:To assess the association between burnout and suicidal ideation after adjusting for depression and the association of burnout and depression with self-reported medical errors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This cross-sectional study was conducted from November 12, 2018, to February 15, 2019. Attending and postgraduate trainee physicians randomly sampled from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile were emailed invitations to complete an online survey in waves until a convenience sample of more than 1200 practicing physicians agreed to participate. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was the association of burnout with suicidal ideation after adjustment for depression. The secondary outcome was the association of burnout and depression with self-reported medical errors. Burnout, depression, suicidal ideation, and medical errors were measured using subscales of the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index, Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel, and Mini-Z burnout survey and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System depression Short Form. Associations were evaluated using multivariable regression models. RESULTS:Of the 1354 respondents, 893 (66.0%) were White, 1268 (93.6%) were non-Hispanic, 762 (56.3%) were men, 912 (67.4%) were non-primary care physicians, 934 (69.0%) were attending physicians, and 824 (60.9%) were younger than 45 years. Each SD-unit increase in burnout was associated with 85% increased odds of suicidal ideation (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31). After adjusting for depression, there was no longer an association (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.63-1.17). In the adjusted model, each SD-unit increase in depression was associated with 202% increased odds of suicidal ideation (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 2.30-3.95). In the adjusted model for self-reported medical errors, each SD-unit increase in burnout was associated with an increase in self-reported medical errors (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.28-1.71), whereas depression was not associated with self-reported medical errors (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that depression but not physician burnout is directly associated with suicidal ideation. Burnout was associated with self-reported medical errors. Future investigation might examine whether burnout represents an upstream intervention target to prevent suicidal ideation by preventing depression.

In 2010, payment for some of Hennepin County Medical Center's highest need patients changed from fee for service to a per capita formula. This financial stress led the institution to employ a population health lens that revealed a significant concentration of spending on a small segment of the population. Finding high rates of potentially avoidable inpatient and emergency care, an organizational effort was initiated to attempt to manage this high-need, high-cost population more effectively. A freestanding interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic was developed. Nurses led a risk stratification process to identify eligible patients for co-located medical, care coordination, and social services from multidisciplinary care teams. Workflows to engage the population were designed to reduce readmissions and inappropriate use of emergency services. Soon after opening, the clinic added mental health and substance use professionals. For people entering the clinic between January 2010 and July 2017, utilization and financial data were collected for the year before (pre) and after (post) enrollment (n = 487). Bivariate statistics and outlier analyses facilitated comparisons between pre/post enrollment. Patients visited the new clinic twice per month on average and outpatient costs almost doubled. Overall costs were 16% lower, with the largest decrease seen in inpatient costs. This experience has led to ongoing investment, replication, and expansion of the model. An interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic for high-utilizing, underserved patients is a promising intervention. Multidisciplinary teams and ongoing institutional support are critical to program success. Payment reform is essential to the development of such programs.

IMPORTANCE:Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear. OBJECTIVE:To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019. INTERVENTIONS:Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process. RESULTS:The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE:The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Clinical care in the United States has been transformed during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To support these changes, regulators and payers have temporarily modified long-standing policies, recognizing the need for a trade-off between the costs and benefits of oversight during times of crisis. Specifically, there has been a heightened receptivity to the importance of preserving physicians' and other health care professionals' time, cognitive bandwidth, and emotional reserve for the direct care of patients, instead of squandering these resources on low-value tasks and frustrating technology. Instead of reflexively reverting to past practices and policies, there is now an opportunity to take advantage of the lessons of COVID-19 for the further transformation of health care to achieve Quadruple Aim outcomes (better care for individuals, better health for the population, better experience for clinicians, and lower costs). We outline some of the policy and practice changes that we believe should endure after the crisis has passed, and we recommend using similar logic during noncrisis times to make additional changes to further reduce administrative burden, and thus improve patient care.

BACKGROUND:In primary care there is a need for more quality measures of person-centered outcomes, especially ones applicable to patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The aim of this study was to derive and validate a short-form version of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), an established measure of treatment burden, to help fill the gap in quality measurement. METHODS:Patient interviews (30) and provider surveys (30) were used to winnow items from the PETS (60 items) to a subset targeting person-centered care quality. Results were reviewed by a panel of healthcare providers and health-services researchers who finalized a pilot version. The Brief PETS was tested in surveys of 200 clinic and 200 community-dwelling MCC patients. Surveys containing the Brief PETS and additional measures (e.g., health status, medication adherence, quality of care, demographics) were administered at baseline and follow-up. Correlations and t-tests were used to assess validity, including responsiveness to change of the Brief PETS. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated on mean differences. RESULTS:Winnowing and panel review resulted in a 34-item Brief PETS pilot measure that was tested in the combined sample of 400 (mean age = 57.9 years, 50% female, 48% white, median number of conditions = 5). Reliability of most scales was acceptable (alpha > 0.70). Brief PETS scores were associated with age, income, health status, and quality of chronic illness care at baseline (P < .05; rho magnitude range: 0.16-0.66). Furthermore, Brief PETS scores differentiated groups based on marital and education status, presence/absence of a self-management routine, and optimal/suboptimal medication adherence (P < .05; ES range: 0.25-1.00). Declines in patient-reported physical or mental health status over time were associated with worsening PETS burden scores, while improvements were associated with improving PETS burden scores (P < .05; ES range: 0.04-0.44). Among clinic patients, 91% were willing to complete the Brief PETS as part of their clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS:The Brief PETS (final version: 32 items) is a reliable and valid tool for assessing person-centered care quality related to treatment burden. It holds promise as a means of giving voice to patient concerns about the complexity of disease management.