The implementation of a translational study involving a primary care based behavioral program to improve blood pressure control: The HTN-IMPROVE study protocol (01295).

BACKGROUND: Despite the impact of hypertension and widely accepted target values for blood pressure (BP), interventions to improve BP control have had limited success. OBJECTIVES: We describe the design of a 'translational' study that examines the implementation, impact, sustainability, and cost of an evidence-based nurse-delivered tailored behavioral self-management intervention to improve BP control as it moves from a research context to healthcare delivery. The study addresses four specific aims: assess the implementation of an evidence-based behavioral self-management intervention to improve BP levels; evaluate the clinical impact of the intervention as it is implemented; assess organizational factors associated with the sustainability of the intervention; and assess the cost of implementing and sustaining the intervention. METHODS: The project involves three geographically diverse VA intervention facilities and nine control sites. We first conduct an evaluation of barriers and facilitators for implementing the intervention at intervention sites. We examine the impact of the intervention by comparing 12-month pre/post changes in BP control between patients in intervention sites versus patients in the matched control sites. Next, we examine the sustainability of the intervention and organizational factors facilitating or hindering the sustained implementation. Finally, we examine the costs of intervention implementation. Key outcomes are acceptability and costs of the program, as well as changes in BP. Outcomes will be assessed using mixed methods (e.g., qualitative analyses--pattern matching; quantitative methods--linear mixed models). DISCUSSION: The study results will provide information about the challenges and costs to implement and sustain the intervention, and what clinical impact can be expected.

Effect of primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate on the timing of their subspecialty referral decisions.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers' suboptimal recognition of the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD) may contribute to untimely referrals of patients with CKD to subspecialty care. It is unknown whether U.S. primary care physicians' use of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) rather than serum creatinine to estimate CKD severity could improve the timeliness of their subspecialty referral decisions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 154 United States primary care physicians to assess the effect of use of eGFR (versus creatinine) on the timing of their subspecialty referrals. Primary care physicians completed a questionnaire featuring questions regarding a hypothetical White or African American patient with progressing CKD. We asked primary care physicians to identify the serum creatinine and eGFR levels at which they would recommend patients like the hypothetical patient be referred for subspecialty evaluation. We assessed significant improvement in the timing [from eGFR < 30 to ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73m(2)) of their recommended referrals based on their use of creatinine versus eGFR. RESULTS: Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals later (CKD more advanced) when using creatinine versus eGFR to assess kidney function [median eGFR 32 versus 55 mL/min/1.73m(2), p < 0.001]. Forty percent of primary care physicians significantly improved the timing of their referrals when basing their recommendations on eGFR. Improved timing occurred more frequently among primary care physicians practicing in academic (versus non-academic) practices or presented with White (versus African American) hypothetical patients [adjusted percentage(95% CI): 70% (45-87) versus 37% (reference) and 57% (39-73) versus 25% (reference), respectively, both p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians recommended subspecialty referrals earlier when using eGFR (versus creatinine) to assess kidney function. Enhanced use of eGFR by primary care physicians' could lead to more timely subspecialty care and improved clinical outcomes for patients with CKD.

Characteristics of primary care office visits to nurse practitioners, physician assistants and physicians in United States Veterans Health Administration facilities, 2005 to 2010: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND: Primary care, an essential determinant of health system equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, is threatened by inadequate supply and distribution of the provider workforce. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a frontrunner in the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Evaluation of the roles and impact of NPs and PAs in the VHA is critical to ensuring optimal care for veterans and may inform best practices for use of PAs and NPs in other settings around the world. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of NPs and PAs in VHA primary care and to examine whether their patients and patient care activities were, on average, less medically complex than those of physicians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from VHA primary care encounters between 2005 and 2010. Patient and patient encounter characteristics were compared across provider types (PA, NP, and physician). RESULTS: NPs and PAs attend about 30% of all VHA primary care encounters. NPs, PAs, and physicians fill similar roles in VHA primary care, but patients of PAs and NPs are slightly less complex than those of physicians, and PAs attend a higher proportion of visits for the purpose of determining eligibility for benefits. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a highly successful nationwide primary care system relies on NPs and PAs to provide over one quarter of primary care visits, and that these visits are similar to those of physicians with regard to patient and encounter characteristics. These findings can inform health workforce solutions to physician shortages in the USA and around the world. Future research should compare the quality and costs associated with various combinations of providers and allocations of patient care work, and should elucidate the approaches that maximize quality and efficiency.

Caring for Alaska Native prostate cancer survivors in primary care: a survey of Alaska Tribal Health System providers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the constraints of optimizing health care for prostate cancer survivors in Alaska primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences and attitudes of primary care providers within the Alaska Tribal Health System (ATHS) regarding the care of prostate cancer survivors. DESIGN: In late October 2011, we emailed a 22-item electronic survey to 268 ATHS primary care providers regarding the frequency of Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) monitoring for a hypothetical prostate cancer survivor; who should be responsible for the patient's life-long prostate cancer surveillance; who should support the patient's emotional and medical needs as a survivor; and providers' level of comfort addressing recurrence monitoring, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, androgen deprivation therapy, and emotional needs. We used simple logistic regression to examine the association between provider characteristics and their responses to the survivorship survey items. RESULTS: Of 221 individuals who were successfully contacted, a total of 114 responded (52% response rate). Most ATHS providers indicated they would order a PSA test every 12 months (69%) and believed that, ideally, the hypothetical patient's primary care provider should be responsible for his life-long prostate cancer surveillance (60%). Most providers reported feeling either "moderately" or "very" comfortable addressing topics such as prostate cancer recurrence (59%), erectile dysfunction (64%), urinary incontinence (63%), and emotional needs (61%) with prostate cancer survivors. These results varied somewhat by provider characteristics including female sex, years in practice, and the number of prostate cancer survivors seen in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that most primary care providers in Alaska are poised to assume the care of prostate cancer survivors locally. However, we also found that large minorities of providers do not feel confident in their ability to manage common issues in prostate cancer survivorship, implying that continued access to specialists with more expert knowledge would be beneficial.

Specialist and primary care physicians' views on barriers to adequate preparation of patients for renal replacement therapy: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Early preparation for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is recommended for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet many patients initiate RRT urgently and/or are inadequately prepared. METHODS: We conducted audio-recorded, qualitative, directed telephone interviews of nephrology health care providers (n = 10, nephrologists, physician assistants, and nurses) and primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 4) to identify modifiable challenges to optimal RRT preparation to inform future interventions. We recruited providers from public safety-net hospital-based and community-based nephrology and primary care practices. We asked providers open-ended questions to assess their perceived challenges and their views on the role of PCPs and nephrologist-PCP collaboration in patients' RRT preparation. Two independent and trained abstractors coded transcribed audio-recorded interviews and identified major themes. RESULTS: Nephrology providers identified several factors contributing to patients' suboptimal RRT preparation, including health system resources (e.g., limited time for preparation, referral process delays, and poorly integrated nephrology and primary care), provider skills (e.g., their difficulty explaining CKD to patients), and patient attitudes and cultural differences (e.g., their poor understanding and acceptance of their CKD and its treatment options, their low perceived urgency for RRT preparation; their negative perceptions about RRT, lack of trust, or language differences). PCPs desired more involvement in preparation to ensure RRT transitions could be as "smooth as possible", including providing patients with emotional support, helping patients weigh RRT options, and affirming nephrologist recommendations. Both nephrology providers and PCPs desired improved collaboration, including better information exchange and delineation of roles during the RRT preparation process. CONCLUSIONS: Nephrology and primary care providers identified health system resources, provider skills, and patient attitudes and cultural differences as challenges to patients' optimal RRT preparation. Interventions to improve these factors may improve patients' preparation and initiation of optimal RRTs.

Electronic health records: essential tools in integrating substance abuse treatment with primary care.

While substance use problems are considered to be common in medical settings, they are not systematically assessed and diagnosed for treatment management. Research data suggest that the majority of individuals with a substance use disorder either do not use treatment or delay treatment-seeking for over a decade. The separation of substance abuse services from mainstream medical care and a lack of preventive services for substance abuse in primary care can contribute to under-detection of substance use problems. When fully enacted in 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 will address these barriers by supporting preventive services for substance abuse (screening, counseling) and integration of substance abuse care with primary care. One key factor that can help to achieve this goal is to incorporate the standardized screeners or common data elements for substance use and related disorders into the electronic health records (EHR) system in the health care setting. Incentives for care providers to adopt an EHR system for meaningful use are part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act 2009. This commentary focuses on recent evidence about routine screening and intervention for alcohol/drug use and related disorders in primary care. Federal efforts in developing common data elements for use as screeners for substance use and related disorders are described. A pressing need for empirical data on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug-related disorders to inform SBIRT and related EHR efforts is highlighted.

Primary care physician decision making regarding severe obesity treatment and bariatric surgery: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Less than 1% of severely obese US adults undergo bariatric surgery annually. It is critical to understand the factors that contribute to its utilization. OBJECTIVES: To understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) make decisions regarding severe obesity treatment and bariatric surgery referral. SETTING: Focus groups with PCPs practicing in small, medium, and large cities in Wisconsin. METHODS: PCPs were asked to discuss prioritization of treatment for a severely obese patient with multiple co-morbidities and considerations regarding bariatric surgery referral. Focus group sessions were analyzed by using a directed approach to content analysis. A taxonomy of consensus codes was developed. Code summaries were created and representative quotes identified. RESULTS: Sixteen PCPs participated in 3 focus groups. Four treatment prioritization approaches were identified: (1) treat the disease that is easiest to address; (2) treat the disease that is perceived as the most dangerous; (3) let the patient set the agenda; and (4) address obesity first because it is the common denominator underlying other co-morbid conditions. Only the latter approach placed emphasis on obesity treatment. Five factors made PCPs hesitate to refer patients for bariatric surgery: (1) wanting to "do no harm"; (2) questioning the long-term effectiveness of bariatric surgery; (3) limited knowledge about bariatric surgery; (4) not wanting to recommend bariatric surgery too early; and (5) not knowing if insurance would cover bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: Decision making by PCPs for severely obese patients seems to underprioritize obesity treatment and overestimate bariatric surgery risks. This could be addressed with PCP education and improvements in communication between PCPs and bariatric surgeons.

Protocol for the "Implementation, adoption, and utility of family history in diverse care settings" study.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment with a thorough family health history is recommended by numerous organizations and is now a required component of the annual physical for Medicare beneficiaries under the Affordable Care Act. However, there are several barriers to incorporating robust risk assessments into routine care. MeTree, a web-based patient-facing health risk assessment tool, was developed with the aim of overcoming these barriers. In order to better understand what factors will be instrumental for broader adoption of risk assessment programs like MeTree in clinical settings, we obtained funding to perform a type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness study in primary care clinics at five diverse healthcare systems. Here, we describe the study's protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: MeTree collects personal medical information and a three-generation family health history from patients on 98 conditions. Using algorithms built entirely from current clinical guidelines, it provides clinical decision support to providers and patients on 30 conditions. All adult patients with an upcoming well-visit appointment at one of the 20 intervention clinics are eligible to participate. Patient-oriented risk reports are provided in real time. Provider-oriented risk reports are uploaded to the electronic medical record for review at the time of the appointment. Implementation outcomes are enrollment rate of clinics, providers, and patients (enrolled vs approached) and their representativeness compared to the underlying population. Primary effectiveness outcomes are the percent of participants newly identified as being at increased risk for one of the clinical decision support conditions and the percent with appropriate risk-based screening. Secondary outcomes include percent change in those meeting goals for a healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, and smoking). Outcomes are measured through electronic medical record data abstraction, patient surveys, and surveys/qualitative interviews of clinical staff. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates factors that are critical to successful implementation of a web-based risk assessment tool into routine clinical care in a variety of healthcare settings. The result will identify resource needs and potential barriers and solutions to implementation in each setting as well as an understanding potential effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01956773.

Barriers and Facilitators to Adoption of Genomic Services for Colorectal Care within the Veterans Health Administration.

We examined facilitators and barriers to adoption of genomic services for colorectal care, one of the first genomic medicine applications, within the Veterans Health Administration to shed light on areas for practice change. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 58 clinicians to understand use of the following genomic services for colorectal care: family health history documentation, molecular and genetic testing, and genetic counseling. Data collection and analysis were informed by two conceptual frameworks, the Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovation and Andersen Behavioral Model, to allow for concurrent examination of both access and innovation factors. Specialists were more likely than primary care clinicians to obtain family history to investigate hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), but with limited detail; clinicians suggested templates to facilitate retrieval and documentation of family history according to guidelines. Clinicians identified advantage of molecular tumor analysis prior to genetic testing, but tumor testing was infrequently used due to perceived low disease burden. Support from genetic counselors was regarded as facilitative for considering hereditary basis of CRC diagnosis, but there was variability in awareness of and access to this expertise. Our data suggest the need for tools and policies to establish and disseminate well-defined processes for accessing services and adhering to guidelines.