Dataset Information

Understanding how health systems facilitate primary care redesign.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To understand how health systems are facilitating primary care redesign (PCR), examine the PCR initiatives taking place within systems, and identify barriers to this work.

Study setting

A purposive sample of 24 health systems in 4 states.

Study design

Data were systematically reviewed to identify how system leaders define and implement initiatives to redesign primary care delivery and identify challenges. Researchers applied codes which were based on the theoretical PCR literature and created new codes to capture emerging themes. Investigators analyzed coded data then produced and applied a thematic analysis to examine how health systems facilitate PCR.

Data collection

Semi-structured telephone interviews with 162 system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 systems.

Principal findings

Leaders at all 24 health systems described initiatives to redesign the delivery of primary care, but many were in the early stages. Respondents described the use of centralized health system resources to facilitate PCR initiatives, such as regionalized care coordinators, and integrated electronic health records. Team-based care, population management, and care coordination were the most commonly described initiatives to transform primary care delivery. Respondents most often cited improving efficiency and enhancing clinician job satisfaction, as motivating factors for team-based care. Changes in payment and risk assumption as well as community needs were commonly cited motivators for population health management and care coordination. Return on investment and the slower than anticipated rate in moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment were noted by multiple respondents as challenges health systems face in redesigning primary care.

Conclusions

Given their expanding role in health care and the potential to leverage resources, health systems are promising entities to promote the advancement of PCR. Systems demonstrate interest and engagement in this work but face significant challenges in getting to scale until payment models are in alignment with these efforts.

SUBMITTER: Harvey JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720713 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMore conservative prescribing has the potential to reduce adverse drug events and patient harm and cost; however, no method exists defining the extent to which individual clinicians prescribe conservatively. One potential domain is prescribing a more limited number of drugs. Personal formularies-defined as the number and mix of unique, newly initiated drugs prescribed by a physician-may enable comparisons among clinicians, practices, and institutions.ObjectivesTo develop a method of defining primary care physicians' personal formularies and examine how they differ among primary care physicians at 4 institutions; evaluate associations between personal formularies and patient, physician, and practice site characteristics; and empirically derive and examine the variability of the top 200 core drugs prescribed at the 4 sites.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted at 4 US health care systems among 4655 internal and family medicine physicians and 4 930 707 patients who had at least 1 visit to these physicians between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018.ExposuresPersonal formulary size was defined as the number of unique, newly initiated drugs.Main outcomes and measuresPersonal formulary size and drugs used, physician and patient characteristics, core drugs, and analysis of selected drug classes.ResultsThe study population included 4655 primary care physicians (2274 women [48.9%]; mean [SD] age, 48.5 [4.4] years) and 4 930 707 patients (16.5% women; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [8.3] years). There were 41 378 903 outpatient prescriptions written, of which 9 496 766 (23.0%) were new starts. Institution median personal formulary size ranged from 150 (interquartile range, 82.0-212.0) to 296 (interquartile range, 230.0-347.0) drugs. In multivariable modeling, personal formulary size was significantly associated with panel size (total number of unique patients with face-to-face encounters during the study period; 1.2 medications per 100 patients), physician's total number of encounters (5.7 drugs per 10% increase), and physician's sex (-6.2 drugs per 100 patients for female physicians). There were 1527 unique, newly prescribed drugs across the 4 sites. Fewer than half the drugs (626 [41.0%]) were used at every site. Physicians' prescribing of drugs from a pooled core list varied from 0% to 100% of their prescriptions.Conclusions and relevancePersonal formularies, measured at the level of individual physicians and institutions, reveal variability in size and mix of drugs. Similarly, defining a list of commonly prescribed core drugs in primary care revealed interphysician and interinstitutional differences. Personal formularies and core medication lists enable comparisons and may identify outliers and opportunities for safer and more appropriate prescribing.

Project description:BackgroundIn response to growing pressures on primary care, leaders have introduced a wide range of workforce and practice innovations, including team redesigns that delegate some physician tasks to nonphysicians. One important question is how such innovations affect care team members, particularly in view of growing dissatisfaction and burnout among healthcare professionals. We examine the work experiences of primary care physicians and staff after implementing Lean-based workflow redesigns. This included co-locating physician and medical assistant dyads, delegating significant responsibilities to nonphysician staff, and mandating greater coordination and communication among all care team members.MethodsThe redesigns were implemented and scaled in three phases across 46 primary care departments in a large ambulatory care delivery system. We fielded 1164 baseline and 1333 follow-up surveys to physicians and other nonphysician staff (average 73% response rate) to assess workforce engagement (e.g., job satisfaction, motivation), perceptions of the work environment, and job-related burnout. We conducted multivariate regressions to detect changes in experiences after the redesign, adjusting for respondent characteristics and clustering of within-clinic responses.ResultsWe found that both physicians and nonphysician staff reported higher levels of engagement and teamwork after implementing redesigns. However, they also experienced higher levels of burnout and perceptions of the workplace as stressful. Trends were the same for both occupational groups, but the increased reports of stress were greater among physicians. Additionally, members of all clinics, except for the pilot site that developed the new workflows, reported higher burnout, while perceptions of workplace stress increased in all clinics after the redesign.ConclusionsOur findings partially align with expectations of work redesign as a route to improving physician and staff experiences in delivering care. Although teamwork and engagement increased, the redesigns in our study were not enough to moderate long-standing challenges facing primary care. Yet higher levels of empowerment and engagement, as observed in the pilot clinic, may be particularly effective in facilitating improvements while combating fatigue. To help practices cope with increasing burdens, interventions must directly benefit healthcare professionals without overtaxing an already overstretched workforce.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth has rapidly expanded since COVID-19. Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest integrated health care system in the United States, was well-positioned to incorporate telehealth across specialties due to existing policies and infrastructure.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to investigate predictors of occupational therapy (OT) practitioners' adoption of video telehealth.MethodsThis study presents data from a convenience sample of VHA occupational therapy (OT) practitioners administered pre-pandemic, in fall 2019. Survey development was guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, and gathered clinician attitudes, experiences, and perspectives about video telehealth to deliver OT services. Items included telehealth usage, perceived effectiveness of specific OT interventions, and perceptions about evidence. Our outcome variable denoted practitioners' level of adoption of video telehealth: telehealth users (adopters), non-users who want to use telehealth (potential adopters and reference group), and non-users who do not want to use telehealth (non-adopters). In multiple multinomial logistic regressions, we tested whether level of adoption was associated with years of VHA work experience and perceived strength of evidence.ResultsOf approximately 1455 eligible practitioners, 305 VHA occupational therapy practitioners participated in the survey (21% response rate). One hundred and twenty-five (41%) reported using video telehealth, whereas 180 (59%) reported not using video telehealth. Among non-users, 107 (59%) indicated willingness to adopt telehealth whereas 73 (41%) were not willing. More VHA work experience predicted higher odds of being an adopter than a potential adopter; perceptions of stronger evidence regarding video telehealth predicted higher odds of being a potential adopter than a non-adopter.ConclusionClinician beliefs and years of experience exerted an influence on clinicians' use or willingness to use video telehealth. Efforts to enhance adoption of video telehealth should address clinicians' beliefs regarding the innovative nature of and organizational resources necessary to foster utilization.

Project description:BackgroundOver two-thirds of Africans have no access to eye care services. To increase access, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends integrating eye care into primary health care, and the WHO Africa region recently developed a package for primary eye care. However, there are limited data on the capacities needed for delivery, to guide policymakers and implementers on the feasibility of integration. The overall purpose of this study was to assess the technical capacity of the health system at primary level to deliver the WHO primary eye care package. Findings with respect to service delivery, equipment and health management information systems (HMIS) are presented in this paper.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods, cross sectional feasibility study in Anambra State, Nigeria. Methods included a desk review of relevant Nigerian policies; a survey of 48 primary health facilities in six districts randomly selected using two stage sampling, and semi-structured interviews with six supervisors and nine purposively selected facility heads. Quantitative study tools included observational checklists and questionnaires. Survey data were analysed descriptively using STATA V.15.1 (Statcorp, Texas). Differences between health centres and health posts were analysed using the z-test statistic. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis assisted by Open Code Software V.4.02.ResultsThere are enabling national health policies for eye care, but no policy specifically for primary eye care. 85% of facilities had no medication for eye conditions and one in eight had no vitamin A in stock. Eyecare was available in < 10% of the facilities. The services delivered focussed on maternal and child health, with low attendance by adults aged over 50 years with over 50% of facilities reporting ≤10 attendances per year per 1000 catchment population. No facility reported data on patients with eye conditions in their patient registers.ConclusionA policy for primary eye care is needed which aligns with existing eye health policies. There are currently substantial capacity gaps in service delivery, equipment and data management which will need to be addressed if eye care is to be successfully integrated into primary care in Nigeria.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The impact of unmet eye care needs in sub-Saharan Africa is compounded by barriers to accessing eye care, limited engagement with communities, a shortage of appropriately skilled health personnel, and inadequate support from health systems. The renewed focus on primary health care has led to support for greater integration of eye health into national health systems. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate available evidence of integration of eye health into primary health care in sub-Saharan Africa from a health systems strengthening perspective. METHODS: A scoping review method was used to gather and assess information from published literature, reviews, WHO policy documents and examples of eye and health care interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. Findings were compiled using a health systems strengthening framework. RESULTS: Limited information is available about eye health from a health systems strengthening approach. Particular components of the health systems framework lacking evidence are service delivery, equipment and supplies, financing, leadership and governance. There is some information to support interventions to strengthen human resources at all levels, partnerships and community participation; but little evidence showing their successful application to improve quality of care and access to comprehensive eye health services at the primary health level, and referral to other levels for specialist eye care. CONCLUSION: Evidence of integration of eye health into primary health care is currently weak, particularly when applying a health systems framework. A realignment of eye health in the primary health care agenda will require context specific planning and a holistic approach, with careful attention to each of the health system components and to the public health system as a whole. Documentation and evaluation of existing projects are required, as are pilot projects of systematic approaches to interventions and application of best practices. Multi-national research may provide guidance about how to scale up eye health interventions that are integrated into primary health systems.