Participating Health Systems Research Articles

Using Public Cost Information During Low Back Pain Visits: A Qualitative Study.

Patients desire information about health care costs because they are increasingly responsible for these costs. Public Web sites that offer cost information could inform provider-patient discussions of costs at the point of care. To evaluate tools to facilitate the use of publicly available cost information during clinical visits for low back pain (LBP). Qualitative study using individual and group interviews and surveys. 6 rural primary care practices in 2 health systems in Maine. Practice staff (n= 50) and adult patients with LBP (n= 72). Participating health systems and practices were offered financial incentives, a series of trainings, and technical assistance to pilot tools for discussing costs of LBP care using CompareMaine.org, Maine's cost and quality transparency Web site. Integration of tools into workflow, awareness and value to providers, and patient experience were identified through 11 group interviews with practice staff (n= 25) and health system leaders (n= 11), provider (n= 25), and patient (n= 47) surveys; patient interviews (n= 5); and administrative data. The intervention increased provider and consumer awareness of CompareMaine.org, but minimally changed use in clinical discussions as a result of fewer-than-expected patients with LBP, limited system support, workflow barriers, and providers' reluctance to adopt the tools because of perceptions of limited value for their patients. In contrast, patients valued cost conversations and found the tools useful, and over one half reported intending to use CompareMaine.org during future care decisions. Generalizability was limited by the small number of practices and participants. Lower-than-anticipated participation precluded examination of the effect of the tool on the frequency of cost-of-care conversations. This multicomponent intervention to introduce publicly reported cost information into LBP clinical discussions had low provider uptake. Whereas cost conversations and CompareMaine.org were perceived as useful by participating patients with LBP, providers were uncomfortable discussing cost variation at the point of care. Successful use of public cost information during clinical visits will require normalizing use to a broader group of patients and greater provider outreach and health system engagement. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Evaluation of a Health Care Transition Improvement Process in Seven Large Health Care Systems

PurposeYouth and young adults require systematic planning, transfer and integration into adult healthcare. A national health care transition (HCT) learning network (LN) shared strategies during monthly calls to improve HCTs using Got Transition™'s Six Core Elements. Among LN participants, we conducted a pre-post mixed-methods evaluation of this evidence-informed process improvement framework. Design and methodsLeaders from seven health systems in the LN recruited 55 participating practice sites (12 primary care, 43 specialty care, 47 pediatric care, and 8 adult care). Got Transition's Current Assessment (CA) of HCT Activities (possible score: 0–32) assessed implementation of HCT process improvements in all 55 sites at baseline (2015–2017) and again after 12–18 months. Pre-post results were compared overall and by type of practice (primary vs. specialty, pediatric vs. adult). In early 2018, health system leaders qualitatively described factors impacting HCT process implementation. ResultsOverall, baseline CA scores averaged 10.7, and increased to 17.9 after 12–18 months. Within each clinical setting, scores increased from: 10.8 to 16.5 among 12 primary care sites, 12.8 to 17.1 among 43 specialty sites, 12.4 to 17 among 47 pediatric sites, and 12 to 16.9 among 8 adult sites. All changes reached significance (p < 0.05). Qualitative feedback offered valuable feedback about motivators, facilitators and barriers to HCT process improvement. ConclusionsParticipating systems made substantial progress in implementing a structured HCT process consistent with clinical recommendations using the Six Core Elements. Practice implicationsThe diverse perspectives of participating health systems provide a model for creating sustainable HCT process improvements.

Protocol for serious fall injury adjudication in the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) study

BackgroundThis paper describes a protocol for determining the incidence of serious fall injuries for Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE), a large, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial with limited resources for event adjudication. We describe how administrative data (from participating health systems and Medicare claims) can be used to confirm participant-reported events, with more time- and resource-intensive full-text medical record data used only on an “as-needed” basis.MethodsSTRIDE is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 5451 participants age ≥ 70 and at increased risk for falls, served by 86 primary care practices in 10 US health systems. The STRIDE intervention involves a nurse falls care manager who assesses a participant’s underlying risks for falls, suggests interventions using motivational interviewing, and then creates, implements and longitudinally follows up on an individualized care plan with the participant (and caregiver when appropriate), in partnership with the participant’s primary care provider. STRIDE’s primary outcome is serious fall injuries, defined as a fall resulting in: (1) medical attention billable according to Medicare guidelines with a) fracture (excluding isolated thoracic vertebral and/or lumbar vertebral fracture), b) joint dislocation, or c) cut requiring closure; OR (2) overnight hospitalization with a) head injury, b) sprain or strain, c) bruising or swelling, or d) other injury determined to be “serious” (i.e., burn, rhabdomyolysis, or internal injury). Two sources of data are required to confirm a serious fall injury. The primary data source is the participant’s self-report of a fall leading to medical attention, identified during telephone interview every 4 months, with the confirmatory source being (1) administrative data capturing encounters at the participating health systems or Medicare claims and/or (2) the full text of medical records requested only as needed.DiscussionAdjudication is ongoing, with over 1000 potentially qualifying events adjudicated to date. Administrative data can be successfully used for adjudication, as part of a hybrid approach that retrieves full-text medical records only when needed. With the continued refinement and availability of administrative data sources, future studies may be able to use administrative data completely in lieu of medical record review to maximize the quality of adjudication with finite resources.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02475850).

Room for Improvement: Rates of Birth Cohort Hepatitis C Screening in Primary Care Practices-A WWAMI Region Practice and Research Network Study.

Introduction: An estimated 2.4 million people in the United States live with hepatitis C. Though there are effective treatments for chronic hepatitis C, many infected individuals remain untreated because 40% to 50% of individuals with chronic hepatitis C are unaware of their hepatitis C status. In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that adults born between 1945 and 1965 should be offered one-time hepatitis C screening. The purpose of this study is to describe rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening across primary care practices in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). Methods: Cross-sectional observational study of adult patients born between 1945 and 1965 who also had a primary care visit at 1 of 9 participating health systems (22 primary care clinics) between July 31, 2013 and September 30, 2015. Data extracted from the electronic health record systems at each clinic were used to calculate the proportion of birth cohort eligible patients with evidence of hepatitis C screening as well as proportions of screened patients with positive hepatitis C screening test results. Results: Of the 32 139 eligible patients, only 10.9% had evidence of hepatitis C screening in the electronic health record data (range 1.2%-49.1% across organizations). Among the 4 WPRN sites that were able to report data by race and ethnicity, the rate of hepatitis C screening was higher among African Americans (39.9%) and American Indians/Alaska Natives (23.2%) compared with Caucasians (10.7%; P < .001). Discussion: Rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening are low in primary care practices. Future research to develop and test interventions to increase rates of birth cohort hepatitis C screening in primary care settings are needed.

Sustaining Ambulatory Comprehensive Medication Management Practices: Perspectives from a Minnesota Pharmacist Collaborative.

In a time of evolving health care landscapes, pharmacists who provide comprehensive medication management (CMM) need to demonstrate financial and quality value to sustain their practice. Minnesota CMM programs started providing services in 1998, before recognition or reimbursement existed, and continue practices today. This long history lends itself well to the development of best practices for sustaining CMM practices. The Health-Systems for Integrated Medication Management (HAIMM) represents 13 Minnesota health systems, including 90 pharmacists and 121 clinics across the state. Pharmacist representatives from each of the participating health systems were polled to determine commonly implemented sustainability strategies. Common trends were identified, and the group was surveyed for important considerations on implementation of each strategy. Poll results of strategies for CMM practice sustainability were placed into 2 categories: fiscal and quality-based initiatives. Each strategy was discussed to determine implementation options and lessons learned from the collaborative. Numerous strategies were identified to ensure CMM practice sustainability. HAIMM's programs found it best to use a mixture of fiscal and quality-based strategies to sustain their practices. No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The information within this article should not be construed as legal advice, and the Health-Systems Alliance for Integrated Medication Management (HAIMM) disclaims all liability of action or lack of action resulting from use of this content. Readers should obtain legal and/or professional advice from a licensed professional within their state.

Using a deliberative forum for engaging health system and health plan leaders to prioritize research topics

Background: Including stakeholders in the process and outcomes of comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ensure that research questions are relevant and findings are communicated to individuals who need them for decision-making. Yet limited strategies are available to assist researchers with stakeholder engagement.While health system leaders’ perspectives are increasingly recognized as valuable for CER planning, their inclusion in the stakeholder pool raises challenges due to differences in culture, training, incentives, priorities and language norms.Objective: To convene and evaluate a deliberative forum for engaging health system leaders and other stakeholders in order to shape health system research priorities for the PaTH Clinical Data Research Network, a member of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet).Methods: Breakout sessions and large group deliberation solicited diverse perspectives and explored benefits and challenges of different research questions. Topic reframing, narrative integration and dynamic updating techniques facilitated communication across diverse backgrounds. Participants included 29 health system and health plan leaders, clinicians, clinical researchers and patients from the network’s 6 participating health systems. Main measures were audience response system (ARS) polling on general topic preferences and survey data on measures of engagement and deliberation success.Results: A slate of 10 specific research topics was vetted; after deliberation, the group converged to favor the characterization of high utilizers of healthcare. Audience response polling revealed opinion shifts. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the experience and rated it highly for markers of deliberative quality (e.g., opportunity for active participation and adequate discussion, respect for others’ opinions and awareness of different perspectives). Fifty-four percent noted their views on the issues changed. Most participants learned from the experience (93%) and agreed that the process helped them to empathize with the challenges of others (85%).Conclusions: A deliberation forum can incorporate diverse stakeholders into CER, enabling participants to inform and learn from each other’s perspectives while shaping a person-centered research trajectory.

Validation and Refinement of a Pain Information Model from EHR Flowsheet Data.

Secondary use of electronic health record (EHR) data can reduce costs of research and quality reporting. However, EHR data must be consistent within and across organizations. Flowsheet data provide a rich source of interprofessional data and represents a high volume of documentation; however, content is not standardized. Health care organizations design and implement customized content for different care areas creating duplicative data that is noncomparable. In a prior study, 10 information models (IMs) were derived from an EHR that included 2.4 million patients. There was a need to evaluate the generalizability of the models across organizations. The pain IM was selected for evaluation and refinement because pain is a commonly occurring problem associated with high costs for pain management. The purpose of our study was to validate and further refine a pain IM from EHR flowsheet data that standardizes pain concepts, definitions, and associated value sets for assessments, goals, interventions, and outcomes. A retrospective observational study was conducted using an iterative consensus-based approach to map, analyze, and evaluate data from 10 organizations. The aggregated metadata from the EHRs of 8 large health care organizations and the design build in 2 additional organizations represented flowsheet data from 6.6 million patients, 27 million encounters, and 683 million observations. The final pain IM has 30 concepts, 4 panels (classes), and 396 value set items. Results are built on Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) pain assessment terms and extend the need for additional terms to support interoperability. The resulting pain IM is a consensus model based on actual EHR documentation in the participating health systems. The IM captures the most important concepts related to pain.

Payers’ experiences with confidential pharmaceutical price discounts: A survey of public and statutory health systems in North America, Europe, and Australasia

Institutional payers for pharmaceuticals worldwide appear to be increasingly negotiating confidential discounts off of the official list price of pharmaceuticals purchased in the community setting. We conducted an anonymous survey about experiences with and attitudes toward confidential discounts on patented pharmaceuticals in a sample of high-income countries. Confidential price discounts are now common among the ten health systems that participated in our study, though some had only recently begun to use these pricing arrangements on a routine basis. Several health systems had used a wide variety of discounting schemes in the past two years. The most frequent discount received by participating health systems was between 20% and 29% of official list prices; however, six participants reported their health system received one or more discount over the past two years that was valued at 60% or more of the list prices. On average, participants reported that confidential discounts were more common, complex, and significant for specialty pharmaceuticals than for primary care pharmaceuticals. Participants had a more favorable view of the impact of confidential discount schemes on their health systems than on the global marketplace. Overall, the frequency, complexity, and scale of confidential discounts being routinely negotiated suggest that the list prices for medicines bear limited resemblance to what many institutional payers actually pay.

Meeting the Challenge of Chronic Conditions in a Sustainable Manner: Building on the AHC Learning.

The Atlantic Healthcare Collaboration for Innovation and Improvement in Chronic Disease (AHC) set out to achieve three aims: to create a patient- and family-centred approach to manage chronic diseases; to build a network of organizational, regional and provincial teams to share evidence-informed, systems-level solutions and work together to develop, implement and sustain improvement initiatives; and to promote the sustainability of the participating health systems. Important elements of all three aims were achieved and the synthesis provides a meaningful contribution to systems working to improve chronic care. This paper explores those achievements as well as some of the areas for improvement, including replicability, expanded outcome measurement, greater detail around patient and family engagement, increased focus on specific outcomes and processes, and further articulation of lessons learned and recommendations.

Lead Testing in a Pediatric Population

Underscreening and problematic repeat lead testing in children. Identify proportion of underscreening for elevated blood-lead levels in children. For children who receive a lead test, measure the level of problematic repeat lead tests, defined as those with a high probability of not meeting recommended guidelines for lead testing in children measured using a combination of patients' age, test type and sequencing, days between tests, and encounter diagnosis coding. A population-based retrospective cross-sectional design. All health care services organizations in the state of Minnesota that delivered health services to the defined study population. The study population was a Medicaid cohort of 12 436 children aged 0 to 18 years observed over a 1-year period. Proportion of eligible children not receiving at least 1 lead test; proportion of problematic repeat lead tests. Thirty-five percent of children who should have received at least 1 lead test (n = 1714) during the study period did not. A total of 1856 children had at least 1 lead test and 190 had 2 or more. Fifty percent (50%) of the repeat tests were identified as problematic, representing 5.1% of the lead tests performed. Repeat tests performed in different health systems than the systems where the initial tests were performed had 5.3 times greater odds (adjusted odds ratio: 5.3 [95% confidence interval, 2.8-9.9]) of being problematic. The current approach to delivering mandatory lead testing across the state Medicaid population does not ensure that children are appropriately tested and has potential inefficiencies in that testing when it does take place. Use of multiple health care systems is associated with increased potential inefficiencies. Future Medicaid accountable care agreements between the state Medicaid program and participating health systems should emphasize clear population accountability for test screenings to improve patients' safety. A central queryable health resource or health information exchange may enable this.

Challenges in Using Electronic Health Record Data for CER

To document the strengths and challenges of using electronic health records (EHRs) for comparative effectiveness research (CER). A replicated case study of comparative effectiveness in hypertension treatment was conducted across 4 health systems, with instructions to extract data and document problems encountered using a specified list of required data elements. Researchers at each health system documented successes and challenges, and suggested solutions for addressing challenges. Data challenges fell into 5 categories: missing data, erroneous data, uninterpretable data, inconsistencies among providers and over time, and data stored in noncoded text notes. Suggested strategies to address these issues include data validation steps, use of surrogate markers, natural language processing, and statistical techniques. A number of EHR issues can hamper the extraction of valid data for cross-health system comparative effectiveness studies. Our case example cautions against a blind reliance on EHR data as a single definitive data source. Nevertheless, EHR data are superior to administrative or claims data alone, and are cheaper and timelier than clinical trials or manual chart reviews. All 4 participating health systems are pursuing pathways to more effectively use EHR data for CER.A partnership between clinicians, researchers, and information technology specialists is encouraged as a way to capitalize on the wealth of information contained in the EHR. Future developments in both technology and care delivery hold promise for improvement in the ability to use EHR data for CER.

Study protocol: The back pain outcomes using longitudinal data (BOLD) registry

BackgroundBack pain is one of the most important causes of functional limitation, disability, and utilization of health care resources for adults of all ages, but especially among older adults. Despite the high prevalence of back pain in this population, important questions remain unanswered regarding the comparative effectiveness of commonly used diagnostic tests and treatments in the elderly. The overall goal of the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) project is to establish a rich, sustainable registry to describe the natural history and evaluate prospectively the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for patients 65 and older with back pain.Methods/designBOLD is enrolling 5,000 patients ≥ 65 years old who present to a primary care physician with a new episode of back pain. We are recruiting study participants from three integrated health systems (Kaiser-Permanente Northern California, Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates/ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in Boston). Registry patients complete validated, standardized measures of pain, back pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life at enrollment and 3, 6 and 12 months later. We also have available for analysis the clinical and administrative data in the participating health systems’ electronic medical records. Using registry data, we will conduct an observational cohort study of early imaging compared to no early imaging among patients with new episodes of back pain. The aims are to: 1) identify predictors of early imaging and; 2) compare pain, functional outcomes, diagnostic testing and treatment utilization of patients who receive early imaging versus patients who do not receive early imaging. In terms of predictors, we will examine patient factors as well as physician factors.DiscussionBy establishing the BOLD registry, we are creating a resource that contains patient-reported outcome measures as well as electronic medical record data for elderly patients with back pain. The richness of our data will allow better matching for comparative effectiveness studies than is currently possible with existing datasets. BOLD will enrich the existing knowledge base regarding back pain in the elderly to help clinicians and patients make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding their care.

Moving research into practice: lessons from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's IDSRN program.

BackgroundThe U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Integrated Delivery Systems Research Network (IDSRN) program was established to foster public-private collaboration between health services researchers and health care delivery systems. Its broad goal was to link researchers and delivery systems to encourage implementation of research into practice. We evaluated the program to address two primary questions: 1) How successful was IDSRN in generating research findings that could be applied in practice? and 2) What factors facilitate or impede such success?MethodsWe conducted in-person and telephone interviews with AHRQ staff and nine IDSRN partner organizations and their collaborators, reviewed program documents, analyzed projects funded through the program, and developed case studies of four IDSRN projects judged promising in supporting research implementation.ResultsParticipants reported that the IDSRN structure was valuable in creating closer ties between researchers and participating health systems. Of the 50 completed projects studied, 30 had an operational effect or use. Some kinds of projects were more successful than others in influencing operations. If certain conditions were met, a variety of partnership models successfully supported implementation. An internal champion was necessary for partnerships involving researchers based outside the delivery system. Case studies identified several factors important to success: responsiveness of project work to delivery system needs, ongoing funding to support multiple project phases, and development of applied products or tools that helped users see their operational relevance. Factors limiting success included limited project funding, competing demands on potential research users, and failure to reach the appropriate audience.ConclusionForging stronger partnerships between researchers and delivery systems has the potential to make research more relevant to users, but these benefits require clear goals and appropriate targeting of resources. Trade-offs are inevitable. The health services research community can best consider such trade-offs and set priorities if there is more dialogue to identify areas and approaches where such partnerships may have the most promise. Though it has unique features, the IDSRN experience is relevant to research implementation in diverse settings.