Sharpbartlett7287

Primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are critical laboratories for generating evidence from real-world settings, including studying natural experiments. Primary care's response to the novel coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic is arguably the most impactful natural experiment in our lifetime. EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 We briefly describe the OCHIN PBRN of community health centers (CHCs), its partnership with implementation scientists, and how we are leveraging this infrastructure and expertise to create a rapid research response evaluating how CHCs across the country responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 RESEARCH ROADMAP Our research agenda focuses on asking How has care delivery in CHCs changed due to COVID-19? What impact has COVID-19 had on the delivery of preventive services in CHCs? Which PBRN services (e.g., data surveillance, training, evidence synthesis) are most impactful to real-world practices? What decision-making strategies were used in the PBRN and its practices to make real-time changes in response to the pandemic? What critical factors in successfully and sustainably transforming primary care are illuminated by pandemic-driven changes?

PBRNs enable real-world evaluation of practice change and natural experiments, and thus are ideal laboratories for implementation science research. We present a real-time example of how a PBRN Implementation Laboratory activated a response to study a historic natural experiment, to help other PBRNs charting a course through this pandemic.

PBRNs enable real-world evaluation of practice change and natural experiments, and thus are ideal laboratories for implementation science research. We present a real-time example of how a PBRN Implementation Laboratory activated a response to study a historic natural experiment, to help other PBRNs charting a course through this pandemic.

To understand patient attitudes, access toward video calling to enhance efficiency of after-hours triage calls.

We surveyed patients aged 18 to 89 years. Questions included demographics, preferences, access to video calling devices, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of this technology. Answers were entered into Qualtrics database and analyzed using JMP 11 (SAS, Cary, NC).

Two hundred ninety-eight patients agreed to participate. Mean age was 47.9 years; 71.6% were female; and 75.1% had access to video calling device. Device proficiency was inversely related to age and greatest in 18-to-32-years group (χ

= 71.18,

< .0001). Seventy-one percent of patients enjoyed video communication, directly proportional to education (trend test Z = 2.78,

< .005). Adjusted for both age and education, respondents with college education or above were 3 times more likely to self identify as "good' with video (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.48-6.64); those under age 48 had even higher proficiency (Odds ratio (OR), 13.9; 95% CI, 4.79-59.34). Patients with prior video experience were 3 times more likely to prefer video calling (Relative risk (RR) = 3.46; 95% CI, 1.95-6.11). Patients calling their doctor 5 or more times annually preferred video calling significantly more than calling by telephone (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.31-1.97). Faster contact with the primary care provider (19.8%) was the most perceived advantage. Loss of in-person interaction with doctor (37.1%) was the greatest perceived disadvantage.

Patients seem to have access and interest in video communication for after-hours calls. Selleckchem Vismodegib Further studies are needed to evaluate whether addition of video component to after-hours triage calls will help reduce unnecessary emergency department visits.

Patients seem to have access and interest in video communication for after-hours calls. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether addition of video component to after-hours triage calls will help reduce unnecessary emergency department visits.

Patient safety in primary care is an emerging priority, and experts have highlighted medications, diagnoses, transitions, referrals, and testing as key safety domains. This study aimed to (1) describe how frontline clinicians, administrators, and staff conceptualize patient safety in primary care; and (2) compare and contrast these conceptual meanings from the patient's perspective.

We conducted interviews with 101 frontline clinicians, administrators and staff, and focus groups with 65 adult patients at 10 patient-centered medical homes. We used thematic analysis to approach coding.

Findings indicate that frontline personnel conceptualized patient safety more in terms of work functions, which reflect the grouping of tasks or responsibilities to guide how care is being delivered. Frontline personnel and patients conceptualized patient safety in largely consistent ways.

Function-based conceptualizations of patient safety in primary care may better reflect frontline personnel and patients' experiences than domain-based conceptualizations, which are favored by experts.

Function-based conceptualizations of patient safety in primary care may better reflect frontline personnel and patients' experiences than domain-based conceptualizations, which are favored by experts.

To evaluate the impact of physician-pharmacist collaboration for disease-state management on diabetes outcomes in primary care by comparing outcomes between physician-managed care and pharmacist collaborative care.

A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted at Ascension Medical Group Via Christi, P.A. from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018. Health outcomes were analyzed in 385 patients with diabetes mellitus collaboratively managed by a physician and pharmacist (collaborative care group). Similar patients managed by physician only (usual care group) were matched to the collaborative care group using nearest neighbor matching. The primary outcome compared glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change between collaborative care and usual care groups at 12 months.

The mean change in HbA1c decreased by 1.75% in the collaborative care group and 0.16% in the usual care group (

< .0001). The usual care group had a larger number of patients with HbA1c less than 8% at follow-up (

= .0049). Additional outcomes included decrease in total cholesterol (

= .