BACKGROUND: Community-acquired acute kidney injury (CA-acute kidney injury) is under-recognized in the outpatient setting and is associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed the incidence of CA-acute kidney injury in an academic primary care practice and community health center and assessed recognition and follow-up as determined by repeat creatinine measurement (closed-loop). We reviewed 93,259 specimens for 36,593 unique patients from January 1, 2018, RESULTS: There were 220 unique patients with CA-acute kidney injury, defined as a> 75% increase in creatinine from baseline (incidence: 150/100,000; 0.15% per year). One hundred thirty seven patients (62.3%) had repeat serum creatinine performed within 30 days. Chart reviews of the 83 (37.72%) patients with open loops found there was no follow-up creatinine ordered in 69/83 (83.1%) patients. Mean baseline creatinine was higher and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in the closed-loop group (0.92 +/- 0.4 mg/dL; 84.45 +/- 27.49 mL/min) vs the open-loop group (0.63 +/- 0.34 mg/dL; 105.19 +/- 26.67 mL/min) (P < .0001). Preexisting chronic kidney disease was more prevalent in closed-loop patients (35/137; 25.6%) compared with those with open loops (3/83; 3.6%). Patients with baseline chronic kidney disease were more likely to have closed loops. Progression to new chronic kidney disease was common among CA-acute kidney injury patients, occurring in 25% of open-loop and 24.1% of closed-loop patients. New baseline eGFR was lower in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently overlooked a clinically significant change in eGFR, especially when the baseline creatinine and incident creatinine levels were in the "normal" range. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

BACKGROUND:Patients are often referred for important diagnostic tests or consultations after a concerning symptom or finding is identified at a primary care visit, but many referrals are delayed or not completed. METHODS:In this qualitative study, we reviewed electronic health record data to identify patients who did not have timely completion of a recommended referral at an academic primary care hospital-based practice and an affiliated community health center. Using semistructured interview guides, we interviewed 15 patients who did not complete a cardiac stress test within 28 days of a primary care visit associated with a diagnosis of chest pain, and 15 patients who did not complete a dermatology referral within 90 days of identification of a concerning skin lesion. RESULTS:Thematic analysis highlighted 3 areas: 1) Patients desired clear communication to inform, equip and empower them, 2) Clinician-patient communication regarding a referral's rationale and value is key, and 3) Referral appointment processes were often challenging and/or delayed. Patients wished to understand why they were being referred, the specific value and reason for the referral, and what to expect. We developed a conceptual model describing how the initial clinician-patient communication may influence referral completion. CONCLUSIONS:Failure to close diagnostic loops may be more likely when a patient is not given sufficient meaningful information, particularly if there is health system "friction" that reduces the patient's ability and ease to obtain a timely diagnostic referral appointment. Clinicians should use accessible language to communicate why a diagnostic referral is useful and important for the patient's health, and include a specific optimal time frame. The initial communication and the ease of the subsequent appointment booking both matter, and may compound or mitigate each other's effect. To reduce diagnostic referral failures and delays. clinicians should advocate for consistent appointment booking processes that systematically inform, equip, and empower patients with clear and meaningful referral information and timely appointments.

High-performing teams anchored by quality improvement and practice transformation skills strengthen primary care by improving patient outcomes. Effective team-based care may be particularly valuable in medically underserved communities (MUCs). To evaluate the impact of a team-based training program that focused on quality improvement and practice transformation skills in community health centers (CHC) serving under-resourced communities across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Advancing Teams Program was delivered to CHC teams over 6 years (2016–2022). The evaluation used a mixed methods design to assess the program’s impact. Forty-seven interdisciplinary teams from CHCs serving MUCs in Massachusetts. The 327 individual participants included administrative staff, clinicians, and trainees. Evaluative data included participating CHC team and clinic demographics, pre-post evaluation of participants’ perceptions of practice transformation using the Qualis Health Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment (PCMH-A), and qualitative analysis of team improvement projects to identify themes related to project aims, practice transformation skills, and patient outcomes. CHCs participating in the ATP program served under-resourced communities, with > 65

Objectives: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care.Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read >1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression.Results: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P= .002).Discussion and conclusion: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

In the 1990s, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) produced 2 reports aiming to strengthen primary care in the United States.[1][1],[2][2] Few of the reports’ recommendations have been fully implemented;[3][3] and while primary care has languished, the health of the US population has worsened.[4][4]

The current study expanded on the research literature addressing mental health implications of religious fundamentalism (RF) by demonstrating the latter predicts the former over and above general religiosity across three college student samples. In Study 1, RF predicted unique variance in religious and existential well-being. In Study 2, RF uniquely predicted greater optimism and sense of coherence. In Study 3, RF uniquely predicted positive – but not negative – affect. These results indicate there is something beyond general religiosity that leads RF to relate to mental health. Limitations and implications are discussed.

PURPOSE The Teaming and Integrating for Smiles and Health (TISH) Learning Collaborative was developed to help health care organizations accelerate progress in integrating delivery of oral and primary care. By providing expert support and a structure for testing change, the project aimed to improve the early detection of hypertension in the dental setting and of gingivitis in the primary care setting, and to increase the rate of bidirectional referrals between oral and primary care partners. We report its outcomes. METHODS A total of 17 primary and oral health care teams were recruited to participate in biweekly virtual calls over 3 months. Participants tested changes to their models of care through Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles between calls. Sites tracked the percentages of patients screened and referred, completed the TeamSTEPPS (Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety) and Interprofessional Assessment questionnaires, and provided qualitative feedback and updates in storyboard presentations. RESULTS On average, with implementation of the TISH Learning Collaborative, sites displayed a nonrandom improvement in the percentages of patients screened for hypertension, referred for hypertension, referred to primary care, and referred for gingivitis. Gingivitis screening and referral to oral health care were not markedly improved. Qualitative responses indicated that teams made progress in screening and referral workflows, improved communication between medical and dental partners, and furthered understanding of the connection between primary care and oral care among staff and patients. CONCLUSIONS The TISH project is evidence that a virtual Learning Collaborative is an accessible and productive avenue to improve interprofessional education, further primary care and oral partnerships, and achieve practical progress in integrated care.

Importance Primary care physicians (PCPs) spend the most time on the electronic health record (EHR) of any specialty. Thus, it is critical to understand what factors contribute to varying levels of PCP time spent on EHRs.Objective To characterize variation in EHR time across PCPs and primary care clinics, and to describe how specific PCP, patient panel, clinic, and team collaboration factors are associated with PCPs' time spent on EHRs.Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study included 307 PCPs practicing across 31 primary care clinics at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital during 2021. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to October 2023.Main Outcomes and Measures Total per-visit EHR time, total per-visit pajama time (ie, time spent on the EHR between 5:30 pm to 7:00 am and on weekends), and total per-visit time on the electronic inbox as measured by activity log data derived from an EHR database.Results The sample included 307 PCPs (183 [59.6%] female). On a per-visit basis, PCPs spent a median (IQR) of 36.2 (28.9-45.7) total minutes on the EHR, 6.2 (3.1-11.5) minutes of pajama time, and 7.8 (5.5-10.7) minutes on the electronic inbox. When comparing PCP time expenditure by clinic, median (IQR) total EHR time, median (IQR) pajama time, and median (IQR) electronic inbox time ranged from 23.5 (20.7-53.1) to 47.9 (30.6-70.7) minutes per visit, 1.7 (0.7-10.5) to 13.1 (7.7-28.2) minutes per visit, and 4.7 (4.1-5.2) to 10.8 (8.9-15.2) minutes per visit, respectively. In a multivariable model with an outcome of total per-visit EHR time per visit, an above median percentage of teamwork on orders was associated with 3.81 (95% CI, 0.49-7.13) minutes per visit fewer and having a clinic pharmacy technician was associated with 7.87 (95% CI, 2.03-13.72) minutes per visit fewer. Practicing in a community health center was associated with fewer minutes of total EHR time per visit (5.40 [95% CI, 0.06-10.74] minutes).Conclusions and Relevance There is substantial variation in EHR time among individual PCPs and PCPs within clinics. Organization-level factors, such as team collaboration on orders, support for medication refill functions, and practicing in a community health center, are associated with lower EHR time for PCPs. These findings highlight the importance of addressing EHR burden at a systems level.

BACKGROUND:A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure.METHODS:This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure.RESULTS:Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups.CONCLUSION:Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Reliable systems that track the continuation, progression, or resolution of a patient's symptoms over time are essential for reliable diagnosis and ensuring that patients harboring more worrisome diagnoses are safely followed up. Given their first-contact role and increasing stresses on busy primary care clinicians and practices, new processes that make these tasks easier rather than creating more work for busy clinicians are especially needed.Some symptoms are sufficiently worrisome that they demand an urgent diagnosis and treatment while others result in a differential that can be more safely explored over time, or less differentiated and worrisome that they are best managed with the "test of time" to see if they resolve, worsen, or evolve into symptoms that are more worrisome. Regardless, it is essential that clinicians are able to reliably track symptoms over time, yet this capacity is rarely available or explicit. Working with systems engineers, we are developing prototypes for such systems and are working on their implementation and evaluation. In this commentary, we describe approaches to this essential, but underappreciated, problem in primary care.

Background: COVID-19 impacted primary care delivery, as clinicians and practices implemented changes to respond to the pandemic while safely caring for patients. This study aimed to understand clinicians' perceptions of the positive and negative impacts of COVID-19 on primary care in New England. Methods: This qualitative interview study was conducted from October through December 2020. Participants included 22 physicians and 2 nurse practitioners practicing primary care in New England. Data were thematically coded and analyzed deductively and inductively using content analysis. Results: Through qualitative content analysis, 4 areas were identified in which clinicians perceived that COVID-19 impacted primary care: 1) bureaucracy, 2) leadership, 3) telemedicine and patient care, and 4) clinician work-life. Our findings suggest that the positive impacts of COVID-19 included changes in primary care delivery, new leadership opportunities for clinicians, flexible access to care for patients via telemedicine, and a better work-life balance for clinicians. Respondents identified negative impacts related to sustaining pandemic-inspired changes, the inability for some populations to access care via telemedicine, and the rapid implementation of telemedicine causing frustration for clinicians. Conclusions: Understanding clinician perspectives on how primary care transformed to respond to COVID-19 helps to identify beneficial pandemic-related changes that should be sustained and ideas for improvement that will support patient care and clinician engagement.

Importance:Following up on recommendations from radiologic findings is important for patient care, but frequently there are failures to carry out these recommendations. The lack of reliable systems to characterize and track completion of actionable radiology report recommendations poses an important patient safety challenge.Objectives:To characterize actionable radiology recommendations and, using this taxonomy, track and understand rates of loop closure for radiology recommendations in a primary care setting.Design, Setting, and Participants:Radiology reports in a primary care clinic at a large academic center were redesigned to include actionable recommendations in a separate dedicated field. Manual review of all reports generated from imaging tests ordered between January 1 and December 31, 2018, by primary care physicians that contained actionable recommendations was performed. For this quality improvement study, a taxonomy system that conceptualized recommendations was developed based on 3 domains: (1) what is recommended (eg, repeat a test or perform a different test, specialty referral), (2) specified time frame in which to perform the recommended action, and (3) contingency language qualifying the recommendation. Using this framework, a 2-stage process was used to review patients' records to classify recommendations and determine loop closure rates and factors associated with failure to complete recommended actions. Data analysis was conducted from April to July 2021.Main Outcomes and Measures:Radiology recommendations, time frames, and contingencies. Rates of carrying out vs not closing the loop on these recommendations in the recommended time frame were assessed.Results:A total of 598 radiology reports were identified with structured recommendations: 462 for additional or future radiologic studies and 196 for nonradiologic actions (119 specialty referrals, 47 invasive procedures, and 43 other actions). The overall rate of completed actions (loop closure) within the recommended time frame was 87.4%, with 31 open loop cases rated by quality expert reviewers to pose substantial clinical risks. Factors associated with successful loop closure included (1) absence of accompanying contingency language, (2) shorter recommended time frames, and (3) evidence of direct radiologist communication with the ordering primary care physicians. A clinically significant lack of loop closure was found in approximately 5% of cases.Conclusions and Relevance:The findings of this study suggest that creating structured radiology reports featuring a dedicated recommendations field permits the development of taxonomy to classify such recommendations and determine whether they were carried out. The lack of loop closure suggests the need for more reliable systems.

PURPOSE:Studies demonstrate how patient roles in system redesign teams reflect a continuum of involvement and influence. This research shows the process by which patients move through this continuum and effectively engage within redesign projects.DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH:The authors studied members of redesign teams, consisting of 5-10 members: clinicians, systems engineers, health system staff and patient(s), from three health systems working on separate projects in a patient safety learning lab. Weekly team meetings were observed, January 2016-April 2018, 17 semi-structured interviews were conducted and findings through a patient focus group were refined. Grounded theory was used to analyze field notes and transcripts.FINDINGS:Results show how the social identity process enables patients to move through stages in a patient engagement continuum (informant, partner and active change agent). Initially, patient and team member perceptions of the patient's role influence their respective behaviors (activating, directing, framing and sharing). Subsequently, patient and team member behaviors influence patient contributions on the team, which can redefine patient and team member perceptions of the patient's role.ORIGINALITY/VALUE:As health systems grow increasingly complex and become more interested in responding to patient expectations, understanding how to effectively engage patients on redesign teams gains importance. This research investigates how and why patient engagement on redesign teams changes over time and what makes different types of patient roles valuable for team objectives. Findings have implications for how redesign teams can better prepare, anticipate and support the changing role of engaged patients.

Background Closing loops to complete diagnostic referrals remains a significant patient safety problem in most health systems, with 65%-73% failure rates and significant delays common despite years of improvement efforts, suggesting new approaches may be useful. Systems engineering (SE) methods increasingly are advocated in healthcare for their value in studying and redesigning complex processes. Objective Conduct a formative SE analysis of process logic, variation, reliability and failures for completing diagnostic referrals originating in two primary care practices serving different demographics, using dermatology as an illustrating use case. Methods An interdisciplinary team of clinicians, systems engineers, quality improvement specialists, and patient representatives collaborated to understand processes of initiating and completing diagnostic referrals. Cross-functional process maps were developed through iterative group interviews with an urban community-based health centre and a teaching practice within a large academic medical centre. Results were used to conduct an engineering process analysis, assess variation within and between practices, and identify common failure modes and potential solutions. Results Processes to complete diagnostic referrals involve many sub-standard design constructs, with significant workflow variation between and within practices, statistical instability and special cause variation in completion rates and timeliness, and only 21% of all process activities estimated as value-add. Failure modes were similar between the two practices, with most process activities relying on low-reliability concepts (eg, reminders, workarounds, education and verification/inspection). Several opportunities were identified to incorporate higher reliability process constructs (eg, simplification, consolidation, standardisation, forcing functions, automation and opt-outs). Conclusion From a systems science perspective, diagnostic referral processes perform poorly in part because their fundamental designs are fraught with low-reliability characteristics and mental models, including formalised workaround and rework activities, suggesting a need for different approaches versus incremental improvement of existing processes. SE perspectives and methods offer new ways of thinking about patient safety problems, failures and potential solutions.

Religious fundamentalism (RF) is a relevant topic in the world today. Over the past two decades there is an increase in definitions, theories, and measures of RF in the social sciences. The present publication reviews and integrates this information into an overarching definition and provides suggestions for future research.

COVID-19 necessitated significant care redesign, including new ambulatory workflows to handle surge volumes, protect patients and staff, and ensure timely reliable care. Opportunities also exist to harvest lessons from workflow innovations to benefit routine care. We describe a dedicated COVID-19 ambulatory unit for closing testing and follow-up loops characterized by standardized workflows and electronic communication, documentation, and order placement. More than 85% of follow-ups were completed within 24 hours, with no observed staff, nor patient infections associated with unit operations. Identified issues include role confusion, staffing and gatekeeping bottlenecks, and patient reluctance to visit in person or discuss concerns with phone screeners.