Laabs, Susan

Abstract Objective After a new electronic health record (EHR) was implemented at Mayo Clinic, a training program called reBoot Camp was created to enhance ongoing education in response to needs identified by physician leaders. Materials and Methods A reBoot camp focused on EHR topics pertinent to ambulatory care was offered from April 2018 through June 2020. There were 37 2-day sessions and 43 1-day sessions, with 673 unique participants. To evaluate outcomes of the reBoot camp, we used survey data to study baseline, immediate, and long-term perceptions of program satisfaction and self-assessed skills with the EHR. The study was conducted among practitioners at a large ambulatory practice network based in several states. Data were collected from April 2018 through January 2021. We analyzed automatically collected metadata and scores that evaluated the amount of personalization and proficiency of use. Results Confidence in skills increased by 13.5 points for general EHR use and was significant in 5 subdomains of use (13–18 point improvement). This degree of user confidence was maintained at the 6-month reassessment. The outcomes of configuration and proficiency scores also improved significantly. Discussion Ongoing education regarding EHR tools is necessary to support continued use of technology. This study was novel because of the amount and breadth of data collected, diversity of user participation, and validation that improvements were maintained over time. Conclusions Participating in a reBoot camp significantly improved user confidence in each domain of the EHR and demonstrated use of best-practice tools. Users maintained gains at the 6-month evaluation phase.

Introduction: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. Methods: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. Results: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. Conclusion: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.

The objective was to determine if a greater proportion of physician full-time equivalent (FTE%) relative to nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) on care teams was associated with improved individual clinician diabetes quality outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 420 family medicine clinicians in 110 care teams in a Midwest health system, using administrative data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between physician FTE% and the number of patients meeting 5 criteria included in a composite metric for diabetes management (D5). Covariates included panel size, clinician type, sex, years in practice, region, patient satisfaction, care team size, rural location, and panel complexity. Of the 420 clinicians, 167 (40%) were NP/PA staff and 253 (60%) were physicians. D5 criteria were achieved in 37.9% of NP/PA panels compared with 44.5% of physician panels ( P < .001). In adjusted analysis, rate of patients achieving D5 was unrelated to physician FTE% on the care team ( P = .78). Physicians had a 1.082 (95% confidence interval 1.007–1.164) times greater rate of patients with diabetes achieving D5 than NPs/PAs. Clinicians at rural locations had a .904 (.852-.959) times lower rate of achieving D5 than those at urban locations. Physicians had a greater rate of patients achieving D5 compared with NPs/PAs, but physician FTE% on the care team was unrelated to D5 outcomes. This suggests that clinician team composition matters less than team roles and the dynamics of collaborative care between members.