McCoy, Jessica

Introduction/Objectives The rise in screening for social drivers of health (SDoH) in primary care settings has led to questions about effective intervention design. A large primary care practice at Mayo Clinic developed a model centered on a full-time Health Equity Coordinator (HEC) to facilitate clinic-community partnerships in 2022. The goal of this analysis was to assess the model on process outcomes, resolution of SDoH needs, and changes in healthcare utilization. Methods Using a cohort study design, we identified primary care patients with unmet SDoH needs at the intervention clinic and two comparator clinics from March 2022 to December 2023. We assessed process outcomes descriptively and resolution of SDoH needs and healthcare utilization using multivariable regression. Results The HEC contacted 348 patients and conducted 748 meetings with community-based organization staff. While there were decreases for SDoH needs and missed or late cancelled appointments in intervention group, there were no significant difference in resolution of SDoH and healthcare utilization relative to comparator groups. Conclusions The HEC model for multi-stakeholder coordination showed promise in referring patients to services and engaging key stakeholders in a primary care setting. Longer term follow up may be needed to identify changes in SDoH needs and healthcare utilization.

ABSTRACT Purpose To explore the opioid decision‐making process of prescribers in primary care, surgery, and subspecialty pain management. Methods This was a multistage qualitative‐qualitative study with clinicians involved in opioid prescribing and management from a single healthcare organization with locations in Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, and Wisconsin. Clinicians in this study included physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) practicing in primary care, surgery, or pain medicine. The interview guide was organized in three domains of a conceptual model for opioid use: (1) prescriber characteristics, (2) patient characteristics, and (3) practice environment characteristics. Individual interviews ( N = 20) were performed first, and data were summarized using a rapid template‐based approach. Subsequently, focus groups (FGs) ( N = 4) were conducted with an additional 21 clinicians to confirm and explore interview results. Data from interviews and FGs were analyzed using a common codebook. Results Findings were organized as decision factors into the three domains. Factors in the prescriber domain included characteristics such as formal pain management training, as well as factors that influenced knowledge and beliefs (e.g., advice from or observation of supervising clinicians and expert colleagues). Decision factors in the patient domain included patient pain etiology, comorbid medical or mental health conditions, and demographic characteristics. Clinicians' perceptions of these factors, such as viewing older age as having lesser risk for opioid misuse, influenced prescribing decisions. Clinicians also described challenges associated with “legacy patients” whose therapy was previously managed by a different clinician. Primary care clinicians, in particular, expressed difficulties managing post‐surgical or trauma‐related pain after care transition. Relevant decision factors reported by prescribers in the practice environment domain included guidelines and practice oversight. Most participants reported practicing in an environment that promoted conservative opioid use and having access to standardized institutional guidelines that reduced perceived decision‐making burden. Clinicians described how they used prescribing guidelines to help them communicate with patients about opioid use and prescribing decisions. Conclusions Intersecting prescriber, patient, and practice environment factors shape opioid analgesic prescribing decisions. Available resources in the practice environment, including peer input and institutional guidelines, may support clinician decision‐making and conversations with patients at the point of care, including in cases where patients have complex histories or personal characteristics that influence decision making.

Abstract Introduction: Pragmatic trials aim to speed translation to practice by integrating study procedures in routine care settings. This study evaluated implementation outcomes related to clinician and patient recruitment and participation in a trial of community paramedicine (CP) and presents successes and challenges of maintaining pragmatic study features. Methods: Adults in the pre-hospital setting, emergency department (ED), or hospital being considered for referral to the ED/hospital or continued hospitalization for intermediate-level care were randomized 1:1 to CP care or usual care. Referral and enrollment data were tracked administratively, and patient characteristics were abstracted from the electronic health record (EHR). Enrolled patients completed baseline surveys, and a subset of intervention patients were interviewed. All CPs and a sample of clinicians and administrators were invited to complete a survey and interview. Results: Between January 2022 and February 2023, 240 enrolled patients (42% rural) completed surveys, and 22 completed an interview; 63 staff completed surveys and 20 completed an interview. Ninety-three clinicians in 27 departments made at least one referral. Factors related to referrals included program awareness and understanding the CP practice scope. Most patients were enrolled in the hospital, but characteristics were similar to the primary care population and included older and medically complex patients. Challenges to achieving representativeness included limited EHR infrastructure, constraints related to patient consenting, and clinician concerns about patient randomization disrupting preferred care. Conclusion: Future pragmatic trials in busy clinical settings may benefit from regulatory policies and EHR capabilities that allow for real-world study conduct and representative participation. Trial registration: NCT05232799.

Objective: In this study, we aim to develop and propose an evaluation method for analyzing the design of operating rooms (ORs) from the perspective of surgical teams’ reported experiences and stress levels. Background: Stress and burnout of surgical team members can lead to diminished performance and medical errors, which endangers the safety of both the patients and team members. The design and layout of the OR play a critical role in managing such stress. Methods: To understand surgical teams’ spatial needs related to their experiences and stress, we administered a survey and in-depth focus group discussions to three surgical teams from the same organization. The identified spatial needs were translated into functional scenarios and spatial metrics, essentially viewing the OR through the perspective of users. Results: Our analysis revealed four integral sections—patient flow, room organization, access to facilities/medical equipment/support staff/team members, and staff well-being—identified as critical design factors associated with the experiences and stress levels of the surgical teams in the ORs. Conclusions: We expect this method to serve as a tool for evaluating the effect of the design of OR layouts on stress, thereby supporting the well-being and resiliency of surgical teams.