Lampman, Michelle A.

Objectives: To assess how social risk factors and socioeconomic status (SES) affect health care costs at a large, integrated health system of 45 clinics in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed administrative patient cost data from January 1 through December 31, 2022. Social risk factors (lack of financial resources, food insecurity, intimate partner violence, unmet transportation needs, and housing instability) were determined with patient questionnaires. Cost z -scores were compared across all risk-factor quartiles. We used a housing-based measure to objectively determine SES. Results: We analyzed data from 410 624 patients empaneled with 689 family medicine clinicians. Self-reported risk factor data were incomplete for 219 321 patients. Costs were higher for those with higher social risk (mean cost z -score: high risk = 0.38, low risk = 0.11; P < .001). In addition, higher costs were associated with increasing age, greater medical complexity (higher Adjusted Clinical Group scores), White race, and lack of financial resources. Although we observed geographic variations in cost, urban and rural locations did not have significant cost differences. Costs were similar across all quartiles of SES, and the absolute difference in cost z -scores between the highest and lowest SES quartiles was only 0.04. The multivariate analysis, which adjusted for age, medical complexity, race, sex, and objective SES, showed that these specific associations were substantially decreased and no longer significantly associated with mean cost z -scores. Conclusions: Patient-reported social risk factors were significantly associated with increased cost of care in a large, multispecialty health system in the midwestern US. These associations were decreased in the multivariate analysis. Results should be interpreted cautiously for readers outside the midwestern US, given potential responder bias and the racial homogeneity (92% White) of the study cohort.

ABSTRACTBackgroundAs a component of goal‐oriented care, goal‐setting is an important strategy to improve self‐management and reduce the economic and personal burden of chronic illness. Primary care nurses, as integral members of the healthcare team, play a pivotal role in providing self‐management support to patients with multiple chronic illnesses. Yet, little is known about their perspectives on partnering with patients to set meaningful goals within self‐management support programmes.AimTo explore perspectives of primary care nurses about their practice of goal‐setting with patients to improve self‐management.MethodsFor this qualitative exploratory study, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 28 primary care nurses who provided self‐management support to patients with multiple chronic illnesses. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. This research was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.ResultsKey themes from interviews focused on: (1) goal‐setting practices; (2) challenges encountered in goal‐setting; and (3) the perceived value‐add of using a patient‐centred goal‐setting approach. Nurses described practices that empower patients to take charge of goal‐setting, emphasising that the opportunity to create personal goals enhances motivation and enables the development of realistic action plans. Key challenges faced were patients' lack of familiarity with personal goal‐setting, competing life stressors and patients' reluctance to change.ConclusionOur findings contribute valuable insights about how primary care nurses approach goal‐setting within a self‐management support program. Notably, unlike previous studies where clinicians reported that time‐limited appointments and institutional expectations hindered patient‐centred goal‐setting, our participants practicing in an institutionally supported goal‐oriented patient‐centred model of care did not report time constraints or pressures to prioritise clinical goals over patient goals. Instead, they described patient‐centred goal‐setting practices that are associated with positive patient and clinical outcomes. To potentially corroborate and expand upon our findings and inform practice and training, future research should include qualitative and survey studies to explore primary care RNs perspectives about goal‐setting and observational research to evaluate nurse–patient goal‐setting interactions.

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.

AbstractThe Adult Medical Care Coordination program (“the program”) was implemented at Mayo Clinic to promote patient self‐management and improve 30‐day unplanned readmission for patients with high risk for readmission after hospital discharge. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the program compared to usual care using a pragmatic, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (“stepped wedge trial”). However, several challenges arose including large differences between the study arms. Our goal is to describe the challenges and present lessons learned on how to overcome such challenges and generate evidence to support practice decisions. We describe the challenges encountered during the trial, the approach to addressing these challenges, and lessons learned for other learning health system researchers facing similar challenges. The trial experienced several challenges in implementation including several clinics dropping from the study and care disruptions due to COVID‐19. Additionally, there were large differences in the patient population between the program and usual care arms. For example, the mean age was 76.8 for the program and 68.1 for usual care. Due to these differences, we adapted the methods using the propensity score matching approach that is traditionally applied to observational designs and adjusted for differences in observable characteristics. When conducting pragmatic research, researchers will encounter factors beyond their control that may introduce bias. The lessons learned include the need to weigh the tradeoffs of pragmatic design elements and the potential value of adaptive designs for pragmatic trials. Applying these lessons would promote the successful generation of evidence that informs practice decisions.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of a virtual registered nurse (ViRN) model on safety and care outcomes. ViRN is a telemedicine intervention that enables an experienced virtual nurse to assist the in‐person care team in providing care to patients.Data Sources and Study SettingElectronic health records data were utilized from the Mayo Clinic during the intervention (December 2020–November 2021) and historical periods (December 2018–November 2019). ViRN was implemented on general medical units at the Mayo Clinic Rochester. We used general medical units at the Mayo Clinic Arizona as the comparison group.Study DesignThis study used a difference‐in‐differences design to evaluate the impact of ViRN compared to usual care on transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), inpatient mortality, and length of stay (LOS). We used logistic regression for transfer to the ICU and inpatient mortality and negative binomial regression for LOS. We controlled for demographics, patient interaction with the health system, clinical characteristics, and admission characteristics. We clustered standard errors to account for patients who have multiple admissions during the study period.Principal FindingsThere were no significant differences for transfer to the ICU (average marginal effect (AME) −0.08 percentage point [95% confidence interval (CI): −1.34, 1.18]), inpatient mortality (AME 0.43 percentage point [95% CI: −0.33, 1.18]), or LOS (AME −0.20 days [95% CI: −0.57, 0.17]). The findings were mostly consistent across the sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsOur results suggest that ViRN led to similar outcomes as usual care in general medical units. These findings support the potential to develop more advanced models of ViRN at the Mayo Clinic and the dissemination of the ViRN model to other systems. In the context of staffing shortages and other disruptions to the delivery of nursing care, it is critical to understand whether new models like ViRN provide nurse staffing alternatives without negatively affecting outcomes.

Introduction Diabetes is one of the most common serious chronic health conditions in the USA. People living with diabetes face multiple barriers to optimal diabetes care, including gaps in access to medical care and self-management education, diabetes distress, and high burden of treatment. Community paramedics (CPs) are uniquely positioned to support multidisciplinary care for patients with diabetes by delivering focused diabetes self-management education and support and bridging the gaps between patients and the clinical and community resources they need to live well with their disease. Methods and analysis We will conduct a pragmatic single-arm prospective trial of a CP-led Diabetes Rescue, Engagement and Management (D-REM) programme that seeks to reduce diabetes distress. We will enrol 70 adults (≥18 years) with diabetes who have haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)≥9.0%, experienced an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalisation for any cause within the prior 6 months, and reside in areas with available CP support in Southeast Minnesota (Olmsted, Freeborn and Mower counties) and Northwest Wisconsin (Barron, Rusk and Dunn counties). Participants will be identified using Mayo Clinic electronic health records, contacted for consent and enrolled into the D-REM programme. Visit frequency will be individualised for each patient, but will be an average of four CP visits over the course of approximately 1 month. Outcomes will be change in diabetes distress (primary outcome), confidence in diabetes self-management, health-related quality of life, self-reported hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia, HbA1c, ED visits and hospitalisations. Outcomes will be assessed on enrolment, programme completion and 3 months after programme completion. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations. If demonstrated to be successful, this model of care can be implemented across diverse settings and populations to support patients living with diabetes. Trial registration number NCT04385758 .

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.