Our experiences studying exemplar primary care practices, and our work assisting other practices to become more patient centered, led to a formulation of the essential elements of primary care, which we call the 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. The building blocks include 4 foundational elements-engaged leadership, data-driven improvement, empanelment, and team-based care-that assist the implementation of the other 6 building blocks-patient-team partnership, population management, continuity of care, prompt access to care, comprehensiveness and care coordination, and a template of the future. The building blocks, which represent a synthesis of the innovative thinking that is transforming primary care in the United States, are both a description of existing high-performing practices and a model for improvement.

Background

Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare.

Objective

To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure.

Design

Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017).

Participants

Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems.

Main measures

The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009).

Key results

Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity.

Conclusions

Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare. OBJECTIVE: To identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems. MAIN MEASURES: The MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009). KEY RESULTS: Similar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported definitely burning out or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measures sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: Point estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

Abstract Background Many patients with chronic disease do not reach goals for management of their conditions. Self-management support provided by medical assistant health coaches within the clinical setting may help to improve clinical outcomes, but most studies to date lack statistical power or methodological rigor. Barriers to large scale implementation of the medical assistant coach model include lack of clinician buy-in and the absence of a business model that will make medical assistant health coaching sustainable. This study will add to the evidence base by determining the effectiveness of health coaching by medical assistants on clinical outcomes and patient self-management, by assessing the impact of health coaching on the clinician experience, and by examining the costs and potential savings of health coaching. Methods/Design This randomized controlled trial will evaluate the effectiveness of clinic-based medical assistant health coaches to improve clinical outcomes and self-management skills among low-income patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. A total of 441 patients from two San Francisco primary care clinics have been enrolled and randomized to receive a health coach (n = 224) or usual care (n = 217). Patients participating in the health coaching group will receive coaching for 12 months from medical assistants trained as health coaches. The primary outcome is a change in hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, or LDL cholesterol among patients with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia, respectively. Self-management behaviors, perceptions of the health care team and clinician, BMI, and chronic disease self-efficacy will be measured at baseline and after 12 months. Clinician experience is being assessed through surveys and qualitative interviews. Cost and utilization data will be analyzed through cost-predictive models. Discussion Medical assistants are an untapped resource to provide self-management support for patients with uncontrolled chronic disease. Having successfully completed recruitment, this study is uniquely poised to assess the effectiveness of the medical assistant health coaching model, to describe barriers and facilitators to implementation, and to develop a business case for sustainability. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT-01220336

We highlight primary care innovations gathered from high-functioning primary care practices, innovations we believe can facilitate joy in practice and mitigate physician burnout. To do so, we made site visits to 23 high-performing primary care practices and focused on how these practices distribute functions among the team, use technology to their advantage, improve outcomes with data, and make the job of primary care feasible and enjoyable as a life's vocation. Innovations identified include (1) proactive planned care, with previsit planning and previsit laboratory tests; (2) sharing clinical care among a team, with expanded rooming protocols, standing orders, and panel management; (3) sharing clerical tasks with collaborative documentation (scribing), nonphysician order entry, and streamlined prescription management; (4) improving communication by verbal messaging and in-box management; and (5) improving team functioning through co-location, team meetings, and work flow mapping. Our observations suggest that a shift from a physician-centric model of work distribution and responsibility to a shared-care model, with a higher level of clinical support staff per physician and frequent forums for communication, can result in high-functioning teams, improved professional satisfaction, and greater joy in practice.

Purpose

Primary care clinicians disproportionately report symptoms of burnout, threatening workforce sustainability and quality of care. Recent surveys report that these symptoms are greater when clinicians perceive fewer clinic resources to address patients' social needs. We undertook this study to better understand the relationship between burnout and clinic capacity to address social needs.

Methods

We completed semistructured, in-person interviews and brief surveys with 29 primary care clinicians serving low-income populations. Interview and survey topics included burnout and clinic capacity to address social needs. We analyzed interviews using a modified grounded theory approach to qualitative research and used survey responses to contextualize our qualitative findings.

Results

Four key themes emerged from the interview analyses: (1) burnout can affect how clinicians evaluate their clinic's resources to address social needs, with clinicians reporting high emotional exhaustion perceiving low efficacy even in when such resources are available; (2) unmet social needs affect practice by influencing clinic flow, treatment planning, and clinician emotional wellness; (3) social services embedded in primary care clinics buffer against burnout by increasing efficiency, restoring clinicians' medical roles, and improving morale; and (4) clinicians view clinic-level interventions to address patients' social needs as a necessary but insufficient strategy to address burnout.

Conclusions

Primary care clinicians described multiple pathways whereby increased clinic capacity to address patients' social needs mitigates burnout symptoms. These findings may inform burnout prevention strategies that strengthen the capacity to address patients' social needs in primary care clinical settings.

The use of electronic health records (EHRs) and the vendors that develop them have increased exponentially in recent years. While there continues to emerge literature on the challenges EHRs have created related to primary care provider satisfaction and workflow, there is sparse literature on the perspective of the EHR vendors themselves. We examined the role of EHR vendors in optimizing primary care practice through a qualitative study of vendor leadership and developers representing 8 companies. We found that EHR vendors apply a range of strategies to elicit feedback from their clinical users and to engage selected users in their development and design process, but priorities are heavily influenced by the macroenvironment and government regulations. To improve the "marriage" between primary care and the EHR vendor community, we propose 6 strategies that may be most impactful for primary care stakeholders seeking to influence EHR development processes.

Purpose

Health coaching is effective for chronic disease self-management in the primary care safety-net setting, but little is known about the persistence of its benefits. We conducted an observational study evaluating the maintenance of improved cardiovascular risk factors following a health coaching intervention.

Methods

We performed a naturalistic follow-up to the Health Coaching in Primary Care Study, a 12-month randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health coaching to usual care for patients with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Participants were followed up 24 months from RCT baseline. The primary outcome was the proportion at goal for at least 1 measure (hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, or LDL cholesterol) that had been above goal at enrollment; secondary outcomes included each individual clinical goal. Chi-square tests and paired t-tests compared dichotomous and continuous measures.

Results

290 of 441 participants (65.8%) participated at both 12 and 24 months. The proportion of patients in the coaching arm of the RCT who achieved the primary outcome dropped only slightly from 47.1% at 12 to 45.9% at 24 months (P = .80). The proportion at goal for hemoglobin A1c dropped from 53.4% to 36.2% (P = .03). All other clinical metrics had small, nonsignificant changes between 12 and 24 months.

Conclusions

Results support the conclusion that most improved clinical outcomes persisted 1 year after the completion of the health coaching intervention.

Primary care practices are turning toward team-based strategies such as panel management, in which nonclinicians address routine preventive and chronic disease care tasks for a group of patients. No known validated instruments have been published for measuring panel management implementation. The authors developed the 12-item Panel Management Questionnaire (PMQ) measuring 4 domains. Data were assembled from self-administered cross-sectional surveys of 136 staff and 204 clinicians in 9 county and 5 university adult primary care clinics. Staff and clinician PMQ scores in each clinic were correlated. The clinic-level median PMQ score was positively associated with a composite clinic quality measure.

Patient engagement in primary care leadership is an important means to involve community voices at community health centers. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to have patient representation within their governing boards, while practices seeking patient-centered medical home certification receive credit for implementing patient advisory councils (PACs). Our objective was to compare and contrast how community health centers engage patients in clinic management, decision-making and planning within governing boards versus PACs. Qualitative study conducted from August 2016 to June 2017 at community health centers in California, Arizona and Hawaii. We interviewed practice leaders of patient engagement programs at their site. Eligible clinics had patient representatives within their governing board, PAC, or both. We assessed patient demographics, roles and responsibilities of patients participating, and extent of involvement in quality improvement among governing boards versus PACs. We interviewed 19 sites, of which 17 were FQHCs that had governing boards. Of the 17 FQHCs, 11 had also implemented PACs. Two non-FQHC safety-net sites had PACs but did not have governing boards. Governing board members had formal, structured membership responsibilities such as finances and hiring personnel. PAC roles were more flexible, focusing on day-to-day clinic operations. Clinics tended to recruit governing board patient members for their skill set and professional experience; PAC member recruitment focused more on demographic representation of the clinic's patient population. Both groups worked on quality improvement, but governing boards tended to review clinic performance metrics, while PAC members were involved in specific project planning and implementation to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience. Patient involvement in clinic improvement in CHCs includes higher-level decision-making and governance through mechanisms such as governing boards, as well as engagement in day-to-day practice improvement through PACs. These roles offer differing, but valuable insights to clinic programs and policies.