Concerns of Primary Care Clinicians Practicing in an Integrated Health System: a Qualitative Study

From moral distress to resilient ethical climate among general practitioners: Fostering awareness. A qualitative pilot study

BACKGROUND

Moral distress in and ethical climate of health care institutions are highly intertwined subjects and have been linked to various quality of care indicators as well as job turnover intentions among health care professionals. Predominantly, both phenomena have been studied in intensive care, palliative and in-hospital settings. We aimed to explore the experience of moral distress by general practitioners (GPs), the role of ethical climate in GP moral distress and how ethical climate and moral distress can result in moral resilience in general practice.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Between April and October 2021, we interviewed 13 doctors active in general practice in Flanders, Belgium, through semi-structured interviews. Data were processed and analysed using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven (QUAGOL). Most GPs had ample experience with morally distressing situations. Causes, determinants, and consequences do not differ significantly from other care settings. Moral distress can arise from conflicting views of good care, communication problems, and impending harm to third parties. We detected determinants of moral distress on micro-, meso- and macrolevels. GPs associate moral distress with job turnover and emotional, physical, existential, and quality of care effects. Several malleable factors can contribute to resilient ethical climates. This requires acquisition of vocabulary, skills, and knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

Moral distress and ethical climate are important emerging themes for GPs. This research identifies determinants and effects of moral distress and ethical climate in primary care and could help GPs leverage moral distress experiences into morally resilient primary care through multiple suggested strategies.

The Risks and Benefits of Physician Practice Acquisition and Consolidation: A Narrative Review of Peer-Reviewed Publications Between 2009 and 2022 in the United States

The objective of this narrative review was to assess current literature regarding acquisition and consolidation of physician practices in the United States (US). The acquisition and consolidation of physician practices is a trend affecting patient care, quality of services, healthcare economics and the daily practice of physicians. As practices are acquired by fellow physician groups, private equity investors and entities such as hospitals or large healthcare systems, it is important to better understand the underlying forces driving these transactions and their effects. This is a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications to determine what current literature has covered regarding the acquisition and consolidation of physician practices in the US regarding risks and benefits of this trend. Sources included the SCOPUS, Medline- PUBMED and Web of Science databases. Peer reviewed publications from 2009 to 2022 were included for initial review and curation for relevance using the search terms "physician" and "practice" with either "acquisition" or "consolidation". Synthesis conducted after narrowing down of relevant articles did not use quantitative measurements, but instead examined overall trends, as well as risk and benefits of ongoing acquisition and consolidation in a narrative format. Journal articles focused on physician consolidation in the US often reported increases in physician numbers with decreases in numbers of individual practices. Private equity quantitative analyses reported rapidly accelerating acquisitions driven by these investors, and vertical integration scholarly work reported frequent geographic consolidation of nearby practitioners. Risks associated with these transactions included such items as decreased physician autonomy and higher cost of care. Benefits included practice stability, improved negotiation with insurers and improved access to resources.

The Role of Homogeneous Waiting Group Criteria in Patient Referrals: Views of General Practitioners and Specialists in South Tyrol, Italy

Homogeneous waiting group (HWG) criteria are central to the patient referral process, guiding primary care physicians and hospitalists in directing patient care to specialists. This cross-sectional observational study, conducted in South Tyrol, Italy, in 2023, aimed to assess the implementation and impact of HWG criteria on healthcare from the perspective of general practitioners and hospital physicians. A questionnaire was developed to gain knowledge about referral practices as perceived by general practitioners and specialists. The survey included 313 participants (82 general practitioners and 231 hospital physicians) and was designed to capture a range of factors influencing the application of HWG criteria, including communication and collaboration practices. The results showed moderate levels of familiarity with HWG criteria and opinions about the need for criteria refinement among hospitalists, indicating that further education and refinement of these criteria are warranted. Both general practitioners and hospital physicians expressed dissatisfaction with the current specialist referral system, highlighting the significant gaps in effective communication and collaboration. The survey also demonstrated the influence of patient demands and waiting times on referral practices, and the need for streamlined and accessible specialist care. This study highlights the need for improvement and adaptation of HWG criteria to better meet the needs of healthcare providers and patients in South Tyrol. By addressing the identified gaps in communication, collaboration, and education related to the HWG system, the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the referral process can be improved, ultimately leading to better health outcomes.

Consolidation trends in vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Practice consolidation by vertical and horizontal integration is a growing trend in surgery. Practice consolidation has not been previously examined in vascular surgery.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System data were used to identify vascular providers and vascular surgery practices in the United States in 2015 and 2020. Practices were categorized as solo (1 surgeon), small (2), medium (3-5), and large (≥6). The number of providers and the number of practices in each size group were determined. The Hirfendahl-Hirshman index (HHI), a measure of market consolidation, was calculated. Provider count, practice size, and HHI were additionally analyzed by urban and rural regions. All values were calculated for each time point and compared.

RESULTS

Vascular providers increased in number from 2929 to 3154 (7.7%) from 2015 to 2020. The number of practices decreased from 1351 to 1090 (19.3%). The number of large practices increased by 49.4%; the number of small or solo practices decreased by 42.1%. The mean HHI increased from 0.486 in 2015 to 0.498 in 2020. Both urban and rural regions had a decrease in solo practices (43.3% and 2.3%, respectively) and an increase in HHI (from 0.499 to 0.509 and 0.793 to 0.818, respectively). All changes were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

From 2015 to 2020, there is a trend toward vascular providers working in larger practice groups and a corresponding increase in measures of market consolidation.

Burnout Among Hospitalists During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: a National Mixed Methods Survey Study

BACKGROUND  : Hospitalist physician stress was exacerbated by the pandemic, yet there have been no large scale studies of contributing factors.

OBJECTIVE

Assess remediable components of burnout in hospitalists.

PARTICIPANTS, STUDY DESIGN AND MEASURES

In this Coping with COVID study, we focused on assessment of stress factors among 1022 hospital-based clinicians surveyed between April to December 2020. We assessed variables previously associated with burnout (anxiety/depression due to COVID-19, work overload, fear of exposure or transmission, mission/purpose, childcare stress and feeling valued) on 4 point Likert scales, with results dichotomized with the top two categories meaning "present"; burnout was assessed with the Mini Z single item measure (top 3 choices = burnout). Quantitative analyses utilized multilevel logistic regression; qualitative analysis used inductive and deductive methods. These data informed a conceptual model.

KEY RESULTS

Of 58,408 HCWs (median response rate 32%), 1022 were hospital-based clinicians (906 (89%) physicians; 449 (44%) female; 469 (46%) White); 46% of these hospital-based clinicians reported burnout. Work overload was associated with almost 5 times the odds of burnout (OR 4.9, 95% CIs 3.67, 6.85, p < 0.001), and those with anxiety or depression had 4 times the odds of burnout (OR 4.2, CIs 3.21, 7.12, p < 0.001), while those feeling valued had half the burnout odds (OR 0.43, CIs 0.31, 0.61, p < 0.001). Regression models estimated 42% of burnout variance was explained by these variables. In open-ended comments, leadership support was helpful, with "great leadership" represented by transparency, regular updates, and opportunities to ask questions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national study of hospital medicine, 2 variables were significantly related to burnout (workload and mental health) while two variables (feeling valued and leadership) were likely mitigators. These variables merit further investigation as means of reducing burnout in hospital medicine.

Frontline perspectives on adoption and non-adoption of care management tools for high-risk patients in primary care

BACKGROUND

Population health management tools (PHMTs) embedded within electronic health records (EHR) could improve management of high-risk patients and reduce costs associated with potentially avoidable emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Adoption of PHMTs across the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has been variable and previous research suggests that understaffed primary care (PC) teams might not be using the tools.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective content analysis of open-text responses (n = 1804) from the VA's 2018 national primary care personnel survey to, 1) identify system-level and individual-level factors associated with why clinicians are not using the tools, and 2) to document clinicians' recommendations to improve tool adoption.

RESULTS

We found three themes pertaining to low adoption and/or tool use: 1) IT burden and administrative tasks (e.g., manually mailing letters to patients), 2) staffing shortages (e.g., nurses covering multiple teams), and 3) no training or difficulty using the tools (e.g., not knowing how to access the tools or use the data). Frontline clinician recommendations included automating some tasks, reconfiguring team roles to shift administrative work away from providers and nurses, consolidating PHMTs into a centralized, easily accessible repository, and providing training.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare system-level factors (staffing) and individual-level factors (lack of training) can limit adoption of PHMTs that could be useful for reducing costs and improving patient outcomes. Future research, including qualitative interviews with clinicians who use/don't use the tools, could help develop interventions to address barriers to adoption.

IMPLICATIONS

Shifting more administrative tasks to clerical staff would free up clinician time for population health management but may not be possible for understaffed PC teams. Additionally, healthcare systems may be able to increase PHMT use by making them more easily accessible through the electronic health record and providing training in their use.

Creating Whole Person Health Care Systems: Understanding Employee Perceptions of VAs Whole Health Cultural Transformation

Objective: Whole person health care, like that being implemented in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA), involves person-centered approaches that address what matters most to patients to achieve well-being beyond the biomedical absence of disease. As whole health (WH) approaches expand, their integration into clinical practice is predicated on health care employees reconceptualizing practice beyond find-it-fix-it medicine and embracing WH as a new philosophy of care. This study examined employee perspectives of WH and their integration of this approach into care. Design: We conducted a survey with responses from 1073 clinical and 800 nonclinical employees at 5 VHA WH Flagship sites about their perceptions and use of a WH approach. We used descriptive statistics to examine employees' support for WH and conducted thematic analysis to qualitatively explore their perceptions about this approach from free-text comments supplied by 475 respondents. Results: On structured survey items, employees largely agreed that WH was a valuable approach but were relatively less likely to have incorporated it into practice or report support within their organization for WH. Qualitative comments revealed varying conceptualizations of WH. While some respondents understood that WH represented a philosophical shift in care, many characterized WH narrowly as services. These conceptualizations contributed to lower perceived relevance, skepticism, and misgivings that WH diverted needed resources away from existing clinical services. Organizational context including leadership messaging, siloed structures, and limited educational opportunities reinforced these perceptions. Conclusions: Successfully transforming the culture of care requires a shift in mindset among employees and leadership alike. Employees' depictions didn't always reflect WH as a person-centered approach designed to engage patients to enhance their health and well-being. Without consistent leadership messaging and accessible training, opportunities to expand understandings of WH are likely to be missed. To promote WH transformation, additional attention is needed for employees to embrace this approach to care.

Patients' Experience of Specialty Care Coordination: Survey Development and Validation

Purpose

Specialty care coordination relies on information flowing bidirectionally between all three participants in the "specialty care triad" - patients, primary care providers (PCPs), and specialists. Measures of coordination should strive to account for the perspectives of each. As we previously developed two surveys to measure coordination of specialty care as experienced by PCPs and specialists, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a related survey of specialty care coordination as experienced by the patient, thereby completing the suite of surveys among the triad.

Methods

We developed a draft survey based on literature review, patient interviews, adaptation of existing measures, and development of new items. Survey responses were collected via mail and online in two waves, August 2019-November 2019 and September 2020-May 2021, among patients (N=939) receiving medical specialty care and primary care in the Veterans Affairs health system. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess scale structure. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationship of the final coordination scales to patients' overall experience of specialty care coordination.

Results

A 38-item measure representing 10 factors that assess the patient's experience of coordination in specialty care among the patient, PCP, and specialist was finalized. Scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and, together, explained 59% of the variance in overall coordination. Analyses revealed an unexpected construct describing organization of care between patient and specialist that accounted for patient goals and preferences; this 10-item scale was named Patient-Centered Care Coordination.

Conclusions

The final survey, Coordination of Specialty Care - Patient, or CSC-Patient for short, is a reliable instrument that can be used alone or with its companions (CSC-PCP, CSC-Specialist) to provide a detailed assessment of specialty care coordination and identify targets for coordination improvement.

Examining moral injury in clinical practice: A narrative literature review

Healthcare workers experience moral injury (MI), a violation of their moral code due to circumstances beyond their control. MI threatens the healthcare workforce in all settings and leads to medical errors, depression/anxiety, and personal and occupational dysfunction, significantly affecting job satisfaction and retention. This article aims to differentiate concepts and define causes surrounding MI in healthcare. A narrative literature review was performed using SCOPUS, CINAHL, and PubMed for peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2017 and 2023. Search terms included "moral injury" and "moral distress," identifying 249 records. While individual risk factors predispose healthcare workers to MI, root causes stem from healthcare systems. Accumulation of moral stressors and potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) (from administrative burden, institutional betrayal, lack of autonomy, corporatization of healthcare, and inadequate resources) result in MI. Individuals with MI develop moral resilience or residue, leading to burnout, job abandonment, and post-traumatic stress. Healthcare institutions should focus on administrative and climate interventions to prevent and address MI. Management should ensure autonomy, provide tangible support, reduce administrative burden, advocate for diversity of clinical healthcare roles in positions of interdisciplinary leadership, and communicate effectively. Strategies also exist for individuals to increase moral resilience, reducing the impact of moral stressors and PMIEs.

Barriers to Adoption of a Secure Text Messaging System: a Qualitative Study of Practicing Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Secure text messaging systems (STMS) offer HIPAA-compliant text messaging and mobile phone call functionalities that are more efficient than traditional paging. Although some studies associate improved provider satisfaction and healthcare delivery with STMS use, healthcare organizations continue to struggle with achieving widespread and sustained STMS adoption.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the barriers to adoption of an STMS among physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs).

DESIGN

We qualitatively analyzed free-text comments that clinicians (physicians and APPs) across a large healthcare organization offered on a survey about STMS perceptions.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1110 clinicians who provided a free-text comment in response to one of four open-ended survey questions.

APPROACH

Data were analyzed using a grounded theory approach and constant comparative method to characterize responses and identify themes.

KEY RESULTS

The overall survey response rate was 20.5% (n = 1254). Clinicians familiar with the STMS frequently believed the STMS was unnecessary (existing tools worked well enough) and would overburden them with more communications. They were frustrated that the STMS app had to be downloaded onto their personal mobile device and that it drained their battery. Ambiguity regarding who was reachable in the app led to missed messages and drove distrust of the STMS. Clinicians saw the exclusion of other care team members (e.g., nurses) from the STMS as problematic; however, some clinicians at hospitals with expanded STMS access complained of excessive messages. Secondhand reports of several of these barriers prevented new users from downloading the app and contributed to ongoing low use.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are reluctant to adopt an STMS that does not offer a clear and trustworthy communication benefit to offset its potential burden and intrusiveness. Our findings can be incorporated into STMS implementation strategies that maximize active users by targeting and mitigating barriers to adoption.

Lessons Learned From VHA's Rapid Implementation of Virtual Whole Health Peer-Led Groups During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Staff Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Committed to implementing a person-centered, holistic (Whole Health) system of care, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a peer-led, group-based, multi-session "Taking Charge of My Life and Health" (TCMLH) program wherein Veterans reflect on values, set health and well-being-related goals, and provide mutual support. Prior work has demonstrated the positive impact of these groups. After face-to-face TCMLH groups were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, VHA facilities rapidly implemented virtual (video-based) TCMLH groups.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand staff perspectives on the feasibility, challenges, and advantages of conducting TCMLH groups virtually.

METHODS

We completed semi-structured telephone interviews with 35 staff members involved in the implementation of virtual TCMLH groups across 12 VHA facilities and conducted rapid qualitative analysis of the interview transcripts.

RESULTS

Holding TCMLH groups virtually was viewed as feasible. Factors that promoted the implementation included use of standardized technology platforms amenable to delivery of group-based curriculum, availability of technical support, and adjustments in facilitator delivery style. The key drawbacks of the virtual format included difficulty maintaining engagement and barriers to relationship-building among participants. The perceived advantages of the virtual format included the positive influence of being in the home environment on Veterans' reflection, motivation, and self-disclosure, the greater convenience and accessibility of the virtual format, and the virtual group's role as an antidote to isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Faced with the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, VHA pivoted by rapidly implementing virtual TCMLH groups. Staff members involved in implementation noted that delivering TCMLH virtually was feasible and highlighted both challenges and advantages of the virtual format. A virtual group-based program in which participants set and pursue personally meaningful goals related to health and well-being in a supportive environment of their peers is a promising innovation that can be replicated in other health systems.

"Chiropractic is manual therapy, not talk therapy": a qualitative analysis exploring perceived barriers to remote consultations by chiropractors

Background

Remote consultations (RCs) enable clinicians to continue to support patients when face-to-face appointments are not possible. Restrictions to face-to-face care during the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated a pre-existing trend for their adoption. This is true for many health professionals including some chiropractors. Whilst most chiropractors in the UK have used RCs in some form during the pandemic, others have not. This study seeks to understand the views of chiropractors not using RCs and to explore perceived potential barriers.

Methods

A national online survey was completed by 534 registered practicing UK chiropractors on the use of RCs. Respondents had the opportunity of providing open-ended responses concerning lack of engagement in RCs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Textual responses obtained from 137 respondents were coded and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

The use of RCs provided an opportunity for chiropractors to deliver ongoing care during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many chiropractors expressed concern that RCs misaligned with their strong professional identity of providing ‘hands-on’ care. Some chiropractors also perceived that patients expected physical interventions during chiropractic care and thus considered a lack of demand when direct contact is not possible. In the absence of a physical examination, some chiropractors had concerns about potential misdiagnosis, and perceived lack of diagnostic information with which to guide treatment. Clinic closures and change in working environment led to practical difficulties of providing remote care for a few chiropractors.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated changes in the way healthcare is provided with RCs becoming more commonplace in primary healthcare provision. This paper highlights perceived barriers which may lead to reduced utilisation of RCs by chiropractors, some of which appear fundamental to their perceived identity, whilst others are likely amenable to change with training and experience.

Electronic consultations and economies of scale: a qualitative study of clinician perspectives on scaling up e-consult delivery

OBJECTIVE

To explore Veterans Health Administration clinicians' perspectives on the idea of redesigning electronic consultation (e-consult) delivery in line with a hub-and-spoke (centralized) model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study in VA New England Healthcare System (VISN 1). Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 35 primary care providers and 38 specialty care providers, including 13 clinical leaders, at 6 VISN 1 sites varying in size, specialist availability, and e-consult volume. Interviews included exploration of the hub-and-spoke (centralized) e-consult model as a system redesign option. Qualitative content analysis procedures were applied to identify and describe salient categories.

RESULTS

Participants saw several potential benefits to scaling up e-consult delivery from a decentralized model to a hub-and-spoke model, including expanded access to specialist expertise and increased timeliness of e-consult responses. Concerns included differences in resource availability and management styles between sites, anticipated disruption to working relationships, lack of incentives for central e-consultants, dedicated staff's burnout and fatigue, technological challenges, and lack of motivation for change.

DISCUSSION

Based on a case study from one of the largest integrated healthcare systems in the United States, our work identifies novel concerns and offers insights for healthcare organizations contemplating a scale-up of their e-consult systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Scaling up e-consults in line with the hub-and-spoke model may help pave the way for a centralized and efficient approach to care delivery, but the success of this transformation will depend on healthcare systems' ability to evaluate and address barriers to leveraging economies of scale for e-consults.