IMPORTANCE Time constraints, technology, and administrative demands of modern medicine often impede the human connection that is central to clinical care, contributing to physician and patient dissatisfaction.OBJECTIVE To identify evidence and narrative-based practices that promote clinician presence, a state of awareness, focus, and attention with the intent to understand patients.EVIDENCE REVIEW Preliminary practices were derived through a systematic literature review (from January 1997 to August 2017, with a subsequent bridge search to September 2019) of effective interpersonal interventions; observations of primary care encounters in 3 diverse clinics (n = 27 encounters); and qualitative interviews with physicians (n = 10), patients (n = 27), and nonmedical professionals whose occupations involve intense interpersonal interactions (eg, firefighter, chaplain, social worker; n = 30). After evidence synthesis, promising practices were reviewed in a 3-round modified Delphi process by a panel of 14 researchers, clinicians, patients, caregivers, and health system leaders. Panelists rated each practice using 9-point Likert scales (−4 to +4) that reflected the potential effect on patient and clinician experience and feasibility of implementation; after the third round, panelists selected their "top 5" practices from among those with median ratings of at least +2 for all 3 criteria. Final recommendations incorporate elements from all highly rated practices and emphasize the practices with the greatest number of panelist votes. FINDINGSThe systematic literature review (n = 73 studies) and qualitative research activities yielded 31 preliminary practices. Following evidence synthesis, 13 distinct practices were reviewed by the Delphi panel, 8 of which met criteria for inclusion and were combined into a final set of 5 recommendations: (1) prepare with intention (take a moment to prepare and focus before greeting a patient); (2) listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, avoid interruptions); (3) agree on what matters most (find out what the patient cares about and incorporate these priorities into the visit agenda); (4) connect with the patient's story (consider life circumstances that influence the patient's health; acknowledge positive efforts; celebrate successes); and (5) explore emotional cues (notice, name, and validate the patient's emotions). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis mixed-methods study identified 5 practices that have the potential to enhance physician presence and meaningful connection with patients in the clinical encounter. Evaluation and validation of the outcomes associated with implementing the 5 practices is needed, along with system-level interventions to create a supportive environment for implementation.

BACKGROUND: Human connection is at the heart of medical care, but questions remain as to the effectiveness of interpersonal interventions. The purpose of this review was to characterize the associations between patientprovider interpersonal interventions and the quadruple aim outcomes (population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience). METHODS: We sourced data from PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (January 1997-August 2017). Selected studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that examined the association between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and at least one outcome measure of the quadruple aim. Two abstractors independently extracted information about study design, methods, and quality. We characterized evidence related to the objective of the intervention, type and duration of intervention training, target recipient (provider-only vs. provider-patient dyad), and quadruple aim outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-three out of 21,835 studies met the design and outcome inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of research was moderate to high for most included studies; 67% of interventions targeted the provider. Most studies measured impact on patient experience; improvements in experience (e.g., satisfaction, patient-centeredness, reduced unmet needs) often corresponded with a positive impact on other patient health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, depression, adherence). Enhanced interpersonal interactions improved provider well-being, burnout, stress, and confidence in communicating with difficult patients. Roughly a quarter of studies evaluated cost, but the majority reported no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Among studies that measured time in the clinical encounter, intervention effects varied. Interventions with lower demands on provider time and effort were often as effective as those with higher demands. DISCUSSION: Simple, low-demand patient-provider interpersonal interventions may have the potential to improve patient health and patient and provider experience, but there is limited evidence that these interventions influence cost-related outcomes.

Human-centered design (HCD), an empathy-driven approach to innovation that focuses on user needs, offers promise for the rapid design of health care interventions that are acceptable to patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders. Reviews of HCD in healthcare, however, note a need for greater rigor, suggesting an opportunity for integration of elements from traditional research and HCD. A strategy that combines HCD principles with evidence-grounded health services research (HSR) methods has the potential to strengthen the innovation process and outcomes. In this paper, we review the strengths and limitations of HCD and HSR methods for intervention design, and propose a novel Approach to Human-centered, Evidence-driven Adaptive Design (AHEAD) framework. AHEAD offers a practical guide for the design of creative, evidence-based, pragmatic solutions to modern healthcare challenges.

Background: Current evaluation methods are mismatched with the speed of health care innovation and needs of health care delivery partners. We introduce a qualitative approach called the lightning report method and its specific product-the "Lightning Report." We compare implementation evaluation results across four projects to explore report sensitivity and the potential depth and breadth of lightning report method findings.Methods: The lightning report method was refined over 2.5 years across four projects: team-based primary care, cancer center transformation, precision health in primary care, and a national life-sustaining decisions initiative. The novelty of the lightning report method is the application of Plus/Delta/Insight debriefing to dynamic implementation evaluation. This analytic structure captures Plus ("what works"),Delta ("what needs to be changed"), and Insights (participant or evaluator insights, ideas, and recommendations). We used structured coding based on implementation science barriers and facilitators outlined in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) applied to 17 Lightning Reports from four projects.Results: Health care partners reported that Lighting Reports were valuable, easy to understand, and they implied reports supported "corrective action" for implementations. Comparative analysis revealed cross-project emphasis on the domains of Inner Setting and Intervention Characteristics, with themes of communication, resources/staffing, feedback/reflection, alignment with simultaneous interventions and traditional care, and team cohesion. In three of the four assessed projects, the largest proportion of coding was to the clinic-level domain of InnerSettingranging from 39% for the cancer center project to a high of 56% for the lifesustaining decisions project. Conclusions:The lightning report method can fill a gap in rapid qualitative approaches and is generalizable with consistent but flexible core methods.

We used the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model to evaluate implementation of South Africa’s Central Chronic Medicine Dispensing and Distribution (CCMDD) program, a differentiated service delivery program which allows clinically stable HIV-positive patients to receive antiretroviral therapy refills at clinic- or community-based pick-up points. Across ten clinics, we conducted 109 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (pick-up point staff, CCMDD service providers and administrators) and 16 focus groups with 138 patients. Participants had highly favorable attitudes and said CCMDD decreased stigma concerns. Patient-level barriers included inadequate education about CCMDD and inability to get refills on designated dates. Organizational-level barriers included challenges with communication and transportation, errors in medication packaging and tracking, rigid CCMDD rules, and inadequate infrastructure. Recommendations included: (1) provide patient education and improve communication around refills (at the patient level); (2) provide dedicated space and staff, and ongoing training (at the organizational/clinic level); and (3) allow for prescription renewal at pick-up points and less frequent refills, and provide feedback to clinics (at the CCMDD program level).