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.

Introduction:The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a commonly used implementation science framework to facilitate design, evaluation, and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Its comprehensiveness is an asset for considering facilitators and barriers to implementation and also makes the framework cumbersome to use. We describe adaptations we made to CFIR to simplify its pragmatic application, for use in a learning health system context, in the evaluation of a complex patient-centered care transformation. Methods:We conducted a qualitative study and structured our evaluation questions, data collection methods, analysis, and reporting around CFIR. We collected qualitative data via semi-structured interviews and observations with key stakeholders throughout. We identified and documented adaptations to CFIR throughout the evaluation process. Results:We analyzed semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (n = 23) from clinical observations (n = 5). We made three key adaptations to CFIR: (a) promoted "patient needs and resources," a subconstruct of the outer setting, to its own domain within CFIR during data analysis; (b) divided the "inner setting" domain into three layers that account for the hierarchy of health care systems (i. pilot clinic, ii. peer clinics, and iii. overarching health care system); and (c) tailored several construct definitions to fit a patient-centered, primary care setting. Analysis yielded qualitative findings concentrated in the CFIR domains "intervention characteristics" and "outer setting," with a robust number of findings in the new domain "patient needs and resources." Conclusions:To make CFIR more accessible and relevant for wider use in the context of patient-centered care transformations within a learning health system, a few adaptations are key. Specifically, we found success by teasing apart interactions across the inner layers of a health system, tailoring construct definitions, and placing additional focus on patient needs.

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.

Background: Innovations to improve quality and safety in healthcare are increasingly complex, targeting multiple disciplines and organizational levels, and often requiring significant behavior change by those delivering care. Learning health systems must tackle the crucial task of understanding the implementation and effectiveness of complex interventions, but may be hampered in their efforts by limitations in study design imposed by businesscycle timelines and implementation into fast-paced clinical environments. Rapid assessment procedures are a pragmatic option for producing timely, contextually rich evaluative information about complex interventions implemented into dynamic clinical settings. Methods: We describe our adaptation of rapid assessment procedures and introduce a rapid team-based analysis process using an example of an evaluation of an intensive care unit (ICU) redesign initiative aimed at improving patient safety in four academic medical centers across the USA. Steps in our approach included (1) iteratively working with stakeholders to develop evaluation questions; (2) integration of implementation science frameworks into field guides and analytic tools; (3) selecting and training a multidisciplinary site visit team; (4) preparation and trust building for 2-day site visits; (5) engaging sites in a participatory approach to data collection; (6) rapid team analysis and triangulation of data sources and methods using a priori charts derived from implementation frameworks; and (7) validation of findings with sites. Results: We used the rapid assessment approach at each of the four ICU sites to evaluate the implementation of the sites' innovations. Though the ICU projects all included three common components, they were individually developed to suit the local context and had mixed implementation outcomes. We generated in-depth case summaries describing the overall implementation process for each site; implementation barriers and facilitators for all four sites are presented. One of the site case summaries is presented as an example of findings generated using the method.

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.