Background: Despite clear evidence demonstrating the influence of social determinants on health, whether and how clinicians should address these determinants remain unclear. We aimed to understand primary care clinicians' experiences of administering a social needs screening instrument.Methods: Using a prospective, observational design, we identified patients living in communities with lower education and income seen by 17 clinicians from 12 practices in northern Virginia. Before office visits, patients completed social needs surveys, which probed about their quality of life, education, housing, finances, substance use, transportation, social connections, physical activity, and food access. Clinicians then reviewed the completed surveys with patients. Concurrently, clinicians participated in a series of learning collaboratives to consider how to address social needs as part of care and completed diary entries about how knowing the patient's social needs influenced care after seeing each patient.Results: Out of a total of 123 patients, 106 (86%) reported a social need. Excluding physical activity, 71% reported a social need, although only 3% wanted help. Clinicians reported that knowing the patient had a social need changed care delivery in 23% of patients and helped improve interactions with and knowledge of the patient in 53%. Clinicians reported that assessing social needs is difficult and resource intensive and that there were insufficient resources to help patients with identified needs.

PURPOSE Health care leaders encourage clinicians to offer portals that enable patients to access personal health records, but implementation has been a challenge. Although large integrated health systems have promoted use through costly advertising campaigns, other implementation methods are needed for small to medium-sized practices where most patients receive their care. METHODSWe conducted a mixed methods assessment of a proactive implementation strategy for a patient portal (an interactive preventive health record [IPHR]) offered by 8 primary care practices. The practices implemented a series of learning collaboratives with practice champions and redesigned workflow to integrate portal use into care. Practice implementation strategies, portal use, and factors influencing use were assessed prospectively.RESULTS A proactive and customized implementation strategy designed by practices resulted in 25.6% of patients using the IPHR, with the rate increasing 1.0% per month over 31 months. Fully 23.5% of IPHR users signed up within 1 day of their office visit. Older patients and patients with comorbidities were more likely to use the IPHR, but blacks and Hispanics were less likely. Older age diminished as a factor after adjusting for comorbidities. Implementation by practice varied considerably (from 22.1% to 27.9%, P <.001) based on clinician characteristics and workflow innovations adopted by practices to enhance uptake.CONCLUSIONS By directly engaging patients to use a portal and supporting practices to integrate use into care, primary care practices can match or potentially surpass the usage rates achieved by large health systems. 2014;12:418-426. doi: 10.1370/afm.1691. Ann Fam Med INTRODUCTIONE lectronic personal health records hold great promise for improving health. High-quality personal health records can facilitate connectivity between patients and clinicians, allow patients to view their medical record, support online clinical and administrative transactions, deliver essential resources to promote informed decision making, and more actively engage patients in care. 1 In the United States, regulations developed by the Office of the National Coordinator and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to strengthen the functionality of electronic health record systems (meaningful use regulations) encourage practices to engage patients in care through information technology, such as personal health records. 2,3Although patients appear interested, 4,5 practices cannot meet this need without infrastructure, workflow, and cultural changes. Most published experiences with engaging patients online have occurred in integrated health systems that have resources and business models to support adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the personal health record. [6][7][8][9] For example, between 2002 and 2009, Kaiser Permanente and Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound made major investments to promote online services, resulting in uptake by 27% and 58% of patients, respectively, over 6 to 9 years. 419...

BACKGROUND Primary care clinicians write 45% of all opioid prescriptions in the United States, but little is known about the characteristics of patients who receive them and the clinicians who prescribe opioids in primary care settings. Our study aimed to describe the patient and clinician characteristics and clinicians' perspectives of chronic opioid prescribing in primary care.METHODS Using a mixed methods approach, we completed an analysis of 2016 electronic health records from 21 primary care practices to identify patients who had received chronic opioids, which we defined as in receipt of an opioid prescription for at least 3 consecutive months. We compared those receiving chronic opioids with those not in terms of their demographics, prescribing clinician characteristics, and risk factors for opioid-related harms, as identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline on Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Pain. We then interviewed 16 primary care clinicians about their perspectives on chronic opioid prescribing. RESULTSOf 84,029 patients, 1.1% (902/84,929) received chronic opioid prescriptions. Characteristics associated with being prescribed chronic opioids include being female, being of black or African American race, and having risks for opioid-related harms, such as mental health diagnoses, substance use disorder, and concurrent benzodiazepine use. Clinicians report multiple difficulties in weaning patients from chronic opioids, including medical contraindications of nonopioid alternatives and difficulty justifying weaning by stable long-term patients.CONCLUSION Although patients prescribed opioids in primary care have higher risks of opioid-related harms, clinicians report multiple barriers in deprescribing chronic opioids. Future studies should examine strategies to mitigate these harms and engage patients in shared decision making about their chronic opioid use.

Many patients face decisions that can be anticipated and proactively facilitated through technology. Although use of technology has the potential to make visits more efficient and effective, cultural, workflow, and technical changes are needed before it could be widely disseminated.

BackgroundEvidence-based preventive services for early detection of cancer and other health conditions offer profound health benefits, yet Americans receive only half of indicated services. Policy initiatives promote the adoption of information technologies to engage patients in care. We developed a theory-driven interactive preventive health record (IPHR) to engage patients in health promotion. The model defines five levels of functionality: (1) collecting patient information, (2) integrating with electronic health records (EHRs), (3) translating information into lay language, (4) providing individualized, guideline-based clinical recommendations, and (5) facilitating patient action. It is hypothesized that personal health records (PHRs) with these higher levels of functionality will inform and activate patients in ways that simpler PHRs cannot. However, realizing this vision requires both technological advances and effective implementation based upon clinician and practice engagement.Methods/designWe are starting a two-phase, mixed-method trial to evaluate whether the IPHR is scalable across a large number of practices and how its uptake differs for minority and disadvantaged patients. In phase 1, 40 practices from three practice-based research networks will be randomized to add IPHR functionality to their PHR versus continue to use their existing PHR. Throughout the study, we will engage intervention practices to locally tailor IPHR content and learn how to integrate new functions into their practice workflow. In phase 2, the IPHR to all nonintervention practices to observe whether the IPHR can be implemented more broadly (Scalability). Phase 1 will feature an implementation assessment in intervention practices, based on the RE-AIM model, to measure Reach (creation of IPHR accounts by patients), Adoption (practice decision to use the IPHR), Implementation (consistency, fidelity, barriers, and facilitators of use), and Maintenance (sustained use). The incremental effect of the IPHR on receipt of cancer screening tests and shared decision-making compared to traditional PHRs will assess Effectiveness. In phase 2, we will assess similar outcomes as phase 1 except for effectiveness.DiscussionThis study will yield information about the effectiveness of new health information technologies designed to actively engage patients in their care as well as information about how to effectively implement and disseminate PHRs by engaging clinicians.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02138448Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0181-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.