Background:Electronic health records (EHRs) provide a clinical view of patient health. EHR data are becoming available in large data sets and enabling research that will transform the landscape of healthcare research. Methods are needed to incorporate wellbeing dimensions and strengths in large data sets. The purpose of this study was to examine the potential alignment of the Wellbeing Model with a clinical interface terminology standard, the Omaha System, for documenting wellbeing assessments.Objective:To map the Omaha System and Wellbeing Model for use in a clinical EHR wellbeing assessment and to evaluate the feasibility of describing strengths and needs of seniors generated through this assessment.Methods:The Wellbeing Model and Omaha System were mapped using concept mapping techniques. Based on this mapping, a wellbeing assessment was developed and implemented within a clinical EHR. Strengths indicators and signs/symptoms data for 5 seniors living in a residential community were abstracted from wellbeing assessments and analyzed using standard descriptive statistics and pattern visualization techniques.Results:Initial mapping agreement was 93.5%, with differences resolved by consensus. Wellbeing data analysis showed seniors had an average of 34.8 (range=22-49) strengths indicators for 22.8 concepts. They had an average of 6.4 (range=4-8) signs/symptoms for an average of 3.2 (range=2-5) concepts. The ratio of strengths indicators to signs/symptoms was 6:1 (range 2.8-9.6). Problem concepts with more signs/symptoms had fewer strengths.Conclusion:Together, the Wellbeing Model and the Omaha System have potential to enable a whole-person perspective and enhance the potential for a wellbeing perspective in big data research in healthcare.

A promising strategy for enhancing care and self-management of chronic illness is an integrative, whole-person approach that recognizes and values well-being. Assessment tools are needed that will enable health care professionals to perceive patients as whole persons, with strengths as well as problems. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of using a standardized terminology (the Omaha System) to describe strengths of older adults with chronic illness. The Omaha System assessment currently consists of identifying signs/symptoms for 42 health concepts. Researchers mapped self-reported strengths phrases to Omaha System concepts using existing narratives of 32 older adults with 12-15 comorbid conditions. Results demonstrated the feasibility of describing strengths of patients with chronic illness. Exploratory analysis showed that there were 0-9 strengths per patient, with unique strengths profiles for 30 of 32 patients. Given that older adults with multiple chronic illnesses also have strengths that can be classified and quantified using the Omaha System, there is potential to use the Omaha System as a whole-person assessment tool that enables perception of both problems and strengths. Further research is needed to enhance the Omaha System to formally represent strengths-based as well as a problem-focused perspectives.

Health care reform focuses on primary care and development of Health Care Homes to improve patient-centered chronic illness care. This pilot study evaluated a community care team intervention that linked chronically ill older patients, support persons, and nurse care coordinators from a Health Care Home with community resources using an adaptation of the Wraparound process. A pragmatic clinical trial design was used. Patient-centered chronic illness care; physical, mental, and social health; service use; and study feasibility were evaluated. Differences between groups were compared using two-sample t, Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, or Fisher's exact tests. At 3 months, the intervention group reported higher patient-centered chronic illness care (mean total Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care change scores were 0.39 for the intervention group and -0.11 for the control group, p = .03). Results indicate that the integrated community care team intervention is a promising strategy to support patient-centered chronic illness care.

Background In primary care there is a need for more quality measures of person-centered outcomes, especially ones applicable to patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). The aim of this study was to derive and validate a short-form version of the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS), an established measure of treatment burden, to help fill the gap in quality measurement. Methods Patient interviews (30) and provider surveys (30) were used to winnow items from the PETS (60 items) to a subset targeting person-centered care quality. Results were reviewed by a panel of healthcare providers and health-services researchers who finalized a pilot version. The Brief PETS was tested in surveys of 200 clinic and 200 community-dwelling MCC patients. Surveys containing the Brief PETS and additional measures (e.g., health status, medication adherence, quality of care, demographics) were administered at baseline and follow-up. Correlations and t-tests were used to assess validity, including responsiveness to change of the Brief PETS. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated on mean differences. Results Winnowing and panel review resulted in a 34-item Brief PETS pilot measure that was tested in the combined sample of 400 (mean age = 57.9 years, 50% female, 48% white, median number of conditions = 5). Reliability of most scales was acceptable (alpha > 0.70). Brief PETS scores were associated with age, income, health status, and quality of chronic illness care at baseline (P < .05; rho magnitude range: 0.16–0.66). Furthermore, Brief PETS scores differentiated groups based on marital and education status, presence/absence of a self-management routine, and optimal/suboptimal medication adherence (P < .05; ES range: 0.25–1.00). Declines in patient-reported physical or mental health status over time were associated with worsening PETS burden scores, while improvements were associated with improving PETS burden scores (P < .05; ES range: 0.04–0.44). Among clinic patients, 91% were willing to complete the Brief PETS as part of their clinic visits. Conclusions The Brief PETS (final version: 32 items) is a reliable and valid tool for assessing person-centered care quality related to treatment burden. It holds promise as a means of giving voice to patient concerns about the complexity of disease management.