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.

In this cohort, containing an unprecedented number of PTSD-affected pregnancies, mothers with active PTSD were significantly more likely to suffer spontaneous preterm birth with an attributable two excess preterm births per 100 deliveries (95% CI 1-4). Posttraumatic stress disorder's health effects may extend, through birth outcomes, into the next generation.

IMPORTANCE Many organizations are adopting intensive outpatient care programs for high-need patients, yet little is known about their effectiveness in integrated systems with established patient-centered medical homes.OBJECTIVE To evaluate how augmenting the Veterans Affairs (VA) medical home (Patient Aligned Care Teams [PACT]) with an Intensive Management program (ImPACT) influences high-need patients' costs, health care utilization, and experience. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSRandomized clinical trial at a single VA facility. Among 583 eligible high-need outpatients whose health care costs or hospitalization risk were in the top 5% for the facility, 150 were randomly selected for ImPACT; the remaining 433 received standard PACT care. INTERVENTIONSThe ImPACT multidisciplinary team addressed health care needs and quality of life through comprehensive patient assessments, intensive case management, care coordination, and social and recreational services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPrimary difference-in-difference analyses examined changes in health care costs and acute and extended care utilization over a 16-month baseline and 17-month follow-up period. Secondary analyses estimated the intervention's effect on ImPACT participants (using randomization as an instrument) and for patients with key sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. ImPACT participants' satisfaction and activation levels were assessed using responses to quality improvement surveys administered at baseline and 6 months. RESULTSOf 140 patients assigned to ImPACT, 96 (69%) engaged in the program (mean [SD] age, 68.3 [14.2] years; 89 [93%] male; mean [SD] number of chronic conditions, 10 [4]; 62 [65%] had a mental health diagnosis; 21 [22%] had a history of homelessness). After accounting for program costs, adjusted person-level monthly health care expenditures decreased similarly for ImPACT and PACT patients (difference-in-difference [SE] −$101 [$623]), as did acute and extended care utilization rates. Among respondents to the ImPACT follow-up survey (n = 54 [56% response rate]), 52 (96%) reported that they would recommend the program to others, and pre-post analyses revealed modest increases in satisfaction with VA care (mean [SD] increased from 2.90 [0.72] to 3.16 [0.60]; P = .04) and communication (mean [SD] increased from 2.99 [0.74] to 3.18 [0.60]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Intensive outpatient care for high-need patients did not reduce acute care utilization or costs compared with standard VA care, although there were positive effects on experience among patients who participated. Implementing intensive outpatient care programs in integrated settings with well-established medical homes may not prevent hospitalizations or achieve substantial cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932228

Objectives Evaluate objective isolation and loneliness’ impact on Medicare spending and outcomes. Methods We linked Health and Retirement Study data to Medicare claims to analyze objective isolation (scaled composite of social contacts and network) and loneliness (positive response to 3-item loneliness scale) as predictors of subsequent Medicare spending. In multivariable regression adjusting for health and demographics, we determined marginal differences in Medicare expenditures. Secondary outcomes included spending by setting, and mortality. Results Objective isolation predicts greater spending, $1,644(p<0.001) per beneficiary annually, whereas loneliness predicts reduced spending, −$768(p<0.001). Increased spending concentrated in inpatient and nursing-home (SNF) care; despite more healthcare, objectively isolated beneficiaries had 31%(p<0.001) greater risk of death. Loneliness did not predict SNF use nor mortality, but predicted slightly less inpatient and outpatient care. Conclusions Objectively isolated seniors have higher Medicare spending, driven by increased hospitalization and institutionalization, and face greater mortality. Policies supporting social connectedness could reap significant savings.

Background Telemedicine has been used for decades. Despite its many advantages, its uptake and rigorous evaluation of feasibility across neurology’s ambulatory subspecialties has been sparse. However, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care systems worldwide to reconsider traditional health care delivery. To safeguard health care workers and patients, many health care systems quickly transitioned to telemedicine, including across neurology subspecialties, providing a new opportunity to evaluate this modality of care. Objective To evaluate the accelerated implementation of video visits in ambulatory neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic, we used mixed methods to assess adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and perceptions of potential sustainability. Methods Video visits were launched rapidly in ambulatory neurology clinics of a large academic medical center. To assess adoption, we analyzed clinician-level scheduling data collected between March 22 and May 16, 2020. We assessed acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability via a clinician survey (n=48) and semistructured interviews with providers (n=30) completed between March and May 2020. Results Video visits were adopted rapidly; overall, 65 (98%) clinicians integrated video visits into their workflow within the first 6 implementation weeks and 92% of all visits were conducted via video. Video visits were largely considered acceptable by clinicians, although various technological issues impacted their satisfaction. Video visits were reported to be more convenient for patients, families, and caregivers than in-person visits; however, access to technology, the patient’s technological capacity, and language difficulties were considered barriers. Many clinicians expressed optimism about future utilization of video visits in neurology. They believed that video visits promote continuity of care and can be incorporated into their practice long-term, although several insisted that they can never replace the in-person examination. Conclusions Video visits are an important addition to clinical care in ambulatory neurology and are anticipated to remain a permanent supplement to in-person visits, promoting patient care continuity, and flexibility for patients and clinicians alike.

The observed association of PTSD with GDM and preeclampsia is consistent with our nascent understanding of PTSD as a disruptor of neuroendocrine and cardiovascular health.

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.