Article

Developing a Network of Community Health Centers With a Common Electronic Health Record: Description of the Safety Net West Practice-based Research Network (SNW-PBRN)

Safety Net West Practice-based Research Network, OCHIN, Inc, Portland, Oregon 97205-3529, USA.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.85). 09/2011; 24(5):597-604. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2011.05.110052
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 2001, community health center (CHC) leaders in Oregon established an organization to facilitate the integration of health information technology, including a shared electronic health record (EHR), into safety net clinics. The Oregon Community Health Information Network (shortened to OCHIN as other states joined) became a CHC information technology hub, supporting a network-wide EHR with one master patient index, now linked across >40 safety net organizations serving >900,000 patients with nearly 800,000 distinct CHC visits. Recognizing the potential of OCHIN's multiclinic network and comprehensive EHR database for conducting safety net-based research, OCHIN leaders and local researchers formed the Safety Net West practice-based research network (PBRN). The Safety Net West "community- based laboratory," based at OCHIN, is positioned to become an important resource for many studies including: evaluation of the real-time impact of health care reform on uninsured populations; development of new models of primary care delivery; dissemination and translation of interventions from other EHR-based systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) into the community health setting; and analyses of factors influencing disparities in health and health care access. We describe the founding of Safety Net West, its infrastructure development, current projects, and the future goals of this community-based PBRN with a common EHR.

0 Followers
 · 
72 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Our. practice-based research network (PBRN) is conducting an outreach intervention to increase health insurance coverage for patients seen in the network. To assist with outreach site selection, we sought an understandable way to use electronic health record (EHR) data to locate uninsured patients. Methods: Health insurance information was displayed within a web-based mapping platform to demonstrate the feasibility of using geographic information systems (GIS) to visualize EHR data. This study used EHR data from 52 clinics in the OCHIN PBRN. We included cross-sectional coverage data for patients aged 0 to 64 years with at least 1 visit to a study clinic during 2011 (n = 228,284). Results: Our PBRN was successful in using GIS to identify intervention sites. Through use of the maps, we found geographic variation in insurance rates of patients seeking care in OCHIN PBRN clinics. Insurance rates also varied by age: The percentage of adults without insurance ranged from 13.2% to 86.8%; rates of children lacking insurance ranged from 1.1% to 71.7%. GIS also showed some areas of households with median incomes that had low insurance rates. Discussion: EHR data can be imported into a web-based GIS mapping tool to visualize patient information. Using EHR data, we were able to observe smaller areas than could be seen using only publicly available data. Using this information, we identified appropriate OCHIN PBRN clinics for dissemination of an EHR-based insurance outreach intervention. GIS could also be used by clinics to visualize other patient-level characteristics to target clinic outreach efforts or interventions.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 11/2014; 27(6):804-810. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140029 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Evidence-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: NCT02138448.
    Implementation Science 12/2014; 9(1):181. DOI:10.1186/s13012-014-0181-1 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lack of insurance is associated with suboptimal receipt of diabetes preventive care. One known reason for this is an access barrier to obtaining healthcare visits; however, little is known about whether insurance status is associated with differential rates of receipt of diabetes care during visits. To examine the association between health insurance and receipt of diabetes preventive care during an office visit. This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record and Medicaid data from 38 Oregon community health centers. Logistic regression was used to test the association between insurance and receipt of four diabetes services during an office visit among patients who were continuously uninsured (n=1,117); continuously insured (n=1,466); and discontinuously insured (n=336) in 2006-2007. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for within-patient correlation. Data were analyzed in 2013. Overall, continuously uninsured patients had lower odds of receiving services at visits when due, compared to those who were continuously insured (AOR=0.73, 95% CI=0.66, 0.80). Among the discontinuously insured, being uninsured at a visit was associated with lower odds of receipt of services due at that visit (AOR=0.77, 95% CI=0.64, 0.92) than being insured at a visit. Lack of insurance is associated with a lower probability of receiving recommended services that are due during a clinic visit. Thus, the association between being uninsured and receiving fewer preventive services may not be completely mediated by access to clinic visits. Copyright © 2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    American Journal of Preventive Medicine 11/2014; 48(2). DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.08.035 · 4.28 Impact Factor