Cati G Brown-Johnson1, Nadia Safaeinili2, Juliana Baratta2, Latha Palaniappan2, Megan Mahoney2, Lisa G Rosas2, Marcy Winget2. 1. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford MSOB, 1265 Welch Rd x216, Palo Alto, CA, 94305, USA. catibj@stanford.edu. 2. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford MSOB, 1265 Welch Rd x216, Palo Alto, CA, 94305, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Humanwide was precision health embedded in primary care aiming to leverage high-tech and high-touch medicine to promote wellness, predict and prevent illness, and tailor treatment to individual medical and psychosocial needs. METHODS: We conducted a study assessing implementation outcomes to inform spread and scale, using mixed methods of semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders and chart reviews. Humanwide included: 1) health coaching; 2) four digital health tools for blood-pressure, weight, glucose, and activity; 3) pharmacogenomic testing; and 4) genetic screening/testing. We examined implementation science constructs: reach/penetration, acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability. Chart reviews captured preliminary clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty of 69 patients (72%) invited by primary care providers participated in the Humanwide pilot. We performed chart reviews for the 50 participating patients. Participants were diverse overall (50% non-white, 66% female). Over half of the participants were obese and 58% had one or more major cardiovascular risk factor: dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes. Reach/penetration of Humanwide components varied: pharmacogenomics testing 94%, health coaching 80%, genetic testing 72%, and digital health 64%. Interview participants (n=27) included patients (n=16), providers (n=9), and the 2 staff who were allocated dedicated time for Humanwide patient intake and orientation. Patients and providers reported Humanwide was acceptable; it engaged patients holistically, supported faster medication titration, and strengthened patient-provider relationships. All patients benefited clinically from at least one Humanwide component. Feasibility challenges included: low provider self-efficacy for interpreting genetics and pharmacogenomics; difficulties with data integration; patient technology challenges; and additional staffing needs. Patient financial burden concerns surfaced with respect to sustainability. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of implementation of a multi-component precision health model embedded in team-based primary care. We found acceptance from both patients and providers; however, feasibility barriers must be overcome to enable broad spread and sustainability. We found that barriers to implementation of precision health in a team-based primary care clinic are mundane and straightforward, though not necessarily easy to overcome. Future implementation endeavors should invest in basics: education, workflow, and reflection/evaluation. Strengthening fundamentals will enable healthcare systems to more nimbly accept the responsibility of meeting patients at the crossroads of innovative science and routinized clinical systems.
BACKGROUND: Humanwide was precision health embedded in primary care aiming to leverage high-tech and high-touch medicine to promote wellness, predict and prevent illness, and tailor treatment to individual medical and psychosocial needs. METHODS: We conducted a study assessing implementation outcomes to inform spread and scale, using mixed methods of semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders and chart reviews. Humanwide included: 1) health coaching; 2) four digital health tools for blood-pressure, weight, glucose, and activity; 3) pharmacogenomic testing; and 4) genetic screening/testing. We examined implementation science constructs: reach/penetration, acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability. Chart reviews captured preliminary clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty of 69 patients (72%) invited by primary care providers participated in the Humanwide pilot. We performed chart reviews for the 50 participating patients. Participants were diverse overall (50% non-white, 66% female). Over half of the participants were obese and 58% had one or more major cardiovascular risk factor: dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes. Reach/penetration of Humanwide components varied: pharmacogenomics testing 94%, health coaching 80%, genetic testing 72%, and digital health 64%. Interview participants (n=27) included patients (n=16), providers (n=9), and the 2 staff who were allocated dedicated time for Humanwide patient intake and orientation. Patients and providers reported Humanwide was acceptable; it engaged patients holistically, supported faster medication titration, and strengthened patient-provider relationships. All patients benefited clinically from at least one Humanwide component. Feasibility challenges included: low provider self-efficacy for interpreting genetics and pharmacogenomics; difficulties with data integration; patient technology challenges; and additional staffing needs. Patient financial burden concerns surfaced with respect to sustainability. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of implementation of a multi-component precision health model embedded in team-based primary care. We found acceptance from both patients and providers; however, feasibility barriers must be overcome to enable broad spread and sustainability. We found that barriers to implementation of precision health in a team-based primary care clinic are mundane and straightforward, though not necessarily easy to overcome. Future implementation endeavors should invest in basics: education, workflow, and reflection/evaluation. Strengthening fundamentals will enable healthcare systems to more nimbly accept the responsibility of meeting patients at the crossroads of innovative science and routinized clinical systems.
Entities:
Keywords:
Digital health; Genetic testing; Implementation science; Mixed methods; Pharmacogenomics; Precision health; Primary care
Authors: Marc S Williams; Adam H Buchanan; F Daniel Davis; W Andrew Faucett; Miranda L G Hallquist; Joseph B Leader; Christa L Martin; Cara Z McCormick; Michelle N Meyer; Michael F Murray; Alanna K Rahm; Marci L B Schwartz; Amy C Sturm; Jennifer K Wagner; Janet L Williams; Huntington F Willard; David H Ledbetter Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Cati G Brown-Johnson; Garrett K Chan; Marcy Winget; Jonathan G Shaw; Kendra Patton; Rumana Hussain; J Nwando Olayiwola; Sang-Ick Chang; Megan Mahoney Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Ekland Abdiwahab; Heather M Edwards; Min-Lin Fang; Andrew Jdayani; Erica S Breslau Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Nan Lv; Lan Xiao; Martha L Simmons; Lisa G Rosas; Albert Chan; Martin Entwistle Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Tim Shaw; Deborah McGregor; Melissa Brunner; Melanie Keep; Anna Janssen; Stewart Barnet Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Kimberly S Foss; Julianne M O'Daniel; Jonathan S Berg; Sabrina N Powell; Rosemary Jean Cadigan; Kristine J Kuczynski; Laura V Milko; Katherine W Saylor; Megan Roberts; Karen Weck; Gail E Henderson Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-04-26
Authors: Megan C Roberts; Kimberly S Foss; Gail E Henderson; Sabrina N Powell; Katherine W Saylor; Karen E Weck; Laura V Milko Journal: Front Genet Date: 2022-07-22 Impact factor: 4.772