Search

Background: Improving care coordination is a key priority for many healthcare systems. However, initiatives to improve care coordination are complex to implement and have produced mixed results. A better understanding of how to craft and support implementation of effective care coordination strategies is needed.Objective: To identify and understand the challenges and factors encountered by Patient-Aligned Care Team (PACT) staff in performing care coordination tasks in outpatient clinics in the Veterans Health Administration (VA).Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured formative evaluation interviews.Participants: Fourteen interviews with 18 clinical frontline managers and staff from 12 clinic sites across five VA health systems.Interventions: This paper reports on baseline data collected for the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) project. CTAC aims to improve patients' experience of care coordination within VA primary care and between PACT and other outpatient and community settings.Approach: We conducted pre-implementation telephone interviews with frontline managers and staff, primarily nurse managers.Key Results: PACT staff described challenges in aligning care coordination priorities across different levels of the VA system, including staff, patients, and leadership. Additionally, PACT staff noted challenges coordinating care both within and outside the VA, and identified resource barriers impeding their care coordination efforts. To address these challenges, staff made several recommendations for improvement, including (1) contingency staffing to address staff burnout; (2) additional PACT training for new staff; (3) clarification of care coordination roles and responsibilities; and (4) and care coordination initiatives that align both with centrally initiated care coordination programs and frontline needs.Conclusion: In the VA and similarly complex healthcare systems, our findings suggest the need for care coordination strategies that are buttressed by a system-level vision for care coordination, backed up by clear roles and responsibilities for information exchange between primary care staff and other settings, and multidimensional accountability metrics that encompass patient-, staff-, and system-level goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial-ethnic minorities receive lower quality and intensity of health care compared with whites across a wide range of preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic services and disease entities. These disparities in health care contribute to continuing racial-ethnic disparities in the burden of illness and death. Several national medical organizations and the Institute of Medicine have issued position papers and recommendations for the elimination of health care disparities. However, physicians in practice are often at a loss for how to translate these principles and recommendations into specific interventions in their own clinical practices. This paper serves as a blueprint for translating principles for the elimination of racial-ethnic disparities in health care into specific actions that are relevant for individual clinical practices. We describe what is known about reducing racial-ethnic disparities in clinical practice and make recommendations for how clinician leaders can apply this evidence to transform their own practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this paper was to describe primary care prescribers' perspectives on electronic prescribing drug alerts at the point of prescribing.Design: We used a mixed-method study which included clinician surveys (web-based and paper) and focus groups with prescribers and staff.Participants: Prescribers (n = 157) working in one of 64 practices using 1 of 6 e-prescribing technologies in 6 US states completed the quantitative survey and 276 prescribers and staff participated in focus groups.Measurements: The study measures self-reported frequency of overriding of drug alerts; open-ended responses to: "What do you think of the drug alerts your software generates for you?"Results: More than 40% of prescribers indicated they override drug-drug interactions most of the time or always (range by e-prescribing system, 25% to 50%). Participants indicated that the software and the interaction alerts were beneficial to patient safety and valued seeing drug-drug interactions for medications prescribed by others. However, they noted that alerts are too sensitive and often unnecessary. Participant suggestions included: (1) run drug alerts on an active medication list and (2) allow prescribers to set the threshold for severity of alerts.Conclusions: Primary care prescribers recognize the patient safety value of drug prescribing alerts embedded within electronic prescribing software. Improvements to increase specificity and reduce alert overload are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many older adults in the U.S. do not receive appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although primary care physicians' recommendations to their patients are central to the screening process, little information is available about their recommendations in relation to guidelines for the menu of CRC screening modalities, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema (DCBE). The objective of this study was to explore potentially modifiable physician and practice factors associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the menu of CRC screening modalities.Methods: We examined data from a nationally representative sample of 1266 physicians in the U.S. surveyed in 2007. The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics, perceptions about screening, and recommendations for age of initiation and screening interval for FOBT, FS, colonoscopy and DCBE in average risk adults. Physicians' screening recommendations were classified as guideline consistent for all, some, or none of the CRC screening modalities recommended. Analyses used descriptive statistics and polytomous logit regression models.Results: Few (19.1%; 95% CI:16.9%, 21.5%) physicians made guideline-consistent recommendations across all CRC screening modalities that they recommended. In multivariate analysis, younger physician age, board certification, north central geographic region, single specialty or multi-specialty practice type, fewer patients per week, higher number of recommended modalities, use of electronic medical records, greater influence of patient preferences for screening, and published clinical evidence were associated with guideline-consistent screening recommendations (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Physicians' CRC screening recommendations reflect both overuse and underuse, and few made guideline-consistent CRC screening recommendations across all modalities they recommended. Interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors that influence overuse and underuse and address the menu of recommended screening modalities will be important for improving screening practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (hereafter, Choice Program) seeks to improve access to care by enabling eligible Veterans to receive care from community providers. Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care providers (PCPs) play a key role in making referrals to community specialists, but their frontline experiences with referrals are not well understood.Objective: To understand VA PCPs' experiences referring patients to community specialists while VA works to expand and refine the implementation of the Choice Program.Design: Qualitative study using interview methods.Participants: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with VA primary care providers (N = 72 out of 599 contacted) recruited nationally.Approach: Open-ended interview questions elicited PCP perceptions and experiences with referrals to community specialists via the Choice Program. Keywords were identified using automated coding features in ATLAS.ti and evaluated using conventional content analysis to inductively describe the qualitative data.Key Results: VA PCPs emphasized problems with care coordination and continuity between the VA and community specialists (e.g., "It is extremely difficult for us to obtain and continue continuity of care because there's not much communication with the community specialist"). They described difficulties with tracking the initial referral, coordinating care after receiving community specialty care, accessing community medical records, and aligning community specialists' prescriptions with the VA formulary.Conclusions: The VA Choice Program provides access to community specialists for VA patients; however, VA primary care providers face challenges tracking referrals to community specialists and in coordinating care. Strategies to improve care coordination between the VA and community providers should focus on providing PCPs with information to follow Veterans throughout the Choice referral process and follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Support for ongoing care management and coordination between office visits for patients with multiple chronic conditions has been inadequate. In January 2015, Medicare introduced the Chronic Care Management (CCM) payment policy, which reimburses providers for CCM activities for Medicare beneficiaries occurring outside of office visits.Objective: To explore the experiences, facilitators, and challenges of practices providing CCM services, and their implications going forward.Design: Semi-structured telephone interviews from January to April 2016 with 71 respondents.Participants: Sixty billing and non-billing providers and practice staff knowledgeable about their practices' CCM services, and 11 professional society representatives.Key Results: Practice respondents noted that most patients expressed positive views of CCM services. Practice respondents also perceived several patient benefits, including improved adherence to treatment, access to care team members, satisfaction, care continuity, and care coordination. Facilitators of CCM provision included having an in-practice care manager, patient-centered medical home recognition, experience developing care plans, patient trust in their provider, and supplemental insurance to cover CCM copayments. Most billing practices reported few problems obtaining patients' consent for CCM, though providers felt that CMS could better facilitate consent by marketing CCM's goals to beneficiaries. Barriers reported by professional society representatives and by billing and non-billing providers included inadequacy of CCM payments to cover upfront investments for staffing, workflow modification, and time needed to manage complex patients. Other barriers included inadequate infrastructure for health information exchange with other providers and limited electronic health record capabilities for documenting and updating care plans. Practices owned by hospital systems and large medical groups faced greater bureaucracy in implementing CCM than did smaller, independent practices.Conclusions: Improving providers' experiences with and uptake of CCM will require addressing several challenges, including the upfront investment for CCM set-up and the time required to provide CCM to more complex patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers.Objective: To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients.Design: Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014).Participants: PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233).Main Measures: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency.Key Results: Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening.Conclusions: PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The shortage of primary care providers and the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have spurred discussion about expanding the number, scope of practice (SOP), and independence of primary care nurse practitioners (NPs). Such discussions in the media and among professional organizations may insinuate that changes to the laws governing NP practice will engender acrimony between practicing physicians and NPs. However, we lack empirical, descriptive data on how practicing professionals view NP independence in primary care.Objective: The aim of the present study was to explore and describe the attitudes about NP independence among physicians and NPs working in primary care.Design: A qualitative study based on the principles of grounded theory.Participants: Thirty primary care professionals in Missouri, USA, including 15 primary care physicians and 15 primary care NPs.Approach: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews, with data analysis guided by grounded theory.Key Results: Participants had perspectives that were not well represented by professional organizations or the media. Physicians were supportive of a wide variety of NP roles and comfortable with high levels of NP independence and autonomy. Physicians and NPs described prerequisites to NP independence that were complementary. Physicians generally believed that NPs needed some association with physicians for patient safety, and NPs preferred having a physician readily accessible as needed. The theme "knowing your limits" was important to both NPs and physicians regarding NP independence, and has not been described previously in the literature.Conclusions: NP and physician views about NP practice in primary care are not as divergent as their representative professional organizations and the news media would suggest. The significant agreement among NPs and physicians, and some of the nuances of their perspectives, supports recommendations that may reduce the perceived acrimony surrounding discussions of NP independent practice in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic.Objective: To describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians.Design: Survey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior.Setting: US physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings.Participants: A total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses.Interventions: The study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility.Main Outcome Measures: Overall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing.Key Results: In total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing.Conclusions: More than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers.Objective: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening.Design, Setting, Participants: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %).Main Measures: We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.Key Results: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %).Conclusions: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ethical challenges are common in end of life care; the uncertainty of prognosis and the ethically permissible boundaries of treatment create confusion and conflict about the balance between benefits and burdens experienced by patients.Objective: We asked physician trainees in internal medicine how they reacted and responded to ethical challenges arising in the context of perceived futile treatments at the end of life and how these challenges contribute to moral distress.Design: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews.Participants: Twenty-two internal medicine residents and fellows across three American academic medical centers.Approach: This study uses systematic qualitative methods of data gathering, analysis and interpretation.Key Results: Physician trainees experienced significant moral distress when they felt obligated to provide treatments at or near the end of life that they believed to be futile. Some trainees developed detached and dehumanizing attitudes towards patients as a coping mechanism, which may contribute to a loss of empathy. Successful coping strategies included formal and informal conversations with colleagues and superiors about the emotional and ethical challenges of providing care at the end of life.Conclusions: Moral distress amongst physician trainees may occur when they feel obligated to provide treatments at the end of life that they believe to be futile or harmful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research suggests stereotyping by clinicians as one contributor to racial and gender-based health disparities. It is necessary to understand the origins of such biases before interventions can be developed to eliminate them. As a first step toward this understanding, we tested for the presence of bias in senior medical students. Objective: The purpose of the study was to determine whether bias based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status influenced clinical decision-making among medical students. Design: We surveyed seniors at 84 medical schools, who were required to choose between two clinically equivalent management options for a set of cardiac patient vignettes. We examined variations in student recommendations based on patient race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Participants: The study included senior medical students. Main Measures: We investigated the percentage of students selecting cardiac procedural options for vignette patients, analyzed by patient race, gender, and socioeconomic status. Key Results: Among 4,603 returned surveys, we found no evidence in the overall sample supporting racial or gender bias in student clinical decision-making. Students were slightly more likely to recommend cardiac procedural options for black (43.9 %) vs. white (42 %, p = .03) patients; there was no difference by patient gender. Patient socioeconomic status was the strongest predictor of student recommendations, with patients described as having the highest socioeconomic status most likely to receive procedural care recommendations (50.3 % vs. 43.2 % for those in the lowest socioeconomic status group, p < .001). Analysis by subgroup, however, showed significant regional geographic variation in the influence of patient race and gender on decision-making. Multilevel analysis showed that white female patients were least likely to receive procedural recommendations. Conclusions: In the sample as a whole, we found no evidence of racial or gender bias in student clinical decision-making. However, we did find evidence of bias with regard to the influence of patient socioeconomic status, geographic variations, and the influence of interactions between patient race and gender on student recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on how the quality of hospital language services has been improved and measured. In relation to this, a program called Speaking Together: National Language Services Network has been launched by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This is designed to improve the quality and availability of language services at hospitals in the U.S.

Background: Language barriers in medical care are a large and growing problem in the United States. Most research has focused on how language barriers affect patients. Less is known of the physician perspective and the efforts they are making to overcome these barriers.Objective: To learn about current approaches to communicating with limited English-proficient (LEP) patients and the associated financial and nonfinancial constraints that private practice physicians and managers perceive in providing these services.Design: Computer-assisted telephone focus groups with open-ended discussion guide.Setting: Small private practices in geographic areas that have experienced recent dramatic increases in LEP populations.Participants: Primary care physicians, specialists, and practice managers.Approach: Focus group transcripts were systematically coded using grounded theory analysis. The research team then identified common themes that arose across the groups.Results: Citing the cost, inaccessibility, and inconvenience of using professional interpreters, physicians commonly used family and friends as interpreters. Few recalled any actual experience with professional interpreters or were well-informed about the cost of their services. Physicians and office managers voiced uniform concern about how language barriers impede quality and safety of patient care and increased malpractice risk.Conclusions: Health care providers in private practice recognize the importance of overcoming language barriers. However, perceived barriers to implementing cost-effective strategies to these barriers are high. Physicians in private practice would benefit from information about how to best overcome language barriers in their practices efficiently and affordably. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe U.S. and Canadian medical journals, their editors, and policies that affect the dissemination of medical information.Design: Mailed survey.Participants: Senior editors of all 269 leading medical journals published at least quarterly in the United States and Canada, of whom 221 (82%) responded.Main Measures: The questionnaire asked about characteristics of journal editors and their journals and about journals' policies toward peer review, conflicts of interest, prepublication discussions with the press, and pharmaceutical advertisements.Results: The editors were overwhelmingly men (96%), middle-aged (mean age 61 years), and trained as physicians (82%). Although 98% claimed that their journals were "peer-reviewed," the editors differed in how they defined a "peer" and in the number of peers they deemed optimal for review. Sixty-three percent thought journals should check on reviewers' potential conflicts of interest, but only a minority supported masking authors' names and affiliations (46%), checking reviewers' financial conflicts of interest (40%), or revealing reviewers' names to authors (8%). The respondents advocated discussion of scientific findings with the press (84%), but only in accord with the Ingelfinger rule, i.e., after publication of the article (77%). Fifty-seven percent of the editors agreed that journals have a responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of pharmaceutical advertisements, and 40% favored subjecting advertisements to the same rigorous peer review as scientific articles.Conclusions: The responding editors were relatively homogeneous demographically and professionally, and they tended to support the editorial status quo. There was little sentiment in favor of tampering with the current peer-review system (however defined) or the Ingelfinger rule, but a surprisingly large percentage of the respondents favored more stringent review of drug advertisements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the international health activities of departments of medicine, divisions of general medicine, and general medicine faculty and the interest among departments of medicine in joint international health ventures.Design: 15-item, mailed questionnaire.Participants: 100 chiefs of divisions of general medicine associated with training programs in internal medicine.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Completed questionnaires were returned by 87 division chiefs representing 1,355 general medicine faculty. 49% of division had faculty with six weeks' experience in less developed countries. 8.5% of general medicine faculty had six weeks' experience in less developed countries. 7.6% of general medicine faculty were interested in spending extended time in less developed countries. 19% of departments had formal collaborations with schools in less developed countries. 45% of departments were interested in affiliations with U.S. institutions for the purpose of joint international health ventures.Conclusions: The international health interests of current general medicine faculty may not be satisfied. Departmental and divisional encouragement of international interests would increase the number of U.S. general internists participating in less developed countries. The authors discuss the potential for greater involvement of general medicine faculty in international health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the methods of evaluation used routinely by training programs and to obtain information concerning the frequencies with which various evaluation methods were used.Design: Survey of residents who had recently completed internal medicine training.Participants: 5,693 respondents who completed residencies in 1987 and 1988 and were registered as first-time takers for the 1988 Certifying Examination in Internal Medicine. This constituted a 76% response rate.Main Results: Virtually all residents were aware that routine evaluations were submitted on inpatient rotations, but were more uncertain about the evaluation process in the outpatient setting and the methods used to assess their humanistic qualities. Most residents had undergone a Clinical Evaluation Exercise (CEX); residents' clinical skills were less likely to be evaluated by direct observation of history or physical examination skills. Resident responses were aggregated within training programs to determine the pattern of evaluation across programs. The majority of programs used Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) certification, medical record audit, and the national In-Training Examination to assess most of their residents. Performance-based tests were used selectively by a third or more of the programs. Breast and pelvic examination skills and ability to perform sigmoidoscopy were thought not to be adequately assessed by the majority of residents in almost half of the programs.Conclusions: While most residents are receiving routine evaluation, including a CEX, increased efforts to educate residents about their evaluation system, to strengthen evaluation in the outpatient setting, and to evaluate certain procedural skills are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Residency programs have an obligation to teach house officers to care for vulnerable populations. Such populations consist of those whom physicians tend to consider undersirable as patients, and thus who often lack adequate care, because they cannot pay for medical services, because they have medical problems that are difficult to manage, or because they have characteristics giving them low social status. The authors identify and discuss key aspects of learning to care for such populations. These aspects include obtaining appropriate experience caring for disadvantaged patients, developing sensitivity to pertinent sociocultural issues, exploring biases, acquiring relevant special skills, studying epidemiology of diseases in specific vulnerable groups, and learning about health care financing and health policy. Measures to help residents obtain more satisfaction from caring for vulnerable patients are among additional topics discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]