Search

Purpose There are substantial costs associated with sickness absence and struggling at work however existing services in the UK are largely restricted to those absent from work for greater than 6 months. This paper details the development of an early Vocational Advice Intervention (VAI) for adult primary care consulters who were struggling at work or absent due to musculoskeletal pain, and the structure and content of the training and mentoring package developed to equip the Vocational Advisors (VAs) to deliver the VAI, as part of the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP) cluster randomised trial. Methods In order to develop the intervention, we conducted a best-evidence literature review, summarised evidence from developmental studies and consulted with stakeholders. Results A novel early access, brief VAI was developed consisting of case management and stepped care (three steps), using the Psychosocial Flags Framework to identify and overcome obstacles associated with the health-work interface. Four healthcare practitioners were recruited to deliver the VAI; three physiotherapists and one nurse (all vocational advice was actually delivered by the three physiotherapists). They received training in the VA role during a 4-day course, with a refresher day 3 months later, along with monthly group mentoring sessions. Conclusions The process of development was sufficient to develop the VAI and associated training package. The evidence underpinning the VAI was drawn from an international perspective and key components of the VAI have the potential to be applied to other settings or countries, although this has yet to be tested. [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]

Among the 2041 women in our cohort, 48.0% received at least one screening mammogram during the study period, with screening rate of 60.2% among women with > 10-year-predicted life expectancy and 27.0% among women with < 10-year-predicted life expectancy (Table 1). Participant Characteristics, Screening Mammogram Rates, and Clinician Specialties Associated with Screening Mammogram Referrals Among the 2041 Women Included in the Study. [Extracted from the article]

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: Primary care providers (PCPs) have few tools for enhancing patient self-efficacy, a key mediator of myriad health-influencing behaviors.Objective: To examine whether brief standardized patient instructor (SPI)-delivered training increases PCPs' use of self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques (SEE IT).Design: Randomized controlled trial.Participants: Fifty-two family physicians and general internists from 12 primary care offices drawn from two health systems in Northern California.Interventions: Experimental arm PCPs received training in the use of SEE IT training during three outpatient SPI visits scheduled over a 1-month period. Control arm PCPs received a single SPI visit, during which they viewed a diabetes treatment video. All intervention visits (experimental and control) were timed to last 20 min. SPIs portrayed patients struggling with self-care of depression and diabetes in the first 7 min, then delivered the appropriate intervention content during the remaining 13 min.Main Measures: The primary outcome was provider use of SEE IT (a count of ten behaviors), coded from three audio-recorded standardized patient visits at 1-3 months, again involving depression and diabetes self-care. Two five-point scales measured physician responses to training: Value (7 items: quality, helpfulness, understandability, relevance, feasibility, planned use, care impact), and Hassle (2 items: personal hassle, flow disruption).Key Results: Pre-intervention, study PCPs used a mean of 0.7 behaviors/visit, with no significant between-arm difference (P = 0.23). Post-intervention, experimental arm PCPs used more of the behaviors than controls (mean 2.7 vs. 1.0 per visit; adjusted difference 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1-2.2; P < 0.001). Experimental arm PCPs had higher training Value scores than controls (mean difference 1.05, 95 % CI 0.68-1.42; P < 0.001), and similarly low Hassle scores.Conclusions: Primary care physicians receiving brief SPI-delivered training increased their use of SEE IT and found the training to be of value. Whether patients visiting SEE IT-trained physicians experience improved health behaviors and outcomes warrants study. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov Identifier: NCT01618552. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Traditional productivity-based compensation models do not align well with newer population-based approaches to primary care. There are few published examples of academic general internal medicine compensation models that explicitly reward population health management, including care for patients between visits.Objective: To describe the development and implementation of an academic general internal medicine compensation plan based upon actual work performed, compare satisfaction across primary care specialties, and evaluate work-related outcomes.Design: Observational study.Participants: Forty-seven general internists who practice in affiliated academic and community clinics.Main Measures: Clinician satisfaction with compensation plan, workforce stability, panel data, and productivity.Key Results: The compensation plan change was associated with higher provider satisfaction. Sixty-five percent (31/47) of participants within general internal medicine reported being satisfied or very satisfied, as compared to 24 % (22/90 participants) for family medicine and 22 % (5/23 participants) for general pediatrics (p < 0.05). In the first 4 years of the compensation plan change, no general internists left to join other local groups. General internal medicine increased its number of physicians by 19 %. The number of established general internists accepting new patients increased from 17 to 48 %, while the relative value units per full-time equivalent declined by 3 %.Conclusions: An equitable compensation model that aligns with population management goals and work performed outside the clinical visit can lead to improved satisfaction and retention of faculty in an academic general internal medicine division, along with improved access for the patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our study of queer women patients and their primary health care providers (HCPs) in Halifax, Nova Scotia, reveals a gap between providers' theoretical knowledge of 'cultural competency' and patients' experience. Drawing on Patricia Benner's Dreyfusian model of skill acquisition in nursing, we suggest that the dissonance between the anti-heteronormative principles expressed in interviews and the relative absence of skilled anti-heteronormative clinical practice can be understood as a failure to grasp the field of practice as a whole. Moving from 'knowing-that' to 'knowing-how' in terms of anti-heteronormative clinical skills is not only a desirable epistemological trajectory, we argue, but also a way of understanding better and worse ethical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of the pharmacological profile of a patient (PPP) on quality of drug prescribing, treatment effectiveness, safety, and health services utilization in a group of outpatients. Methods: The study was designed as an open, nonrandomized trial of an intervention in health care. The outpatient intervention group ( n = 39) received the PPP, and the control group ( n = 36) did not. In all cases, the outcomes were observed for a 2-year period in total; in the intervention group 1 year of observation was allocated before and another year after the introduction of the PPP. Results: The PPPs reduced multiple prescriptions by 1.08 ± 1.13 drugs per patient, whereas in those who did not receive the PPP, an increase of 1.44 ± 1.48 drugs per patient occurred ( P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.91-3.13). A decrease in the medication appropriateness index score of 0.81 ± 0.51 per drug per patient in the intervention group was observed ( P = 0.001, 95% CI 0.63-0.93), and in the control group an increase was noted (0.13 ± 0.40; P = 0.063). The majority of patients with PPP experienced fewer adverse drug reactions (0.96 ± 0.58 fewer, P < 0.001 vs. controls, 95% CI 1.39-2.13), and they were more likely to have an improvement in health status (OR 22.0, 95% CI 5.87-82.41). Finally, the PPPs decreased both the number of examinations and the number of diagnostic investigations, on average by 2.15 and 2.26 services per patient, respectively. Conclusions: Use of a pharmacological profile of a patient in primary care practice could improve not only prescribing behavior of general practitioners, but also effectiveness and safety of therapy, while reducing utilization of health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUS) are often thought to deny psychological needs when they consult general practitioners (GPs) and to request somatic intervention instead. We tested predictions from the contrasting theory that they are transparent in communicating their psychological and other needs.Objective: To test predictions that what patients tell GPs when they consult about MUS is related transparently to their desire for (1) emotional support, (2) symptom explanation and (3) somatic intervention.Design: Prospective naturalistic study. Before consultation, patients indicated what they wanted from it using a self-report questionnaire measuring patients' desire for: emotional support, explanation and reassurance, and physical investigation and treatment. Their speech during consultation was audio-recorded, transcribed and coded utterance-by-utterance. Multilevel regression analysis tested relationships between what patients sought and what they said.Participants: Patients (N = 326) consulting 33 GPs about symptoms that the GPs designated as MUS.Results: Patients who wanted emotional support spoke more about psychosocial problems, including psychosocial causes of symptoms and their need for psychosocial help. Patients who wanted explanation and reassurance suggested more physical explanations, including diseases, but did not overtly request explanation. Patients' wish for somatic intervention was associated only with their talk about details of such interventions and not with their requests for them.Conclusions: In general, patients with medically unexplained symptoms provide many cues to their desire for emotional support. They are more indirect or guarded in communicating their desire for explanation and somatic intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electronic prescribing has been advocated as an important tool for improving the safety and quality of medication use in ambulatory settings. However, widespread adoption of e-prescribing in ambulatory settings has yet to be realized. The determinants of successful implementation and use in these settings are not well understood.Objective: To describe the practice characteristics associated with implementation and use of e-prescribing in ambulatory settings.Design: Multi-method qualitative case study of ambulatory practices before and after e-prescribing implementation.Participants: Sixteen physicians and 31 staff members working in 12 practices scheduled for implementation of an e-prescribing program and purposively sampled to ensure a mix of practice size and physician specialty.Measurements: Field researchers used observational and interview techniques to collect data on prescription-related clinical workflow, information technology experience, and expectations.Results: Five practices fully implemented e-prescribing, 3 installed but with only some prescribers or staff members using the program, 2 installed and then discontinued use, 2 failed to install. Compared to practice members in other groups, members of successful practices exhibited greater familiarity with the capabilities of health information technologies and had more modest expectations about the benefits likely to accrue from e-prescribing. Members of unsuccessful practices reported limited understanding of e-prescribing capabilities, expected that the program would increase the speed of clinical care and reported difficulties with technical aspects of the implementation and insufficient technical support.Conclusions: Practice leaders should plan implementation carefully, ensuring that practice members prepare for the effective integration of this technology into clinical workflow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate cancer screening (PCS) is controversial. Ideally, patients should understand the risks and benefits of screening before undergoing PSA testing. This study assessed whether primary care physicians routinely discuss PCS and explored the barriers to and facilitators of these discussions.Methods: Qualitative pilot study involving in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 purposively sampled, academic and community-based primary care physicians. Barriers and facilitators of PCS discussions were ascertained using both interviews and chart-stimulated recall--a technique utilizing patient charts to probe recall and provide context to physician decision-making during clinic encounters. Analysis was performed using consensus conferences based on grounded theory techniques.Results: All 18 participating physicians reported that they generally discussed PCS with patients, though 6 reported sometimes ordering PSA tests without discussion. A PCS discussion occurred in only 16 (36%) of the 44 patient-physician encounters when patients were due for PCS that also met criteria for chart-stimulated recall. Barriers to PCS discussion were patient comorbidity, limited education/health literacy, prior refusal of care, physician forgetfulness, acute-care visits, and lack of time. Facilitators of PCS discussion included patient-requested screening, highly educated patients, family history of prostate cancer, African-American race, visits for routine physicals, review of previous PSA results, extra time during encounters, and reminder systems.Conclusions: PCS discussions sometimes do not occur. Important barriers to discussion are inadequate time for health maintenance, physician forgetfulness, and patient characteristics. Future research should explore using educational and decision support interventions to involve more patients in PCS decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]