Search

Background: Patients, families, and clinicians increasingly communicate through patient portals. Due to potential for multiple authors, clinicians need to know who is communicating with them. OurNotes is a portal-based pre-visit agenda setting questionnaire. This study adapted OurNotes to include a self-identification question to help clinicians interpret information authored by nonpatients., Objectives: To describe adapted OurNotes use and clinician feedback to inform broader implementation., Design: Evaluation of adapted OurNotes in a geriatric practice., Participants: Older adults with a portal account and a clinic visit; eight clinicians were interviewed., Intervention: OurNotes adaptation to clarify whether the author is the patient, the patient with help, or a nonpatient., Approach: Cross-sectional chart review of OurNotes completion, patient characteristics, and visit topics by author type. Clinician interviews explored experiences with OurNotes., Results: Out of 503 visits, 134 (26%) OurNotes questionnaires were completed. Most respondents (n = 92; 69%) identified as the patient, 18 (14%) identified as the patient with help, and 24 (17%) identified as someone other than the patient. On average, patients who authored their own OurNotes were younger (80.9 years) compared to patients who received assistance (85.8 years), or patients for whom someone else authored OurNotes (87.8 years) (p < 0.001). A diagnosis of cognitive impairment was present among 20% of patients who self-authored OurNotes vs. 79% of patients where someone else authored OurNotes (p < 0.001). Topics differed when OurNotes was authored by patients vs. nonpatients. Symptoms (52% patient vs. 83% nonpatient, p = 0.004), community resources (6% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), dementia (5% vs. 21%, p = 0.009), and care partner concerns (1% vs. 12%, p = 0.002) were more often mentioned by nonpatients. Clinicians valued the self-identification question for increasing transparency about who provided information., Conclusions: A self-identification question can identify nonpatient authors of OurNotes. Future steps include evaluating whether transparency improves care quality, especially when care partners are involved., Competing Interests: Declarations:. Conflict of Interest:: CT Lin reports serving as an unpaid advisory board member to Doximity Telehealth and Epic Physician Advisory Council. Hillary Lum reports serving as Editor-in-Chief of Palliative Medicine Reports. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Primary care plays a central role in the provision of health care, and is an organizing feature for health care delivery systems in most Western industrialized democracies. For a variety of reasons, however, the practice of primary care has been in decline in the U.S. This paper reviews key primary care concepts and their definitions, notes the increasingly complex interplay between primary care and the broader health care system, and offers research priorities to support future measurement, delivery and understanding of the role of primary care features on health care costs and quality.

Background: Databases of practicing physicians are important for studies that require sampling physicians or counting the physician population in a given area. However, little is known about how the three main sampling frames differ from each other., Objective: Our purpose was to compare the National Provider and Plan Enumeration System (NPPES), the American Medical Association Masterfile and the SK&A physician file., Methods: We randomly sampled 3000 physicians from the NPPES (500 in six specialties). We conducted two- and three-way comparisons across three databases to determine the extent to which they matched on address and specialty. In addition, we randomly selected 1200 physicians (200 per specialty) for telephone verification., Key Results: One thousand, six hundred and fifty-five physicians (55 %) were found in all three data files. The SK&A data file had the highest rate of missing physicians when compared to the NPPES, and varied by specialty (50 % in radiology vs. 28 % in cardiology). NPPES and SK&A had the highest rates of matching mailing address information, while the AMA Masterfile had low rates compared with the NPPES. We were able to confirm 65 % of physicians' address information by phone. The NPPES and SK&A had similar rates of correct address information in phone verification (72-94 % and 79-92 %, respectively, across specialties), while the AMA Masterfile had significantly lower rates of correct address information across all specialties (32-54 % across specialties)., Conclusions: None of the data files in this study were perfect; the fact that we were unable to reach one-third of our telephone verification sample is troubling. However, the study offers some encouragement for researchers conducting physician surveys. The NPPES and to a lesser extent, the SK&A file, appear to provide reasonably accurate, up-to-date address information for physicians billing public and provider insurers.