Search

OBJECTIVES: Continuity of care measures are widely used to evaluate the quality of health care delivery, but which visits are included vary across studies. Our objective was to determine how the provider specialties included affect continuity values, year-to-year stability, and association with emergency department (ED) visits. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of Alabama Medicaid administrative data. METHODS: We included beneficiaries with diabetes who had at least 3 outpatient visits in each of 2018 and 2019 (N = 9578). We defined 3 provider groupings: all providers, diabetes-broad (primary care, cardiology, neurology, endocrinology, ophthalmology, nephrology, and psychiatry), and diabetes-narrow (primary care and endocrinology). Continuity of care was calculated using the Continuity of Care Index (COCI) for each provider grouping. We compared correlation between measures and from year to year using Spearman correlations, and we used multivariable logistic regression to determine association with ED visits. RESULTS: The mean COCI was 0.54 using visits with all providers, 0.64 with diabetes-broad providers, and 0.83 with diabetes-narrow providers. COCI with diabetes-narrow providers was moderately correlated with the broader sets of providers (Spearman ρ, 0.52-0.65). Comparing each participant's COCI in 2018 with that in 2019, the mean intraperson difference was similar (0.16-0.22), and correlation was moderate (Spearman ρ, 0.41-0.47) for each measure. COCI had similar weak association with ED visits using each provider grouping (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99 for each 0.1-unit difference in COCI). CONCLUSIONS: Continuity values differed substantially depending on which provider specialties were included. The importance of this variation is uncertain, as continuity was weakly associated with ED visits using each of the measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surveys of people who experience homelessness can portray their life and healthcare experiences with a level of statistical precision; however, few have explored how the very same surveys can deliver qualitative insights as well. In responding to surveys, people experiencing homelessness can use the margins to highlight health and social concerns that investigators failed to anticipate that standard question batteries miss. This study describes the unprompted comments of a large national survey of Veterans with homeless experiences. The Primary Care Quality‐Homeless Services Tailoring (PCQ‐HOST) survey presented 85 close‐ended items to solicit social and psychological experiences, health conditions, and patient ratings of primary care. Amongst 5377 Veterans responding to the paper survey, 657 (12%) offered 1933 unprompted comments across nearly all domains queried. Using a team‐based content analysis approach, we coded and organised survey comments by survey domain, and identified emergent themes. Respondents used comments for many purposes. They noted when questions called for more nuanced responses than those allowed, especially 'sometimes' or 'not applicable' on sensitive questions, such as substance use, where recovery status was not queried. On such matters, the options of 'no' and 'yes' failed to capture important contextual and historical information that mattered to respondents, such as being in recovery. Respondents also elaborated on negative and positive care experiences, often naming specific clinics or clinicians. This study highlights the degree to which members of vulnerable populations, who participate in survey research, want researchers to know the reasons behind their responses and topics (like chronic pain and substance use disorders) that could benefit from open‐ended response options. Understanding patient perspectives can help improve care. Quantitative data from surveys can provide statistical precision but may miss key patient perspectives. The content that patients write into survey margins can highlight shortfalls of a survey and point towards future areas of inquiry. Veterans with homeless experience want to provide additional detail about their lives and care experiences in ways that transcend the boundaries of close‐ended survey questions. Questions on substance use proved especially likely to draw comments that went beyond the permitted response options, often to declare that the respondent was in recovery. Respondents frequently clarified aspects of their care experiences related to pain, pain care, transportation and experiences of homelessness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A challenge to reducing overuse of health services is communicating recommendations against unnecessary health services to patients. The predominant approach has been to highlight the limited benefit and potential harm of such services for that patient, but the prudent use of health resources can also benefit others. Whether appealing to patient altruism can reduce overuse is unknown.Objective: To determine whether altruistic appeals reduce hypothetical requests for overused services and affect physician ratings.Design: Experimental survey using hypothetical vignettes describing three overused health services (antibiotics for acute sinusitis, imaging for acute low back pain, and annual exams for healthy adults).Participants: U.S. adults recruited from Research Now, an online panel of individuals compensated for performing academic and marketing research surveys.Interventions: In the control version of the vignettes, the physician's rationale for recommending against the service was the minimal benefit and potential for harm. In the altruism version, the rationale additionally included potential benefit to others by forgoing that service.Main Measures: Differences in requests for overused services and physician ratings between participants randomized to the control and altruism versions of the vignettes.Key Results: A total of 1001 participants were included in the final analyses. There were no significant differences in requests for overused services for any of the clinical scenarios (P values ranged from 0.183 to 0.547). Physician ratings were lower in the altruism version for the acute sinusitis (6.68 vs. 7.03, P = 0.012) and back pain scenarios (6.14 vs. 6.83, P < 0.001), and marginally lower for the healthy adult scenario (5.27 vs. 5.57, P = 0.084).Conclusions: In this experimental survey, altruistic appeals delivered by physicians did not reduce requests for overused services, and resulted in more negative physician ratings. Further studies are warranted to determine whether alternative methods of appealing to patient altruism can reduce overuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discusses the dual agency problem of physicians in the stewardship aspect of providing marginal beneficial care. The authors suggest that obligations of physicians in providing marginal beneficial intervention should be reconceptualized to address the dual agency crisis. Also discussed are the Choosing Wisely initiative, the moral significance of healthcare interventions and conceptual framework for dual agency.

The article offers insights on potential ethical tensions inherent to the concept of high-value care education. Topics covered include the different ways to increase value, the need to navigate tension between physicians' commitment to providing cost-effective care while maintaining the primacy of patient welfare and the implications of instilling a primary commitment to patient welfare in cultivating professional identity.

A response from the authors of the article "Providing price displays for physicians: Which price is right?," is presented.

The authors discuss the price transparency in health care. Topics discussed include the price transparency as one way to address the cost crisis in the U.S. health care system, sources to consider for displaying the price of certain tests for physicians and the authors' suggestion to consider some ethical issues to guide the design and implementation of providing price displays to physicians.