Search

Rural hospitals represent almost half of all short-stay nonfederal general hospitals in the United States, but have been more severely affected than their urban counterparts by changes in reimbursement, regulation, and technology. Two hundred and six rural community hospitals closed during the first nine years of the 1980s, and the rate of closure is accelerating. Using secondary data sources to examine the structure, role, and content of rural hospitals, small rural hospitals are described and compared to larger and nonrural hospitals. Rural hospitals differ systematically from other hospitals in the United States, with smaller daily censuses, lower occupation rates, shorter lengths of stay, and disproportionately high shares of Medicare patients. They are dominated by very small institutions, with more than 1,000 rural hospitals having fewer than 50 beds. Small rural hospitals offer a core of basic services to the populations they serve. Emergency, obstetric, and newborn services are virtually ubiquitous in rural hospitals of all sizes, and they are also more likely to offer long-term nursing and home care services than urban hospitals of similar size. The inpatient diagnostic and procedural mix of these institutions demonstrates that they provide care for common medical and surgical conditions of low complexity. Rural hospitals are also relatively inexpensive, representing only 6 percent of total expenditures for hospital care. Given their central role in supporting the provision of health services to rural areas, the apparent appropriateness of the conditions they treat, and their relatively modest cost, it would seem reasonable to use federal policy to stabilize our previous investment in these institutions.

Analysis of national survey data on physician-patient encounters raises questions about physician education and manpower policy. Data compiled by the University of Southern California Medical Activities and Manpower Projects and the United States Bureau of Health Professionals reveal differences among internists, cardiologists, family practitioners, and pediatricians in procedures used for diagnosing and treating several frequently encountered conditions. Differences are observed in expenditure of time and use of a broad range of diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. These differences remain significant even after several important characteristics of individual physicians, patients, and the practice environment have been controlled. Findings from this study underscore the necessity of reviewing the content of medical education and policies that encourage a broad range of specialists to provide primary care. The findings also emphasize the need to address the physician's knowledge base in promoting changes in practice patterns.

In recent years, researchers and policymakers have used data from large-scale surveys of physicians to address important issues. A review of several of these surveys explores potential problems in this method of gathering data on physicians' services. To obtain a better grasp of the limitations such problems may pose, we examine several recent surveys, comparing response rates and survey findings, and in one survey the reliability of individual items. Response rates appear highly sensitive to differences in the approaches made to respondents and their perceptions of the goals of individual investigations. Reliability of survey items seems to depend on the specificity of information requested. Variation in the findings from different surveys may occur for many reasons, but is most likely to be found in response to items whose presentation differs in each survey's research instrument. Data from these surveys appear clearly useful for some important purposes. The large-scale medical practice survey seems particularly valuable in generating an understanding of differences among specialties in resources used in the delivery of care. Nevertheless, researchers and policymakers must understand the steps necessary to obtain reliable results and possible limitations in the accuracy of findings to make the best use of survey methodology as applied to medical practice.

We evaluated the extent to which the regionalization of perinatal care in Washington State has succeeded in concentrating high-risk pregnancies in technologically appropriate referral centers and in reducing differences in neonatal outcome among hospitals. Of all infants weighing less than 1,500 grams born between 1980 and 1983, nearly 68% were delivered in level III hospitals, although only 24% of all babies are born in these hospitals, indicating that the state is highly regionalized. Neonatal outcomes-as measured by standardized mortality ratios-are similar in level I, II and III hospitals and are not greatly influenced by the rural or urban location of the hospital. The most promising strategy for further reducing neonatal mortality is to decrease the number and proportion of very-low-birth-weight births.

An ad hoc committee of the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) was appointed to adapt the diagnosis clusters instrument for use with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM) and the International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care (ICHPPC-2). This article describes the development and testing of the final roster of 110 diagnosis clusters for family physicians. Almost 90 percent of all diagnoses recorded by family physicians in a variety of settings were included in the clusters. The diagnosis clusters can be used in the analysis of large databases and facilitate comparisons between different providers and practices.

Because of a projected rapid increase in the proportion of family physicians who are residency graduates, it is important to understand the impact of residency training on practice patterns. In this study of the effect of family practice residency training on productivity, residency graduates were found to have seen 21.5% fewer patients per hour but to have spent commensurately more time per patient visit than did their counterparts without residency training. This relationship persisted even after controlling for a variety of physician and practice characteristics, including physician age, practice organization, and geographic region.

Ambulatory care, accounting for over half a billion visits to physicians per year, is a major component of the health-care system and is the core of primary health care. This study uses data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to describe the most common problems seen in an ambulatory-care setting, to identify the medical specialties that provide the greater part of this care, and to characterize the major specialties in terms of the diagnoses in the patients who constitute their ambulatory practice. Fifteen diagnosis clusters account for 50 per cent of all ambulatory-care visits; only 8 of the 28 specialties account for a substantial amount (more than 25 per cent) of the ambulatory care rendered to patients with any of these 15 diagnoses. General and family physicians, general internists, and general pediatricians account for 65.9 per cent of all outpatient visits to physicians for the 15 most common problems; general and family physicians alone are responsible for more than half this total. The individual specialties differ markedly in the diagnostic and demographic variety of their outpatient workload. These differences have important implications for the training of physicians and the organization of their practices.

The growing number of large health data bases available represents a valuable resource for health care research. Many available data bases, however, have subtle and/or complex defects in their design as well as in the quality of the data themselves. The apparent ease and economy of using pre-collected data cannot eliminate the need for careful selection, examination, and analysis of these data. Existing documentation should be critically reviewed to assess the appropriateness of the data base for its intended use. Once in hand, the completeness and coding of the data should be examined in detail before attempting to test hypotheses. In conducting data analysis, the investigator must be aware of the potential problems related to the size of the data base, the unit of analysis, and the sampling strategy--particularly if sampling involved stratification or clustering. Awareness of the potential pitfalls inherent in the use of large health data bases can help prevent many problems and disappointments, as well as improve the validity and efficiency of statistical analysis.

Hospital care is an important component of family practice in the United States, but the study of this area has been impeded by the lack of a simple and clinically meaningful method of categorizing the diagnostic problems that make up the inpatient workload. This paper extends the method of diagnosis clusters--first used in the analysis of ambulatory care--to the hospital setting. Using the University of Southern California Medical Activities and Manpower Study of office-based general and family physicians, 52 clinically discrete diagnosis clusters were developed that include 78 percent of all principal diagnoses recorded in the hospital during the study interval. Fifty percent of all hospital encounters can be incorporated in only 15 clusters. Data clustered using this technique demonstrate that clinical problems such as ischemic heart disease and malignant neoplasms represent a major part of the family physician's hospital workload, a fact that has important implications for training and practice. Diagnosis clustering should facilitate further study of the hospital activities of primary care physicians.

We assessed the quality of life of 859 patients undergoing dialysis or transplantation, with the goal of ascertaining whether objective and subjective measures of the quality of life were influenced by case mix or treatment. We found that 79.1 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to function at nearly normal levels, as compared with between 47.5 and 59.1 per cent of the patients treated with dialysis (depending on the type). Nearly 75 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to work, as compared with between 24.7 and 59.3 per cent of the patients undergoing dialysis. On three subjective measures (life satisfaction, well-being, and psychological affect) transplant recipients had a higher quality of life than patients on dialysis. Among the patients treated with dialysis, those undergoing treatment at home had the highest quality of life. All quality-of-life differences were found to persist even after the patient case mix had been controlled statistically. Finally, the quality of life of transplant recipients compared well with that of the general population, but despite favorable subjective assessments, patients undergoing dialysis did not work or function at the same level as people in the general population.

This study compares the characteristics of the practices and patients of recent graduates of family practice and general internal medicine residency programs. National samples of 104 family physicians and 134 general internists completed questionnaires and provided log-diary data for more than 7,500 office visits and 1,100 hospitalized patients. Family physicians and general internists were generally similar in demographic and practice characteristics, though family physicians were more likely to have entered office-based practice (90% versus 70%). Among office-based physicians, family physicians saw more patients per week in ambulatory settings (117.3 versus 74.6), whereas general internists had more patients in the hospital (6.45 versus 3.81) and provided more hospital consultations per week (2.74 versus 0.45). Family physicians practiced in smaller communities and were more likely to practice on Saturday mornings, to accept walk-in patients, and to schedule appointments for new patients within 1 week. Both specialties functioned as first-contact generalists for at least 95% of office encounters. Although pediatrics and obstetrics are practiced only by family physicians and general internists see proportionately more older patients, within specific age groups the patients of general internists and family physicians were similar in terms of their main health problems, functional status, and diagnoses.

This study compared the use of medical resources by recently trained family physicians and general internists. Analyses are based on records of 3,737 adult office encounters with 132 family physicians and 2,250 adult office encounters with 102 general internists. General internists are twice as likely as family physicians to order blood tests, blood counts, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms for their adult patients. Internists also spend more time with patients, and refer and hospitalize them at slightly higher rates. The different practice styles of general internists and family physicians were evident for adult patients of all ages and for patients with essential benign hypertension. The average per visit charge for diagnostic tests ordered during follow-up visits with hypertensive patients was estimated to be $11.97 for patients seen by general internists and $5.67 for patients seen by family physicians. These findings persisted after controlling for a variety of patient, practice, and physician characteristics.

Academic medical centers are facing the need to expand their primary care referral base in an increasingly competitive medical environment. This study describes the medical care provided during a 1-year period to 6304 patients registered with a family practice clinic located in an academic medical center. The relative distribution of primary care, secondary referrals, inpatient admissions, and their associated costs are presented. The multiplier effect of the primary care clinic on the academic medical center was substantial. For every $1 billed for ambulatory primary care, there was $6.40 billed elsewhere in the system. Each full-time equivalent family physician generated a calculated sum of $784,752 in direct, billed charges for the hospital and $241,276 in professional fees for the other specialty consultants. The cost of supporting a primary care clinic is likely to be more than offset by the revenues generated from the use of hospital and referral services by patients who received care in the primary care setting.

Although general internists and family physicians see similar types of patients, they have been found to have different styles of practice. It is not known whether these differences in practice style are associated with differences in outcomes of care such as patient satisfaction. This study examined whether patients of family physicians and general internists have different perceptions of the care they receive. National samples of recently trained family physicians and general internists were asked to complete questionnaires about their practices and to record information on all patient encounters during a three-day period. Three patients were randomly sampled from among those seen by each physician during the study period and were sent questionnaires that included questions about their satisfaction with the medical care they were receiving from the physician. Two hundred thirteen adult patients who saw 124 family physicians and 218 adult patients who saw 98 general internists participated in this study. Patients of general internists and of family physicians reported similar levels of satisfaction on all four dimensions measured (access, humaneness, quality, and general satisfaction) even after controlling for the effects of a variety of patient, practice, physician, and encounter characteristics. It is concluded that the fundamental differences in practice style that have been reported between family physicians and general internists do not seem to be associated with differences in patient satisfaction.

This study describes and compares the perceived sickness-related behavioral dysfunction of 859 end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients from 11 centers according to treatment modality via the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). The unadjusted functional status of ESRD patients differed significantly by treatment modality. Transplantation patients were least functionally limited followed in order by home dialysis, continuous peritoneal dialysis, and in-center dialysis patients. The largest overall differences were for the sleep and rest, work, recreation and pastimes, and home management SIP categories. Regression analysis revealed that many of the large observed intermodality differences in functional status may have resulted from casemix variations (e.g. age and comorbidity differences). Only SIP score differences between transplantation and other treatment modality patients remained significant following the introduction of casemix controls. Results do not justify choosing one dialysis modality over another because of differences in perceived dysfunction.

More and more mission specialists are being trained to operate in the Space Shuttle and to eventually maintain a permanent station in space. Since up to 48% of the general population wears a visual correction of some sort, it is logical to assume that this percentage will also be found in the astronaut population. This paper proposes that the soft contact lens can be worn successfully in the space environment. The contact lens of choice is the continuous-wear soft contact lens which is proving to be quite successful for the general public. These lenses must be fitted at least 6 months before space flight in order to make sure they can be worn successfully.