Search

PURPOSE Research on primary care's role in a pandemic response has not adequately considered the day-to-day needs of clinicians in the midst of a crisis. We created an Oregon COVID-19 ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) program, a telementoring education model for clinicians. The program was adapted for a large audience and encouraged interactivity among the hundreds of participants via the chat box. We assessed how chat box communications within the statewide program identified and ameliorated some of clinicians' needs during the pandemic. METHODS We conducted a qualitative analysis of chat box transcripts from 11 sessions. We coded transcripts using the editing method, whereby analysts generate categories predominantly from the data, but also from prior knowledge. We then explored the context of clinicians' needs in a pandemic, as conceptualized in Maslow's hierarchy of needs adapted for physicians: physiologic, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. RESULTS The mean number of chat box participants was 492 per session (range, 385 to 753). Participants asked 1,452 questions and made 819 comments throughout the program. We identified 3 key themes: seeking answers and trustworthy information, seeking practical resources, and seeking and providing affirmation and peer support. These themes mapped onto the Maslow's needs framework. We found that participants were able to create a virtual community in the chat box that supported many of their needs. CONCLUSIONS Using a novel data source, we found sharing the experience of practicing in a rapidly changing environment via comments and questions in an ECHO program both defined and supported participants' needs. Key words: COVID-19; primary health care; clinician well-being; project ECHO; professional practice; support groups; communication; health informatics; continuing medical education, INTRODUCTION As COVID-19 moved across the United States in early 2020, primary care clinicians faced dramatic changes to their practices, often with little assistance and inconsistent guidance. (1) Without a [...]

Abstract Background Physicians are being asked to report errors from primary care, but little is known about how they apply the term "error." This study qualitatively assesses the relationship between the variety of error definitions found in the medical literature and physicians' assessments of whether an error occurred in a series of clinical scenarios. Methods A systematic literature review and pilot survey results were analyzed qualitatively to search for insights into what may affect the use of the term error. The National Library of Medicine was systematically searched for medical error definitions. Survey participants were a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and a selected sample of family physician patient safety "experts." A survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios with problems (wrong test performed, abnormal result not followed-up, abnormal result overlooked, blood tube broken and missing scan results) was sent by mail to AAFP members and by e-mail to the experts. Physicians were asked to judge if an error occurred. A qualitative analysis was performed via "immersion and crystallization" of emergent insights from the collected data. Results While one definition, that originated by James Reason, predominated the literature search, we found 25 different definitions for error in the medical literature. Surveys were returned by 28.5% of 1000 AAFP members and 92% of 25 experts. Of the 5 scenarios, 100% felt overlooking an abnormal result was an error. For other scenarios there was less agreement (experts and AAFP members, respectively agreeing an error occurred): 100 and 87% when the wrong test was performed, 96 and 87% when an abnormal test was not followed up, 74 and 62% when scan results were not available during a patient visit, and 57 and 47% when a blood tube was broken. Through qualitative analysis, we found that three areas may affect how physicians make decisions about error: the process that occurred vs. the outcome that occurred, rare vs. common occurrences and system vs. individual responsibility Conclusion There is a lack of consensus about what constitutes an error both in the medical literature and in decision making by family physicians. These potential areas of confusion need further study.

The article presents a commentary on rapid deployment of a statewide COVID-19 Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) Program for frontline clinicians. Topics include urgent need for the rapid dissemination of emerging public health and treatment best practices, scientific evidence, and available resources for rural clinicians; and ideal model for the rapid dissemination of pertinent information to rural clinicians during a crisis.

PURPOSE The clinician-colleague relationship is a cornerstone of relationship-centered care (RCC); in small family medicine offices, the clinician-medical assistant (MA) relationship is especially important. We sought to better understand the relationship between MA roles and the clinician-MA relationship within the RCC framework. METHODS We conducted an ethnographic study of 5 small family medicine offices (having <5 clinicians) in the Cincinnati Area Research and Improvement Group (CARInG) Network using interviews, surveys, and observations. We interviewed 19 MAs and supervisors and 11 clinicians (9 family physicians and 2 nurse practitioners) and observed 15 MAs in practice. Qualitative analysis used the editing style. RESULTS MAs' roles in small family medicine offices were determined by MA career motivations and clinician-MA relationships. MA career motivations comprised interest in health care, easy training/workload, and customer service orientation. Clinician-MA relationships were influenced by how MAs and clinicians respond to their perceptions of MA clinical competence (illustrated predominantly by comparing MAs with nurses) and organizational structure. We propose a model, trust and verify, to describe the structure of the clinician-MA relationship. This model is informed by clinicians' roles in hiring and managing MAs and the social familiarity of MAs and clinicians. Within the RCC framework, these findings can be seen as previously undefined constraints and freedoms in what is known as the Complex Responsive Process of Relating between clinicians and MAs. CONCLUSIONS Improved understanding of clinician-MA relationships will allow a better appreciation of how clinicians and MAs function in family medicine teams. Our findings may assist small offices undergoing practice transformation and guide future research to improve the education, training, and use of MAs in the family medicine setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a survey that explores management of test results in family medicine offices. The survey shows that no office systematically cohered to office-wide results management practices and just two offices had written protocols for results management steps. It reveals that 87-100% of patients recognized getting their test results and 58-85% of patients charts supported patient notification.

Background: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal test results is a common safety problem in outpatient practice. However, it is unclear exactly where and how often failures occur in the results management process. Our goal was to determine where breakdowns occur by examining 4 high-risk abnormal test results in a group of 11 clinics of an urban community health center organization., Methods: Using a chart audit, we counted failures in the management of abnormal results of 4 tests: Pap smears, mammograms, international normalized ratio (INR), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). We assessed documentation that the result was filed in the chart; the provider signed and responded to the result; the patient was notified of the result; the appropriate follow-up occurred, and it occurred in a timely manner or there was explicit patient refusal of the recommended follow-up., Results: There were 344 abnormal test results (105 Pap smears, 82 mammograms, 61 INRs, and 96 PSAs). The highest rate of failures in the management process was at follow-up care; 34% of the abnormal results did not have documentation that appropriate follow-up had occurred (11% for mammography, 26% for INR, 45% for Pap smears, and 46% for PSA). All of the earlier steps were performed with far fewer failures. For patients receiving follow-up care, 49% of the time, follow-up care did not occur in a timely manner., Conclusions: Most breakdowns in the testing process for these 4 abnormal tests were in the final step, documenting that appropriate follow-up care occurred. Office systems for managing abnormal results reporting and patient follow-up are needed to improve the safety and quality of care.

Background and Objectives: It is unknown whether an electronic medical record (EMR) improves the management of test results in primary care offices., Methods: As part of a larger assessment using observations, interviews, and chart audits at eight family medicine offices in SW Ohio, we documented five results management steps (right place in chart, signature, interpretation, patient notification, and abnormal result follow-up) for laboratory and imaging test results from 25 patient charts in each office. We noted the type of records used (EMR or paper) and how many management steps had standardized results management processes in place., Results: We analyzed 461 test results from 200 charts at the eight offices. Commonly grouped tests (complete blood counts, etc) were considered a single test. A total of 274 results were managed by EMR (at four offices). Results managed with an EMR were more often in the right place in the chart (100% versus 98%), had more clinician signatures (100% versus 86%), interpretations (73% versus 64%), and patient notifications (80% vs. 66%) documented. For the subset of abnormal results (n=170 results), 64% of results managed with an EMR had a follow-up plan documented compared to only 40% of paper managed results. Having two or more standardized results management steps did not significantly improve documentation of any step, but no offices had standardized processes for documenting interpretation of test results or follow-up for abnormal results. There was inter-office variability in the successful documentation of results management steps, but 75% of the top performing offices had EMRs., Conclusions: There was greater documentation of results managed by an EMR, but all offices fall short in notifying patients and in documenting interpretation and follow-up of abnormal test results.