Search

OBJECTIVE: To develop a survey to measure seniors' embracement of ambulatory patient safety self-advocacy behaviors, the Senior Empowerment and Advocacy in Patient Safety (SEAPS) survey. METHODS: Content was developed by review of published recommendations combined with interviews and focus groups with community members; items were generated for subscales based on the health belief model (HBM). Psychometric characteristics were assessed by cluster and correlation analyses on a pilot test of 143 community dwelling seniors; the ability of the subscales and demographic variables to predict reported behavior was investigated by multiple regression. RESULTS: The four subscales of the SEAPS were outcome efficacy (OE), attitudes (ATT), self-efficacy (SE) and behaviors (BEH). Cronbach alphas were 0.74 for ATT, 0.79 for BEH, and 0.91 for OE and SE. Analysis of variance showed that there were no differences in any subscale score by race, education level or frequency of doctor visits, but women were noted to have significantly higher scores (p<.01) on the ATT and SE subscales and for the total of all the scales. Multiple regressions showed that SE significantly predicted self-reported behavior (p<.001). OE was a significant predictor for whites (p<.001) but not for African-Americans (p=.24). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a short, 21-item self-administered survey to assess seniors' views about their participation in safety tasks. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We believe the SEAPS shows promise to be a tool for evaluating interventions and training programs aimed at improving seniors' self-advocacy skills. Effective interventions may improve the involvement of patients in their own safety in the clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 responsibilityConclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, contributing to 95,000 deaths annually. When offered in primary care, screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment (SBIRT), and medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) can effectively address UAU. However, these interventions are not yet routine in primary care clinics. Therefore, our study evaluates tailored implementation support to increase SBIRT and MAUD in primary care., Methods: ANTECEDENT is a pragmatic implementation study designed to support 150 primary care clinics in Oregon adopting and optimizing SBIRT and MAUD workflows to address UAU. The study is a partnership between the Oregon Health Authority Transformation Center-state leaders in Medicaid health system transformation-SBIRT Oregon and the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network. We recruited clinics providing primary care in Oregon and prioritized reaching clinics that were small to medium in size (<10 providers). All participating clinics receive foundational support (i.e., a baseline assessment, exit assessment, and access to the online SBIRT Oregon materials) and may opt to receive tailored implementation support delivered by a practice facilitator over 12 months. Tailored implementation support is designed to address identified needs and may include health information technology support, peer-to-peer learning, workflow mapping, or expert consultation via academic detailing. The study aims are to 1) engage, recruit, and conduct needs assessments with 150 primary care clinics and their regional Medicaid health plans called Coordinated Care Organizations within the state of Oregon, 2) implement and evaluate the impact of foundational and supplemental implementation support on clinic change in SBIRT and MAUD, and 3) describe how practice facilitators tailor implementation support based on context and personal expertise. Our convergent parallel mixed-methods analysis uses RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance). It is informed by a hybrid of the i-PARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) and the Dynamic Sustainability Framework., Discussion: This study will explore how primary care clinics implement SBIRT and MAUD in routine practice and how practice facilitators vary implementation support across diverse clinic settings. Findings will inform how to effectively align implementation support to context, advance our understanding of practice facilitator skill development over time, and ultimately improve detection and treatment of UAU across diverse primary care clinics., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

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 763). Participants asked 1,462 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., (© 2022 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Two key advancements in improving the quality of primary care have been practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and Project Extension for Community Health care Outcomes (ECHO). PBRNs advance quality through research and transformation projects, often using practice facilitation. Project ECHO uses case-based telementoring to support community clinicians to deliver best-practice care. Although some PBRNs sponsor ECHO programs, the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network (ORPRN) has created a statewide network for ECHO programs (Oregon ECHO Network [OEN]). We facilitated a unique funding stream for the OEN by partnering with payers and health systems. The purpose of this article is to share our experience of how OEN programs and ORPRN research and transformation projects enhance practice recruitment and retention and improve financial stability. We describe the synergy between ORPRN projects and ECHO programs using 3 examples: tobacco cessation, chronic pain and opioid prescribing, and diabetes management. We highlight challenges and opportunities in these examples, beginning with their development, their implementation, and their ultimate alignment, despite varied funding streams and timelines. We believe that incorporating the OEN within ORPRN has been a success for both PBRN research and Project ECHO programs, allowing us to better support primary care practices across the state., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None., (© Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Primary care has changed in the past 40 years, and research performed within and by practice-based research networks (PBRN) needs to change to keep up with the current practice landscape. A key task for PBRNs is to connect with today's stakeholders, not only the traditional physicians, providers, office staff, and patients, but health systems, insurance companies, and government agencies. In addition to one-time externally funded engagement efforts, PBRNs must develop and report on sustainable, long-term strategies. PBRNs are also demonstrating how they use classic practice-based research techniques of practice facilitation and electronic health record (EHR) data extraction and reporting in new and important research areas, such as studying the opioid epidemic. PBRNs are adapting and transforming along with primary care., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: A single self-rated health (SRH) question is associated with health outcomes, but agreement between SRH and physician-rated patient health (PRPH) has been poorly studied. We studied patient and physician reasoning for health ratings and the role played by patient lifestyle and objective health measures in the congruence between SRH and PRPH., Methods: Surveys of established family medicine patients and their physicians, and medical record review at 4 offices. Patients and physicians rated patient health on a 5-point scale and gave reasons for the rating and suggestions for improving health. Patients' and physicians' reasons for ratings and improvement suggestions were coded into taxonomies developed from the data. Bivariate relationships between the variables and the difference between SRH and PRPH were examined and all single predictors of the difference were entered into a multivariable regression model., Results: Surveys were completed by 506 patients and 33 physicians. SRH and PRPH ratings matched exactly for 38% of the patient-physician dyads. Variables associated with SRH being lower than PRPH were higher patient body mass index ( P = .01), seeing the physician previously ( P = .04), older age, ( P < .001), and a higher comorbidity score ( P = .001). Only 25.7% of the dyad reasons for health status rating and 24.1% of needed improvements matched, and these matches were unrelated to SRH/PRPH agreement. Physicians focused on disease in their reasoning for most patients, whereas patients with excellent or very good SRH focused on feeling well., Conclusions: Patients' and physicians' beliefs about patient health frequently lack agreement, confirming the need for shared decision making with patients., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Urban Health Project (UHP) is a mission and vision-driven summer internship at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine that places first-year medical students at local community agencies that work with underserved populations. At the completion of their internship, students write Final Intern Reflections (FIRs)., Methods: Final Intern Reflections written from 1987 to 2012 were read and coded to both predetermined categories derived from the UHP mission and vision statements and new categories created from the data themselves., Results: Comments relating to UHP's mission and vision were found in 47% and 36% of FIRs, respectively. Positive experiences outweighed negative by a factor of eight. Interns reported the following benefits: educational (53%), valuable (25%), rewarding (25%), new (10%), unique (6%), and life-changing (5%)., Conclusions: Urban Health Project is successful in providing medical students with enriching experiences with underserved populations that have the potential to change their understanding of vulnerable populations.

Background: Family medicine offices may play an important role in the transmission of common illnesses such as upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). There has, however, been little study of whether physicians teach patients about URTI transmission and what their own actions are to prevent infection. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of hand hygiene and the frequency with which family physicians and staff touch their eyes, nose, and mouth (the T-zone) as well as physician and staff self-reported behaviors and recommendations given to patients regarding URTI prevention., Methods: We observed family physicians and staff at 7 offices of the Cincinnati Area Research and Improvement Group (CARInG) practice-based research network for the quality of hand hygiene and number of T-zone touches. After observations, participants completed surveys about personal habits and recommendations given to patients to prevent URTIs., Results: A total of 31 clinicians and 48 staff participated. They touched their T-zones a mean of 19 times in 2 hours (range, 0-105 times); clinicians did so significantly less often than staff (P < .001). We observed 123 episodes of hand washing and 288 uses of alcohol-based cleanser. Only 11 hand washings (9%) met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for effective hand washing. Alcohol cleansers were used more appropriately, with 243 (84%) meeting ideal use. Participants who were observed using better hand hygiene and who touched their T-zone less report the same personal habits and recommendations to patients as those with poorer URTI prevention hygiene., Conclusions: Clinicians and staff in family medicine offices frequently touch their T-zone and demonstrate mixed quality of hand cleansing. Participants' self-rated URTI prevention behaviors were not associated with how well they actually perform hand hygiene and how often they touch their T-zone. The relationship between self-reported and observed behaviors and URTIs in family medicine office settings needs further study.

Background: Hospice provides a full range of services for patients near the end of life, often in the patient's own home. There are no published studies that describe patient safety incidents in home hospice care., Objective: The study objective was to explore the types and characteristics of patient safety incidents in home hospice care from the experiences of hospice interdisciplinary team members., Methods: The study design is qualitative and descriptive. From a convenience sample of 17 hospices in 13 states we identified 62 participants including hospice nurses, physicians, social workers, chaplains, and home health aides. We interviewed a separate sample of 19 experienced hospice leaders to assess the credibility of primary results. Semistructured telephone interviews were recorded and transcribed. Four researchers used an editing technique to identify common themes from the interviews., Results: Major themes suggested a definition of patient safety in home hospice that includes concern for unnecessary harm to family caregivers or unnecessary disruption of the natural dying process. The most commonly described categories of patient harm were injuries from falls and inadequate control of symptoms. The most commonly cited contributing factors were related to patients, family caregivers, or the home setting. Few participants recalled incidents or harm related to medical errors by hospice team members., Conclusions: This is the first study to describe patient safety incidents from the experiences of hospice interdisciplinary team members. Compared with patient safety studies from other health care settings, participants recalled few incidents related to errors in evaluation, treatment, or communication by the hospice team.

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.

The ways homelessness and diabetes affect each other is not well known. The authors sought to understand barriers and enablers to health for homeless people with diabetes as perceived by homeless persons and providers. The authors performed semistructured interviews with a sample of participants (seven homeless persons, six social service providers, and five medical providers) in an urban Midwest community. Data analysis was performed with the qualitative editing method. Participants described external factors (chaotic lifestyle, diet/food availability, access to care, and medications) and internal factors (competing demands, substance abuse, stress) that directly affect health. Social service providers were seen as peripheral to diabetes care, although all saw their primary functions as valuable. These factors and relationships are appropriately modeled in a complex adaptive chronic care model, where the framework is bottom up and stresses adaptability, self-organization, and empowerment. Adapting the care of homeless persons with diabetes to include involvement of patients and medical and social service providers must be emergent and responsive to changing needs.

Background: The use of chronic opioids for patients with chronic nonmalignant pain (CNMP) is a common problem for family physicians, yet little is known about the management of CNMP in family medicine offices., Methods: Twenty one physicians at 8 practices of the Cincinnati Area Research Group (CARinG) network completed 25 to 30 modified Primary Care Network Survey 2 surveys. Each survey contained the question, "To your knowledge, does this patient have chronic (>3 months) pain, even if they are not being seen for pain today?" Chart reviews of all patients identified as having chronic pain were performed to examine assessment, management, and monitoring of chronic opioids. Ten of these physicians and 10 office nurses or medical assistants were interviewed about caring for patients with chronic pain., Results: Primary Care Network Survey 2 questionnaires were completed for 533 patients, 138 (26%) of which had CNMP, and 65 (47%) of those were taking chronic opioids; 25% of patients taking chronic opioids had a urine drug screen and 22% had an opioid contract in the chart. Patients with CNMP who were taking chronic opioids were more likely to be younger (54 vs 59 years; P = .003), have a coexisting mental health diagnosis (69% vs 44%; P = .005), and have assessments for pain (P = .031), function (P = .003), and psychological distress (P < .001) and a second opinion (P = .001) in the chart than did patients with CNMP who were not taking opioids. Physicians described suspicion of patients as a primary difficulty in prescribing or considering chronic opioids; they also expressed interest in practicing evidence-based CNMP care, but there was little teamwork between physicians and medical assistants caring for patients with CNMP who were taking chronic opioids., Conclusions: Chronic opioids are frequently prescribed to patients with CNMP. Although patients taking opioids have better documentation of pain assessments and management, care for all patients with CNMP fell short of evidence-based guidelines and was primarily performed by the physician alone.

Background: The best ways to communicate test results in primary care to achieve patient satisfaction and assist patients to incorporate results into their personal health decision making are unknown. A study was conducted to determine the factors that patients believe are important in achieving those goals., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 12 adults, at least half with a chronic disease requiring regular testing, who shared experiences about receiving test results from physicians' offices and how they used them in their health decision making. In addition, "think aloud" interviewing techniques were used to assess participants' satisfaction and stated understanding with six different formats for receiving a hypothetical test result (a mildly elevated lipid profile). The interviews were analyzed using the editing technique to determine important factors in test results notification., Findings: Three themes were found to be important in satisfaction with and stated understanding and use of test results: (1) the information shared (test result, clinician interpretation and guidance), (2) significance of the results (testing purpose, abnormal or normal result) and (3) personal preferences for communication (timeliness, interpersonal connection, and hard copy). Participants' stated understanding was highest, among several potential formats, for actual values with desired/normal values, a low-literacy description of the test's purpose, and a simple graph., Conclusions: A results notification algorithm includes (1) communication elements (the purpose of the test, the actual results with desired values, clinician guidance, and a graphical representation) and (2) appropriate choice of notification technique (phone/visit for diagnostic tests and all significantly abnormal results and mail/e-mail/Web for all others).

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.

Purpose: We wanted to explore test results management systems in family medicine offices and to delineate the components of quality in results management., Methods: Using a multimethod protocol, we intensively studied 4 purposefully chosen family medicine offices using observations, interviews, and surveys. Data analysis consisted of iterative qualitative analysis, descriptive frequencies, and individual case studies, followed by a comparative case analysis. We assessed the quality of results management at each practice by both the presence of and adherence to systemwide practices for each results management step, as well as outcomes from chart reviews, patient surveys, and interview and observation notes., Results: We found variability between offices in how they performed the tasks for each of the specific steps of results management. No office consistently had or adhered to office-wide results management practices, and only 2 offices had written protocols or procedures for any results management steps. Whereas most patients surveyed acknowledged receiving their test results (87% to 100%), a far smaller proportion of patient charts documented patient notification (58% to 85%), clinician response to the result (47% to 84%), and follow-up for abnormal results (28% to 55%). We found 2 themes that emerged as factors of importance in assessing test results management quality: safety awareness-a leadership focus and communication that occurs around quality and safety, teamwork in the office, and the presence of appropriate policies and procedures; and technological adoption-the presence of an electronic health record, digital connections between the office and testing facilities, use of technology to facilitate patient communication, and the presence of forcing functions (built-in safeguards and requirements)., Conclusion: Understanding the components of safety awareness and technological adoption can assist family medicine offices in evaluating their own results management processes and help them design systems that can lead to higher quality care.

Objectives: Little research has focused on preventing harm from errors that occur in primary care. We studied mitigation of patient harm by analysing error reports from family physicians' offices., Methods: The data for this analysis come from reports of testing process errors identified by family physicians and their office staff in eight practices in the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. We determined how often reported error events were mitigated, described factors related to mitigation and assessed the effect of mitigation on the outcome of error events., Results: We identified mitigation in 123 (21%) of 597 testing process event reports. Of the identified mitigators, 79% were persons from inside the practice, and 7% were patients or patient's family. Older age was the only patient demographic attribute associated with increased likelihood of mitigation occurring (unadjusted OR 18-44 years compared with 65 years of age or older = 0.27; p = 0.007). Events that included testing implementation errors (11% of the events) had lower odds of mitigation (unadjusted OR = 0.40; p = 0.001), and events containing reporting errors (26% of the events) had higher odds of mitigation (unadjusted OR = 1.63; p = 0.021). As the number of errors reported in an event increased, the odds of that event being mitigated decreased (unadjusted OR = 0.58; p = 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression showed that an event had higher odds of being mitigated if it included an ordering error or if the patient was 65 years of age or older, and lower odds of being mitigated if the patient was between age 18 and 44, or if the event included an implementation error or involved more than one error. Mitigated events had lower odds of patient harm (unadjusted OR = 0.16; p<0.0001) and negative consequences (unadjusted OR = 0.28; p<0.0001). Mitigated events resulted in less severe and fewer detrimental outcomes compared with non-mitigated events., Conclusion: Nearly a quarter of testing process errors reported by family physicians and their staff had evidence of mitigation, and mitigated errors resulted in less frequent and less serious harm to patients. Vigilance throughout the testing process is likely to detect and correct errors, thereby preventing or reducing harm.

Context: Little is known about the types and outcomes of testing process errors that occur in primary care., Objective: To describe types, predictors and outcomes of testing errors reported by family physicians and office staff., Design: Events were reported anonymously. Each office completed a survey describing their testing processes prior to event reporting., Setting and Participants: 243 clinicians and office staff of eight family medicine offices., Main Outcome Measures: Distribution of error types, associations with potential predictors; predictors of harm and consequences of the errors., Results: Participants submitted 590 event reports with 966 testing process errors. Errors occurred in ordering tests (12.9%), implementing tests (17.9%), reporting results to clinicians (24.6%), clinicians responding to results (6.6%), notifying patient of results (6.8%), general administration (17.6%), communication (5.7%) and other categories (7.8%). Charting or filing errors accounted for 14.5% of errors. Significant associations (p<0.05) existed between error types and type of reporter (clinician or staff), number of labs used by the practice, absence of a results follow-up system and patients' race/ethnicity. Adverse consequences included time lost and financial consequences (22%), delays in care (24%), pain/suffering (11%) and adverse clinical consequence (2%). Patients were unharmed in 54% of events; 18% resulted in some harm, and harm status was unknown for 28%. Using multilevel logistic regression analyses, adverse consequences or harm were more common in events that were clinician-reported, involved patients aged 45-64 years and involved test implementation errors. Minority patients were more likely than white, non-Hispanic patients to suffer adverse consequences or harm., Conclusions: Errors occur throughout the testing process, most commonly involving test implementation and reporting results to clinicians. While significant physical harm was rare, adverse consequences for patients were common. The higher prevalence of harm and adverse consequences for minority patients is a troubling disparity needing further investigation.

Interactions between the laboratory and outpatient physician are critical to ensure the appropriateness, accuracy, and utility of laboratory results. A recent Institute of Medicine report suggested that the consequences of medical errors in the outpatient setting-and the opportunities to improve-"may dwarf those in hospitals." This article focuses on the role of the physician's office in laboratory quality.

Background: It is unknown if successful changes in specific safety practices in the intensive care unit (ICU) generalize to broader concepts of patient safety by staff nurses., Objective: To explore perceptions of patient safety among nursing staff in ICUs following participation in a safety project that decreased hospital acquired infections., Method: After implementation of practices that reduced catheter-related bloodstream infections in ICUs at four community hospitals, ICU nurses participated in focus groups to discuss patient safety. Audiotapes from the focus groups were transcribed, and two independent reviewers categorised the data which were triangulated with responses from selected questions of safety climate surveys and with the safety checklists used by management leadership on walk rounds., Results: Thirty-three nurses attended eight focus groups; 92 nurses and managers completed safety climate surveys, and three separate leadership checklists were reviewed. In focus groups, nurses predominantly related patient safety to dangers in the physical environment (eg, bed rails, alarms, restraints, equipment, etc.) and to medication administration. These areas also represented 47% of checklist items from leadership walk rounds. Nurses most frequently mentioned self-initiated "double checking" as their main safety task. Focus-group participants and survey responses both noted inconsistency between management's verbal and written commitment compared with their day-to-day support of patient safety issues., Conclusions: ICU nurses who participated in a project to decrease hospital acquired infections did not generalize their experience to other aspects of patient safety or relate it to management's interest in patient safety. These findings are consistent with many adult learning theories, where self-initiated tasks, combined with immediate, but temporary problem-solving, are stronger learning forces than management-led activities with delayed feedback.

The author, a family physician, writes about her adoptive daughter being diagnosed with the rare genetic disorder aniridia and later with a central auditory processing disorder. Both mother and daughter learn about these disorders and develop coping strategies.

Context: Reporting of medical errors is a widely recognized mechanism for initiating patient safety improvement, yet we know little about the feasibility of error reporting in physician offices, where the majority of medical care in the United States is rendered., Objective: To identify barriers and motivators for error reporting by family physicians and their office staff based on the experiences of those participating in a testing process error reporting study., Design: Qualitative focus group study, analyzed using the editing method., Setting: Eight volunteer practices of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network., Participants: 139 physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and staff who took part in 18 focus groups., Instrument: Interview questions asked about making reports, what prevents more reports from being made, and decisions about when to make reports., Results: Four factors were seen as central to making error reports: the burden of effort to report, clarity regarding the information requested in an error report, the perceived benefit to the reporter, and properties of the error (eg, severity, responsibility). The most commonly mentioned barriers were related to the high burden of effort to report and lack of clarity regarding the requested information. The most commonly mentioned motivator was perceived benefit., Conclusion: Successful error reporting systems for physicians' offices will need to have low reporting burden, have great clarity regarding the information requested, provide direct benefit through feedback useful to reporters, and take into account error severity and personal responsibility.

Background and Objectives: Compared to verbal communication, teaching the skill of observation is often shortchanged in medical education. Through a family medicine-art museum collaboration, we developed an elective course for second-year medical students titled the "Art of Observation" (AOO). To evaluate the course's effect on clinical skills, we performed a qualitative evaluation of former students during their clinical rotations., Methods: In the spring of 2005, all students who had completed the AOO course in 2003 or 2004 were invited to take part in an online evaluation consisting of eight journaling survey questions. Students were instructed to answer the survey questions with specific examples. Question areas included the most memorable experience, the course's influence on the doctor-patient relationship, usefulness during clinical years of medical school, and skills unique to AOO. The anonymous data were analyzed qualitatively, coding the responses to categories derived from the data, leading to the formation of themes., Results: Of the 19 students eligible, 17 participated. We found three important themes: (1) the AOO positively influenced clinical skills, (2) both art museum exercises and a clinical preceptorship were necessary to achieve those skills, and (3) the AOO led to a sense of personal development as a physician. In addition, students told us that the training in observation and description skills they learned were unique to the AOO., Conclusions: This collaboration between a department of family medicine and an art museum produced a course that facilitated observational skills used in successful doctor-patient relationships.

Purpose: We wanted to explore how patients' experiences with preventable problems in primary care have changed their behavioral interactions with the health care system., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 24 primary care patients, asking them to describe their experiences with self-perceived preventable problems. We analyzed these interviews using the editing method and classified emotional and behavioral responses to experiencing preventable problems., Results: Anger was the most common emotional response, followed by mistrust and resignation. We classified participants' behavioral responses into 4 categories: avoidance (eg, stop going to the doctor), accommodation (eg, learn to deal with delays), anticipation (eg, attend to details, attend to own emotions, acquire knowledge, actively communicate), and advocacy (eg, get a second opinion)., Conclusions: Understanding how patients react to their experiences with preventable problems can assist health care at both the physician-patient and system levels. We propose an association of mistrust with the behaviors of avoidance and advocacy, and suggest that further research explore the potential impact these patient behaviors have on the provision of health care.

Background: Errors occur frequently in management of the testing process in primary care physicians' offices. These errors may result in significant harm to patients and lead to inefficient practice. Important issues are summarized for primary care clinicians and their offices toconsider in improving the management of the testing processes., Methods: To identify published efforts to improve management of the testing process, a literature search was performed and the references from the identified articles were checked for additional studies. Descriptive studies, expert opinion pieces, and controlled trials were all included. Unpublished results of ongoing studies in laboratory testing errors in primary care practice are presented., Results: A conceptual model of the testing process was developed, with identified general and specific errors that occur in the testing process. On the basis largely of descriptive studies, ways are described to reduce testing process errors and the harm resulting from these errors., Conclusions: Standardization of processes, computerized test tracking systems (especially those embedded in electronic medical records), and attention to human factors issues are likely to reduce errors and harm. These ideas need confirmation in well-designed randomized trials and quality improvement initiatives.

Background: We wanted to describe errors and preventable adverse events identified by family physicians during the office-based clinical encounter and to determine the physicians' perception of patient harm resulting from these events., Method: We sampled Cincinnati area family physicians representing different practice locations and demographics. After each clinical encounter, physicians completed a form identifying process errors and preventable adverse events. Brief interviews were held with physicians to ascertain their perceptions of harm or potential harm to the patient., Results: Fifteen physicians in 7 practices completed forms for 351 outpatient visits. Errors and preventable adverse events were identified in 24% of these visits. There was wide variation in how often individual physicians identified errors (3% to 60% of visits). Office administration errors were most frequently noted. Harm was believe to have occurred as a result of 24% of the errors, and was a potential in another 70%. Although most harm was believed to be minor, there was disagreement as to whether to include emotional discomfort and wasted time as patient harm., Conclusions: Family physicians identify errors and preventable adverse events frequently during patient visits, but there is variation in how some error categories are interpreted and how harm is defined.

Objective: To describe and classify process errors and preventable adverse events that occur from medical care in outpatient primary care settings., Study Design: Systematic review and synthesis of the medical literature., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from 1965 through March 2001 with the MESH term medical errors, modified by adding family practice, primary health care, physicians/family, or ambulatory care and limited the search to English-language publications. Published bibliographies and Web sites from patient safety and primary care organizations were also reviewed for unpublished reports, presentations, and leads to other sites, journals, or investigators with relevant work. Additional papers were identified from the references of the papers reviewed and from seminal papers in the field., Outcomes Measured: Process errors and preventable adverse events., Results: Four original research studies directly studied and described medical errors and adverse events in primary care, and 3 other studies peripherally addressed primary care medical errors. A variety of quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the studies. Extraction of results from the studies led to a classification of 3 main categories of preventable adverse events: diagnosis, treatment, and preventive services. Process errors were classified into 4 categories: clinician, communication, administration, and blunt end., Conclusions: Original research on medical errors in the primary care setting consists of a limited number of small studies that offer a rich description of medical errors and preventable adverse events primarily from the physician's viewpoint. We describe a classification derived from these studies that is based on the actual practice of primary care and provides a starting point for future epidemiologic and interventional research. Missing are studies that have patient, consumer, or other health care provider input.

Background: In 1994, the Oregon Health Sciences University instituted an integrated course (Principles of Clinical Medicine; PCM) of classroom and outpatient clinic experience designed to give first- and second-year medical students a head start in clinical skills. During their third year, the students have been periodically evaluated by objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). Part of the OSCE assesses the student's skills in giving bad news by means of role playing. Assessment criteria fall into those measuring knowledge and those evaluating humanistic skills., Methods: To evaluate whether formal instruction in giving bad news leads to an improvement in a medical student's skills, the bad-news portions of the OSCE scores of third-year medical students taught by the old curriculum (OC) were compared with those of third-year students who had taken PCM., Results: While bad news knowledge scores did not differ significantly between the two groups of students, the average bad-news humanistic score was significantly better for the PCM group (85% vs 79%; p = 0.05). There was no significant difference in average scores for either knowledge or humanistic skills between male and female students in the PCM group. The benefit of PCM regarding delivering bad news was also reflected by a survey of attending physicians who had taught students under both the old and the new curricula. The majority of those surveyed scored students' skills in related areas better after PCM., Conclusion: Formal instruction in the first two years of medical school improved students' humanistic skills as they relate to the delivery of bad news.

Background: Physicians who have been sued multiple times for malpractice are assumed to be less competent than those who have never been sued. However, there is a lack of data to support this assumption. Competence includes both knowledge and performance, and there are theoretical reasons to suspect that the most knowledgeable physicians may be sued the most., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of family physicians who were included in the Florida section of the 1996 American Medical Association's Physician Masterfile and who practiced in Florida at any time between 1971 and 1994 (N = 3686). The main outcome was the number of malpractice claims per physician adjusted for time in practice. Using regression methods, we analyzed associations between malpractice claims and measures of physician knowledge., Results: Risk factors for malpractice claims included graduation from a medical school in the United States or Canada (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.1), specialty board certification (IRR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1), holding the American Medical Association Physician's Recognition Award (IRR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), and Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society membership (IRR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0). Among board-certified family physicians, sued physicians who made no payments to a plaintiff had higher certification examination scores than nonsued physicians (53.48 vs 51.38, P < .01). The scores of sued physicians who made payments were similar to those of nonsued physicians (51.05 vs 51.38, P = .93)., Conclusions: Among Florida family physicians, the frequency of malpractice claims increased with evidence of greater medical knowledge.

In recent years, the use of alternative medicine has become more acknowledged in the United States. Many different practices are encompassed by the terms alternative, unorthodox, or complementary medicine, and their use by the population is just now being defined. The number of established family practice patients also using alternative medicine is not yet known. To help answer this question, a survey of family practice patients concerning their use of alternative medicine was performed in 4 family practices in a large community in the western United States. Volunteers from the survey respondents attended a focus group to discuss more fully their use of alternative medicine. Questionnaires were completed by 113 family practice patients. Fifty percent (57/113) of patients had or were using some form of alternative medicine, but only 53% (30/57) had told their family physician about this use. No significant difference in the percentage who used alternative medicine or who told their physician about it was attributable to gender, educational level, age, race, or clinic attended. The main reason given for using alternative medicine, alone or in combination with care from a family physician, was a belief that it would work. Many of those who worked in combination with a family physician spoke of acceptance and control, but those who did not work with their physician mentioned traditional medicine's limitations and narrow-mindedness. Family physicians need to be aware that many of their patients may be using alternative health care. Open and nonjudgmental questioning of patients may help increase physician knowledge of this use and lead to improved patient care as physicians and patients work together toward health.

By the late nineteenth century, there were large numbers of women physicians in the United States. Three Realist novels of the time, Dr. Breen's Practice, by William Dean Howells, Dr. Zay, by Elizabeth Stuart Phelps and A Country Doctor, by Sarah Orne Jewett, feature women doctors as protagonists. The issues in these novels mirrored current issues in medicine and society. By contrasting the lives of these fictional women doctors to their historical counterparts, it is seen that, while the novels are good attempts to be truthful treatments of women physicians' struggles, in certain areas they do not accurately address the concerns of women physicians.

Qualitative research is now published across the family practice and medical literature. This article is designed to help busy family physicians decide which qualitative studies are worth reading and to provide them with the tools to appreciate and evaluate research design and analysis. By using clinical analogies, the qualitative research process can be better understood.

Background: Competent physicians occasionally make critical errors in patient care that can lead to long-lasting remorse and guilt. The perceived causes of self-admitted physician errors have not been previously explored., Methods: Fifty-three family physicians were interviewed in depth and asked to describe their most memorable errors and the perceived causes. The authors analyzed transcripts of the audiotaped interviews to determine the frequencies of the different causes. Errors were classified according to four general categories., Results: Family physicians collectively reported a mean of 8 different causes for each case in which an error was made (range, 1 to 16). In 47% of the cases, the patient died following the error, whereas in 26% of the cases, there was no adverse outcome. Only 4 of the 53 errors led to malpractice suits, and none were addressed by peer review organizations. Seven (10%) of the 70 physicians who were invited to participate could not recall having made any errors. Family physicians attributed their most memorable errors to 34 different causes, which fit into the following categories: physician stressors (eg, bing hurried or distracted), process-of-care factors (eg, premature closure of the diagnostic process), patient-related factors (eg, misleading normal findings), and physician characteristics (eg, lack of knowledge)., Conclusions: Family physicians attribute their memorable errors to a wide variety of causes, but most commonly to hurry, distraction, lack of knowledge, premature closure of the diagnostic process, and inadequately aggressive patient management. Physicians who understand common causes of errors may be better prepared to prevent them.

Background: Although smoking and smokeless tobacco use are recognized as major problems among school-age youth, few studies report on tobacco use in rural areas, especially remote rural areas., Methods: A self-report questionnaire was administered to all junior and senior high school students from a frontier rural community., Results: A total of 393 students completed the questionnaire. Of the 393, 39% had tried chewing tobacco at least once. High school males were the heaviest users, and more than 50% of those males who had ever chewed were still current users (33% of the town's high school males). Seven percent of the town's high school females used chewing tobacco, one of the country's highest reported rates of use at the time of this study. In addition, 39% of all the students had also smoked cigarettes. High school females reported the highest prevalence of ever having smoked (52%) and also had the highest prevalence of current smoking (13.5%). The number of students who had ever tried any form of tobacco use and the number who were current users were significantly higher in the high school than the junior high school. More than half of the students who smoked or chewed reported having close friends who also use tobacco products., Conclusion: The high rate of female smokers and male chewers in senior high is consistent with other studies. The rate of female chewing tobacco use is unusually high. Isolated rural communities have significant adolescent tobacco abuse, and prevention and treatment strategies need to be developed for this special population.

Background and Objectives: The annual meetings of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) and the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) are important peer-reviewed venues for family medicine academicians to present their research. However, a relatively small number of individuals actually hear each presentation. In order to permanently share their research with a large number of peers, these presenters need to take the next step and publish completed manuscripts. This study examined the frequency with which presentations at these meetings are eventually published., Methods: All abstracts from the 1987 and 1988 meetings of NAPCRG and the PEER and research sections of STFM were followed by performing a Medline computer search for the presenting author. Publications that matched the presentations were identified, and information was recorded about the elapsed time between presentation and publication, and the journal where publication occurred., Results: Just under half (48%) of all the presentations were published within 4 or 5 years. There was no difference between 1987 and 1988 presentations, nor between NAPCRG and the combined STFM presentations. However, 69% of STFM research presentations were published compared to 31% of the peer presentations (X2 = 20.6, df = 2, P < .001). The STFM research publications also tended to be in print sooner than other presentations. Fifty-six percent of the publications occurred in family practice journals, with Family Medicine and the Journal of Family Practice being the most common journals., Conclusions: Approximately half of the presentations at STFM and NAPCRG annual meeting are published within 4 to 5 years. This is consistent with publication rates found for other specialty meetings. The reasons for not publishing are numerous and need to be better elucidated to help family medicine academicians complete the research loop and disseminate their findings to the scientific community.

Urinary tract infections continue to be a major health problem for women. Understanding of the pathogenesis of urinary tract infections has improved; Staphylococcus saprophyticus has been recognized as a common causative agent, and low-colony-count infections are misdiagnosed less often. Traditional therapy with 10 days of amoxicillin (Amoxil, Wymox) or ampicillin (Omnipen, Totacillin) is no longer considered optimal. For women who fulfill certain clinical criteria, short-course therapy is recommended--preferably 3 days of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, or trimethoprim alone (Proloprim, Trimpex) if the woman is allergic to sulfonamides. Longer therapy is indicated for women with complicated, prolonged, or recurrent infections. To appropriately treat patients and avoid overtreatment that would increase both costs and the incidence of side effects, physicians need to stay abreast of information about pathogens, mechanisms of disease, new drugs, and common resistance patterns.

Background: Patients and their physicians are increasingly being encouraged to discuss end-of-life decisions. The purpose of this study was to enhance understanding of the public's attitudes and knowledge about medical decision making and advance care directives., Methods: Eight focus groups of community members discussed their understanding of and attitudes about advance care directives. Transcripts of these discussions were analyzed using coding categories created from the transcripts., Results: Eighty-three people attended the focus groups. Most discussions of advance care directives involved family members in the setting of family or personal illness. Elderly persons commonly confused wills with living wills. Most who had given advance directives did so either to make others follow their wishes or to ease family burdens. Among the great variety of reasons for not using advance directives was a perceived lack of personal relevance, as well as conceptual, moral, and practical difficulties. Participants were divided about whether it was appropriate for physicians to initiate discussions about life-sustaining care with their patients. We discerned three themes affecting individuals' opinions about personal decision making about advance directives: (1) trust in family and the medical system, (2) need for control, and (3) knowledge about advance directives., Conclusions: Although living wills are advocated by many authorities, and many of our participants endorsed their use, our participants also cited numerous cautions and impediments to their use. As the role of advance care directives changes, physicians will need to be aware of their patients' perceptions, as well as the legalities of these documents.