Dataset Information

Primary care providers' views on metabolic monitoring of outpatients taking antipsychotic medication.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate attitudes of primary care providers toward barriers to metabolic monitoring and to characterize their beliefs about providers' responsibility for monitoring and reducing cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illness.An anonymous survey was administered to 214 primary care providers working in 23 public community health clinics in San Francisco.The response rate was 77% (164 of 214). Nearly 40% of primary care providers were unaware of consensus guidelines for metabolic monitoring of people who take second-generation antipsychotic medications. Responses showed variation in providers' beliefs about who should monitor patients' metabolic risk. The major barriers to metabolic monitoring were severity of psychiatric illness, difficulty collaborating with psychiatrists, and difficulty arranging psychiatric follow-up.Primary care providers believed that better communication between primary care providers and psychiatrists would facilitate metabolic monitoring and promote better treatment for patients with severe mental illness who are taking antipsychotic medications.

SUBMITTER: Mangurian C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3780562 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary care providers' views on metabolic monitoring of outpatients taking antipsychotic medication.

Mangurian Christina C Giwa Funmi F Shumway Martha M Fuentes-Afflick Elena E Pérez-Stable Eliseo J EJ Dilley James W JW Schillinger Dean D

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20130601 6

<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to evaluate attitudes of primary care providers toward barriers to metabolic monitoring and to characterize their beliefs about providers' responsibility for monitoring and reducing cardiovascular risk for people with severe mental illness.<h4>Methods</h4>An anonymous survey was administered to 214 primary care providers working in 23 public community health clinics in San Francisco.<h4>Results</h4>The response rate was 77% (164 of 214). Nearly 40% ...[more]

PMID: 23728604

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDiabetes is a prevalent comorbid condition among many women with breast cancer. The roles and responsibilities of managing diabetes during cancer care are unclear, as oncologists lack interest and clinical expertise and many patients stop seeing their primary care providers (PCPs). Uncertainty around who should manage diabetes for cancer patients can result in gaps in care for survivors. We sought to elicit the perspectives of providers about a novel diabetes care delivery intervention for women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.MethodsWe conducted nominal group sessions with PCPs and breast oncologists across the USA. We introduced a novel care delivery model, which involved a nurse practitioner (NP) specifically trained in diabetes to work within the oncology team to manage diabetes for women during chemotherapy. PCPs and oncologists were asked to identify potential barriers and facilitators to the intervention's success and then vote on the top three most important barriers and facilitators, separately. Votes were aggregated across sessions and presented as frequencies and weighted percentages.ResultsFrom November to December 2020, two 60-min sessions with PCPs and two 60-min sessions with breast oncologists were held virtually. In total, 29 providers participated, with 16 PCPs and 13 breast oncologists. At the health system level, financial support for the NP-led intervention was identified as the most important barrier across both provider types. Clearly defined roles for each care team member were identified as the most important facilitator at the care team level. At the patient level, lack of cancer-specific diabetes education was identified as an important barrier.ConclusionOur findings underscore the need to engage various stakeholders including policy makers, institutional leadership, care team members, and patients to improve diabetes care for patients undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. As such, multi-disciplinary interventions are warranted to increase awareness, engagement, and self-management practices among breast cancer patients with diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) often struggle with blood pressure control. In team-based models of care, pharmacists and primary care providers (PCPs) play important roles in supporting patients' blood pressure management.ObjectiveTo describe whether PCPs' acceptance of pharmacists' recommendations impacts systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 36 months.DesignAn observational analysis of a subset of participants randomized to the intervention arm of the Simultaneous risk factor control using Telehealth to slOw Progression of Diabetic Kidney Disease (STOP-DKD) study.ParticipantsSTOP-DKD participants for whom (1) the pharmacist made at least one recommendation to the PCP; (2) there were available data regarding the PCP's corresponding action; and (3) there were SBP measurements at baseline and 36 months.InterventionParticipants received monthly telephone calls with a pharmacist addressing health behaviors and medication management. Pharmacists made medication-related recommendations to PCPs.Main measuresWe fit an unadjusted generalized linear mixed model to assess the association between the number of pharmacists' recommendations for DKD and blood pressure management and PCPs' acceptance of such recommendations. We used a linear regression model to evaluate the association between PCP acceptance and SBP at 36 months, adjusted for baseline SBP.Key resultsPharmacists made 176 treatment recommendations (among 59 participants), of which 107 (61%) were accepted by PCPs. SBP significantly declined by an average of 10.5 mmHg (p < 0.01) among 47 of 59 participants who had valid measurements at baseline and 36 months. There was a significant association between the number of pharmacist recommendations and the odds of PCP acceptance (OR 1.19; 95%CI 1.00, 1.42; p < 0.05), but no association between the number of accepted recommendations and SBP.ConclusionsPharmacists provided actionable medication-related recommendations. We identified a significant decline in SBP at 36 months, but this reduction was not associated with recommendation acceptance.Trial registrationNCT01829256.

Project description:BackgroundDespite efforts to improve access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, the number of opioid overdoses in the United States continues to rise. In April 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services removed the mandatory training requirement to obtain a buprenorphine waiver; the goal was to encourage more providers to prescribe buprenorphine, thus improving access. Little is known about the attitudes on buprenorphine prescribing after this policy change.ObjectiveThe primary objective was to assess attitudes among primary care providers toward the removal of the buprenorphine waiver training requirement. A secondary objective was to identify other barriers to prescribing buprenorphine.MethodsWe conducted a survey between September 15 and October 13, 2021 to assess the overall beliefs on the effectiveness of MOUD and attitudes toward the removal of the waiver training, current knowledge of buprenorphine, current practice styles related to screening for and treating OUD, and attitudes toward prescribing buprenorphine in the future. This survey was sent to 890 Mayo Clinic primary care providers in 5 US states.ResultsOne hundred twenty-three respondents (13.8%) completed the survey; 35.8% respondents agreed that the removal of the waiver training was a positive step. These respondents expressed a greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine. This group was also more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Approximately one-third (34.4%) of respondents reported perceived institutional support in prescribing buprenorphine. This group expressed greater confidence in diagnosing OUD, had greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine, and was more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Respondents who have been in practice for 11 to 20 years since completion of training were most likely to refer all OUD patients to specialists.ConclusionsResults of our survey suggests that simply removing the mandatory waiver training requirement is insufficient in positively changing attitudes toward buprenorphine prescribing. A key barrier is the perceived lack of institutional support. Future studies investigating effective ways to provide such support may help improve providers' willingness to prescribe buprenorphine.

Project description:BackgroundIn-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients.MethodsTen face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners', community pharmacists', geriatricians', and hospital pharmacists' experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach.ResultsThe need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication.ConclusionPrimary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.

Dataset Information

Primary care providers' views on metabolic monitoring of outpatients taking antipsychotic medication.

Publications

Primary care providers' views on metabolic monitoring of outpatients taking antipsychotic medication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets