Dataset Information

When to repatriate? Clinicians' perspectives on the transfer of patient management from specialty to primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Subspecialty ambulatory care visits have doubled in the past 10 years and nearly half of all visits are for follow-up care. Could some of this care be provided by primary care providers (PCPs)?

Objective

To determine how often PCPs and specialists agree that a mutual patient's condition could be managed exclusively by the PCP, and to understand PCPs' perspectives on factors that influence decisions about 'repatriation,' or the transfer of patient management to primary care.

Design

A mixed method approach including paired surveys of PCPs and specialists about the necessity for ongoing specialty care of mutual patients, and interviews with PCPs about care coordination practices and reasons for differing opinions with specialists.

Participants

One hundred and eighty-nine PCPs and 59 physicians representing five medicine subspecialties completed paired surveys for 343 patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 PCPs.

Measurements

For each patient, PCPs and specialists were asked, "Could this diagnosis be managed exclusively by the PCP?"

Results

Specialists and PCPs agreed that transfer to primary care was appropriate for 16% of patients, whereas 36% had specialists and PCPs who agreed that ongoing specialty care was appropriate. Specialists were half as likely as PCPs to identify patients as appropriate for transfer to primary care. PCPs identified several factors that influence the likelihood that patients will be transferred to primary care, including perceived patient preferences, limited access to physician appointments, excessive workload, inter-clinician communication norms, and differences in clinical judgment. We group these factors into two domains: 'push-back' and 'pull-back' to primary care.

Conclusions

At a large academic medical center, approximately one in six patients receiving ongoing specialty care could potentially be managed exclusively by a PCP. PCPs identified several non-clinical factors to explain continuation of specialty care when patient transfer to PCP is clinically appropriate.

SUBMITTER: Ackerman SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4175642 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

When to repatriate? Clinicians' perspectives on the transfer of patient management from specialty to primary care.

Ackerman Sara L SL Gleason Nathaniel N Monacelli Jennifer J Collado Don D Wang Michael M Ho Chanda C Catschegn-Pfab Sereina S Gonzales Ralph R

Journal of general internal medicine 20140617 10

<h4>Background</h4>Subspecialty ambulatory care visits have doubled in the past 10 years and nearly half of all visits are for follow-up care. Could some of this care be provided by primary care providers (PCPs)?<h4>Objective</h4>To determine how often PCPs and specialists agree that a mutual patient's condition could be managed exclusively by the PCP, and to understand PCPs' perspectives on factors that influence decisions about 'repatriation,' or the transfer of patient management to primary c ...[more]

PMID: 24934146

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDepression is prevalent in primary care (PC) practices and poses a considerable public health burden in the United States. Despite nearly four decades of efforts to improve depression care quality in PC practices, a gap remains between desired treatment outcomes and the reality of how depression care is delivered.ObjectiveThis article presents a real-world PC practice model of depression care, elucidating the processes and their influencing conditions.DesignGrounded theory methodology was used for the data collection and analysis to develop a depression care model. Data were collected from 70 individual interviews (60 to 70 min each), three focus group interviews (n = 24, 2 h each), two surveys per clinician, and investigators' field notes on practice environments. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. Surveys and field notes complemented interview data.ParticipantsSeventy primary care clinicians from 52 PC offices in the Midwest: 28 general internists, 28 family physicians, and 14 nurse practitioners.Key resultsA depression care model was developed that illustrates how real-world conditions infuse complexity into each step of the depression care process. Depression care in PC settings is mediated through clinicians' interactions with patients, practice, and the local community. A clinician's interactional familiarity ("familiarity capital") was a powerful facilitator for depression care. For the recognition of depression, three previously reported processes and three conditions were confirmed. For the management of depression, 13 processes and 11 conditions were identified. Empowering the patient was a parallel process to the management of depression.ConclusionsThe clinician's ability to develop and utilize interactional relationships and resources needed to recognize and treat a person with depression is key to depression care in primary care settings. The interactional context of depression care makes empowering the patient central to depression care delivery.

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about how US clinicians have responded to resource limitation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.ObjectiveTo describe the perspectives and experiences of clinicians involved in institutional planning for resource limitation and/or patient care during the pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used inductive thematic analysis of semistructured interviews conducted in April and May 2020 with a national group of clinicians (eg, intensivists, nephrologists, nurses) involved in institutional planning and/or clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic across the United States.Main outcomes and measuresEmergent themes describing clinicians' experience providing care in settings of resource limitation.ResultsThe 61 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [11] years; 38 [63%] women) included in this study were practicing in 15 US states and were more heavily sampled from areas with the highest rates of COVID-19 infection at the time of interviews (ie, Seattle, New York City, New Orleans). Most participants were White individuals (39 [65%]), were attending physicians (45 [75%]), and were practicing in large academic centers (≥300 beds, 51 [85%]; academic centers, 46 [77%]). Three overlapping and interrelated themes emerged from qualitative analysis, as follows: (1) planning for crisis capacity, (2) adapting to resource limitation, and (3) multiple unprecedented barriers to care delivery. Clinician leaders worked within their institutions to plan a systematic approach for fair allocation of limited resources in crisis settings so that frontline clinicians would not have to make rationing decisions at the bedside. However, even before a declaration of crisis capacity, clinicians encountered varied and sometimes unanticipated forms of resource limitation that could compromise care, require that they make difficult allocation decisions, and contribute to moral distress. Furthermore, unprecedented challenges to caring for patients during the pandemic, including the need to limit in-person interactions, the rapid pace of change, and the dearth of scientific evidence, added to the challenges of caring for patients and communicating with families.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this qualitative study highlighted the complexity of providing high-quality care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the scope of institutional planning to address resource limitation challenges that can arise long before declarations of crisis capacity may help to support frontline clinicians, promote equity, and optimize care as the pandemic evolves.

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:Improving the patient experience of primary care is a stated focus of efforts to transform primary care practices into "Patient-centered Medical Homes" (PCMH) in the United States, yet understanding and promoting what defines a positive experience from the patient's perspective has been de-emphasized relative to the development of technological and communication infrastructure at the PCMH. The objective of this qualitative study was to compare primary care clinicians' and their patients' perceptions of the patients' experiences, expectations and preferences as they try to achieve care for depression.We interviewed 6 primary care clinicians along with 30 of their patients with a history of depressive disorder attending 4 small to medium-sized primary care practices from rural and urban settings.Three processes on the way to satisfactory depression care emerged: 1. a journey, often from fractured to connected care; 2. a search for a personal understanding of their depression; 3. creation of unique therapeutic spaces for treating current depression and preventing future episodes. Relative to patients' observations regarding stigma's effects on accepting a depression diagnosis and seeking treatment, clinicians tended to underestimate the presence and effects of stigma. Patients preferred clinicians who were empathetic listeners, while clinicians worried that discussing depression could open "Pandora's box" of lengthy discussions and set them irrecoverably behind in their clinic schedules. Clinicians and patients agreed that somatic manifestations of mental distress impeded the patients' ability to understand their suffering as depression. Clinicians reported supporting several treatment modalities beyond guideline-based approaches for depression, yet also displayed surface-level understanding of the often multifaceted support webs their patient described.Improving processes and outcomes in primary care may demand heightened ability to understand and measure the patients' experiences, expectations and preferences as they receive primary care. Future research would investigate a potential mismatch between clinicians' and patients' perceptions of the effects of stigma on achieving care for depression, and on whether time spent discussing depression during the clinical visit improves outcomes. Improving care and outcomes for chronic disorders such as depression may require primary care clinicians to understand and support their patients' unique 'therapeutic spaces.'

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improving access to specialty care has been identified as a critical issue in the delivery of health services, especially given an increasing burden of chronic disease. Identifying and addressing problems that impact access to specialty care for patients referred to speciality care for non-emergent procedures and how these deficiencies can be managed via health system delivery interventions is important to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. However, the primary-specialty care interface is complex and may be impacted by a variety of potential health services delivery deficiencies; with an equal range of interventions developed to correct them. Consequently, the literature is also diverse and difficult to navigate. We present a narrative review to identify existing literature, and provide a conceptual map that categorizes problems at the primary-specialty care interface with linkages to corresponding interventions aimed at ensuring that patient transitions across the primary-specialty care interface are necessary, appropriate, timely and well communicated. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1, 2005 until Dec 31, 2014, grey literature and reference lists to identify articles that report on interventions implemented to improve the primary-specialty care interface. Selected articles were categorized to describe: 1) the intervention context, including the deficiency addressed, and the objective of the intervention 2) intervention activities, and 3) intervention outcomes. RESULTS:We identified 106 articles, producing four categories of health services delivery deficiencies based in: 1) clinical decision making; 2) information management; 3) the system level management of patient flows between primary and secondary care; and 4) quality-of-care monitoring. Interventions were divided into seven categories and fourteen sub-categories based on the deficiencies addressed and the intervention strategies used. Potential synergies and trade-offs among interventions are discussed. Little evidence exists regarding the synergistic and antagonistic interactions of alternative intervention strategies. CONCLUSION:The categorization acts as an aid in identifying why the primary-specialty care interface may be failing and which interventions may produce improvements. Overlap and interconnectedness between interventions creates potential synergies and conflicts among co-implemented interventions.

Dataset Information

When to repatriate? Clinicians' perspectives on the transfer of patient management from specialty to primary care.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Measurements

Results

Conclusions

Publications

When to repatriate? Clinicians' perspectives on the transfer of patient management from specialty to primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure