Comparison of Insulin Dose Adjustments by Primary Care Physicians and Endocrinologists.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Davidson MB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5775011 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparison of Insulin Dose Adjustments by Primary Care Physicians and Endocrinologists.
Davidson Mayer B MB Duran Petra P Davidson S Joshua SJ Lee Martin M
Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association 20180101 1
<b>IN BRIEF</b> Insulin dose adjustment decisions in 20 simulated patients by nine primary care physicians (PCPs) and nine endocrinologists were compared to the algorithms used in a diabetes program in a large safety-net clinic. The number of dose changes was similar in the PCP and endocrinologist groups; however, the amounts of the dose changes in the PCP group were significantly closer to the diabetes program algorithms than the amounts in the endocrinologist group. Time constraints, rather th ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of this study was to explore patient perceptions of primary care providers and their offices relative to their physician's philosophy (medical degree [MD] vs doctorate in osteopathic medicine [DO]), specialty (internal medicine vs family medicine), US region, and gender (male vs female). Using the Healthgrades website, the average satisfaction rating for the physician, office parameters, and wait time were collected and analyzed for 1267 physicians. We found female doctors tended to have lower ratings in the Midwest, and staff friendliness of female physicians were rated lower in the northwest. In the northeast, male and female MDs were rated more highly than DOs. Wait times varied regionally, with northeast and northwest regions having the shortest wait times. Overall satisfaction was generally high for most physicians. Regional differences in perception of a physician based on gender or degree may have roots in local culture, including proximity to a DO school, comfort with female physicians, and expectations for waiting times.
| S-EPMC8205358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral different types of influenza vaccine are licensed for use in adults in the USA including high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (HD-IIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). HD-IIV is licensed for use in adults ≥ 65 years, and recommendations for use of LAIV have changed several times in recent years.ObjectiveWe sought to examine family physicians' (FPs) and general internal medicine physicians' (GIMs) perceptions, knowledge, and practices for use of HD-IIV and LAIV during the 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 influenza seasons.DesignE-mail and mail surveys conducted February-March 2017, January-February 2019.ParticipantsNationally representative samples of FPs and GIMs.Main measuresSurveys assessed HD-IIV practices (2017), knowledge and perceptions (2019), and LAIV knowledge and practices (2017, 2019).Key resultsResponse rates were 67% (620/930) in 2017 and 69% (642/926) in 2019. Many physicians believed HD-IIV is more effective than standard dose IIV in patients ≥ 65 years (76%) and reported their patients ≥ 65 years believe they need HD-IIV (67%). Most respondents incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years (88%); 65% "almost always/always" recommended HD-IIV for adults ≥ 65 years. Some physicians incorrectly thought ACIP preferentially recommends HD-IIV for adults < 65 years with cardiopulmonary disease (38%) or immunosuppression (48%); some respondents recommended HD-IIV for these groups (25% and 28% respectively). In 2017, 88% of respondents knew that ACIP recommended against using LAIV during the 2016-2017 influenza season, and 4% recommended LAIV to patients. In 2019, 63% knew that ACIP recommended that LAIV could be used during the 2018-2019 influenza season, and 8% recommended LAIV.ConclusionsMany physicians incorrectly thought ACIP had preferential recommendations for HD-IIV. Physicians should be encouraged to use any available age-appropriate influenza vaccine to optimize influenza vaccination particularly among older adults and patients with chronic conditions who are more vulnerable to severe influenza disease.
| S-EPMC8298749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince 2000, Israel has had a national program for ongoing monitoring of the quality of the primary care services provided by the country's four competing non-profit health plans. Previous research has demonstrated that quality of care has improved substantially since the program's inception and that the program enjoys wide support among health plan managers. However, prior to this study there were anecdotal and journalistic reports of opposition to the program among primary care physicians engaged in direct service delivery; these raised serious questions about the extent of support among physicians nationally.GoalsTo assess how Israeli primary care physicians experience and rate health plan efforts to track and improve the quality of care.MethodThe study population consisted of primary care physicians employed by the health plans who have responsibility for the quality of care of a panel of adult patients. The study team randomly sampled 250 primary-care physicians from each of the four health plans. Of the 1,000 physicians sampled, 884 met the study criteria. Every physician could choose whether to participate in the survey by mail, e-mail, or telephone. The anonymous questionnaire was completed by 605 physicians - 69% of those eligible. The data were weighted to reflect differences in sampling and response rates across health plans.Main findingsThe vast majority of respondents (87%) felt that the monitoring of quality was important and two-thirds (66%) felt that the feedback and subsequent remedial interventions improved medical care to a great extent. Almost three-quarters (71%) supported continuation of the program in an unqualified manner. The physicians with the most positive attitudes to the program were over age 44, independent contract physicians, and either board-certified in internal medicine or without any board-certification (i.e., residents or general practitioners). At the same time, support for the program was widespread even among physicians who are young, board-certified in family medicine, and salaried.Many physicians also reported that various problems had emerged to a great or very great extent: a heavier workload (65%), over-competitiveness (60%), excessive managerial pressure (48%), and distraction from other clinical issues (35%). In addition, there was some criticism of the quality of the measures themselves. Respondents also identified approaches to addressing these problems.ConclusionsThe findings provide perspective on the anecdotal reports of physician opposition to the monitoring program; they may well accurately reflect the views of the small number of physicians directly involved, but they do not reflect the views of primary care physicians as a whole, who are generally quite supportive of the program. At the same time, the study confirms the existence of several perceived problems. Some of these problems, such as excess managerial pressure, can probably best be addressed by the health plans themselves; while others, such as the need to refine the quality indicators, are probably best addressed at the national level. Cooperation between primary care physicians and health plan managers, which has been an essential component of the program's success thus far, can also play an important role in addressing the problems identified.
| S-EPMC3472172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceA physician's prior experience caring for a patient may be associated with patient outcomes and care patterns during and after hospitalization.ObjectiveTo examine differences in the use of health care resources and outcomes among hospitalized patients cared for by hospitalists, their own primary care physicians (PCPs), or other generalists.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective study analyzed admissions for the 20 most common medical diagnoses among elderly fee-for-service Medicare patients from January 1 through December 31, 2013. Patients had at least 1 previous encounter with an outpatient clinician within the 365 days before admission, and diagnoses were restricted to the 20 most common diagnosis related groups. Data were collected from Medicare Parts A and B claims data, and outcomes were analyzed from January 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014.ExposuresPhysician types included hospitalists, PCPs (ie, the physicians who provided a plurality of ambulatory visits in the year preceding admission), or generalists (not the patients' PCPs).Main outcomes and measuresNumber of in-hospital specialist consultations, length of stay, discharge site, all-cause 7- and 30-day readmission rates, and 30-day mortality.ResultsA total of 560 651 admissions were analyzed (41.9% men and 59.1% women; mean [SD] age, 80 [8] years). Patients' physicians were hospitalists in 59.7% of admissions; PCPs, in 14.2%; and other generalists, in 26.1%. Primary care physicians used consultations 3% more (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and other generalists used consultations 6% more (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.07) than hospitalists. Lengths of stay were 12% longer among patients cared for by PCPs (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.11-1.13) and 6% longer among those cared for by other generalists (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.05-1.07) compared with patients cared for by hospitalists. However, PCPs were more likely to discharge patients home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.17), whereas other generalists were less likely to do so (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96). Relative to hospitalists, patients cared for by PCPs had similar readmission rates at 7 days (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01) and 30 days (AOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04), whereas other generalists' readmission rates were greater than hospitalists' rates at 7 (AOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07) and 30 (AOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06) days. Patients cared for by PCPs had lower 30-day mortality than patients of hospitalists (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97), whereas the mortality rate of patients of other generalists was higher (AOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12).Conclusions and relevanceA PCP's prior experience with a patient may be associated with inpatient use of resources and patient outcomes. Patients cared for by their own PCP had slightly longer lengths of stay and were more likely to be discharged home but also were less likely to die within 30 days compared with those cared for by hospitalists or other generalists.
| S-EPMC5820730 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The demand for oncology services in the United States (US) is increasing, whereas a shortage of oncologists looms. There is the need for a better understanding of the involvement of primary care physicians (PCPs) in cancer care.To characterize the role of PCPs in cancer care, compare it with that of oncologists, and identify factors explaining greater PCP involvement in cancer care.National survey of physicians caring for cancer patients conducted by the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium.1694 PCPs; 1621 oncologists.Questionnaires mailed during 2005 and 2006 examined the participation of physicians in 12 aspects of care for cancer patients.Over 90% of PCPs fulfilled general medical care roles for patients with cancer such as managing comorbid conditions, chronic pain, or depression; establishing do-not-resuscitate status; and referring patients to hospice. Oncologists were less involved in these roles. Determining the treatment preferences of individual patients and deciding on the use of surgery were the only cancer care roles in which > or =50% of PCPs participated. Twenty-two percent of PCPs reported no direct involvement in cancer care roles while 19% reported heavy involvement. PCPs who were aged > or =50 years, were internists or geriatricians, taught medical students, saw more cancer patients, or experienced referral barriers fulfilled more roles. Rural practice location was not associated with greater PCP involvement in cancer care.PCPs across the US have an active role in cancer patient management. Determining the optimal interface between PCPs and oncologists in delivering and coordinating cancer care is an important area for future research.
| S-EPMC2726889 | biostudies-other
Project description:Building strong relationships among physicians and staff improves the practice's ability to deal with the uncertainties of a rapidly changing environment. Interacting proactively with the economic, social, political, and cultural environment-the practice landscape-provides opportunities for adaptation and ongoing learning.
| S-EPMC3140165 | biostudies-other
Project description:Soon after the National Lung Screening Trial, organizations began to endorse low-dose computed tomography (LCDT) screening for lung cancer in high-risk patients. Concerns about the risks versus benefits of screening, as well as the logistics of identifying and referring eligible patients, remained among physicians. This study aimed to examine primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes, referral practices, and associated barriers regarding LDCT screening. We administered a national survey of primary care physicians in the United States between September 2016 and April 2017. Physicians received up to 3 mailings, 1 follow-up email, and received varying incentives to complete the survey. Overall, 293 physicians participated, for a response rate of 13%. We used weighted descriptive statistics to characterize participants and their responses. Over half of the respondents correctly reported that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends LDCT screening for high-risk patients. Screening recommendations for patients not meeting high-risk criteria varied. Although 75% agreed that the benefits of LDCT screening outweigh the risks, fewer agreed that there is substantial evidence that screening reduces mortality (50%). The most commonly reported barriers to ordering screening included prior authorization requirements (57%), lack of insurance coverage (53%), and coverage denials (31%). The most frequently cited barrier to conducting LDCT screening shared decision making was patients' competing health priorities (42%). Given the impact of physician recommendations on cancer screening utilization, further understanding of physicians' LDCT screening attitudes and shared decision-making practices is needed. Clinical practice and policy changes are also needed to engage more patients in screening discussions.
| S-EPMC6030390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: We aimed to determine whether physicians of different specialties perform differently in the monitoring, cost control, and prevention of acute outcomes in diabetes care. (2) Methods: Using data from the Health and Welfare Data Science Center, participants with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (n = 206,819) were classified into three cohorts based on their primary care physician during the first year of diagnosis: family medicine (FM), endocrinologist, and other internal medicine (IM). The three cohorts were matched in a pairwise manner (FM (n = 28,269) vs. IM (n = 28,269); FM (n = 23,407) vs. endocrinologist (n = 23,407); IM (n = 43,693) vs. endocrinologist (n = 43,693)) and evaluated for process indicators, expenditure on diabetes care, and incidence of acute complications (using subdistribution hazard ratio; sHR). (3) Results: Compared to the FM cohort, both the IM (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.47) and endocrinologist cohorts (sHR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.38−1.78) had higher incidences of acute complications. The FM cohort incurred lower costs than the IM cohort (USD 487.41 vs. USD 507.67, p = 0.01) and expended less than half of the diabetes-related costs of the endocrinology cohort (USD 484.39 vs. USD 927.85, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: Family physicians may provide better care at a lower cost to newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients. Relatively higher costs incurred by other internists and endocrinologists in the process of diabetes care may be explained by the more frequent ordering of specialized tests.
| S-EPMC8955527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to identify the factors that are most important for community-dwelling older individuals (i.e., users) and primary care (PC) providers to enhance PC services.MethodsDiscrete choice experiment surveys were administered to 747 individuals aged ≥ 60 years and 242 PC physicians in Singapore between December 2020 and August 2021. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical PC clinics and their current clinic. Latent class models were used to estimate the relative attribute importance (RAI) and to calculate the predicted uptake for enhanced PC services.ResultsBased on the attributes and levels used in this study, the out-of-pocket cost (RAI: 47%) and types of services offered (RAI: 25%) were the most important attributes for users while working hours (RAI: 28%) and patient load (RAI: 25%) were the most important for providers. For out-of-pocket visit costs ranging from Singapore dollars (S)$100 to S$5, users' predicted uptake for enhanced PC services ranged from 46 to 84%. For daily patient loads ranging from 60 to 20 patients, providers' predicted uptake ranged from 64 to 91%, assuming their income remains unchanged.ConclusionsOur study provides timely insights for the development of strategies to support the government's new health care initiative (HealthierSG), which places PC at the center of Singapore's healthcare system. The ability to choose their preferred clinic, low out-of-pocket costs and types of services offered (for users), and reasonable working conditions (for providers) were the key factors for users and providers to participate in enhanced PC services.
| S-EPMC10169155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to compare the evidence-based practices of primary care physicians between those working in rural and in urban primary care settings.Data from two previous qualitative studies, the Front-line Equitable Evidence-based Decision Making in Medicine and Creating, Synthesising and Implementing evidence-based medicine (EBM) in primary care studies, were sorted, arranged, classified and compared with the help of qualitative research software, NVivo V.10. Data categories were interrogated through comparison between and within datasets to identify similarities and differences in rural and urban practices. Themes were then refined by removing or recoding redundant and infrequent nodes into major key themes.There were 55 primary care physicians who participated in 10 focus group discussions (n=31) and 9 individual physician in-depth interviews.The study was conducted across three primary care settings-an academic primary care practice and both private and public health clinics in rural (Pahang) and urban (Selangor and Kuala Lumpur) settings in Malaysia.We identified five major themes that influenced the implementation of EBM according to practice settings, namely, workplace factors, EBM understanding and awareness, work experience and access to specialist placement, availability of resources and patient population. Lack of standardised care is a contributing factor to differences in EBM practice, especially in rural areas.There were major differences in the practice of EBM between rural and urban primary care settings. These findings could be used by policy-makers, administrators and the physicians themselves to identify strategies to improve EBM practices that are targeted according to workplace settings.
| S-EPMC6082445 | biostudies-other