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: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: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:To explore the relationship between degree of rurality and glucose (hemoglobin A1c), blood pressure (BP), and lipid (LDL) control among patients with diabetes.Descriptive study; 1,649 patients in 205 rural practices in the United States. Patients' residence ZIP codes defined degree of rurality (Rural-Urban Commuting Areas codes). Outcomes were measures of acceptable control (A1c < = 9%, BP < 140/90 mmHg, LDL < 130 mg/dL) and optimal control (A1c < 7%, BP < 130/80 mmHg, LDL < 100 mg/dL). Statistical significance was set at P < .008 (Bonferroni's correction).Although the proportion of patients with reasonable A1c control worsened by increasing degree of rurality, the differences were not statistically significant (urban 90%, large rural 88%, small rural 85%, isolated rural 83%; P = .10); mean A1c values also increased by degree of rurality, although not statistically significant (urban 7.2 [SD 1.6], large rural 7.3 [SD 1.7], small rural 7.5 [SD 1.8], isolated rural 7.5 [SD 1.9]; P = .16). We observed no differences between degree of rural and reasonable BP or LDL control (P = .42, P = .23, respectively) or optimal A1c or BP control (P = .52, P = .65, respectively). Optimal and mean LDL values worsened as rurality increased (P = .08, P = .029, respectively).In patients with diabetes who seek care in the rural Southern United States, we observed no relationship between degree of rurality of patients' residence and traditional measures of quality of care. Further examination of the trends and explanatory factors for relative worsening of metabolic control by increasing degree of rurality is warranted.
| S-EPMC3481192 | 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
Project description:BACKGROUND:Most patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are followed by primary care physicians, who often lack knowledge or confidence to prescribe insulin properly. This contributes to clinical inertia and poor glycemic control. Effectiveness of traditional continuing medical education (CME) to solve that is limited, so new approaches are required. Electronic games are a good option, as they can be very effective and easily disseminated. OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to assess applicability, user acceptance, and educational effectiveness of InsuOnline, an electronic serious game for medical education on insulin therapy for DM, compared with a traditional CME activity. METHODS:Primary care physicians (PCPs) from South of Brazil were invited by phone or email to participate in an unblinded randomized controlled trial and randomly allocated to play the game InsuOnline, installed as an app in their own computers, at the time of their choice, with minimal or no external guidance, or to participate in a traditional CME session, composed by onsite lectures and cases discussion. Both interventions had the same content and duration (~4 h). Applicability was assessed by the number of subjects who completed the assigned intervention in each group. Insulin-prescribing competence (factual knowledge, problem-solving skills, and attitudes) was self-assessed through a questionnaire applied before, immediately after, and 3 months after the interventions. Acceptance of the intervention (satisfaction and perceived importance for clinical practice) was also assessed immediately after and 3 months after the interventions, respectively. RESULTS:Subjects' characteristics were similar between groups (mean age 38, 51.4% [69/134] male). In the game group, 69 of 88 (78%) completed the intervention, compared with 65 of 73 (89%) in the control group, with no difference in applicability. Percentage of right answers in the competence subscale, which was 52% at the baseline in both groups, significantly improved immediately after both interventions to 92% in the game group and to 85% in control (P<.001). After 3 months, it remained significantly higher than that at the baseline in both groups (80% in game, and 76% in control; P<.001). Absolute increase in competence score was better with the game (40%) than with traditional CME (34%; P=.01). Insulin-related attitudes were improved both after the game (significant improvement in 4 of 9 items) and after control activity (3 of 9). Both interventions were very well accepted, with most subjects rating them as "fun or pleasant," "useful," and "practice-changing." CONCLUSIONS:The game InsuOnline was applicable, very well accepted, and highly effective for medical education on insulin therapy. In view of its flexibility and easy dissemination, it is a valid option for large-scale CME, potentially helping to reduce clinical inertia and to improve quality of care for DM patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov NCT001759953; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01759953 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oeHoTrBf).
| S-EPMC5364323 | biostudies-literature