Dataset Information

A population profile of older adults with prescription encounters with nurse practitioners and family physicians in Ontario: a descriptive retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Compared with patients in family physician practices, there is a poor understanding at a population level of patients in nurse practitioner practices. The study aim was to use Ontario administrative databases to identify the sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities of patients aged 65 years and older who were prescribed medications by nurse practitioners and family physicians between 2000 and 2015. METHODS:This population-based descriptive retrospective cohort study included patients 65 years of age and older with Ontario Health Insurance Plan eligibility and at least 1 prescription encounter with a nurse practitioner or family physician during the study period. Prescription identification of patients permitted their characterization by age, sex, geographical location, rurality, neighbourhood income and comorbidities. Patients were categorized into 3 provider groups on the basis of the percentage of prescription encounters with nurse practitioners versus family physicians. RESULTS:In 2015, patients in the study cohort with prescriptions by nurse practitioners (n = 25 220) were younger than those with prescriptions by family physicians (40.3% were aged 65-69 yr) and they were more likely to be residents of low-income neighbourhoods (44.0% were in the lowest 2 neighbourhood income quintiles) and to be living outside of central Ontario. In contrast, patients who received prescriptions from family physicians (n = 1 952 904) tended to be older (26.8% were aged ? 80 yr), to have higher incomes (21.1% were in the highest neighbourhood income quintile) and to live in urban areas (86.5%). Mean Elixhauser Comorbidity Index scores were consistently lower among patients cared for by nurse practitioners than among those predominantly seen by family physicians (1.30 v. 2.04). The most prevalent conditions were hypertension and diabetes, regardless of provider. INTERPRETATION:The patient characteristic with the highest variability between providers was geographic residence in the province. Elucidating patterns of care is critical for primary care policy and our results provide baseline data for future health care planning.

SUBMITTER: Edge DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6517125 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A population profile of older adults with prescription encounters with nurse practitioners and family physicians in Ontario: a descriptive retrospective cohort study.

Edge Dana S DS Tranmer Joan E JE Wei Xuejiao X VanDenKerkhof Elizabeth G EG

CMAJ open 20190401 2

<h4>Background</h4>Compared with patients in family physician practices, there is a poor understanding at a population level of patients in nurse practitioner practices. The study aim was to use Ontario administrative databases to identify the sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities of patients aged 65 years and older who were prescribed medications by nurse practitioners and family physicians between 2000 and 2015.<h4>Methods</h4>This population-based descriptive retrospective cohort ...[more]

PMID: 31088806

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background"Low-value" healthcare is care without benefit to patients. Overly intensive glycemic control (i.e., HgbA1C < 7 %) can cause harm to patients at high risk of hypoglycemia, particularly among older adults with co-morbidities. It is unknown whether overly intensive glycemic control differs among patients with diabetes and at high-risk of hypoglycemia cared for by primary care nurse practitioners versus physicians.ObjectiveThis study examined patients with diabetes at high risk of hypoglycemia receiving primary care between Jan 2010 and Jan 2012, comparing patients reassigned to nurse practitioners to those reassigned to physicians after their previous physician separated from practice in an integrated United States health system.DesignThis was a retrospective cohort study. Study outcomes were collected at two years after reassignment to a new primary care provider. Outcomes were predicted probabilities of HgbA1C < 7 % using two-stage residual inclusion instrumental variable models, controlling for baseline confounders.SettingPrimary care clinics within the United States Veterans Health Administration.Participants38,543 patients with diabetes at increased risk for hypoglycemia (age ≥ 65 years with renal disease, dementia, or cognitive impairment), who had their primary care physician leave the Veterans Health Administration and who were reassigned to a new primary care provider in the following year.ResultsCohort patients were on average 76 years and 99 % men. Of these, 33,700 were reassigned to physicians and 4843 to nurse practitioners. After two years with their new provider, in adjusted models, patients reassigned to nurse practitioners had a -20.4 percentage-point [95 % CI -37.9 to -2.8] lower probability of two-year HgbA1C < 7 %.ConclusionsAligned with prior studies on care quality, rates of overly intensive glycemic control may be appropriately lower among older patients with diabetes at high-risk of hypoglycemia, cared for by nurse practitioners than physicians.Tweetable abstractPrimary care nurse practitioners deliver equivalent or better rates of low-value diabetes care for older patients, compared to physicians.

Project description:IntroductionClozapine (CLZ) is the only proven effective therapy for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, but it is underutilized across the globe. Previous findings suggest a lack of experience with CLZ prescription and concerns about CLZ's pharmacological characteristics are the prime reasons for CLZ underutilization. To our knowledge, it is currently unknown whether the reasons for underutilization and suggested solutions differ between physicians and nurse practitioners. Such differences are important as nurse practitioners are becoming increasingly involved in prescribing CLZ.MethodsTo examine to what degree physicians and nurse practitioners differ with regard to their take on reasons for CLZ underutilization and suggested solutions, an online questionnaire was distributed to physicians and nurse practitioners. The primary outcome was to compare the patient-related and prescriber-related reasons for CLZ underprescription between physicians and nurse practitioners, while secondary outcome measures included the potential solutions to prevent this underprescription.ResultsPhysicians (N = 112) and nurse practitioners (N = 41) agreed that the two most common reasons for underprescription (patient-related and prescriber-related) were refusal to undergo regular blood tests and side-effect concerns. They also agreed that the third most common prescriber-related reason was medical complications. Physicians rated patients' unwillingness to switch medication as the third most common reason for CLZ underprescription, whereas nurse practitioners rated refusal to undergo baseline bloodtests as the third most common reason. The solutions to reduce underprescription largely corresponded between both groups.ConclusionsWe conclude that slight differences exist between physicians' and nurse practitioners' viewpoints on patient-related and prescriber-related reasons for CLZ underprescription. Future research projects should involve patients to elucidate whether the patient-related factors put forward by prescribers align with the patients' opinions.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care workers have a higher risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population. Our study reports on SARS-CoV-2 testing, infection and associated outcomes in Ontario physicians before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination became available on Dec. 14, 2020.MethodsWe conducted a descriptive, population-based cohort study of physicians in Ontario, Canada, from Jan. 25 to Dec. 31, 2020. We included physicians and postgraduate medical trainees who were residents of Ontario and registrants with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario during the study period. We examined the proportion of physicians tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, the proportion who tested positive, and how testing and infections varied by certain physician characteristics. We reported on clinical outcomes associated with infection, including hospital admission and death.ResultsOf 41 208 physicians (mean age 47 yr; 56.1% male), 19 116 (46.4%) were tested at least once for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 358 tested positive (0.9%). No physicians died within 30 days of testing positive; however, 20/358 (5.6%) were admitted to hospital. By specialty, the proportion tested was highest among postgraduate medical trainees (2531/4125 [61.4%]), emergency physicians (281/478 [58.8%]), infectious disease physicians (33/67 [49.3%]) and family physicians (8857/18 553 [47.7%]). The proportion who tested positive was highest among internal medicine physicians (44/3499 [1.3%]), postgraduate medical trainees (47/4125 [1.1%]) and family physicians (171/18 553 [0.9%]). Of 2290 physicians who worked in long-term care, 1636 (71.4%) were tested and 25 (1.1%) tested positive.InterpretationDuring the prevaccination period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, nearly half of all physicians in the province were tested at least once for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 0.9% tested positive and none died. These findings may reflect the public health measures that were implemented in the province during this period.

Dataset Information

A population profile of older adults with prescription encounters with nurse practitioners and family physicians in Ontario: a descriptive retrospective cohort study.

Publications

A population profile of older adults with prescription encounters with nurse practitioners and family physicians in Ontario: a descriptive retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets