Dataset Information

Implementation and challenges unique to teleretinal diabetic retinal screening (TDRS) in a private practice setting in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Adherence rates to published guidelines for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is between 35 and 60%. We evaluate a teleretinal DR screening (TDRS) program in a private practice vertically integrated system to increase compliance with retinal screening.

Methods

A retrospective pre-post intervention longitudinal study was conducted in a private endocrinology practice using TDRS as the primary intervention. Compliance rates for diabetic retinal screening were compared between December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2018.

Results

A total population of 3479 patients were evaluated. Retinal screening compliance improved from 56.5% of patients (1964) pre-intervention to 59.3% of patients (2064) post intervention. The McNemar test was used for statistical analysis and found the change significant (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

TDRS as an adjunct tool in a private practice endocrinology office significantly improved screening rates and can increase access to recommended diabetic eye care. However, the improvement in screening rates was smaller than other types of practice settings. We explore some of the unique challenges to implementation of TDRS in private practice settings.

SUBMITTER: Mamillapalli CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6957819 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation and challenges unique to teleretinal diabetic retinal screening (TDRS) in a private practice setting in the United States.

Mamillapalli Chaitanya K CK Prentice Jessi R JR Garg Arvind K AK Hampsey Sunny L SL Bhandari Ramanath R

Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology 20191224

<h4>Purpose</h4>Adherence rates to published guidelines for diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is between 35 and 60%. We evaluate a teleretinal DR screening (TDRS) program in a private practice vertically integrated system to increase compliance with retinal screening.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective pre-post intervention longitudinal study was conducted in a private endocrinology practice using TDRS as the primary intervention. Compliance rates for diabetic retinal screening were compared betwe ...[more]

PMID: 31956513

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S.MethodsWe wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template.ResultsWe found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing.ConclusionWe clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places.

Project description:ImportancePrivate equity (PE) firms invest in dermatology management groups (DMGs), which are physician practice management firms that operate multiple clinics and often acquire smaller, physician-owned practices. Consolidation of dermatology practices as a result of PE investment may be associated with changes in practice management in the United States.ObjectiveTo describe the scope of PE-backed dermatology practice acquisitions geographically over time.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study examined acquisitions of dermatology practices by PE-backed DMGs in the United States. Acquisition and investment data through May 31, 2018, were compiled using information from 5 financial databases. Transaction data were supplemented with publicly available information from 2 additional financial databases, 2 financial news outlets, and press releases from DMGs. All dermatology practices acquired by PE-backed DMGs were included. Acquisitions were verified to be dermatology practices that provided medical, surgical, and/or cosmetic clinical care. Private equity financing data were included when available. The addresses of clinics associated with acquired practices were mapped using spatial analytics software.Main outcomes and measuresThe number and location of PE practice acquisitions over time were measured based on the date of deal closure, the geographic footprint of each DMG's acquisition, and the financing of each DMG.ResultsSeventeen PE-backed DMGs acquired 184 practices between May 1, 2012, and May 22, 2018. These acquired practices accounted for an estimated 381 dermatology clinics as of mid-2018 (assessment period from May 1 to August 31). The total number of PE-owned dermatology clinics in the United States was substantially larger because these data did not reflect DMGs that opened new clinics (organic growth); acquisitions data represented only the ownership transfer of existing practices from physician to PE-backed DMG. Practice acquisitions increased each year, from 5 in 2012 to 59 in 2017. An additional 34 acquisitions took place from January 1 to May 31, 2018. The number of financing rounds to sustain transactions mirrored the aforementioned trends in practice acquisitions. Clinics associated with acquired practices spanned at least 30 states, with 138 of 381 clinics (36%) located in Texas and Florida.Conclusion and relevanceThe study findings suggest that PE firms have a financial stake in an increasing number of dermatology practices throughout the United States. Further research is needed to assess whether and how PE-backed ownership influences clinical decision-making, health care expenditures, and patient outcomes.

Project description:Background and aimsThe United States of America and Sweden both contain a public and private component to their healthcare systems. While both countries spend a similar amount per capita on public healthcare expenditures, the United States spends significantly more in the private healthcare sector. Sweden has a social democratic model of health care, and given its identity as a welfare state, private health insurance providers have a small and nuanced role.MethodsThis paper was completed after searches were queried for "Sweden," "United States," and variants of the words "insurance," "public," "private," "Medicare," "Medicaid," "public," and "costs." A preliminary search in May 2022, yielded 78 articles, of which 45 were ultimately considered relevant for this review. Inclusion criteria consisted of English language articles, topic relevance, and verification of MEDLINE-indexed journals. These searches were performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane. Summary findings of these searches are compiled in this review.ResultsSweden guarantees low-cost appropriate care to all citizens with equitable access; however, drawbacks of its system include high financial burden, lack of primary care infrastructure, as well as geographical and socioeconomic inequities. On the other hand, the United States' healthcare system is built around the private sector with public health insurance reserved only for the most vulnerable patient populations.ConclusionOur goal is to provide an overview, compare the role of private health insurance in both countries, and highlight policies that have had beneficial effects in each nation. Possible solutions to the drawbacks of each nation's health insurance policies could be addressed by additional support to Sweden's vulnerable population by developing a program similar to the US' Medicare Advantage program. Conversely, the United States may benefit from increasing access to public health insurance, especially in instances where families face unemployment.

Dataset Information

Implementation and challenges unique to teleretinal diabetic retinal screening (TDRS) in a private practice setting in the United States.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implementation and challenges unique to teleretinal diabetic retinal screening (TDRS) in a private practice setting in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets