Primary care provider perspectives on using genomic sequencing in the care of healthy children.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Joshi E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7171087 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCare coordination has been a common tool for practices seeking to manage complex patients, yet there remains confusion about the most effective and sustainable model. Research exists on opinions of providers of care coordination but there is limited information on perspectives of those in the insurance industry about key elements. We sought to gather opinions from primary care providers and administrators in Minnesota who were involved in a CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) transformational grant implementing COMPASS (Care Of Mental, Physical And Substance-use Syndromes), an evidence-based model of care coordination for depressed patients comorbid with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. We then sought to compare these views with those of private insurance representatives in Minnesota.MethodsWe used qualitative methods to conducted forty-two key informant interviews with primary care providers (n = 15); administrators (n = 15); and insurers (n = 12). We analyzed the recorded and transcribed data, once de-identified, using a frameworks analysis approach.ResultsWe identified six primary themes: 1) a defined scope, rationale, and key partnerships for building comprehensive care coordination programs, 2) effective information exchange, 3) a trained and available workforce, 4) the need for a business model and a financially justifiable program, 5) a need for evaluation and ongoing improvement of care coordination, and 6) the importance of patient and family engagement. Overall consensus across stakeholder groups was high including a call for payment reform to support a valued service. Despite their role in paying for care, insurance representatives did not stress reduced utilization as more important than other outcomes.ConclusionsPrimary care providers and administrators from different organizations and backgrounds, all with experience in COMPASS, in large part agreed with insurance representatives on the main elements of a sustainable model and the need for health reform to sustain this service.
| S-EPMC6359857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public and private insurers increasingly use quality payment programs as a tool to improve quality of care in primary care settings. However, little is known about primary care providers' perspectives on whether and how quality payment programs improve diabetes quality of care. In this qualitative study, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 23 providers from March to June 2015. Transcripts were analyzed to identify key themes using the immersion-crystallization method. Almost all of the providers believed that insurers play a meaningful role in improving quality of care for diabetes patients. Most thought that insurers' efforts are more effective when channeled through providers and delivery systems rather than directed at patients. Providers generally believed that quality payment programs have had a positive impact on quality of diabetes care, although provider views were not evidence based. Providers in practices in which quality payment programs were believed to have had a positive impact stated that the programs provided financial incentives and resources for improved population health management systems and additional staff. Conversely, most providers did not believe that quality payment programs have had any impact via direct financial incentives to individual physicians. A few providers were skeptical about the impact of quality payment programs and noted negative consequences that they had observed. Providers recommended strategies to improve quality payment programs (eg, refine quality measures, provide regular feedback on quality and costs) and additional strategies that insurers could consider to address provider- and patient-level barriers to high-quality diabetes care.
| S-EPMC6555171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleLung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers.MethodsWe conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics.ResultsThe 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening.ConclusionsProviders endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.
| S-EPMC5822418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Successful coordination of specialty care requires understanding the perspectives of patients, primary care providers, and specialists-that is, the specialty care "triad." This study used qualitative methods to compare these perspectives in an integrated health care system, using diabetes specialty care as an exemplar. Primary care providers and endocrinologists relied on interclinician relationships to coordinate care. Clinicians rarely included patients or other staff in their conceptualization of specialty care coordination. Patients often assumed responsibility for specialty care coordination but struggled to succeed. We identified several opportunities to improve coordination across the triad. In an integrated medical system, the shared organizational structure can facilitate these efforts.
| S-EPMC5726433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Essential Medicine System (NEMS) is a new policy launched by the Chinese government in 2009. The effects of its introduction have been widely investigated. However, little research has focused on individual patients' perspectives. The purpose of this study was to examine current understanding and opinions of China's NEMS of primary care providers (PCPs) and patients.Providers (n?=?134) and patients (n?=?175) were examined based on self-completed questionnaire surveys conducted in 16 primary healthcare centers in Ningxia, northwestern China. Questions addressed the topics of: participants' socio-demographic characteristics; awareness of NEMS policies; perceptions of NEMS-related changes; satisfactions with NEMS.The patients had a low awareness of NEMS while a majority of providers were familiar with NEMS. All participants were satisfied with the price and quality of essential medicines, but not satisfied with the quantity. Patients felt there had been a decrease in their total medical expenses per visit and improved pharmaceutical services. Most providers perceived no change in their personal or departmental income. The overall satisfaction rate related to NEMS among providers and patients was 92.54 and 93.31%, respectively. Overall there was a link between knowledge about NEMS and satisfaction with the program: patients who had greater knowledge of reimbursement policy, and the providers with greater knowledge of NEMS, reported higher satisfaction.The findings revealed a high level of satisfaction towards NEMS among primary care providers and patients, which is a reflection of the improvements in the health care system. However, some patients' low awareness of NEMS should be paid attention to, as it could reduce their knowledge of essential medicines and hinder the full potential of NEMS.
| S-EPMC4729152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe sought to elicit the perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists regarding their expectations on who should be responsible for diabetes management, as well as communication mode and frequency about diabetes care during cancer treatment.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with PCPs (physicians and nurse practitioners) and oncologists who treat cancer patients with type 2 diabetes. Interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the qualitative data and identify key themes.ResultsTen PCPs and ten oncologists were interviewed between March and July 2019. Two broad themes emerged from our interviews with PCPs: (1) cancer patients pausing primary care during cancer treatments, and (2) patients with poorer prognoses and advanced cancer. The following theme emerged from our interviews with oncologists: (3) challenges in caring for cancer patients with uncontrolled diabetes. Three common themes emerged from our interviews with both PCPs and oncologists: (4) discomfort with providing care outside of respective specialty, (5) the need to individualize care plans, and (6) lack of communication across primary and oncology care.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that substantial barriers to optimal diabetes management during cancer care exist at the provider level. Interventions prioritizing effective communication and educational resources among PCPs, oncologists, and additional members of the patients' care team should be prioritized to achieve optimal outcomes.
| S-EPMC9289794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision making is an important implementation "pull" strategy for increasing uptake of evidence-based mental health practices. In this qualitative study, we explored provider perspectives on implementing shared decision making at the point of mental health treatment initiation using a publicly available, patient-facing decision support tool for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 mental health providers (psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, and social workers) working in one of five VA primary care clinics. Interviewed were analyzed using thematic analysis. Provider were enthusiastic about using decision aids as a source of high quality information that could improve patient experience and confidence in treatment. However, providers had concerns about decision aid accessibility, time constraints to conduct shared decision making in-session, and patient motivation to engage in shared decision making. Providers stated they would prefer to use shared decision making with patients that they felt were most likely to follow through with treatment. While providers believed that shared decision making could improve PTSD treatment planning, they thought it most appropriate for patients with the highest levels of motivation and fewest barriers to care. These beliefs may limit widespread adoption and reflect missed opportunities to reach difficult-to-engage patients.
| S-EPMC8382773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Shared care plans play an essential role in coordinating care across health care providers and settings for children with medical complexity (CMC). However, existing care plans often lack shared ownership, are out-of-date, and lack universal accessibility. In this study, we aimed to establish requirements for shared care plans to meet the information needs of caregivers and providers and to mitigate current information barriers when caring for CMC. METHODS:We followed a user-centered design methodology and conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with caregivers and providers of CMC who receive care at a tertiary care children's hospital. We applied inductive, thematic analysis to identify salient themes. Analysis occurred concurrently with data collection; therefore, the interview guide was iteratively revised as new questions and themes emerged. RESULTS:Interviews were conducted with 17 caregivers and 22 providers. On the basis of participant perspectives, we identified 4 requirements for shared care plans that would help meet information needs and mitigate current information barriers when caring for CMC. These requirements included the following: (1) supporting the accessibility of care plans from multiple locations (eg, cloud-based) and from multiple devices, with alert and search features; (2) ensuring the organization is tailored to the specific user; (3) including collaborative functionality such as real-time, multiuser content management and secure messaging; and (4) storing care plans on a secure platform with caregiver-controlled permission settings. CONCLUSIONS:Although further studies are needed to understand the optimal design and implementation strategies, shared care plans that meet these specified requirements could mitigate perceived information barriers and improve care for CMC.
| S-EPMC6692073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To reduce unnecessary ambulatory gastroenterology (GI) visits and increase access to GI care, San Francisco Health Network gastroenterologists and primary care providers implemented guidelines in 2013 that discharged certain patients back to primary care after endoscopy with formal written recommendations. This study assesses the longer-term impact of this policy on GI clinic access, workflow, and provider satisfaction.An email-based survey assessed gastroenterologist and primary care provider (PCP) opinions about the discharge process. Administrative data and chart review were used to assess clinic access, intervention fidelity, and re-referral rates.102/299 (34%) of PCPs and 5/7 (71%) of gastroenterologists responded to the survey. 74% of PCPs and 100% of gastroenterologists were satisfied or very satisfied with the discharge process. 80% of gastroenterologists believed the discharge process decreased their workload, while 53.5% of primary care providers believed it increased their workload. 6.7% of patients discharged to primary care in 2013 had re-referrals to GI. Wait time for the third-next-available new outpatient GI clinic appointment had previously decreased from 158 days (2012, pre-intervention) to 74 days (2013, post-intervention). In 2015, wait time was 19 days (p?<?0.001 for 2012 vs. 2015).Primary care providers and gastroenterologists are satisfied with an intervention to discharge patients from gastroenterology to primary care after certain endoscopic procedures, although this conclusion is limited by a relatively low PCP survey response rate. Discharging appropriate patients using consensus criteria from the gastroenterology clinic was instrumental in sustainably reducing clinic wait times with low re-referral rates.
| S-EPMC5763538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To realize the promise of genomic medicine, harness the power of genomic technologies, and capitalize on the extraordinary pace of research linking genomic variation to disease risks, healthcare systems must embrace and integrate genomics into routine healthcare. We have implemented an innovative pilot program for genomic population health screening for any-health-status adults within the largest health system in Vermont, United States. This program draws on key research and technological advances to safely extract clinical value for genomics in routine health care. The program offers no-cost, non-research DNA sequencing to patients by their primary care providers as a preventive health tool. We partnered with a commercial clinical testing company for two next generation sequencing gene panels comprising 431 genes related to both high and low-penetrance common health risks and carrier status for recessive disorders. Only pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants are reported. Routine written clinical consultation is provided with a concise, clinical "action plan" that presents core messages for primary care provider and patient use and supports clinical management and health education beyond the testing laboratory's reports. Access to genetic counseling is free in most cases. Predefined care pathways and access to genetics experts facilitates the appropriate use of results. This pilot tests the feasibility of routine, ethical, and scalable use of population genomic screening in healthcare despite generally imperfect genomic competency among both the public and health care providers. This article describes the program design, implementation process, guiding philosophies, and insights from 2 years of experience offering testing and returning results in primary care settings. To aid others planning similar programs, we review our barriers, solutions, and perceived gaps in the context of an implementation research framework.
| S-EPMC9081681 | biostudies-literature