Attitudes of the Public to Receiving Medical Care during Emergencies through Remote Physician-Patient Communications.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hamlin M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7400122 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Attitudes of the Public to Receiving Medical Care during Emergencies through Remote Physician-Patient Communications.
Hamlin Matilda M Steingrimsson Steinn S Cohen Itzhak I Bero Victor V Bar-Tl Avishay A Adini Bruria B
International journal of environmental research and public health 20200720 14
Providing health services through remote communications for sub-acute health issues during emergencies may help reduce the burden of the health care system and increase availability of care. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes of the public towards receiving medical services and providing medical information through remote communication in times of emergencies. During the pandemic outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), pandemic outbreak, 507 participants answered a structured on ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Patients engaging in shared decision making must weigh the likelihood of positive and negative outcomes and deal with uncertainty and negative emotions in the situations where desirable options might not be available. The use of "nudges," or communication techniques that influence patients' choices in a predictable direction, may assist patients in making complex decisions. However, nudging patients may be perceived as inappropriate influence on patients' choices. We sought to determine whether key stakeholders, physicians, and laypersons without clinical training consider the use of nudges to be ethical and appropriate in medical decision making. Eighty-nine resident-physicians and 336 Mechanical-Turk workers (i.e., non-clinicians) evaluated two hypothetical preference-sensitive situations, in which a patient with advanced cancer chooses between chemotherapy and hospice care. We varied the following: (1) whether or not the patient's decision was influenced by a mistaken judgment (i.e., decision-making bias) and (2) whether or not the physician used a nudge. Each participant reported the extent to which the communication was ethical, appropriate, and desirable. Both physicians and non-clinicians considered using nudges more positively than not using them, regardless of an initial decision-making bias in patients' considerations. Decomposing this effect, we found that physicians viewed the nudge that endorsed hospice care more favorably than the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy, while non-clinicians viewed the nudge that endorsed chemotherapy more favorably than the nudge that endorsed hospice care. We discuss implications and propose exploring further physicians' and patients' differences in the perception of nudges; the differences may suggest limitations for using nudges in medical decisions.
| S-EPMC6145510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysicians have dual responsibilities to make medical decisions that serve their patients' best interests but also utilize health care resources wisely. Their ability to practice cost-consciously is particularly challenged when faced with patient expectations or requests for medical services that may be unnecessary.ObjectiveTo understand how physicians consider health care resources and the strategies they use to exercise cost-consciousness in response to patient expectations and requests for medical care.DesignExploratory, qualitative focus groups of practicing physicians were conducted. Participants were encouraged to discuss their perceptions of resource constraints, and experiences with redundant, unnecessary and marginally beneficial services, and were asked about patient requests or expectations for particular services.ParticipantsSixty-two physicians representing a variety of specialties and practice types participated in nine focus groups in Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota in 2012 MEASUREMENTS: Iterative thematic content analysis of focus group transcriptsPrincipal findingsPhysicians reported making trade-offs between a variety of financial and nonfinancial resources, considering not only the relative cost of medical decisions and alternative services, but the time and convenience of patients, their own time constraints, as well as the logistics of maintaining a successful practice. They described strategies and techniques to educate patients, build trust, or substitute less costly alternatives when appropriate, often adapting their management to the individual patient and clinical environment.ConclusionsPhysicians often make nuanced trade-offs in clinical practice aimed at efficient resource use within a complex flow of clinical work and patient expectations. Understanding the challenges faced by physicians and the strategies they use to exercise cost-consciousness provides insight into policy measures that will address physician's roles in health care resource use.
| S-EPMC4139526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUse of electronic health records (EHRs) is associated with physician stress and burnout. While emergency departments and subspecialists have used scribes to address this issue, little is known about the impact of scribes in academic primary care.ObjectiveAssess the impact of a scribe on physician and patient satisfaction at an academic general internal medicine (GIM) clinic.DesignProspective, pre-post-pilot study. During the 3-month pilot, physicians had clinic sessions with and without a scribe. We assessed changes in (1) physician workplace satisfaction and burnout, (2) time spent on EHR documentation, and (3) patient satisfaction.ParticipantsSix GIM faculty and a convenience sample of their patients (N?=?325) at an academic GIM clinic.Main measuresA 21-item pre- and 44-item post-pilot survey assessed physician workplace satisfaction and burnout. Physicians used logs to record time spent on EHR documentation outside of clinic hours. A 27-item post-visit survey assessed patient satisfaction during visits with and without the scribe.Key resultsOf six physicians, 100% were satisfied with clinic workflow post-pilot (vs. 33% pre-pilot), and 83% were satisfied with EHR use post-pilot (vs. 17% pre-pilot). Physician burnout was low at baseline and did not change post-pilot. Mean time spent on post-clinic EHR documentation decreased from 1.65 to 0.76 h per clinic session (p?=?0.02). Patient satisfaction was not different between patients who had clinic visits with vs. without scribe overall or by age, gender, and race. Compared to patients 65 years or older, younger patients were more likely to report that the physician was more attentive and provided more education during visits with the scribe present (p?=?0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Male patients were more likely to report that they disliked having a scribe (p?=?0.03).ConclusionIn an academic GIM setting, employment of a scribe was associated with improved physician satisfaction without compromising patient satisfaction.
| S-EPMC6025675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore medical students' views on and experiences of responding to out-of-hospital medical emergencies.SettingUniversity College London (UCL).Participants11 UCL Medical School students.Study designQualitative.Methods and outcome measuresWe carried out 11 one-to-one semistructured interviews, with participant validation and reflective work. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThree core themes were identified. (1) 'We Did Debate a Bit: Should We Go? Should We Not?'-Students' decisions to respond were based on the appearance of the casualty; the presence and actions of bystanders; witnessing the incident; self-perceived competence, confidence and knowledge; and personal experiences and feelings associated with medical emergencies. (2) 'It Would Represent the Medical Profession Well if We Did Step In and Help'-Students felt that they had an ethical and/or professional duty to help. (3) 'No One Should Die Because of a Lack of… Basic Life-Saving Techniques'-Students felt that medical school training alone had not sufficiently prepared them to respond to out-of-hospital medical emergencies. Improvements to training were suggested: integrating first aid/response?training into the horizontal (systems-based) modules; teaching both common and less common medical emergencies and presentations; training that is led by experienced first responders and that increases students' exposure to out-of-hospital medical emergencies; and providing more revision training sessions.ConclusionsStudents felt that medical school training could be improved to better prepare them for responding to out-of-hospital medical emergencies, and wanted clarification on whether or not they have an ethical and/or professional duty to help. Further mixed-methods research using a larger sample needs to be carried out to confirm whether findings are transferable to other UK medical schools.
| S-EPMC6500260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWidespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in medical care has resulted in increased physician documentation workload and decreased interaction with patients. Despite the increasing use of medical scribes for EHR documentation assistance, few methodologically rigorous studies have examined the use of medical scribes in primary care.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of use of medical scribes with primary care physician (PCP) workflow and patient experience.Design, setting, and participantsThis 12-month crossover study with 2 sequences and 4 periods was conducted from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, in 2 medical center facilities within an integrated health care system and included 18 of 24 eligible PCPs.InterventionsThe PCPs were randomly assigned to start the first 3-month period with or without scribes and then alternated exposure status every 3 months for 1 year, thereby serving as their own controls. The PCPs completed a 6-question survey at the end of each study period. Patients of participating PCPs were surveyed after scribed clinic visits.Main outcomes and measuresPCP-reported perceptions of documentation burden and visit interactions, objective measures of time spent on EHR activity and required for closing encounters, and patient-reported perceptions of visit quality.ResultsOf the 18 participating PCPs, 10 were women, 12 were internal medicine physicians, and 6 were family practice physicians. The PCPs graduated from medical school a mean (SD) of 13.7 (6.5) years before the study start date. Compared with nonscribed periods, scribed periods were associated with less self-reported after-hours EHR documentation (<1 hour daily during week: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 18.0 [95% CI, 4.7-69.0]; <1 hour daily during weekend: aOR, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.7-28.7). Scribed periods were also associated with higher likelihood of PCP-reported spending more than 75% of the visit interacting with the patient (aOR, 295.0; 95% CI, 19.7 to >900) and less than 25% of the visit on a computer (aOR, 31.5; 95% CI, 7.3-136.4). Encounter documentation was more likely to be completed by the end of the next business day during scribed periods (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1). A total of 450 of 735 patients (61.2%) reported that scribes had a positive bearing on their visits; only 2.4% reported a negative bearing.Conclusions and relevanceMedical scribes were associated with decreased physician EHR documentation burden, improved work efficiency, and improved visit interactions. Our results support the use of medical scribes as one strategy for improving physician workflow and visit quality in primary care.
| S-EPMC6248201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of marijuana for medical purposes is increasing in parallel with expanding legalization and decreased public perception of harm. Despite this increase in use, it is unclear which medical conditions patients are attempting to treat with marijuana and whether they are communicating with medical providers about their use.ObjectiveTo understand the medical reasons for marijuana use, forms of marijuana used for medical purposes, and disclosure of use to physicians.DesignNational, probability-based online survey.SettingThe USA, 2017.Participants16,280 US adults.Main measureProportion of US adults who agreed with a statement.Key resultsA total of 9003 participants completed the survey (55% response rate). Five hundred ninety-one (7% of US adults) reported using marijuana for medical purposes. The most common medical reasons for marijuana use were anxiety (49%), insomnia (47%), chronic pain (42%), and depression (39%). The most common forms of use for all medical conditions were smoking and edibles, followed by vaping, concentrate, and topical. We found women were more likely to use marijuana for posttraumatic stress disorder, sleep, anxiety, and migraines. We did not find substantial variation in medical reasons for marijuana use by race. Among those using marijuana for medical purposes, 21% did not have a doctor. Among those with doctors, 33% did not inform them, 28% reported their doctor was neutral on their use, 32% reported their doctor was supportive, and 8% reported their doctor was not supportive. Those who lived in states where medical marijuana was illegal were less likely to disclose use to their doctor.LimitationThe online format of the survey may have caused selection bias. Wording of the questions may have affected interpretation. Doctors were not queried directly, rather participants were asked about their perception of doctor attitudes.ConclusionAmericans are using marijuana to treat medical conditions despite lack of evidence of efficacy.
| S-EPMC7352011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNegative attitudes towards vaccines and an uncertainty or unwillingness to receive vaccinations are major barriers to managing the COVID-19 pandemic in the long-term. We estimate predictors of four domains of negative attitudes towards vaccines and identify groups most at risk of uncertainty and unwillingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in a large sample of UK adults.MethodsData were cross-sectional and from 32,361 adults in the UCL COVID-19 Social Study. Ordinary least squares regression analyses examined the impact of socio-demographic and COVID-19 related factors on four types of negative vaccine attitudes: mistrust of vaccine benefit, worries about unforeseen effects, concerns about commercial profiteering, and preference for natural immunity. Multinomial regression examined the impact of socio-demographic and COVID-19 related factors, negative vaccine attitudes, and prior vaccine behaviour on uncertainty and unwillingness to be vaccinated for COVID-19.Findings16% of respondents displayed high levels of mistrust about vaccines across one or more domains. Distrustful attitudes towards vaccination were higher amongst individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds, with lower levels of education, lower annual income, poor knowledge of COVID-19, and poor compliance with government COVID-19 guidelines. Overall, 14% of respondents reported unwillingness to receive a vaccine for COVID-19, whilst 23% were unsure. The largest predictors of both COVID-19 vaccine uncertainty and refusal were low-income groups (< £16,000, a year), having not received a flu vaccine last year, poor adherence to COVID-19 government guidelines, female gender, and living with children. Amongst vaccine attitudes, intermediate to high levels of mistrust of vaccine benefit and concerns about future unforeseen side effects were the most important determinants of both uncertainty and unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19.InterpretationNegative attitudes towards vaccines are a major public health concern in the UK. General mistrust in vaccines and concerns about future side effects in particular will be barriers to achieving population immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination. Public health messaging should be tailored to address these concerns and specifically to women, ethnic minorities, and people with lower levels of education and incomes.FundingThe Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583], the MARCH Mental Health Network funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1], and the Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z and 205407/Z/16/Z].
| S-EPMC7834475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe use of patient race in medicine is controversial for its potential either to exacerbate or address health disparities. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) have emerged as a tool for risk stratification models used in preventive medicine. We examined whether PRS results affect primary care physician (PCP) medical decision-making and whether that effect varies by patient race.MethodsUsing an online survey with a randomized experimental design among PCPs in a national database, we ascertained decision-making around atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention and prostate cancer screening for case scenario patients who were clinically identical except for randomized reported race.ResultsAcross 369 PCPs (email open rate = 10.8%, partial completion rate = 93.7%), recommendations varied with PRS results in expected directions (low-risk results, no available PRS results, and high-risk results). Still, physicians randomized to scenarios with Black patients were more likely to recommend statin therapy than those randomized to scenarios with White patients (odds ratio = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.16-2.59, P = .007) despite otherwise identical clinical profiles and independent of PRS results. Similarly, physicians were more likely to recommend prostate cancer screening for Black patients than for White patients (odds ratio = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06-2.35, P = .025) despite otherwise identical clinical and genetic profiles.ConclusionDespite advances in precision risk stratification, physicians will likely continue to use patient race implicitly or explicitly in medical decision-making.
| S-EPMC10085844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Limited evidence exists on salary differences between male and female academic physicians, largely owing to difficulty obtaining data on salary and factors influencing salary. Existing studies have been limited by reliance on survey-based approaches to measuring sex differences in earnings, lack of contemporary data, small sample sizes, or limited geographic representation.To analyze sex differences in earnings among US academic physicians.Freedom of Information laws mandate release of salary information of public university employees in several states. In 12 states with salary information published online, salary data were extracted on 10?241 academic physicians at 24 public medical schools. These data were linked to a unique physician database with detailed information on sex, age, years of experience, faculty rank, specialty, scientific authorship, National Institutes of Health funding, clinical trial participation, and Medicare reimbursements (proxy for clinical revenue). Sex differences in salary were estimated after adjusting for these factors.Physician sex.Annual salary.Among 10?241 physicians, female physicians (n?=?3549) had lower mean (SD) unadjusted salaries than male physicians ($206?641 [$88?238] vs $257?957 [$137?202]; absolute difference, $51?315 [95% CI, $46?330-$56?301]). Sex differences persisted after multivariable adjustment ($227?783 [95% CI, $224?117-$231?448] vs $247?661 [95% CI, $245?065-$250?258] with an absolute difference of $19?878 [95% CI, $15?261-$24?495]). Sex differences in salary varied across specialties, institutions, and faculty ranks. For example, adjusted salaries of female full professors ($250 971 [95% CI, $242 307-$259 635]) were comparable to those of male associate professors ($247?212 [95% CI, $241?850-$252?575]). Among specialties, adjusted salaries were highest in orthopedic surgery ($358?093 [95% CI, $344?354-$371?831]), surgical subspecialties ($318?760 [95% CI, $311?030-$326?491]), and general surgery ($302?666 [95% CI, $294?060-$311?272]) and lowest in infectious disease, family medicine, and neurology (mean income, <$200?000). Years of experience, total publications, clinical trial participation, and Medicare payments were positively associated with salary.Among physicians with faculty appointments at 24 US public medical schools, significant sex differences in salary exist even after accounting for age, experience, specialty, faculty rank, and measures of research productivity and clinical revenue.
| S-EPMC5558151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare health care utilization and payments between NCQA-recognized patient-centered medical home (PCMH) practices and practices without such recognition.Medicare Part A and B claims files from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010, 2009 Census, 2007 Health Resources and Services Administration and CMS Utilization file, Medicare's Enrollment Data Base, and the 2005 American Medical Association Physician Workforce file.This study used a longitudinal, nonexperimental design. Three annual observations (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2010) were available for each practice. We compared selected outcomes between practices with and those without NCQA PCMH recognition.Individual Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries and their claims and utilization data were assigned to PCMH or comparison practices based on where they received the plurality of evaluation and management services between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008.Relative to the comparison group, total Medicare payments, acute care payments, and the number of emergency room visits declined after practices received NCQA PCMH recognition. The decline was larger for practices with sicker than average patients, primary care practices, and solo practices.This study provides additional evidence about the potential of the PCMH model for reducing health care utilization and the cost of care.
| S-EPMC4319881 | biostudies-other