Dataset Information

Integrating Primary Care Appointments Into Resident Orientation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Trainee well-being is a major concern for institutions and programs, yet many residents report suboptimal access to or contact with primary care for themselves.

Objective

To address the health care needs of residents, we developed a mechanism whereby all incoming residents were offered an appointment with a primary care clinician (PCP) during institutional intern orientation.

Methods

In April 2019, all incoming residents (17 specialties) were invited to participate. A collaboration involving the GME office and family medicine and internal medicine departments enabled interested residents to attend PCP appointments that were held at predesignated times during orientation and did not conflict with other orientation or learning activities. Residents received appointment details, and insurance billing processes were followed. A survey was administered to all participating PCPs and incoming residents 2 weeks following their scheduled PCP appointment.

Results

Of the 144 incoming residents, 118 (82%) participated. Among the 71 of 144 (49%) residents who responded to the survey, 94% indicated that they desired an appointment, with 90% attending the appointment as scheduled; 52% purposed their visit as an introduction for future appointments, while 15% requested prescription refills. All but one recommended that the initiative be offered again in the future. Seventy-two percent stated that participating in the PCP initiative definitely/probably led to improvements in self-care, and 76% indicated that participating definitely/probably made them more conscious of their health and well-being.

Conclusions

Integrating PCP appointments into orientation is feasible and was highly acceptable in a large academic medical center.

SUBMITTER: Ewen AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7771601 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth care operations managers need to balance scheduling frequent follow-ups for patients with chronic conditions and fitting in patients requiring care for new complaints.ObjectiveWe quantify how frequency of follow-up visits corresponds with access to care for patients receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).DesignWe use patient data collected between October 2013 and June 2016 by the Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP). Our sample is comprised of 94,496 patients. We estimate logistic models with 1-month lagged facility-level predictors.Main measuresWe calculate monthly measures characterizing facility-level service provision, including the average time between successive primary care visits, the average primary care visit length, the percentage of primary care appointments that are overbooked, the percent of visits that are unscheduled (i.e., walk-ins), and the ratio of patients to providers. We control for economic factors that are associated with health care supply and demand, including median household income, veteran priority status, the Zillow Housing Price Index, and veteran unemployment rates. We also control for patient demographics.PatientsWe restrict the data to patients with at least one in-person primary care visit who have provided information on their ability to access urgent and routine care.Key resultsWe find that shorter average follow-up times are associated with better access for patients needing urgent or routine care. A 1-month increase in the average time between successive primary care visits is associated with 10% (p < 0.001) lower odds of reporting being able to access urgent care within 1 day and 13% (p < 0.001) lower odds of reporting usually or always being able to access routine care when needed.ConclusionFacilities with higher average follow-up times are more likely to have patients report that they are unable to quickly access urgent or routine primary care.

Project description:ImportanceRacial and ethnic disparities in access to health care may result from discrimination.ObjectivesTo identify differences in the rates at which patients belonging to racial/ethnic minority groups are offered primary care appointments and the number of days they wait for their primary care appointment and to understand the mechanisms by which discrimination occurs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used 7 simulated black, Hispanic, and white patient callers to request appointments from 804 randomized primary care offices in 2 urban centers in Texas from November 2017 to February 2018. Data analysis was conducted between February and December 2018.ExposuresResearch assistants called randomly assigned offices to schedule an appointment, supplying the same basic information. Race and ethnicity were signaled through callers' names and voices.Main outcomes and measuresAppointment offer rates, days to appointment, and questions asked during the call.ResultsOf the 7 callers (age range, 18-29 years), 2 (28.6%) self-identified as non-Hispanic black, 3 (42.9%) self-identified as non-Hispanic white, and 2 (28.6%) self-identified as Hispanic. Of the 804 calls they made, 299 (37.2%) were from simulated white callers, 215 (26.7%) were from simulated black callers, and 290 (36.1%) were from simulated Hispanic callers. Overall, 582 callers (72.4%) were offered appointments. In unadjusted models, black and Hispanic callers were more likely to be offered an appointment than white callers (black callers, 32.2 [95% CI, 25.1-39.3] percentage points more likely; P < .001; Hispanic callers, 21.1 [95% CI, 13.7-28.5] percentage points more likely; P < .001). However, after adjusting for whether insurance status was revealed, this statistical significance was lost. In adjusted models, black callers were 44.0 (95% CI, 36.2-51.8) percentage points more likely to be asked about their insurance status than white callers (P < .001), and Hispanic callers were 25.3 (95% CI, 17.1-33.5) percentage points more likely to be asked about their insurance status (P < .001) than white callers. Black and Hispanic callers received appointments further in the future than white callers (black callers: marginal effect estimate, 3.650; 95% CI, 0.579 to 6.721; P = .08; Hispanic callers: marginal effect estimate, 2.644; 95% CI, -0.496 to 5.784; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, black and Hispanic patients were more likely to be offered an appointment, but they were asked more frequently about their insurance status than white callers. Black and Hispanic callers experienced longer wait times than white patients, indicating a barrier to timely access to primary care.

Project description:BackgroundMissed appointments ("no-shows") are a persistent and costly problem in healthcare. Appointment reminders are widely used but usually do not include messages specifically designed to nudge patients to attend appointments.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of incorporating nudges into appointment reminder letters on measures of appointment attendance.DesignCluster randomized controlled pragmatic trial.PatientsThere were 27,540 patients with 49,598 primary care appointments, and 9420 patients with 38,945 mental health appointments, between October 15, 2020, and October 14, 2021, at one VA medical center and its satellite clinics that were eligible for analysis.InterventionsPrimary care (n = 231) and mental health (n = 215) providers were randomized to one of five study arms (four nudge arms and usual care as a control) using equal allocation. The nudge arms included varying combinations of brief messages developed with veteran input and based on concepts in behavioral science, including social norms, specific behavioral instructions, and consequences of missing appointments.Main measuresPrimary and secondary outcomes were missed appointments and canceled appointments, respectively.Statistical analysisResults are based on logistic regression models adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, and clustering for clinics and patients.Key resultsMissed appointment rates in study arms ranged from 10.5 to 12.1% in primary care clinics and 18.0 to 21.9% in mental health clinics. There was no effect of nudges on missed appointment rate in primary care (OR = 1.14, 95%CI = 0.96-1.36, p = 0.15) or mental health (OR = 1.20, 95%CI = 0.90-1.60, p = 0.21) clinics, when comparing the nudge arms to the control arm. When comparing individual nudge arms, no differences in missed appointment rates nor cancellation rates were observed.ConclusionsAppointment reminder letters incorporating brief behavioral nudges were ineffective in improving appointment attendance in VA primary care or mental health clinics. More complex or intensive interventions may be necessary to significantly reduce missed appointments below their current rates.Trial numberClinicalTrials.gov, Trial number NCT03850431.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The quality of care for diabetes continues to fall short of recommended guidelines and results. Models for improving the care of chronic illnesses advocate a multidisciplinary team approach. Yet little is known about the effectiveness of such models in an academic setting with a diverse patient population and resident physicians participating in clinical care. OBJECTIVE: To implement a chronic illness management (CIM) practice within an academic setting with part-time providers, and evaluate its impact on the completion of diabetes-specific care processes and on the achievement of recommended outcomes for patients with diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SUBJECTS: Patients with the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus who receive their primary care in an academic general internal medicine resident-faculty practice. MEASUREMENTS: Process and outcomes measures in patients exposed to the CIM practice were compared with non-exposed patients receiving usual care. MAIN RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Patients in the CIM practice experienced a significant increase in completion of care processes compared to control patients for measurement of annual low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7), urine microalbumin (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.1-5.5), blood pressure (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-2.8), retinal examination (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.7), foot monofilament examination (OR 4.2, 95% CI 3.0-6.1) and administration of pneumococcal vaccination (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3.0-9.3). CIM-exposed patients were also more likely to achieve improvements in clinical outcomes of glycemic and blood pressure control reflected by hemoglobin A1c less than 7.0% (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.02-3) and blood pressure less than 130/80 (OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.1-4.5) compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic chronic care model can be successfully integrated into an academic general internal medicine practice and may result in improved processes of care and some clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. This study provides a model for further hypothesis generation and more rigorous testing of the quality benefits of structured chronic illness care in diverse outpatient practices.

Project description:Despite the rising burden of noncommunicable diseases, access to quality decentralized noncommunicable disease services remain limited in many low- and middle-income countries. Here we describe the strategies we employed to drive the process from adaptation to national endorsement and implementation of the 2016 Botswana primary healthcare guidelines for adults. The strategies included detailed multilevel assessment with broad stakeholder inputs and in-depth analysis of local data; leveraging academic partnerships; facilitating development of supporting policy instruments; and embedding noncommunicable disease guidelines within broader primary health-care guidelines in keeping with the health ministry strategic direction. At facility level, strategies included developing a multimethod training programme for health-care providers, leveraging on the experience of provision of human immunodeficiency virus care and engaging health-care implementers early in the process. Through the strategies employed, the country's first national primary health-care guidelines were endorsed in 2016 and a phased three-year implementation started in August 2017. In addition, provision of primary health-care delivery of noncommunicable disease services was included in the country's 11th national development plan (2017-2023). During the guideline development process, we learnt that strong interdisciplinary skills in communication, organization, coalition building and systems thinking, and technical grasp of best-practices in low- and middle-income countries were important. Furthermore, misaligned agendas of stakeholders, exaggerated by a siloed approach to guideline development, underestimation of the importance of having policy instruments in place and coordination of the processes initially being led outside the health ministry caused delays. Our experience is relevant to other countries interested in developing and implementing guidelines for evidence-based noncommunicable disease services.

Project description:BackgroundFollow-up with a primary care provider within 1-2 weeks of discharge from hospital has been associated with reduced readmissions. We sought to determine appointment attendance with primary care providers postdischarge and identify factors associated with attendance.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study involving general medicine patients who had been discharged from hospital between Sept. 1, 2014, and Dec. 30, 2015, from 2 Ontario academic hospitals, and who had been supported by a transitional care specialist and advised to see a primary care provider within 1 week. Attendance was determined by self-report during follow-up by telephone. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess whether patient factors (e.g., comorbidity) or system factors (e.g., booking the appointment before discharge) predicted attendance. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to assess whether attendance predicted readmission within 30 days.ResultsOf the 214 patients included in our study, 35% (n = 75) attended a primary care appointment within 1 week of discharge; 52% (n = 124) of patients attended an appointment within 2 weeks. After adjusting for age, sex and comorbidity, significant predictors of attendance were booking the appointment before discharge (odds ratio [OR] 2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-4.40), familiarity with the primary care provider (OR 5.43, 95% CI 2.25-14.1) and inclusion of a reminder, callback number and appointment time in the discharge summary (OR 15.3, 95% CI 2.09-326). Predictors of nonattendance were the presence of a home support worker (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.80) and a booked specialist appointment before discharge (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.73). Attendance was not associated with reduced readmissions (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.40-1.09).InterpretationTimely follow-up with PCPs postdischarge remains challenging. Efforts to improve attendance should focus on reinforcing need for follow-up and coordinating follow-up before discharge, particularly for those poorly connected with the health care system.

Project description:BackgroundShared medical appointments (SMAs) or group consultations have been promoted in primary care to improve workload pressures, resource-use efficiency and patient self-management of long-term conditions (LTCs). However, few studies have explored stakeholders' perspectives of this novel care delivery model in the English NHS context, particularly patients' views and experiences of SMAs.MethodSemi-structured interviews were used to explore the perspectives of stakeholders (21 patients, 17 primary care staff, 2 commissioners and 2 SMA training providers) with and without SMA experience from a range of geographical and socio-economic backgrounds in the North East and North Cumbrian region of England. Thematic analysis was conducted to examine perceptions around impact on patient care and outcomes and barriers and facilitators to implementation.ResultsThree main themes were identified: 'Value of sharing', 'Appropriateness of group setting', 'Implementation processes'. Patients experiences and perceptions of SMAs were largely positive yet several reported reservations about sharing personal information, particularly in close-knit communities where the risk of breaching confidentiality was perceived to be greater. SMAs were considered by patients and staff to be inappropriate for certain personal conditions or for some patient groups. Staff reported difficulties engaging sufficient numbers of patients to make them viable and having the resources to plan and set them up in practice. Whilst patients and staff anticipated that SMAs could deliver high quality care more efficiently than 1:1 appointments, none of the practices had evaluated the impact SMAs had on patient health outcomes or staff time.ConclusionStakeholder experiences of SMA use in English primary care are largely similar to those reported in other countries. However, several important cultural barriers were identified in this setting. Further work is needed to better understand how patient and staff perceptions, experiences and engagement with SMAs change with regular use over time. Concerns regarding staff capacity, additional resource requirements and numbers of eligible patients per practice suggest SMAs may only be feasible in some smaller practices if facilitated by primary care networks. Further mixed-method evaluations of SMAs are needed to inform the evidence base regarding the effectiveness, efficiency and feasibility of SMAs long-term and subsequently their wider roll-out in English primary care.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-management is essential for good outcomes in type 2 diabetes and patients often benefit from self-management education. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) can increase self-efficacy for self management but are difficult for some primary care practices to implement. Understanding how practices adapt processes and delivery of SMAs for patients with type 2 diabetes may provide helpful strategies for other practices interested in implementing SMAs.MethodsThe Invested in Diabetes study was a pragmatic cluster-randomized, comparative effectiveness trial designed to compare two different models of diabetes SMAs delivered in primary care. We used a multi-method approach guided by the FRAME to assess practices' experience with implementation, including any planned and unplanned adaptations. Data sources included interviews, practice observations and field notes from practice facilitator check-ins.ResultsSeveral findings were identified from the data: 1) Modifications and adaptations are common in implementation of SMAs, 2) while most adaptations were fidelity-consistent supporting the core components of the intervention conditions as designed, some were not, 3) Adaptations were perceived to be necessary to help SMAs meet patient and practice needs and overcome implementation challenges, and 4) Content changes in the sessions were often planned and enacted to better address the contextual circumstances such as patient needs and culture.DiscussionImplementing SMAs in primary care can be challenging and adaptations of both implementation processes and content and delivery of SMAS for patients with type 2 diabetes were common in the Invested in Diabetes study. Recognizing the need for adaptations based on practice context prior to implementation may help improve fit and success with SMAs, but care needs to be given to ensure that adaptations do not weaken the impact of the intervention. Practices may be able to assess what might need to adapted for them to be successful prior to implementation but likely will continue to adapt after implementation.ConclusionAdaptations were common in the Invested in Diabetes study. Practices may benefit from understanding common challenges in implementing SMAs and adapting processes and delivery based on their own context.Trial registrationThis trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov under Trial number NCT03590041, posted 18/07/2018.