Dataset Information

Comparison of Access to Primary Care Medical and Dental Appointments Between Simulated Patients Who Were Deaf and Patients Who Could Hear.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Primary medical and dental clinics may accept fewer people who are deaf as patients than persons who can hear, and clinics may deny requests by patients who are deaf for American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation at appointments when necessary, creating diminished access to primary medical and dental care.

Objective

To compare the rate at which patients who are deaf are offered primary care medical or dental appointments with the rate at which appointments are offered to patients who can hear in a real-world context.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study used a simulated patient (SP) call audit method. Simulated patients (4 who could hear and 4 who were deaf) followed a call script in which an adult sought to establish care, requesting new patient appointments from a statewide stratified random sample of clinicians listed in the Idaho Medical and Dental Associations member databases at 445 clinics (334 primary care and 111 general dentistry) throughout Idaho. Simulated patients who were deaf also requested interpreting services at the appointment. Calls were made between June 7 and December 6, 2018. Data analysis was conducted from December 2019 to April 2020.

Exposures

Simulated patients who were deaf or could hear called primary care medical or dental clinics from the sampling frame and requested an appointment, supplying the same basic information. In addition, SPs who were deaf requested that an ASL interpreter be provided by the clinic for the appointment.

Main outcomes and measures

Rates of new appointments offered and, for SPs who were deaf, whether ASL interpreter services were confirmed for the appointment.

Results

Two male and 2 female SPs who could hear were successful on 210 occasions (64.4%) when requesting a new patient appointment compared with 2 male and 2 female SPs who were deaf who were successful on 161 occasions (49.1%) (P?Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that in a statewide representative sample, access to primary medical and dental care for patients who are deaf is significantly reduced. Patients who are deaf may not receive an appointment if they request interpreter services, even when such services are required to provide effective communication.

SUBMITTER: Schniedewind E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7821033 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Access to Primary Care Medical and Dental Appointments Between Simulated Patients Who Were Deaf and Patients Who Could Hear.

Schniedewind Elizabeth E Lindsay Ryan P RP Snow Steven S

JAMA network open 20210104 1

<h4>Importance</h4>Primary medical and dental clinics may accept fewer people who are deaf as patients than persons who can hear, and clinics may deny requests by patients who are deaf for American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation at appointments when necessary, creating diminished access to primary medical and dental care.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the rate at which patients who are deaf are offered primary care medical or dental appointments with the rate at which appointments are offered ...[more]

PMID: 33475755

Similar Datasets

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: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:ImportanceAlthough low-income populations have more eye problems, whether they face greater difficulty obtaining eye care appointments is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare rates of obtaining eye care appointments and appointment wait times for those with Medicaid vs those with private insurance.Design, setting, and participantsIn this prospective, cohort study conducted from January 1, 2017, to July 1, 2017, researchers made telephone calls to a randomly selected sample of vision care professionals in Michigan and Maryland stratified by neighborhood (urban vs rural) and professional type (ophthalmologist vs optometrist) to request the first available appointment. Appointments were sought for an adult needing a diabetic eye examination and a child requesting a routine eye examination for a failed vision screening. Researchers called each practice twice, once requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid and the other time for a patient with Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) insurance, and asked whether the insurance was accepted and, if so, when the earliest available appointment could be scheduled.Main outcomes and measuresRate of successfully made appointments and mean wait time for the first available appointment.ResultsA total of 603 telephone calls were made to 330 eye care professionals (414 calls [68.7%] to male and 189 calls [31.3%] to female eye care professionals). The sample consisted of ophthalmologists (303 [50.2%]) and optometrists (300 [49.8%]) located in Maryland (322 [53.4%]) and Michigan (281 [46.6%]). The rates of successfully obtaining appointments among callers were 61.5% (95% CI, 56.0%-67.0%) for adults with Medicaid and 79.3% (95% CI, 74.7%-83.9%) for adults with BCBS (P < .001) and 45.4% (95% CI, 39.8%-51.0%) for children with Medicaid and 62.5% (95% CI, 57.1%-68.0%) for children with BCBS (P < .001). Mean wait time did not vary significantly between the BCBS and Medicaid groups for both adults and children. Adults with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.59; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.49-3.87; P < .001) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.31-2.79; P < .001). Children with Medicaid had significantly decreased odds of receiving an appointment compared with those with BCBS (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28-0.60; P < .001) but had increased odds of obtaining an appointment if they were located in Michigan vs Maryland (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73; P = .03) or with an optometrist vs an ophthalmologist (OR, 8.00; 95% CI, 5.37-11.90; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceCallers were less successful in trying to obtain eye care appointments with Medicaid than with BCBS, suggesting a disparity in access to eye care based on insurance status, although confounding factors may have contributed to this finding. Improving access to eye care professionals for those with Medicaid may improve health outcomes and decrease health care spending in the long term.

Project description:ObjectivesShared medical appointments (SMAs) are an increasingly used system-redesign strategy for improving access to and quality of chronic illness care. We conducted a systematic review of the existing literature on SMA interventions for patients with diabetes in order to understand their impact on outcomes.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from January 1996 through April 2012. PubMed search updated June 2013.Study selectionEnglish-language peer-reviewed publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized cluster controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, or interrupted time-series designs conducted among adult patients with diabetes. Two independent reviewers used prespecified criteria to screen titles and abstracts for full text review.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsTwo different reviewers abstracted data and rated study quality and strength of evidence. When possible, we used random-effects models to synthesize the effects quantitatively, reporting by a weighted difference of the means when the same scale was used across studies, and a standardized mean difference when the scales differed. We measured heterogeneity in study effects using Forest Plots, Cochran's Q, and I(2), and explored heterogeneity by using subgroup analyses for categorical variables and meta-regression analyses for continuous or discrete variables. Outcomes not suitable to meta-analysis were summarized qualitatively.ResultsTwenty-five articles representing 17 unique studies compared SMA interventions with usual care. Among patients with diabetes, SMAs improved hemoglobin A1c (? = -0.55 percentage points [95 % CI, -0.11 to -0.99]); improved systolic blood pressure (? = -5.2 mmHg [95 % CI, -3.0 to -7.4]); and did not improve LDL cholesterol (? = -6.6 mg/dl [95 % CI, 2.8 to -16.1]). Nonbiophysical outcomes, including economic outcomes, were reported too infrequently to meta-analyze, or to draw conclusions from. The A1c result had significant heterogeneity among studies, likely secondary to the heterogeneity among included SMA interventions.LimitationHeterogeneity among the components of diabetes SMAs leads to uncertainty about what makes a particular SMA successful.ConclusionSMA interventions improve biophysical outcomes among patients with diabetes. There was inadequate literature to determine SMA effects on patient experience, utilization, and costs.

Project description:The goal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was to expand patient access to health care. Since the rollout of the PPACA, Medicaid patients have demonstrated difficulty obtaining appointments in some specialty care settings.To assess the effect of insurance type (Medicaid and private) on patient access to orthopaedic surgery sports medicine specialists for a semiurgent evaluation of a likely operative bucket-handle meniscus tear. The study was designed to determine whether disparities in access exist since the PPACA rollout.Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.The design was to call 180 orthopaedic surgery sports medicine specialists in 6 representative states (California, Ohio, New York, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina) between June 2015 and December 2015. An appointment was requested for the caller's fictitious 25-year-old-brother who had suffered a bucket-handle meniscus tear. Each office was called twice to assess the ease of obtaining an appointment: once for patients with Medicaid and once for patients with private insurance. For each call, data pertaining to whether an appointment was given, wait times, and barriers to receiving an appointment were recorded.A total of 177 surgeons were called within the study period. Overall, 27.1% of offices scheduled an appointment for a patient with Medicaid, compared with 91.2% (P < .0001) for a patient with private insurance. Medicaid patients were significantly more likely to be denied an appointment due to lack of referral compared with private patients (40.2% vs 3.7%, P < .0001), and Medicaid patients were more likely to experience longer wait times for an appointment (15 vs 12 days, P < .029). No significant differences were found in patients' access to orthopaedic surgery sports medicine specialists between Medicaid-expanded and -nonexpanded states. Medicaid reimbursement for knee arthroscopy with meniscus repair was not significantly correlated with appointment success rate or patient waiting periods.Despite the passage of the PPACA, patients with Medicaid have reduced access to care. In addition, patients with Medicaid confront more barriers to receiving appointments than patients with private insurance and wait longer for an appointment.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Access to Primary Care Medical and Dental Appointments Between Simulated Patients Who Were Deaf and Patients Who Could Hear.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

Comparison of Access to Primary Care Medical and Dental Appointments Between Simulated Patients Who Were Deaf and Patients Who Could Hear.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets