Primary Care Providers And Specialists Deliver Comparable Buprenorphine Treatment Quality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gertner AK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7895292 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Substantial increases in opioid-related morbidity and mortality have motivated the implementation of federal policies to expand the buprenorphine prescribing capacity of primary care providers and other clinicians. Using a national prescription database that covered 72-92 percent of the US population during 2010-18, we analyzed trends in buprenorphine treatment by prescriber specialty. Buprenorphine treatment rates by primary care providers increased from 12.9 people per 10,000 population in 2010 to 27.4 in 2018. The numbers for psychiatrists and addiction medicine specialists increased from 8.7 to 12.0 per 10,000 and those for other prescribers from 5.8 to 16.3 per 10,000. However, treatment of people ages 15-24 by primary care providers and by psychiatrists and addiction medicine specialists declined significantly. Across all patient age and provider groups, most patients were not retained on buprenorphine for the benchmark period of at least 180 days. Despite a recent national increase in buprenorphine treatment fueled primarily by nonspecialists, challenges persist with buprenorphine access-especially for younger people-and with retaining patients in long-term treatment.
| S-EPMC9097821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite efforts to improve access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, the number of opioid overdoses in the United States continues to rise. In April 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services removed the mandatory training requirement to obtain a buprenorphine waiver; the goal was to encourage more providers to prescribe buprenorphine, thus improving access. Little is known about the attitudes on buprenorphine prescribing after this policy change.ObjectiveThe primary objective was to assess attitudes among primary care providers toward the removal of the buprenorphine waiver training requirement. A secondary objective was to identify other barriers to prescribing buprenorphine.MethodsWe conducted a survey between September 15 and October 13, 2021 to assess the overall beliefs on the effectiveness of MOUD and attitudes toward the removal of the waiver training, current knowledge of buprenorphine, current practice styles related to screening for and treating OUD, and attitudes toward prescribing buprenorphine in the future. This survey was sent to 890 Mayo Clinic primary care providers in 5 US states.ResultsOne hundred twenty-three respondents (13.8%) completed the survey; 35.8% respondents agreed that the removal of the waiver training was a positive step. These respondents expressed a greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine. This group was also more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Approximately one-third (34.4%) of respondents reported perceived institutional support in prescribing buprenorphine. This group expressed greater confidence in diagnosing OUD, had greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine, and was more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Respondents who have been in practice for 11 to 20 years since completion of training were most likely to refer all OUD patients to specialists.ConclusionsResults of our survey suggests that simply removing the mandatory waiver training requirement is insufficient in positively changing attitudes toward buprenorphine prescribing. A key barrier is the perceived lack of institutional support. Future studies investigating effective ways to provide such support may help improve providers' willingness to prescribe buprenorphine.
| S-EPMC9284198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWith the myriad of cases presented to clinicians every day at our integrated academic health system, clinical questions are bound to arise. Clinicians need to recognize these knowledge gaps and act on them. However, for many reasons, clinicians might not seek answers to these questions. Our goal was to investigate the rationale and process behind these unanswered clinical questions. Subsequently, we explored the use of biomedical information resources among specialists and primary care providers and identified ways to promote more informed clinical decision making.MethodsWe conducted a survey to assess how practitioners identify and respond to information gaps, their background knowledge of search tools and strategies, and their usage of and comfort level with technology.ResultsMost of the 292 respondents encountered clinical questions at least a few times per week. While the vast majority often or always pursued answers, time was the biggest barrier for not following through on questions. Most respondents did not have any formal training in searching databases, were unaware of many digital resources, and indicated a need for resources and services that could be provided at the point of care.ConclusionsWhile the reasons for unanswered clinical questions varied, thoughtful review of the responses suggested that a combination of educational strategies, embedded librarian services, and technology applications could help providers pursue answers to their clinical questions, enhance patient safety, and contribute to patient-based, self-directed learning.
| S-EPMC5234458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe sought to determine the financial impact to primary care practices of alternative strategies for offering buprenorphine-based treatment for opioid use disorder.MethodsWe interviewed 20 practice managers and identified 4 approaches to delivering buprenorphine-based treatment via primary care practice that differed in physician and nurse responsibilities. We used a microsimulation model to estimate how practice variations in patient type, payer, revenue, and cost across primary care practices nationwide would affect cost and revenue implications for each approach for the following types of practices: federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban high-poverty areas, non-FQHCs in rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas.ResultsThe 4 approaches to buprenorphine-based treatment included physician-led visits with nurse-led logistical support; nurse-led visits with physician oversight; shared visits; and solo prescribing by physician alone. Net practice revenues would be expected to increase after introduction of any of the 4 approaches by $18,000 to $70,000 per full-time physician in the first year across practice type. Yet physician-led visits and shared medical appointments, both of which relied on nurse care managers, consistently produced the greatest net revenues ($29,000-$70,000 per physician in the first year). To ensure positive net revenues with any approach, providers would need to maintain at least 9 patients in treatment, with a no-show rate of <34%.ConclusionsUsing a simulation model, we estimate that many types of primary care practices could financially sustain buprenorphine-based treatment if demand and no-show rate requirements are met, but a nurse care manager-based approach might be the most sustainable.
| S-EPMC7708288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Black men have less physician contact than other groups and thus lower rates of hypertension treatment and control. In the Barber-Assisted Reduction in Blood Pressure among Ethnic Residents trial, hypertension control in 8 active-intervention barbershops where barbers offered blood pressure (BP) checks with haircuts and motivated black male patrons with high BP to seek provider follow-up showed a small improvement over that in 7 comparison shops where patrons received hypertension pamphlets but not barber-BP checks. Undertreatment of hypertension, which is common in primary care, may have impacted the outcomes. Thus, in patrons with a baseline systolic BP of ?140 mm Hg and 10-month follow-up including BP and medication data, we performed post hoc comparison of systolic BP reduction between comparison-arm patrons (n = 68) treated by primary care providers (PCPs) with (1) intervention-arm patrons (n = 37) treated by PCPs or (2) intervention-arm patrons (n = 33) who lacked access to PCPs and were treated by hypertension specialist physicians serving as safety net providers. The latter group had higher baseline systolic BP than the others (162 ± 3 vs 155 ± 2 and 154 ± 2 mm Hg, respectively, p <0.01). After adjustment for baseline systolic BP and other covariates, systolic BP reduction was 21 ± 4 mm Hg greater than in the comparison group (p <0.0001), when barbers referred patrons to hypertension specialists but was no different when they referred to PCPs (4 ± 4 mm Hg, p = 0.31). Specialist-treated patrons received more BP medication and different classes of medication than PCP-treated patrons. In conclusion, the barber-based intervention-if connected directly to specialty-level medical care-could have a large public health impact on hypertensive disease in black men.
| S-EPMC3800500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care.MethodsIn this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization.ResultsThe results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004).ConclusionsPCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.
| S-EPMC9892983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary care occupies a strategic position in the evaluation and treatment of depression in late life, yet many older patients do not initiate or adhere to treatments available in primary care.To explore how primary care providers describe the process of discussing depression care with older adults.?Semi-structured interviews conducted with 15 providers involved with intervention studies of depression management for older adults. We used the constant comparative method to identify themes related to negotiating the treatment of depression with older adults.Providers felt that older patients often attribute depression to non-medical causes. They talked about the challenges and described the need to 'convince' them of the medical model of depression.How primary care physicians surmise patients' views of depression may influence the discussion of depression in practice. As medication is most often provided for depression treatment, some may feel compelled to convince their patients of biomedical explanations while others may avoid treating depression altogether.
| S-EPMC3183148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlternative payment models are common for both primary care providers and pharmacies. These models rely on quality measures to determine reimbursement, and pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute to performance on a similar set of medication-related measures. Therefore, payers need to decide which provider to incentivize for which measures when both are included in alternative payment models.ObjectivesTo explore the relative contribution of pharmacies and primary care group practices to a range of quality measures.MethodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study used Medicare Part A, B, and D claims for a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2014-2016. Eight quality measures were selected from the Merit-based Incentive Payment System and Medicare Part D Stars Ratings. Measures included medication adherence measures, appropriate prescribing measures such as high-risk medication use in the elderly, statin use in persons with diabetes (SUPD), and others. The residual intraclass correlation coefficient (RICC) was used to estimate the contribution of pharmacists and primary care providers to measure variation. To estimate the relative contribution across provider types, the pharmacy RICC was divided by the group practice RICC to yield a RICC ratio.ResultsDue to varying measure eligibility requirements, the number of patients per measure ranged from 179,430 to 2,226,129. Across all measures, the RICC values were low, ranging from 0.013 for SUPD to 0.145 for adult sinusitis. Adherence measures had the highest RICC ratios (1.15-1.44), and the annual influenza vaccination measure had the lowest (0.56).Discussion and conclusionsThe relative contributions of pharmacists and primary care providers vary across quality measures. As payers design payment models with measures to which pharmacists and primary care providers can contribute, the RICC ratio may be useful in aligning incentives to the providers with the greatest relative contributions. Additional research is needed to validate this method and extend it to additional sets of providers.
| S-EPMC9418985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a generic scale for assessing attitudes towards genetic testing and to psychometrically assess these attitudes in the context of BRCA1/2 among a sample of French general practitioners, breast specialists and gyneco-obstetricians.Study design and settingNested within the questionnaire developed for the European InCRisC (International Cancer Risk Communication Study) project were 14 items assessing expected benefits (8 items) and drawbacks (6 items) of the process of breast/ovarian genetic cancer testing (BRCA1/2). Another item assessed agreement with the statement that, overall, the expected health benefits of BRCA1/2 testing exceeded its drawbacks, thereby justifying its prescription. The questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 1,852 French doctors. Of these, 182 breast specialists, 275 general practitioners and 294 gyneco-obstetricians completed and returned the questionnaire to the research team. Principal Component Analysis, Cronbach's α coefficient, and Pearson's correlation coefficients were used in the statistical analyses of collected data.ResultsThree dimensions emerged from the respondents' responses, and were classified under the headings: "Anxiety, Conflict and Discrimination", "Risk Information", and "Prevention and Surveillance". Cronbach's α coefficient for the 3 dimensions was 0.79, 0.76 and 0.62, respectively, and each dimension exhibited strong correlation with the overall indicator of agreement (criterion validity).ConclusionsThe validation process of the 15 items regarding BRCA1/2 testing revealed satisfactory psychometric properties for the creation of a new scale entitled the Attitudes Towards Genetic Testing for BRCA1/2 (ATGT-BRCA1/2) Scale. Further testing is required to confirm the validity of this tool which could be used generically in other genetic contexts.
| S-EPMC5453525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBuprenorphine can be used for the treatment of opioid dependence in primary care settings. National guidelines recommend directly observed initial dosing followed by multiple in-clinic visits during the induction week. We offered buprenorphine treatment at a public hospital primary care clinic using a home, unobserved induction protocol.MethodsParticipants were opioid-dependent adults eligible for office-based buprenorphine treatment. The initial physician visit included assessment, education, induction telephone support instructions, an illustrated home induction pamphlet, and a 1-week buprenorphine/naloxone prescription. Patients initiated dosing off-site at a later time. Follow-up with urine toxicology testing occurred at day 7 and thereafter at varying intervals. Primary outcomes were treatment status at week 1 and induction-related events: severe precipitated withdrawal, other buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal symptoms, prolonged unrelieved withdrawal, and serious adverse events (SAEs).ResultsPatients (N = 103) were predominantly heroin users (68%), but also prescription opioid misusers (18%) and methadone maintenance patients (14%). At the end of week 1, 73% were retained, 17% provided induction data but did not return to the clinic, and 11% were lost to follow-up with no induction data available. No cases of severe precipitated withdrawal and no SAEs were observed. Five cases (5%) of mild-to-moderate buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal and eight cases of prolonged unrelieved withdrawal symptoms (8% overall, 21% of methadone-to-buprenorphine inductions) were reported. Buprenorphine-prompted withdrawal and prolonged unrelieved withdrawal symptoms were not associated with treatment status at week 1.ConclusionsHome buprenorphine induction was feasible and appeared safe. Induction complications occurred at expected rates and were not associated with short-term treatment drop-out.
| S-EPMC2628995 | biostudies-literature