Dataset Information

Personal Formularies of Primary Care Physicians Across 4 Health Care Systems.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

More conservative prescribing has the potential to reduce adverse drug events and patient harm and cost; however, no method exists defining the extent to which individual clinicians prescribe conservatively. One potential domain is prescribing a more limited number of drugs. Personal formularies-defined as the number and mix of unique, newly initiated drugs prescribed by a physician-may enable comparisons among clinicians, practices, and institutions.

Objectives

To develop a method of defining primary care physicians' personal formularies and examine how they differ among primary care physicians at 4 institutions; evaluate associations between personal formularies and patient, physician, and practice site characteristics; and empirically derive and examine the variability of the top 200 core drugs prescribed at the 4 sites.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 4 US health care systems among 4655 internal and family medicine physicians and 4 930 707 patients who had at least 1 visit to these physicians between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018.

Exposures

Personal formulary size was defined as the number of unique, newly initiated drugs.

Main outcomes and measures

Personal formulary size and drugs used, physician and patient characteristics, core drugs, and analysis of selected drug classes.

Results

The study population included 4655 primary care physicians (2274 women [48.9%]; mean [SD] age, 48.5 [4.4] years) and 4 930 707 patients (16.5% women; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [8.3] years). There were 41 378 903 outpatient prescriptions written, of which 9 496 766 (23.0%) were new starts. Institution median personal formulary size ranged from 150 (interquartile range, 82.0-212.0) to 296 (interquartile range, 230.0-347.0) drugs. In multivariable modeling, personal formulary size was significantly associated with panel size (total number of unique patients with face-to-face encounters during the study period; 1.2 medications per 100 patients), physician's total number of encounters (5.7 drugs per 10% increase), and physician's sex (-6.2 drugs per 100 patients for female physicians). There were 1527 unique, newly prescribed drugs across the 4 sites. Fewer than half the drugs (626 [41.0%]) were used at every site. Physicians' prescribing of drugs from a pooled core list varied from 0% to 100% of their prescriptions.

Conclusions and relevance

Personal formularies, measured at the level of individual physicians and institutions, reveal variability in size and mix of drugs. Similarly, defining a list of commonly prescribed core drugs in primary care revealed interphysician and interinstitutional differences. Personal formularies and core medication lists enable comparisons and may identify outliers and opportunities for safer and more appropriate prescribing.

SUBMITTER: Galanter W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8283562 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEnabling widespread interoperability-the ability of health information technology systems to exchange information and to use that information without special effort-is a primary focus of public policy on health information technology. More information on clinicians' experience using that technology can serve as one measure of the impact of that policy.ObjectiveTo assess primary care physician perspectives on the state of interoperability.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional survey of family medicine physicians in the US was conducted from December 12, 2021, to October 12, 2022. A sample of family medicine physicians who completed the Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ), a required part of the American Board of Family Medicine certification process, which has a 100% response rate, were invited to participate.Main outcomes and measuresEighteen items on the CCQ assessed experience accessing and using various information from outside organizations, including medications, immunizations, and allergies.ResultsA total of 2088 physicians (1053 women [50%]; age reported categorically as either ≥50 years or <50 years) completed the CCQ interoperability questions in 2022. Of these respondents, 35% practiced in hospital or health system-owned practices, while 27% practiced in independently owned practices. Eleven percent were very satisfied with their ability to electronically access all 10 types of information from outside organizations included on the questionnaire, and a mean of 70% were at least somewhat satisfied. A total of 23% of family medicine physicians reported information from outside organizations was very easy to use, and an additional 65% reported that information was somewhat easy to use. Only 8% reported that information from different electronic health record (EHR) developers' products was very easy to use compared with 38% who reported information from the same EHR developer's product was very easy to use.Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study of family medicine physicians found modest and uneven improvement in physicians' experience with interoperability. These findings suggest that substantial heterogeneity in satisfaction by information type, source of information, EHR, practice type, ownership, and patient population necessitates diverse policy and strategies to improve interoperability.

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand how health systems are facilitating primary care redesign (PCR), examine the PCR initiatives taking place within systems, and identify barriers to this work.Study settingA purposive sample of 24 health systems in 4 states.Study designData were systematically reviewed to identify how system leaders define and implement initiatives to redesign primary care delivery and identify challenges. Researchers applied codes which were based on the theoretical PCR literature and created new codes to capture emerging themes. Investigators analyzed coded data then produced and applied a thematic analysis to examine how health systems facilitate PCR.Data collectionSemi-structured telephone interviews with 162 system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 systems.Principal findingsLeaders at all 24 health systems described initiatives to redesign the delivery of primary care, but many were in the early stages. Respondents described the use of centralized health system resources to facilitate PCR initiatives, such as regionalized care coordinators, and integrated electronic health records. Team-based care, population management, and care coordination were the most commonly described initiatives to transform primary care delivery. Respondents most often cited improving efficiency and enhancing clinician job satisfaction, as motivating factors for team-based care. Changes in payment and risk assumption as well as community needs were commonly cited motivators for population health management and care coordination. Return on investment and the slower than anticipated rate in moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment were noted by multiple respondents as challenges health systems face in redesigning primary care.ConclusionsGiven their expanding role in health care and the potential to leverage resources, health systems are promising entities to promote the advancement of PCR. Systems demonstrate interest and engagement in this work but face significant challenges in getting to scale until payment models are in alignment with these efforts.

Project description:BackgroundPersonal health records (PHR) provide opportunities for improved patient engagement, collection of patient-generated data, and overcome health-system inefficiencies. While PHR use is increasing, uptake in rural populations is lower than in urban areas.ObjectivesThe study aimed to identify priorities for PHR functionality and gain insights into meaning, value, and use of patient-generated data for rural primary care providers.MethodsWe performed PHR preimplementation focus groups with rural providers and their health care teams from five primary care clinics in a sparsely populated mountainous region of British Columbia, Canada to obtain their understanding of PHR functionality, needs, and perceived challenges.ResultsEight general practitioners (GP), five medical office assistants, two nurse practitioners (NP), and two registered nurses (14 females and 3 males) participated in focus groups held at their respective clinics. Providers (GPs, NPs, and RNs) had been practicing for a median of 9.5 (range = 1-38) years and had used an electronic medical record for 7.0 (1-20) years. Participants expressed interest in incorporating functionality around two-way communication and appointment scheduling, previsit data gathering, patient and provider data sharing, virtual care including visits using videoconferencing tools, and postvisit sharing of educational materials. Three further themes emerged from the focus groups: (1) the context in which the providers' practice matters, (2) the need for providing patients and providers with choice (e.g., which data to share, who gets to initiate/respond in communications, and processes around virtual care visits), and (3) perceived risks of system use (e.g., increased complexity for older patients and workload barriers for the health care team).ConclusionRural primary care teams perceived PHR opportunities for increased patient engagement and access to patient-generated data, while worries about changes in workflow were the biggest perceived risk. Recommendations for PHR adoption in a rural primary health network include setting provider-patient expectations about response times, ability to share notes selectively, and automatically augmented note-taking from virtual-care visits.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2000, Israel has had a national program for ongoing monitoring of the quality of the primary care services provided by the country's four competing non-profit health plans. Previous research has demonstrated that quality of care has improved substantially since the program's inception and that the program enjoys wide support among health plan managers. However, prior to this study there were anecdotal and journalistic reports of opposition to the program among primary care physicians engaged in direct service delivery; these raised serious questions about the extent of support among physicians nationally.GoalsTo assess how Israeli primary care physicians experience and rate health plan efforts to track and improve the quality of care.MethodThe study population consisted of primary care physicians employed by the health plans who have responsibility for the quality of care of a panel of adult patients. The study team randomly sampled 250 primary-care physicians from each of the four health plans. Of the 1,000 physicians sampled, 884 met the study criteria. Every physician could choose whether to participate in the survey by mail, e-mail, or telephone. The anonymous questionnaire was completed by 605 physicians - 69% of those eligible. The data were weighted to reflect differences in sampling and response rates across health plans.Main findingsThe vast majority of respondents (87%) felt that the monitoring of quality was important and two-thirds (66%) felt that the feedback and subsequent remedial interventions improved medical care to a great extent. Almost three-quarters (71%) supported continuation of the program in an unqualified manner. The physicians with the most positive attitudes to the program were over age 44, independent contract physicians, and either board-certified in internal medicine or without any board-certification (i.e., residents or general practitioners). At the same time, support for the program was widespread even among physicians who are young, board-certified in family medicine, and salaried.Many physicians also reported that various problems had emerged to a great or very great extent: a heavier workload (65%), over-competitiveness (60%), excessive managerial pressure (48%), and distraction from other clinical issues (35%). In addition, there was some criticism of the quality of the measures themselves. Respondents also identified approaches to addressing these problems.ConclusionsThe findings provide perspective on the anecdotal reports of physician opposition to the monitoring program; they may well accurately reflect the views of the small number of physicians directly involved, but they do not reflect the views of primary care physicians as a whole, who are generally quite supportive of the program. At the same time, the study confirms the existence of several perceived problems. Some of these problems, such as excess managerial pressure, can probably best be addressed by the health plans themselves; while others, such as the need to refine the quality indicators, are probably best addressed at the national level. Cooperation between primary care physicians and health plan managers, which has been an essential component of the program's success thus far, can also play an important role in addressing the problems identified.

Project description:BACKGROUND/AIM:Early diagnosis of chronic illnesses and cancers mainly occurs at primary health care centers (PHCs) by primary health care physicians (PHPs). The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is rising and this has been attributed to many factors. The increasing incidence of CRC is compounded by nonadherence to screening recommendations. Therefore, evaluating PHPs knowledge, attitudes, and practices of screening for CRC is clinically important. We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of PHPs regarding CRC screening and to identify the factors associated with nonadherence of PHPs to screening recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:PHPs working at three tertiary care centers and PHCs across the city of Jeddah were randomly recruited. Participants were surveyed using a comprehensive questionnaire that recorded data on demographics, qualifications, and knowledge of various modalities and guidelines related to CRC screening. Perspectives about effectiveness of, or adherence to, factors that influence physicians' perspectives or recommendations for CRC screening were also assessed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify physician characteristics associated with PHPs perspectives and nonadherence to CRC screening. RESULTS:A total of 127 PHPs were recruited. The average age of participants was 34 (±8.4) years, 86.6% were native Saudi's and 56.7% were females. The majority of surveys (66.9%) were completed at 24 PHCs and the remaining at hospital-based family medicine clinics. Most of the PHPs (55%) had a bachelor's degree and 31.5% were board-certified or carried a PhD in family medicine; 95% of participants believed that CRC screening in general was effective, but as much as 55% reported that they did not practice screening. The male physicians [odds ratio (OR) = 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.19-0.99, P = 0.048)] and PHPs with only a bachelor degree or less (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55-0.93, P = 0.011) were less likely to recommend screening for CRC. CONCLUSIONS:A considerable proportion of PHPs do not adhere to CRC screening recommendations despite a wide belief that screening is effective. Male PHPs with lower qualifications appear to be less likely to recommend screening.