Primary care physician involvement during hospitalisation: a qualitative analysis of perspectives from frequently hospitalised patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To explore frequently hospitalised patients' experiences and preferences related to primary care physician (PCP) involvement during hospitalisation across two care models.Design
Qualitative study embedded within a randomised controlled trial. Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative template analysis.Setting
In the Comprehensive Care Programme (CCP) Study, in Illinois, USA, Medicare patients at increased risk of hospitalisation are randomly assigned to: (1) care by a CCP physician who serves as a PCP across both inpatient and outpatient settings or (2) care by a PCP as outpatient and by hospitalists as inpatients (standard care).Participants
Twelve standard care and 12 CCP patients were interviewed.Results
Themes included: (1) Positive attitude towards PCP; (2) Longitudinal continuity with PCP valued; (3) Patient preference for PCP involvement in hospital care; (4) Potential for in-depth involvement of PCP during hospitalisation often unrealised (involvement rare in standard care; in CCP, frequent interaction with PCP fostered patient involvement in decision making); and (5) PCP collaboration with hospital-based providers frequently absent (no interaction for standard care patients; CCP patients emphasising PCP's role in interdisciplinary coordination).Conclusion
Frequently hospitalised patients value PCP involvement in the hospital setting. CCP patients highlighted how an established relationship with their PCP improved interdisciplinary coordination and engagement with decision making. Inpatient-outpatient relational continuity may be an important component of programmes for frequently hospitalised patients. Opportunities for enhancing PCP involvement during hospitalisation should be considered.
SUBMITTER: Rieger EY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8638455 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMany patients with axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) experience lengthy diagnostic delays upwards of 14 years. (5-14 years). Screening tools for axSpA have been proposed for use in primary care settings, but whether this approach could be implemented into busy primary care settings remains unknown.ObjectiveTo solicit feedback from primary care physicians regarding questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) Expert Criteria and gain insight about barriers and facilitators for implementing axSpA screening in primary care.MethodsGuided by Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ-criteria), we recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in-depth interviews with eight family medicine physicians and ten internists (purposeful sampling) using immersion/crystallization techniques.ResultsFew physicians reported awareness of existing classification criteria for axSpA, and many reported a lack of confidence in their ability to distinguish between inflammatory and mechanical back pain. From three domains, 10 subthemes emerged: 1) typical work-up of axSpA patients in primary care, with subthemes including the clues involved in work-up and role of clinical examinations for axSpA; 2) feedback on questions from the Inflammatory Back Pain Assessment: ASAS Expert Criteria, with subthemes to evaluate contents/questions of a potential screening tool for axSpA; and 3) implementation of the screening tool in primary care settings, with subthemes of perceived barriers including awareness, time, other conditions to screen, rare disease, and lack of structured questionnaire for back pain and perceived facilitators including workflow issues and awareness.ConclusionsPrimary care physicians believed that an improved screening instrument and a strong evidence-base to support the need for screening for axSpA are required. The implementation of axSpA screening into a busy primary care practice requires integration into the practice workflow, with use of technology suggested as a possible way to improve efficiency.
| S-EPMC8143395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDiscontinuation of statin therapy represents a major challenge for effective cardiovascular disease prevention. It is unclear how often primary care physicians (PCPs) re-initiate statins and what barriers they encounter. We aimed to identify PCP perspectives on factors influencing statin re-initiation.MethodsWe conducted six nominal group discussions with 23 PCPs from the Deep South Continuing Medical Education network. PCPs answered questions about statin side effects, reasons their patients reported for discontinuing statins, how they respond when discontinuation is reported, and barriers they encounter in getting their patients to re-initiate statin therapy. Each group generated a list of responses in round-robin fashion. Then, each PCP independently ranked their top three responses to each question. For each PCP, the most important reason was given a weight of 3 votes, and the second and third most important reasons were given weights of 2 and 1, respectively. We categorized the individual responses into themes and determined the relative importance of each theme using a "percent of available votes" metric.ResultsPCPs reported that side effects, especially muscle/joint-related symptoms, were the most common reason patients reported for statin discontinuation (47% of available votes). PCPs reported statin re-challenge as their most common response when a patient discontinues statin use (31% of available votes). Patients' fear of side effects was ranked as the biggest challenge PCPs encounter in getting their patients to re-initiate statin therapy (70% of available votes).ConclusionPCPs face challenges getting their patients to re-initiate statins, particularly after a patient reports side effects.
| S-EPMC6939993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe shortage of primary care providers and the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have spurred discussion about expanding the number, scope of practice (SOP), and independence of primary care nurse practitioners (NPs). Such discussions in the media and among professional organizations may insinuate that changes to the laws governing NP practice will engender acrimony between practicing physicians and NPs. However, we lack empirical, descriptive data on how practicing professionals view NP independence in primary care.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to explore and describe the attitudes about NP independence among physicians and NPs working in primary care.DesignA qualitative study based on the principles of grounded theory.ParticipantsThirty primary care professionals in Missouri, USA, including 15 primary care physicians and 15 primary care NPs.ApproachSemi-structured, in-depth interviews, with data analysis guided by grounded theory.Key resultsParticipants had perspectives that were not well represented by professional organizations or the media. Physicians were supportive of a wide variety of NP roles and comfortable with high levels of NP independence and autonomy. Physicians and NPs described prerequisites to NP independence that were complementary. Physicians generally believed that NPs needed some association with physicians for patient safety, and NPs preferred having a physician readily accessible as needed. The theme "knowing your limits" was important to both NPs and physicians regarding NP independence, and has not been described previously in the literature.ConclusionsNP and physician views about NP practice in primary care are not as divergent as their representative professional organizations and the news media would suggest. The significant agreement among NPs and physicians, and some of the nuances of their perspectives, supports recommendations that may reduce the perceived acrimony surrounding discussions of NP independent practice in primary care.
| S-EPMC5331003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although previous studies suggest an association between provider burnout and suboptimal self-reported communication, no studies relate physician burnout to observed patient-physician communication behaviors.To investigate the relationship between physician burnout and observed patient-physician communication outcomes in patient-physician encounters.Longitudinal study of enrollment data from a trial of interventions to improve patient adherence to hypertension treatment.Fifteen urban community-based clinics in Baltimore, MD.Forty physicians and 235 of their adult hypertensive patients, with oversampling of ethnic minorities and poor persons. Fifty-three percent of physicians were women, and the average practice experience was 11.2 years. Among the 235 patients, 66% were women, 60% were African-American, and 90% were insured.Audiotape analysis of communication during outpatient encounters (one per patient) using the Roter Interaction Analysis System and patients' ratings of satisfaction with and trust and confidence in the physician.The median time between the physician burnout assessment and the patient encounter was 15.1 months (range 5.6-30). Multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in physician communication based on physician burnout. However, compared with patients of low-burnout physicians, patients of high-burnout physicians gave twice as many negative rapport-building statements (incident risk ratio 2.06, 95% CI 1.58-2.86, p < 0.001). Physician burnout was not significantly associated with physician or patient affect, patient-centeredness, verbal dominance, or length of the encounter. Physician burnout was also not significantly associated with patients' ratings of their satisfaction, confidence, or trust.Physician burnout was not associated with physician communication behaviors nor with most measures of patient-centered communication. However, patients engaged in more rapport-building behaviors. These findings suggest a complex relationship between physician burnout and patient-physician communication, which should be investigated and linked to patient outcomes in future research.
| S-EPMC2533387 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundExtending medical assistants and nursing roles to include in-visit documentation is a recent innovation in the age of electronic health records. Despite the use of these clinical scribes, little is known regarding interactions among and perspectives of the involved parties: physicians, clinical scribes, and patients.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to describe perspectives of physicians, clinical scribes, and patients regarding clinical scribes in primary care.DesignWe used qualitative content analysis, using Interpretive Description of semi-structured audio-recorded in-person and telephone interviews.ParticipantsParticipants included 18 physicians and 17 clinical scribes from six healthcare systems, and 36 patients from one healthcare system.Key resultsDespite physician concerns regarding terminology within notes, physicians, clinical scribes, and patients perceived more detailed notes because of real-time documentation by scribes. Most patients were comfortable with the scribe's presence and perceived increased attention from their physicians. Clinical scribes also performed more active roles during a patient visit, leading to formation of positive scribe-patient relationships. The resulting shift in workflow, however, led to stress. Our theoretical model for successful physician-scribe teams emphasizes the importance of interpersonal aspects such as communication, mutual respect, and adaptability, as well as system level support such as training and staffing.ConclusionsBoth interpersonal fit between physician and scribe, and system level support including adequate training, transition time, and staffing support are necessary for successful use of clinical scribes. Future directions for research regarding clinical scribes include study of care continuity, scribe medical knowledge, and scribe burnout.
| S-EPMC4978677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe province of British Columbia is facing a family physician shortage despite consistent increases in the number of physicians per capita and ongoing reforms to address the shortage. We identify physicians' priorities for structural reform, describe the alignment of those priorities with BC's suite of reforms and compare responses between established physicians and those new to practice; we also assessed rates of burnout.MethodsAll family physicians credentialed within Vancouver Coastal Health in 2018 were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were asked about their practice model and characteristics, demographics, level of burnout and reform priorities. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to investigate associations between personal and practice characteristics, burnout and reform priorities.ResultsOf the 1017 family physicians invited to participate, 525 (51.6%) responded. Of these, 399 (76.0%) indicated a need for fundamental change to how primary care is delivered; 244 (46.4%) would prefer to be a clinic employee rather than a small business owner. Other reform priorities included options to practise in a team (stated as very important by 69.6% of respondents), direct funding for team roles (66.7%), direct clinic funding (59.8%), part-time work options (64.7%), and ability to take planned vacations and parental leave (81.1%). The importance of individual reform priorities varied based on the participants' model of practice, location and years in practice. Of respondents, 108 (21.1%) had experienced a high level of burnout.InterpretationAlmost half of family physicians would prefer to be employees rather than small business owners and over 20% reported a high level of burnout. Practice models offering direct employment model have very limited availability and are not included in the current suite of reforms in BC, potentially pulling physicians away from community-based family medicine and into other models or specialties.
| S-EPMC8157978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Care coordination has been a common tool for practices seeking to manage complex patients, yet there remains confusion about the most effective and sustainable model. Research exists on opinions of providers of care coordination but there is limited information on perspectives of those in the insurance industry about key elements. We sought to gather opinions from primary care providers and administrators in Minnesota who were involved in a CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) transformational grant implementing COMPASS (Care Of Mental, Physical And Substance-use Syndromes), an evidence-based model of care coordination for depressed patients comorbid with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. We then sought to compare these views with those of private insurance representatives in Minnesota. METHODS:We used qualitative methods to conducted forty-two key informant interviews with primary care providers (n?=?15); administrators (n?=?15); and insurers (n?=?12). We analyzed the recorded and transcribed data, once de-identified, using a frameworks analysis approach. RESULTS:We identified six primary themes: 1) a defined scope, rationale, and key partnerships for building comprehensive care coordination programs, 2) effective information exchange, 3) a trained and available workforce, 4) the need for a business model and a financially justifiable program, 5) a need for evaluation and ongoing improvement of care coordination, and 6) the importance of patient and family engagement. Overall consensus across stakeholder groups was high including a call for payment reform to support a valued service. Despite their role in paying for care, insurance representatives did not stress reduced utilization as more important than other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Primary care providers and administrators from different organizations and backgrounds, all with experience in COMPASS, in large part agreed with insurance representatives on the main elements of a sustainable model and the need for health reform to sustain this service.
| S-EPMC6359857 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveSixteen million people will gain Medicaid under health reform. This study compares primary care physicians (PCPs) on reported acceptance of new Medicaid patients and practice characteristics.Data and methodsSample of 1,460 PCPs in outpatient settings was drawn from a 2008 nationally representative survey of physicians. PCPs were classified into four categories based on distribution of practice revenue from Medicaid and Medicare and acceptance of new Medicaid patients. Fifteen in-depth telephone interviews supplemented analysis.FindingsMost high- and moderate-share Medicaid PCPs report accepting "all" or "most" new Medicaid patients. High-share Medicaid PCPs were more likely than others to work in hospital-based practices (20%) and health centers (18%). About 30% of high- and moderate-share Medicaid PCPs worked in practices with a hospital ownership interest. Health IT use was similar between these two groups and high-share Medicare PCPs, but more high- and moderate-share Medicaid PCPs provided interpreters and non-physician staff for patient education. Over 40% of high- and moderate-share Medicaid PCPs reported inadequate patient time as a major problem. Low- and no-share Medicaid PCPs practiced in higher-income areas than high-share Medicaid PCPs. In interviews, difficulty arranging specialist care, reimbursement, and administrative hassles emerged as reasons for limiting Medicaid patients.Policy implicationsPCPs already serving Medicaid are positioned to expand capacity but also face constraints. Targeted efforts to increase their capacity could help. Acceptance of new Medicaid patients under health reform will hinge on multiple factors, not payment alone. Trends toward hospital ownership could increase practices' capacity and willingness to serve Medicaid.
| S-EPMC4010445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Hospitalisation for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (HACSCs) is frequently used as an indicator of the quality and effectiveness of primary healthcare (PHC) services around the world. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the PHC model (family health strategy (FHS) x conventional) and the availability of specialised PHC physicians is associated or not with total hospitalisation or HACSCs in the National Health System (SUS) of the municipality of Curitiba, Paraná state (PR), Brazil. METHODOLOGY:This is a cross-sectional ecological study using multiple linear regression with socioeconomic and professional data from municipal health units (MHUs) between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015. RESULTS:After adjustment for age and sex and control of socioeconomic variables, the FHS model was associated with six fewer HACSCs a year per 10?000 inhabitants in relation to the conventional model and the availability of one family physician at each FHS model MHU per 10?000 inhabitants was associated with 1.1 fewer HACSCs for heart failure a year per 10?000 inhabitants. Basic specialists (clinicians, paediatricians and obstetrician/gynaecologists) and subspecialists showed no significant association with HACSC rates. CONCLUSION:These results obtained in a major Brazilian city reinforce the role of FHS as a priority PHC model in the country and indicate the potentially significant impact of specialising in family medicine on improving the health conditions of the population.
| S-EPMC5719282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEmergency medicine physicians have played a pivotal role throughout the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic through in-person and remote management and treatment. Our primary objectives were to understand emergency medicine physicians' experiences using telehealth throughout the pandemic, any facilitators/barriers to successful usage, lessons learned during implementation, and successful/abandoned strategies used to engage with older adults.MethodsUsing a semi-structured interview guide, we conducted 30-min interviews. We used purposeful sampling to recruit emergency medicine physicians from all United States regions, rural-urban settings, and academic and community practices, who reported caring for patients 65 years or older in-person or virtually during the pandemic. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, double-coded, and analyzed for emergent themes using framework analysis.ResultsA total of 15 in-depth interviews were completed from September to November 2020. Physicians had a median age of 37 years, 7 were women, and 9 had experience with telehealth before the pandemic. We identified several themes: (1) there were various motivations for telehealth use; (2) telehealth was used primarily to supplement, not replace in-person care; (3) most platforms were easy to use; (4) patients and caregivers had high acceptability of telemedicine; and (5) older adults with sensory and cognitive impairments often relied on caregivers. Emergency medicine physicians played a critical role during primary care office closures during the first wave-dispelling misinformation about COVID-19, triaging patients to testing and treatment, and providing care that would otherwise have been deferred.ConclusionsOur data show that telemedicine gained acceptability among emergency medicine physicians and provided options to patients who may have otherwise deferred care. These findings can inform future healthcare delivery for acute care needs or pandemic responses.
| S-EPMC8516338 | biostudies-literature