Dataset Information

Efficiency of primary spine care as compared to conventional primary care: a retrospective observational study at an Academic Medical Center.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Primary Spine Care (PSC) is an innovative model for the primary management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs), with a focus on the use of non-pharmacological therapies which now constitute the recommended first-line approach to back pain. PSC clinicians serve as the initial or early point of contact for spine patients and utilize evidence-based spine care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce escalation of care (EoC; e.g., spinal injections, diagnostic imaging, hospitalizations, referrals to a specialist). The present study examined 6-month outcomes to evaluate the efficiency of care for patients who received PSC as compared to conventional primary care. We hypothesized that patients seen by a PSC clinician would have lower rates of EoC compared to patients who received usual care by a primary care (PC) clinician.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study. We evaluated 6-month outcomes for two groups seen and treated for an SRD between February 01, 2017 and January 31, 2020. Patient groups were comprised of N = 1363 PSC patients (Group A) and N = 1329 PC patients (Group B). We conducted Pearson chi-square and logistic regression (adjusting for patient characteristics that were unbalanced between the two groups) to determine associations between the two groups and 6-month outcomes.

Results

Within six months of an initial visit for an SRD, a statistically significantly smaller proportion of PSC patients utilized healthcare resources for spine care as compared to the PC patients. When adjusting for patient characteristics, those who received care from the PSC clinician were less likely within 6 months of an initial visit to be hospitalized (OR = .47, 95% CI .23-.97), fill a prescription for an opioid analgesic (OR = .43; 95% CI .29-.65), receive a spinal injection (OR = .56, 95% CI .33-.95), or have a visit with a specialist (OR = .48, 95% CI .35-.67) as compared to those who received usual primary care.

Conclusions

Patients who received PSC in an academic primary care clinic experienced significantly less escalation of their spine care within 6 months of their initial visit. The PSC model may offer a more efficient approach to the primary care of spine problems for patients with SRDs, as compared to usual primary care.

SUBMITTER: Bezdjian S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8740480 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTransitions of care experiences leave patients vulnerable to adverse outcomes, including readmissions, worsening symptoms, and reductions in functional status.AimTo describe and evaluate a primary care transitions clinic that serves patients with medical and/or social needs that must be addressed prior to establishment of primary care.SettingBrigham Health, an academic medical center in Boston, MA.Program descriptionThe transitions clinic opened within an existing primary care practice in January 2019. It employs one full-time nurse care coordinator and one full-time medical assistant, and is staffed by one primary care physician (PCP) or nurse practitioner each weekday afternoon. Both medical and social diagnoses that require follow-up post-discharge are addressed. Patients with any insurance are seen as many times as necessary until PCP care is established.Program evaluationIn the year after its establishment (January 20, 2019, to January 19, 2020), the transitions clinic received 498 referrals (73.2% from the emergency department (ED), 23.3% from inpatient), with 207 patients ultimately seen. Patients were seen 5 (median; IQR 4-6) work days post-discharge, with 2 (median; IQR 1-3) visits per patient. Patients seen in the transitions clinic had significantly fewer ED visits than a comparator cohort referred to Brigham Health Primary Care after ED or hospital discharge in the year prior (January 20, 2018, to January 20, 2019). Patients seen in the transitions clinic additionally had significantly fewer ED visits and hospitalizations in the three months post-referral than in the three months pre-referral. The most common social determinants addressed by the clinic's nurse coordinator were insurance, transportation, and housing.DiscussionA primary care transitions clinic can provide accessible, attentive care post-discharge with positive effects on healthcare utilization. Availability of a multidisciplinary team that can see patients for repeated visits until establishment of PCP care was a key success factor for the transitions clinic.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic spurred health systems across the world to quickly shift from in-person visits to safer video visits.ObjectiveTo seek stakeholder perspectives on video visits' acceptability and effect 3 weeks after near-total transition to video visits.DesignSemistructured qualitative interviews.Setting6 Stanford general primary care and express care clinics at 6 northern California sites, with 81 providers, 123 staff, and 97 614 patient visits in 2019.Participants53 program participants (overlapping roles as medical providers [n = 20], medical assistants [n = 16], nurses [n = 4], technologists [n = 4], and administrators [n = 13]) were interviewed about video visit transition and challenges.InterventionIn 3 weeks, express care and primary care video visits increased from less than 10% to greater than 80% and from less than 10% to greater than 75%, respectively. New video visit providers received video visit training and care quality feedback. New system workflows were created to accommodate the new visit method.Measurements9 faculty, trained in qualitative research methods, conducted 53 stakeholder interviews in 4 days using purposeful (administrators and technologists) and convenience (medical assistant, nurses, and providers) sampling. A rapid qualitative analytic approach for thematic analysis was used.ResultsThe analysis revealed 12 themes, including Pandemic as Catalyst; Joy in Medicine; Safety in Medicine; Slipping Through the Cracks; My Role, Redefined; and The New Normal. Themes were analyzed using the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework to identify critical issues for continued program utilization.LimitationsEvaluation was done immediately after deployment. Although viewpoints may have evolved later, immediate evaluation allowed for prompt program changes and identified broader issues to address for program sustainability.ConclusionAfter pandemic-related systems transformation at Stanford, critical issues to sustain video visit long-term viability were identified. Specifically, technology ease of use must improve and support multiparty videoconferencing. Providers should be able to care for their patients, regardless of geography. Providers need decision-making support with virtual examination training and home-based patient diagnostics. Finally, ongoing video visit reimbursement should be commensurate with value to the patients' health and well-being.Primary funding sourceStanford Department of Medicine and Stanford Health Care.

Project description:Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality. We sought to assess lung cancer screening practices and attitudes among primary care providers (PCPs) in the era of new LDCT screening guidelines.In 2013, we surveyed PCPs at an academic medical center (60% response) and assessed: lung cancer screening use, perceived screening effectiveness, knowledge of screening guidelines, perceived barriers to LDCT use, and interest in LDCT screening education.Few PCPs (n = 212) reported ordering lung cancer screening: chest X-ray (21%), LDCT (12%), and sputum cytology (3%). Only 47% of providers knew three or more of six guideline components for LDCT screening; 24% did not know any guideline components. In multiple logistic regression analysis, providers who knew three or more guideline components were more likely to order LDCT (OR, 7.1; 95% confidence intervals, 2.0-25.6). Many providers (30%) were unsure of the effectiveness of LDCT. Mammography, colonoscopy, and Pap smear were rated more frequently as effective in reducing cancer mortality compared with LDCT (all P values < 0.0001). Common perceived barriers included patient cost (86.9% major or minor barrier), harm from false positives (82.7%), patients' lack of awareness (81.3%), risk of incidental findings (81.3%), and insurance coverage (80.1%).LDCT lung cancer screening is currently an uncommon practice at an academic medical center. PCPs report ordering chest X-ray, a nonrecommended screening test, more often than LDCT. PCPs had a limited understanding of lung cancer screening guidelines and LDCT effectiveness. Provider educational interventions are needed to facilitate shared decision-making with patients.This study describes some of the first data available about PCPs' use of lung cancer screening tests since the publication of multiple professional guidelines endorsing LDCT. Knowledge gaps were identified that may hinder the uptake of evidence-based lung cancer screening guidelines.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Children of Spanish-speaking caregivers face multiple barriers to care in academic medical centers. This study identified barriers and facilitators of health care and described use of health information technology in order to guide interventions and optimize services. METHODS:In-depth, audiotaped interviews were conducted with monolingual Spanish-speaking caregivers (N = 28) of children receiving care in academic medical center clinics using a structured interview guide. Interviews were transcribed in Spanish, and key themes were identified using thematic analysis. Illustrative quotes for each theme were translated into English. RESULTS:Language-specific barriers included arrival/registration occurring in English, lack of bilingual personnel, heavy reliance on interpreters, long wait times, and challenging phone communication. Non-language-specific barriers included medical center size and complexity, distance to services, lack of convenient and coordinated appointments, missing work/school, and financial barriers including insurance coverage or lack of citizenship. Caregivers identified interpreters, bilingual physicians and staff, and written materials in Spanish as facilitators of care. Most caregivers had internet access and expressed interest in health information technology, including patient portals, to communicate about their children's health. CONCLUSIONS:Caregivers of Spanish-speaking children encounter many language-specific barriers, which are compounded by non-language-specific barriers arising from complex health systems and social needs. Caregivers with limited resources described working hard to meet children's complex health care needs despite these barriers. Most caregivers had internet access and interest in patient portals. Academic medical centers may need multifaceted interventions that improve the availability of bilingual staff and interpreters and also address caregivers' social and informational needs.