Sources of Information on Medicinal Products Among Physicians - A Survey Conducted Among Primary Care Physicians in Poland.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Zielinska M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8770910 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10966410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice.To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year.Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization.Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs).We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions.Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare.Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.
| S-EPMC5215149 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundExperienced and anticipated regret influence physicians' decision-making. In medicine, diagnostic decisions and diagnostic errors can have a severe impact on both patients and physicians. Little empirical research exists on regret experienced by physicians when they make diagnostic decisions in primary care that later prove inappropriate or incorrect. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of regret following diagnostic decisions in primary care.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we used an online questionnaire on a sample of German primary care physicians. We asked participants to report on cases in which the final diagnosis differed from their original opinion, and in which treatment was at the very least delayed, possibly resulting in harm to the patient. We asked about original and final diagnoses, illness trajectories, and the reactions of other physicians, patients and relatives. We used thematic analysis to assess the data, supported by MAXQDA 11 and Microsoft Excel 2016.Results29 GPs described one case each (14 female/15 male patients, aged 1.5-80 years, response rate < 1%). In 26 of 29 cases, the final diagnosis was more serious than the original diagnosis. In two cases, the diagnoses were equally serious, and in one case less serious. Clinical trajectories and the reactions of patients and relatives differed widely. Although only one third of cases involved preventable harm to patients, the vast majority (27 of 29) of physicians expressed deep feelings of regret.ConclusionEven if harm to patients is unavoidable, regret following diagnostic decisions can be devastating for clinicians, making them 'second victims'. Procedures and tools are needed to analyse cases involving undesirable diagnostic events, so that 'true' diagnostic errors, in which harm could have been prevented, can be distinguished from others. Further studies should also explore how physicians can be supported in dealing with such events in order to prevent them from practicing defensive medicine.
| S-EPMC7079478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about referrals from primary care providers (PCPs) for suspected hematologic malignancies, including their clinical triggers and frequency. A random sample of 190 Massachusetts PCPs were presented with a vignette concerning a patient with a new finding of moderate anemia, asked how they would respond, and then asked what they would do if the patient returned with persistent anemia plus one additional sign or symptom. We also asked about referral behaviors for suspected hematologic malignancies during the prior year. A total of 134 (70.5%) PCPs responded. At first anemia presentation,only 3.8% reported referring to hematology. The development of a second sign or symptom yielded higher referral rates: pancytopenia 588.7%, leukopenia 5 63.9%, thrombocytopenia 5 63.9%, lymphadenopathy 5 42.9%, leukocytosis 5 37.6%, night sweats 5 25.6%, and weight loss 5 23.3%. The median yearly number (interquartile range) of patients PCPs reported suspecting of having hematologic malignancy was 5 (3, 10), and the median formally referred was 5 (3, 10). We conclude that anemia plus signs and symptoms suggestive of myelodysplasia or leukemia (compared with those suggestive of lymphoma) are more likely to prompt hematology referral. In addition, given their rarity,the numbe
| S-EPMC3358503 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8171002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIM:Despite predictions of increased clinical applications, little is known about primary care providers' (PCPs') readiness to apply genomics to patient care. The aim was to assess PCPs' current experience with genetic testing, their assessment of the understandability and clinical utility of information in sample direct-to-consumer reports for genomic assessment of disease risk and warfarin dosing and attitudes toward genomic medicine. MATERIALS & METHODS:A web-based survey of PCPs who are members of Knowledge Networks' Physician Consulting Network was conducted. RESULTS:Of the 502 respondents (23.3% response rate), most ordered genetic tests infrequently. When presented with the direct-to-consumer genomic testing reports, most believed the reports were understandable, and would be willing to review results with a patient, and many believed the results would be helpful in patient management. CONCLUSION:Despite limited experience with genetic tests, PCPs are open to helping patients understand genomic information. However, additional physician education is needed.
| S-EPMC3684987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe essence of humanism in medicine and health care is relationships-caring relationships between clinicians and patients. While raising concerns regarding professional-patient boundaries has positively contributed to our understanding and prevention of potentially harmful boundary violations, there is controversy about which types of relationships, caring acts, and practices are acceptable versus cross boundary lines.ObjectiveTo examine primary care physicians' practices and attitudes regarding acts that have been questioned as potentially "inappropriate" or "unethical" crossing of professional-patient boundaries.DesignSurveys conducted via in-person polling or electronic and mailed paper submissions from April 2016 to July 2017. We calculated descriptive statistics and examined associations with practices and attitudes using logistic regression.ParticipantsRandom sample of all US primary care physicians who treat adult patients; convenience sample of attendees at medicine grand rounds presentations.Main measuresOutcomes were self-reported practices and attitudes related to giving patients rides home, paying for patients' medication, helping patients find jobs, employing patients, going to dinner with patients, and providing care to personal friends.Key resultsAmong 1563 total respondents, 34% had given a ride home, 34% had paid for medications, 15% helped patients find a job, 7% had employed a patient, 10% had dinner with patients, and 59% provided care to personal friends. A majority disapproved of dinner with a patient (75%) but approved of or were neutral on all other scenarios (61-90%).ConclusionsThe medical profession is quite divided on questions related to drawing lines about appropriate boundaries. Contrary to official and widespread proscriptions against such practices (with exception of dinner dates), many have actually engaged in such practices and the majority found them acceptable.
| S-EPMC7018879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of screening mammography (SM) for women younger than 50 and older than 74 years is debated in the clinical research community, among health care providers, and by the American public. This study explored primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of clinical practice guidelines for SM; the recommendations for SM in response to hypothetical case scenarios; and the factors associated with perceived SM effectiveness and recommendations in the US from June to December 2009 before the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently revised guidelines.MethodsA nationally representative sample of 11,922 PCPs was surveyed using a web-based questionnaire. The response rate was 5.7% (684); (41%) 271 family physicians (FP), (36%) 232 general internal medicine physicians (IM), (23%) 150 obstetrician-gynaecologists (OBG), and (0.2%) 31 others. Cross-sectional analysis examined PCPs perceived effectiveness of SM, and recommendation for SM in response to hypothetical case scenarios. PCPs responses were measured using 4-5 point adjectival scales. Differences in perceived effectiveness and recommendations for SM were examined after adjusting for PCPs specialty, race/ethnicity, and the US region.ResultsCompared to IM and FP, OBG considered SM more effective in reducing breast cancer mortality among women aged 40-49 years (p = 0.003). Physicians consistently recommended mammography to women aged 50-69 years with no differences by specialty (p = 0.11). However, 94% of OBG "always recommended" SM to younger and 86% of older women compared to 81% and 67% for IM and 84% and 59% for FP respectively (p = < .001). In ordinal regression analysis, OBG specialty was a significant predictor for perceived higher SM effectiveness and recommendations for younger and older women. In evaluating hypothetical scenarios, overall PCPs would recommend SM for the 80 year woman with CHF with a significant variation by specialty (38% of OBG, 18% of FP, 17% of IM; p = < .001).ConclusionsA majority of physicians, especially OBG, favour aggressive breast cancer screening for women from 40 through 79 years of age, including women with short life expectancy. Policy interventions should focus on educating providers to provide tailored recommendations for mammography based on individualized cancer risk, health status, and preferences.
| S-EPMC3293074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives: Although primary care clinicians provide >60% of U.S. asthma care, no nationally representative study has examined variation in adherence among primary care groups to four cornerstone domains of the Expert Panel Report-3 asthma guidelines: assessment/monitoring, patient education, environmental assessment, and medications. We used the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to compare adherence by family/general medicine practitioners (FM/GM), internists, pediatricians and Community Health Center mid-level clinicians (CHC). Methods: Adherence was self-reported (n = 1355 clinicians). Adjusted odds of almost always adhering to each recommendation (≥75% of the time) were estimated controlling for clinician/practice characteristics, and agreement and self-efficacy with guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of pediatricians adhered to most assessment/monitoring recommendations compared to FM/GM and other groups (e.g. 71.6% [SE 4.0] almost always assessed daytime symptoms versus 50.6% [SE 5.1]-51.1% [SE 5.8], t-test p < 0.05) but low percentages from all groups almost always performed spirometry (6.8% [SE 2.0]-16.8% [SE 4.7]). Pediatricians were more likely to provide asthma action/treatment plans than FM/GM and internists. Internists were more likely to assess school/work triggers than pediatricians and CHC (environmental assessment). All groups prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for daily control (84.0% [SE 3.7]-90.7% [SE 2.5]) (medications). In adjusted analyses, pediatric specialty, high self-efficacy and frequent specialist referral were associated with high adherence. Conclusions: Pediatricians were more likely to report high adherence than other clinicians. Self- efficacy and frequent referral were also associated with adherence. Adherence was higher for history-taking recommendations and lower for recommendations involving patient education, equipment and expertise.
| S-EPMC6717679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective immunizations require a thorough, multi-step process, yet few studies comprehensively addressed issues around vaccination management.ObjectivesTo assess variations in vaccination management and vaccination errors in primary care.MethodsA cross sectional, web-based questionnaire survey was performed among 1157 primary physicians from North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: a representative 10% random sample of general practitioners (n = 946) and all teaching physicians from the University Duisburg-Essen (n = 211). Four quality aspects with three items each were included: patient-related quality (patient information, patient consent, strategies to increase immunization rates), vaccine-related quality (practice vaccine spectrum, vaccine pre-selection, vaccination documentation), personnel-related quality (recommendation of vaccinations, vaccine application, personnel qualification) and storage-related quality (storage device, temperature log, vaccine storage control). For each of the four quality aspects, "good quality" was reached if all three criteria per quality aspect were fulfilled. Good vaccination management was defined as fulfilling all twelve items. Additionally, physicians' experiences with errors and nearby-errors in vaccination management were obtained.ResultsMore than 20% of the physicians participated in the survey. Good vaccination management was reached by 19% of the practices. Patient-related quality was good in 69% of the practices, vaccine-related quality in 73%, personnel-related quality in 59% and storage-related quality in 41% of the practices. No predictors for error reporting and good vaccination management were identified.ConclusionsWe identified good results for vaccine- and patient-related quality but need to improve issues that revolve around vaccine storage.
| S-EPMC4132103 | biostudies-literature