Dataset Information

Resource Use Among Diabetes Patients Who Mainly Visit Primary Care Physicians Versus Medical Specialists: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is not uncommon for medical specialists to predominantly care for patients with certain chronic conditions rather than primary care physicians (PCPs), yet the resource implications from such patterns of care are not well understood.

Objective

To assess resource use of diabetes patients who predominantly visit a PCP versus a medical specialist.

Design

Retrospective cohort study of diabetes patients aging into the traditional Medicare program. Patients were attributed to a PCP or medical specialist annually based on a preponderance of ambulatory care visits and categorized according to whether attribution changed year to year. Propensity score weighting was used to balance baseline demographic characteristics, diabetes complications, and underlying health conditions between patients attributed to PCPs and to medical specialists. Spending and utilization were measured up to 3 patient-years.

Subjects

A total of 141,558 patient-years.

Main measures

Total visits, unique physicians, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, procedures, imaging, and tests.

Key results

Each year, roughly 70% of patients maintained attribution to a PCP and 15% to a medical specialist relative to the previous year. After propensity weighting, patients continuously attributed to a PCP versus medical specialist from 1 year to the next had lower average total payer payments ($10,326 [SD $57,386] versus $14,971 [SD $74,112], P<0.0001) and lower total patient out-of-pocket payments ($1,707 [SD $6,020] versus $2,443 [SD $7,984], P<0.0001). Rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, procedures, imaging, and tests were lower among patients attributed to PCPs as well.

Conclusions

Older adults with diabetes who receive more of their ambulatory care from a PCP instead of a medical specialist show evidence of lower resource use.

SUBMITTER: Nyweide DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8811114 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Resource Use Among Diabetes Patients Who Mainly Visit Primary Care Physicians Versus Medical Specialists: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Nyweide David J DJ Austin Andrea M AM Bynum Julie P W JPW

Journal of general internal medicine 20210401 2

<h4>Background</h4>It is not uncommon for medical specialists to predominantly care for patients with certain chronic conditions rather than primary care physicians (PCPs), yet the resource implications from such patterns of care are not well understood.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess resource use of diabetes patients who predominantly visit a PCP versus a medical specialist.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort study of diabetes patients aging into the traditional Medicare program. Patients were attr ...[more]

PMID: 33796983

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal application of medical nutrition therapy (MNT) in treating gestational diabetes remains uncertain. MNT involves individualised nutrition assessment and counselling, which is labour-intensive and is not the sole type of intervention offered by clinical dietitians.ObjectiveTo determine whether pregnancy outcomes differed for individuals with gestational diabetes who were offered MNT on a risk-prioritised (RP) versus universal basis.MethodsObservational data from two cohorts of individuals who were offered MNT only if they met the high-risk criteria following general group-based dietary education (RP1, n = 369; RP2, n = 446) were compared with a baseline cohort who were universally offered at least one MNT consultation (UM, n = 649). The RP1 cohort were seen during community-wide COVID-19 restrictions in 2021, while RP2 were seen after restrictions had lifted in 2022. Furthermore, the RP approach primarily utilised telemedicine, while the UM approach was delivered in person.ResultsMNT consultations halved under the RP approach (59 vs. 119 sessions per 100 diagnoses for RP2 vs. UM) and saved more than 20 h of dietitian time per 100 diagnoses (95 vs. 73 h for RP2 vs. UM). No significant increases were observed (p < 0.05) for any pregnancy outcomes in the RP cohorts compared with the UM cohort, including usage of diabetes medications, maternal weight gain below and above target, early deliveries, induced deliveries, emergency caesarean sections, large- and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants, infant macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycaemia and neonatal intensive care admissions. The use of both basal insulin (27% vs. 33%, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84) and metformin (6% vs. 10%, OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88) was lower in the RP1 cohort during pandemic restrictions compared with the UM cohort; however, these differences were not retained in the RP2 cohort. Additionally, there were fewer SGA infants under the RP approach, particularly for the RP2 cohort (6% vs. 11% for RP2 vs. UM, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.89).ConclusionsRisk-prioritised MNT was a more efficient dietetic service approach to gestational diabetes than the universal MNT model, with comparable pregnancy outcomes. Similar approaches may represent a strategic way to address sustainable health service planning amidst the rising global prevalence of this condition. However, further research is needed to investigate consumer perspectives, wider service impacts and post-partum maternal and child health outcomes.

Project description:Our study aimed to describe patient experience of information coordination between their primary care physician and specialists and to examine the associations between their experience and their personal and primary care characteristics. We conducted a cross-sectional study of Ontario residents rostered to a primary care physician and visited a specialist physician in the previous 12 months by linking population-based health administrative data to the Health Care Experience Survey collected between 2013 and 2020. We described respondents' sociodemographic and health care utilization characteristics and their experience of information coordination between their primary care physician and specialists. We measured the adjusted association between patient-reported measures of information coordination before and after respondents received care from a specialist physician and their type of primary care model. 1,460 out 20,422 (weighted 7.5%) of the respondents reported that their specialist physician did not have basic medical information about their visit from their primary care physician in the previous 12 months. 2,298 out of 16,442 (weighted 14.9%) of the respondents reported that their primary care physician seemed uninformed about the care they received from the specialist. Females, younger individuals, those with a college or undergraduate level of education, and users of walk-in clinics had a higher likelihood of reporting a lack of information coordination between the primary care and specialist physicians. Only respondents rostered to an enhanced fee-for-service model had a higher odds of reporting that the specialist physician did not have basic medical information about their visit compared to those rostered to a Family Health Team (OR 1.22, 95% Cl 1.12-1.40). We found no significant association between respondent's type of primary care model and that their primary care physician was uninformed about the care received from the specialist physician. In this population-based health study, respondents reported high information coordination between their primary care physician and specialists. Except for respondents rostered to an enhanced fee-for-service model of care, we did not find any difference in information coordination across other primary care models.

Project description:BackgroundGenetic literacy among primary healthcare providers is crucial for appropriate patient care with the advances in genetic and genomic medicine. Studies from high-income countries highlight the lack of knowledge in genetics and the need to develop curricula for continuing professional development of non-geneticists. Scarce data is available from resource-constrained countries in Middle East and North Africa. Lebanon is a small country in this region characterized by high rates of consanguinity and genetic disorders like several surrounding countries, such as Jordan, Syria, and Turkey.MethodsThe primary aim of this study assessed the genetic literacy, self-perceived and actual knowledge as well as practices among primary care providers in Lebanon. The secondary aim identified their educational needs and proposed evidence-based continuing education programs. A cross-sectional survey-based study, using a self-administered questionnaire, was conducted targeting physicians from Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Pediatrics. The questionnaire was divided into five sections: demographics, familiarity with genetic tests, self-reported and actual knowledge, genetic practices, and educational needs. Statistics were performed using SPSS v24. The Chi-square test was used for independent variables. Differences between mean scores were measured using paired sample t-tests for groups of two levels and one-way ANOVA for more than two. Multiple linear regression was used to study the variables associated with the knowledge score while controlling for other variables.ResultsThe survey included 123 physicians. They were mostly familiar with karyotype as first-tier genetic test. Although 38% perceived their knowledge as good, only 6% scored as such in knowledge assessment. A better knowledge score was observed in academic institutions as well as in urban settings (p<0.05). One third never ordered any genetic testing, mostly due to poor knowledge. Almost all (98%) were ready to attend continuing professional development sessions in genetics.ConclusionOur findings show the need to improve genetic literacy among healthcare frontliners, focusing on remote regions and nonacademic centers in Lebanon, a model for other resource-constrained country in the Middle East and North Africa region. This study advances recommendations for evidence-based genetic continuing education programs and highlighted the role of that the few genetic specialists can play in their successful implementation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Choosing which issues to discuss in the limited time available during primary care visits is an important task for complex patients with chronic conditions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted sequential interviews with complex patients (n = 40) and their primary care physicians (n = 17) from 3 different health systems to investigate how patients and physicians prepare for visits, how visit agendas are determined, and how discussion priorities are established during time-limited visits. KEY RESULTS:Visit flow and alignment were enhanced when both patients and physicians were effectively prepared before the visit, when the patient brought up highest-priority items first, the physician and patient worked together at the beginning of the visit to establish the visit agenda, and other team members contributed to agenda setting. A range of factors were identified that undermined the ability of patient and physicians to establish an efficient working agenda: the most prominent were time pressure and short visit lengths, but also included differing visit expectations, patient hesitancy to bring up embarrassing concerns, electronic medical record/documentation requirements, differences balancing current symptoms versus future medical risk, nonactionable items, differing philosophies about medications and lifestyle interventions, and difficulty by patients in prioritizing their top concerns. CONCLUSIONS:Primary care patients and their physicians adopt a range of different strategies to address the time constraints during visits. The primary factor that supported well-aligned visits was the ability for patients and physicians to proactively negotiate the visit agenda at the beginning of the visit. Efforts to optimize care within time-constrained systems should focus on helping patients more effectively prepare for visits. Physicians should ask for the patient's agenda early, explain visit parameters, establish a reasonable number of concerns that can be discussed, and collaborate on a plan to deal with concerns that cannot be addressed during the visit.

Dataset Information

Resource Use Among Diabetes Patients Who Mainly Visit Primary Care Physicians Versus Medical Specialists: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background

Objective

Design

Subjects

Main measures

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

Resource Use Among Diabetes Patients Who Mainly Visit Primary Care Physicians Versus Medical Specialists: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets