Dataset Information

The impact of improving access to primary care.

ABSTRACT: To measure the size and timing of changes in utilization and costs for employees and dependents who had major access barriers to primary care removed, across an 8-year period (2007 to 2014).Retrospective observational study examining patterns of utilization and costs before and after the implementation of a worksite medical office in 2010. The worksite office offered convenient primary care services with no travel from work, essentially guaranteed same day access, and no co-pay. Trends in visit rates and costs were compared for an intervention fixed cohort group (employees and dependents) at the employer (n = 1211) with a control fixed cohort group (n = 542 162) for 6 types of visits (primary, urgent, emergency, inpatient, specialty, and other outpatient). Difference-in-differences methods assessed the significance of between-group changes in utilization and costs.The worksite medical office intervention group had an increase in primary care visits relative to the control group (+43% vs +4%, P < 0.001). This was accompanied by a reduction in urgent care visits by the intervention group compared with the control group (-43% vs -5%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in the other types of visits, and the total visit costs for the intervention group increased 5.7% versus 2.7% for the control group (P = 0.008). A sub-group analysis of the intervention group (comparing dependents to employees) found that that the dependents achieved a reduction in costs of 2.7% (P < 0.001) across the study period.The potential for long-term reduction in utilization and costs with better access to primary care is significant, but not easily nor automatically achieved.

SUBMITTER: Glass DP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5765488 | biostudies-other | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of improving access to primary care.

Glass David P DP Kanter Michael H MH Jacobsen Steven J SJ Minardi Paul M PM

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 20171006 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>To measure the size and timing of changes in utilization and costs for employees and dependents who had major access barriers to primary care removed, across an 8-year period (2007 to 2014).<h4>Study design and methods</h4>Retrospective observational study examining patterns of utilization and costs before and after the implementation of a worksite medical office in 2010. The worksite office offered convenient primary care services with no travel from work, essentially guarant ...[more]

PMID: 28984018

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to identify the most prioritized strategies in improving access to primary care services (PCS) for homeless immigrants.BackgroundThe issue of improving access to PCS for homeless immigrants is a complex and multifaceted one, and yet there is limited research on the strategies aimed at improving these services. Hence, the need for more studies that directly engage homeless immigrants and service providers in understanding their barriers to accessing PCS and their preferences for improving access to these services.MethodsThe study used a two round Delphi method to elicit the views of stakeholders. The Delphi process utilized a web-based questionnaire. The stakeholders included healthcare providers and voluntary sector providers. The first round had a total of 58 items belonging to 14 categories. The second round comprised a total of 25 items belonging to 12 categories which were preselected based on participants' ranking of their importance in the first round. Participants were required to rank the relative importance of all the items on a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analysed using the STATA-15 software package.FindingsA total of 12 stakeholders participated in both rounds of the Delphi survey. The top three strategies encompassed fighting against discrimination and prejudice, improving and promoting mental health services, and empowering homeless immigrants. These evidence-based strategies hold the potential to support the implementation of healthcare interventions aimed at improving access to PCS and healthcare outcomes for homeless immigrants. However, it is crucial to conduct further research that includes homeless immigrants in the Delphi study to gain insights into the strategies that are most important to them in enhancing access to PCS, as they are the primary target users. Such research will contribute to the development of comprehensive and effective interventions tailored to the specific needs of homeless.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care telephone access has been associated with patient satisfaction and emergency department utilization even after accounting for objective appointment wait times. However, relatively little is known about how to best structure and manage telephone access in primary care.ObjectiveAssess how primary care telephone access is structured and managed and explore how variation in telephone management may affect primary care teams and patients.DesignWe used 2016 administrative and patient survey data to select six Veterans Administration medical centers (VAMCs) with above-average primary care access (time to third next available appointment) but variable patient-reported access, geographic region, and urbanicity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted August -October 2017.ParticipantsForty-three key stakeholders knowledgeable about primary care, telephone management, and operational priorities nationally and/or within each VAMC.Key resultsTelephone access was organized and managed differently across sites. Regional call centers were perceived as more efficient but less flexible in tailoring processes to meet local needs. Patient preferences for speaking with their own care teams were cited as a reason to manage telephone access locally rather than regionally, particularly in rural sites. Sites with high patient-rated access described call center functions as well-integrated with primary care team workflow, while those with low patient-rated access perceived telephone management practices as negatively affecting primary care team workload. Call center understaffing was a major barrier to optimal telephone access in all six sites, though rural sites reported greater challenges with provider recruitment and retention.ConclusionsIn VA, efforts to improve telephone access have focused on centralizing call center operations but current call center performance metrics do not account for the extent to which call center functions are integrated with primary care workflows or may impact patient experience. Efforts to improve primary care access should carefully consider impact of telephone management practices on providers and patients.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2017, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement launched the Connected Medicine collaborative to support the implementation, spread and adaptation of 2 innovative remote consult solutions - the Champlain Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation (BASE) eConsult service and the Rapid Access to Consultative Expertise (RACE) service - across Canada. We evaluated the impact of the programs implemented through the collaborative.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from provincial teams that participated in the Connected Medicine collaborative, which took place between June 2017 and December 2018 in 7 provinces across Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador). Data included utilization data collected automatically by the BASE and RACE services and, where available, responses to surveys completed by primary care providers at the end of each case. We assessed programs on the following outcomes: usage (i.e., number of cases completed, average specialist response time), number of specialties available, impact on primary care provider's decision to refer and impact on emergency department visits. We performed descriptive analyses.ResultsTen provincial teams participated in the collaborative and implemented or adapted either the RACE service (4 teams), the BASE service (5 teams) or a combination of the 2 services (1 team). Average monthly case volume per team ranged from 14.7 to 424.5. All programs offered multispecialty access, with specialists from 5 to 37 specialty groups available. Specialists responded to eConsults within 7 days in 80% (n = 294/368) to 93% (n = 164/176) of cases. Six programs provided survey data on avoidance of referrals, which occurred in 48% (n = 667/1389) to 76% (n = 302/398) of cases. Two programs reported on the avoidance of potential emergency department visits, noting that originally considered referrals were avoided in 28% (n = 138/492) and 74% (n = 127/171) of cases, respectively.InterpretationThe 2 innovative virtual care solutions implemented through the Connected Medicine collaborative received widespread usage and affected primary care providers' decisions to refer patients to specialists. The impact of these models of care in multiple settings shows that they are an effective means to move beyond the pilot stage and achieve spread and scale.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify priorities for improving healthcare organization management of patient access to primary care based on prior evidence and a stakeholder panel. BACKGROUND:Studies on healthcare access show its importance for ensuring population health. Few studies show how healthcare organizations can improve access. METHODS:We conducted a modified Delphi stakeholder panel anchored by a systematic review. Panelists (N = 20) represented diverse stakeholder groups including patients, providers, policy makers, purchasers, and payers of healthcare services, predominantly from the Veterans Health Administration. A pre-panel survey addressed over 80 aspects of healthcare organization management of access, including defining access management. Panelists discussed survey-based ratings during a 2-day in-person meeting and re-voted afterward. A second panel process focused on each final priority and developed recommendations and suggestions for implementation. RESULTS:The panel achieved consensus on definitions of optimal access and access management on eight urgent and important priorities for guiding access management improvement, and on 1-3 recommendations per priority. Each recommendation is supported by referenced, panel-approved suggestions for implementation. Priorities address two organizational structure targets (interdisciplinary primary care site leadership; clearly identified group practice management structure); four process improvements (patient telephone access management; contingency staffing; nurse management of demand through care coordination; proactive demand management by optimizing provider visit schedules), and two outcomes (quality of patients' experiences of access; provider and staff morale). Recommendations and suggestions for implementation, including literature references, are summarized in a panelist-approved, ready-to-use tool. CONCLUSIONS:A stakeholder panel informed by a pre-panel systematic review identified eight action-oriented priorities for improving access and recommendations for implementing each priority. The resulting tool is suitable for guiding the VA and other integrated healthcare delivery organizations in assessing and initiating improvements in access management, and for supporting continued research.

Project description:ObjectivesThe opioid overdose epidemic is escalating. Increasing access to medications for opioid use disorder in primary care is crucial. The impact of the US Department of Health and Human Services' policy change removing the buprenorphine waiver training requirement on primary care buprenorphine prescribing remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the impact of the policy change on primary care providers' likelihood of applying for a waiver and the current attitudes, practices, and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing in primary care.MethodsWe used a cross-sectional survey with embedded educational resources disseminated to primary care providers in a southern US academic health system. We used descriptive statistics to aggregate survey data, logistic regression models to evaluate whether buprenorphine interest and familiarity correlate with clinical characteristics, and a χ2 test to evaluate the effect of the educational intervention on screening.ResultsOf the 54 respondents, 70.4% reported seeing patients with opioid use disorder, but only 11.1% had a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. Few nonwaivered providers were interested in prescribing, but perceiving buprenorphine to be beneficial to the patient population was associated with interest (adjusted odds ratio 34.7, P < 0.001). Two-thirds of nonwaivered respondents reported the policy change having no impact on their decision to obtain a waiver; however, among interested providers, it increased their likelihood of obtaining a waiver. Barriers to buprenorphine prescribing included lack of clinical experience, clinical capacity, and referral resources. Screening for opioid use disorder did not increase significantly after the survey.ConclusionsAlthough most primary care providers reported seeing patients with opioid use disorder, interest in prescribing buprenorphine was low and structural barriers remained the dominant obstacles. Providers with a preexisting interest in buprenorphine prescribing reported that removing the training requirement was helpful.

Project description:England's national Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme advocates stepped care as its organizational delivery of psychological therapies to common mental health problems. There is limited evidence regarding the efficacy of stepped care as a service delivery model, heterogeneity of definition and differences in model implementation in both research and routine practice, hence outcome comparison in terms of effectiveness of model is difficult. Despite sound evidence of the efficacy of low intensity interventions there appears to be a perpetuation of the notion that severity and complexity should only be treated by a high intensity intervention through the continuation of a stratified care model. Yet no psychotherapy treatment is found to be more superior to another, and not enough is known about what works for whom to aid the matching of treatment decision. In the absence of understanding precise treatment factors optimal for recovery, it may be useful to better understand the impact of a service delivery model, and whether different models achieve different outcomes. This study aims to contribute to the discussion regarding the stepped care definition and delivery, and explores the impact on clinical outcomes where different types of stepped care have been implemented within the same service. An observational cohort study analysed retrospective data (n = 16,723) over a 4 year period, in a single IAPT service, where delivery changed from one type of stepped care model to another. We compared the outcomes of treatment completers with a stratified care model and a progression care model. We also explored the assumption that patients who score severe on psychological measures, and therefore are potentially complex, would achieve better outcomes in a stratified model. Outcomes in each model type were compared, alongside baseline factor variables. A significant association was observed between a recovery outcome and model type, with patients 1.5 times more likely to recover in the progression delivery model. The potential implications are that with a progression stepped care model of service delivery, more patients can be treated with a lower intensity intervention, even with initial severe presentations, ensuring that only those that need high intensity CBT or equivalent are stepped up. This could provide services with an effective clinical model that is efficient and potentially more cost effective.

Dataset Information

The impact of improving access to primary care.

Publications

The impact of improving access to primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets