The Impact of Primary Care on Medical Health Outcomes for Elderly Patients with Psychotic Disorders—a Comparison between Two Hospital Systems in Canada

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. S106-S107
Author(s):  
Ching Yu ◽  
Tarek K. Rajji
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 843-856
Author(s):  
Constance Gundacker ◽  
Tyler W. Barreto ◽  
Julie P. Phillips

Background and Objectives: Traumatic experiences such as abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction have a lifetime prevalence of 62%-75% and can negatively impact health outcomes. However, many primary care providers (PCPs) are inadequately prepared to treat patients with trauma due to a lack of training. Our objective was to identify trauma-informed approach curricula for PCPs, review their effectiveness, and identify gaps. Methods: We systematically identified articles from Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, Cochrane, PsycINFO, MedEd Portal, and the STFM Resource Library. Search term headings “trauma-informed care (TIC),” “resilience,” “patient-centered care,” “primary care,” and “education.” Inclusion criteria were PCP, pediatric and adult patients, and training evaluation. Exclusion criteria were outside the United States, non-English articles, non-PCPs, and inpatient settings. We used the TIC pyramid to extract topics. We analyzed evaluation methods using the Kirkpatrick Model. Results: Researchers reviewed 6,825 articles and identified 17 different curricula. Understanding health effects of trauma was the most common topic (94%). Evaluation data revealed overall positive reactions and improved knowledge, attitudes, and confidence. Half (53%) reported Kirkpatrick level 3 behavior change evaluation outcomes with increased trauma screening and communication, but no change in referrals. Only 12% (2/17) evaluated Kirkpatrick level 4 patient satisfaction (significant results) and health outcomes (not significant). Conclusions: Pilot findings from studies in our review show trauma-informed curricula for PCPs reveal positive reactions, an increase in knowledge, screening, communication, and patient satisfaction, but no change in referrals or health outcomes. Further research is needed to examine the impact of trainings on quality of care and health outcomes.


Scientifica ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leiyu Shi

Primary care serves as the cornerstone in a strong healthcare system. However, it has long been overlooked in the United States (USA), and an imbalance between specialty and primary care exists. The objective of this focused review paper is to identify research evidence on the value of primary care both in the USA and internationally, focusing on the importance of effective primary care services in delivering quality healthcare, improving health outcomes, and reducing disparities. Literature searches were performed in PubMed as well as “snowballing” based on the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. The areas reviewed included primary care definitions, primary care measurement, primary care practice, primary care and health, primary care and quality, primary care and cost, primary care and equity, primary care and health centers, and primary care and healthcare reform. In both developed and developing countries, primary care has been demonstrated to be associated with enhanced access to healthcare services, better health outcomes, and a decrease in hospitalization and use of emergency department visits. Primary care can also help counteract the negative impact of poor economic conditions on health.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veronica Milos Nymberg ◽  
Cecilia Lenander ◽  
Beata Borgström Bolmsjö

Abstract Background Drug-related problems among the elderly population are common and increasing. Multi-professional medication reviews (MR) have arisen as a method to optimize drug therapy for frail elderly patients. Research has not yet been able to show conclusive evidence of the effect of MRs on mortality or hospital admissions. Aim The aim of this study was to assess the impact of MRs’ on hospital admissions and mortality after six and 12 months in a frail population of 369 patients in primary care in a randomized controlled study. Methods Patients were blindly randomized to an intervention group (receiving MRs) and a control group (receiving usual care). Descriptive data on mortality and hospital admissions at six and 12 months were collected. Survival analysis was performed for time to death and time to the first hospital admission within 12 months. Results Of the total number of 369 included patients, 182 were randomized to the intervention group and 187 to the control group. Most of the patients (75%) were females and lived in nursing homes. At six months, 50 patients of the baseline population (27%) in the control group had been admitted to hospital at least once, compared to 40 patients (21%) in the intervention group. At 12 months, the percentage had increased to 70 (37%) in the control group compared to 53 (29%) in the intervention group. Compared to usual care, we found that MRs reduced the risk of hospital admissions within 12 months by 36% (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.90), but found no difference on mortality (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.78-1.61) between the groups. Conclusion We suggest that MRs should be recommended in the care of frail elderly patients with expected benefits on hospital admissions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 730-744
Author(s):  
Thea Luig ◽  
Louanne Keenan ◽  
Denise L. Campbell-Scherer

We sought to understand the impact of primary care conversations about obesity on people’s everyday life health experience and practices. Using a dialogic narrative perspective, we examined key moments in three very different clinical encounters, the patients’ journals, and follow-up interviews over several weeks. We trace how people living with obesity negotiate narrative alternatives that are offered during clinical dialogue to transform their own narrative and experience of obesity and self. Findings provide pragmatic insights into how providers can play a significant role in shifting narratives about obesity and self and how such co-constructed narratives translate into change and tangible health outcomes in people’s lives.


2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Winters ◽  
George Schade ◽  
Sarah Holt ◽  
John Gore ◽  
Atreya Dash ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Luther ◽  
James Studnicki ◽  
Jeffrey Kromrey ◽  
Kathleen Lomando-Frakes ◽  
Pauline Grant ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily A. Wang ◽  
Kathleen A. McGinnis ◽  
Jessica B. Long ◽  
Kathleen M. Akgün ◽  
E. Jennifer Edelman ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (682) ◽  
pp. e294-e303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Poompong Sripa ◽  
Benedict Hayhoe ◽  
Priya Garg ◽  
Azeem Majeed ◽  
Geva Greenfield

BackgroundGPs often act as gatekeepers, authorising patients’ access to specialty care. Gatekeeping is frequently perceived as lowering health service use and health expenditure. However, there is little evidence suggesting that gatekeeping is more beneficial than direct access in terms of patient- and health-related outcomes.AimTo establish the impact of GP gatekeeping on quality of care, health use and expenditure, and health outcomes and patient satisfaction.Design and settingA systematic review.MethodThe databases MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles using a search strategy. Two authors independently screened search results and assessed the quality of studies.ResultsElectronic searches identified 4899 studies (after removing duplicates), of which 25 met the inclusion criteria. Gatekeeping was associated with better quality of care and appropriate referral for further hospital visits and investigation. However, one study reported unfavourable outcomes for patients with cancer under gatekeeping, and some concerns were raised about the accuracy of diagnoses made by gatekeepers. Gatekeeping resulted in fewer hospitalisations and use of specialist care, but inevitably was associated with more primary care visits. Patients were less satisfied with gatekeeping than direct-access systems.ConclusionGatekeeping was associated with lower healthcare use and expenditure, and better quality of care, but with lower patient satisfaction. Survival rate of patients with cancer in gatekeeping schemes was significantly lower than those in direct access, although primary care gatekeeping was not otherwise associated with delayed patient referral. The long-term outcomes of gatekeeping arrangements should be carefully studied before devising new gatekeeping policies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document