scholarly journals AB1361-HPR PRIMARY CARE PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS WITH HAND ARTHRALGIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1967.1-1968
Author(s):  
M. M. Castañeda-Martínez ◽  
G. Figueroa-Parra ◽  
D. Vega-Morales ◽  
J. M. Calderón Espinosa ◽  
B. R. Vázquez Fuentes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Pharmacological Treatment ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Therapeutic Window ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Disease Modifying

Background:Primary care physicians (PCP) are the first point of contact for patients with a new-onset inflammatory rheumatic disease, like rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Consequently, primary care is crucial to the early diagnosis and prompt treatment of such individuals. The first three months following the onset of RA symptoms represent an important therapeutic window. Historically, patients with inflammatory arthritis received first-line treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), moving to synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) relatively late in the disease process. As synthetic DMARDs are usually initiated in secondary care by rheumatologists, PCP focus on alleviation of patient’s discomfort. Documented problems in primary care practice include accuracy of diagnosis, test ordering, medication use and delays in referral.There is no evidence of which is the pharmacological treatment more commonly used for hand arthralgia in Family Medicine patients of a university hospital on their first or second visit.Objectives:To examine the primary care physicians’ pharmacological treatment prescribed for hand arthralgia in a Family Medicine Consultation.Methods:In a period of a year and two months, eligible patients were recruited on their first or second visit to the Family Medicine Consultation of the Hospital Universitario “Dr. José Eleuterio González” in Monterrey, Nuevo León, México. Eligible patients were adults (aged≥18 years) with hand arthralgia as their chief complaint, who had not rheumatologic diagnosis and wasn’t caused by trauma. Ninety patients were recruited, data were collected by capturing the prescription made by PCP.Results:In this cohort of 90 patients, 71 (78.9%) were women. Of the 90 patients, 19 (21.1%) had no pharmacological prescription at all. Forty-nine patients (54.4%) had one prescribed drug, 17 (18.9%) had two drugs and 5 (5.6%) had three drugs. Prescribed drugs and their frequencies are reported in Table 1.Table 1.Prescribed drugs and frequencies.Drugn (%)No treatment19 (21.1)Celecoxib26 (28.9)Oxicams22 (24.4)Propionic acid derivatives6 (6.7)Phenyl Acetic acids5 (5.6)Acetaminophen15 (16.7)Tramadol12 (13.3)Steroids11 (12.2)Methotrexate1 (1.1)Conclusion:The most common group of drugs used for hand arthralgia in this cohort of patients was NSAID, and the most used of this group was celecoxib. Only in one patient, PCP prescribed disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy, in this case was methotrexate. Almost 80% of the patients were prescribed with at least one drug without knowing the final diagnosis.References:[1]Warburton L, Hider SL, Mallen CD, Scott IC. Suspected very early inflammatory rheumatic diseases in primary care. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2019;33(4):101419[2]Calabrese L. Rheumatoid arthritis and primary care: The case for early diagnosis and treatment. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 1999;99(6):313.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Time to Consultation and Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis — Northern Alberta Perspective

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 707-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
JALAL A. NANJI ◽  
MAY CHOI ◽  
ROBERT FERRARI ◽  
CHRISTOPHER LYDDELL ◽  
ANTHONY S. RUSSELL
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Symptom Onset ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Physician Practices ◽  
Diagnostic Coding ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
Northern Alberta

Objective.To determine the timeliness of consultation and initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) referred to rheumatologists.Methods.The first part of the study was a review of the charts of 151 patients with RA followed by 3 rheumatologists. The outcome measure was the interval between symptom onset and consultation with a rheumatologist. The second part of the study involved a chart review of 4 family physician practices in a small urban center in order to determine the accuracy of diagnostic coding (International Classification of Diseases; ICD-9) of RA, as well as the proportion of patients with RA seen by a rheumatologist. Finally, a survey was sent to primary care physicians at a group of walk-in clinics to determine what percentage of their patients with RA were referred to a rheumatologist and, concerning referral patterns, how likely it is they would refer a confirmed or suspected RA patient to a rheumatologist.Results.Patients with RA referred to rheumatologists in this sample were seen by a rheumatologist at a mean of 9.8 months (median 5 mo, range 0–129 mo) after symptom onset, and mean 1.2 months (median 4.0 mo, range 0–8 mo) after being referred by their primary care physician. All referred patients with confirmed RA were started on DMARD within 1 week of initial consultation. Primary care physicians would refer suspected RA patients 99.5% of the time (median 100, range 90–100%), and 87.6% (median 90, range 50–100%) of patients with confirmed RA would have seen a rheumatologist at least once. A chart review showed that, in a select group of family physicians, 70.9% (22/31) of patients coded as RA per the ICD-9 did indeed have RA and all had seen a rheumatologist for their condition.Conclusion.In Northern Alberta, patients with RA are seen and started on DMARD therapy in a timely fashion. Most of the delay is at the primary care level, suggesting a need for improved education of patients and primary care physicians rather than a formal triage system.

scholarly journals SAT0065 TIMING OF PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINATIONS IN RELATION TO STARTING DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 965.1-966
Author(s):  
R. E. Costello ◽  
J. Humphreys ◽  
K. Winthrop ◽  
W. Dixon
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Pneumococcal Vaccination ◽  
British Society ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
Sat 1 ◽  
Over Time

Background:Pneumococcal vaccinations are recommended for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is evidence that pneumococcal vaccinations are less effective when administered after starting conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Vaccination guidelines have changed over time, since 1992 UK guidelines recommend pneumococcal vaccination for the immunocompromised, and in 2003 was expanded to all individual’s age ≥65 years. Guidelines from British Society of Rheumatology (2011) and EULAR (2019) advise to vaccinate prior to starting csDMARDs where possible. There is little evidence about whether these guidelines are being followed.Objectives:The aims of this study were to explore the timing of pneumococcal vaccination in patients with RA in relation to starting csDMARDs and examine whether this has changed over time.Methods:This was a cross-sectional study using UK electronic health records from primary care between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2018. To be included in the study patients needed to 1) have a diagnosis of RA, 2) be prescribed csDMARDs up to 3 months prior to, or after RA diagnosis date and 3) have received a pneumococcal vaccination. Index date was considered the start of csDMARDs and vaccinations were required to be up to 5 years prior to the index date or after index date until leaving the practice, death or the end of the study period. For each patient it was determined if the first vaccination was prior to starting csDMARDs. For those vaccinated up to 3 years prior to, or up to 3 years after starting csDMARDs, the time between vaccination and starting csDMARDs in months was determined and this distribution was plotted in a bar chart. To explore how timing of vaccination has changed over time the proportion (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) of people vaccinated prior to starting csDMARDs was plotted by year.Results:Of 21461 people with RA identified who were prescribed their first csDMARD on or after 1st January 2000, there were 8205 (38.2%) patients vaccinated and eligible to be included in the study. The cohort had a mean age 62 years, 66.4% were female. There were 2997 (36.5%) patients vaccinated prior to starting csDMARDs. Those vaccinated prior to starting csDMARDs were older, with 72% (n=2168) being aged 65 years or over vs 28% (n=1465) in those vaccinated after starting csDMARDs. 5358 (65.3%) were vaccinated up to 3 years prior to, or up to 3 years after starting csDMARDs. The distribution showed that the most frequent time of vaccination was in the 3 months after starting csDMARDs and the frequency was higher in the months after starting csDMARDs than in the months preceding (Figure 1). Of those vaccinated outside these times, 1000 (12.2%) were vaccinated >3 years prior and 1844 (22.5%) were vaccinated >3 years after starting csDMARDs. The proportion vaccinated prior to starting csDMARDs has increased over time from a minimum of 17.2% in 2001 to a maximum of 55.6% in 2016. The greatest increases were seen between 2003 and 2007 (Figure 2).Figure 1.Time between starting csDMARDs and pneumococcal vaccinationFigure 2.Proportion and 95% confidence interval of those vaccinated prior to starting csDMARDs by year.Conclusion:This study shows that timing of pneumococcal vaccination is improving with a trend towards increasing vaccination prior to starting csDMARDs and a high proportion of patients were vaccinated around the time of csDMARD initiation. However, just over a fifth (22.5%) were vaccinated more than 3 years after starting csDMARDs. Rheumatologists need to continue to work to raise awareness of the importance of vaccinations through better communications to patients and primary care physicians, to ensure best practice is being followed.Disclosure of Interests:Ruth E Costello: None declared, Jenny Humphreys: None declared, Kevin Winthrop Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, William Dixon Consultant of: Bayer and Google

scholarly journals Parkinsonism and D-512, dopamine D2/3 receptor agonist; A review of literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-03
Author(s):  
Madeeha Waleed
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Pharmacological Treatment ◽  
Receptor Agonist ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Paralysis Agitans ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners

In 1817, James Parkinson first coined the term Paralysis Agitans (An Essay on the Shaking Palsy), Jean-Marie Charcot was the first to coin term Parkinson’s disease (PD). Three most common and obvious symptoms in patients with PD are tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia. A multidisciplinary team involving neurologists, primary care practitioners, nurses, physical therapists, social workers is used to diagnose PD. Nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatment is given to the patient. However, this disease demands more clinical translational and prognostic research, identifying biomarkers that can help in early diagnosis of the disease and on developing future disease-modifying interventions.

WikiRecs primary care: developing rapid recommendations for primary care through effective collaboration between systematic review and guideline teams

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Review Team ◽  
New Evidence

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.

scholarly journals AB1280-HPR REQUIRED FORCE TO OBTAIN A POSITIVE SQUEEZE TEST AUTOMATIZED IN PATIENTS WITH HAND ARTHRALGIA

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1931.3-1931
Author(s):  
M. M. Castañeda-Martínez ◽  
G. Figueroa-Parra ◽  
D. Vega-Morales ◽  
B. R. Vázquez Fuentes ◽  
Y. G. Ordoñez Azuara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Aspects ◽  
Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Undifferentiated Arthritis ◽  
Left Hand ◽  
Hand Force ◽  
The Uk

Background:Primary care physicians (PCP) are usually the first contact of people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, and find the early symptoms of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) difficult to distinguish from those of other rheumatic diseases. A time-delay in the reference to Rheumatology is a health issue in several countries. The clinical aspects that general practitioner took into account in hand arthralgia patients are important to make the reference. In particular the Squeeze Test (ST) - which is simple to perform and rapidly done, ST is useful for identifying progression to RA in patients with undifferentiated arthritis. The ST has been described as not reliable because is clinician-dependent.Objectives:To identify the required force that needs to be applied in order to obtain a positive Automatized Squeeze Test (AST) in a cohort of patients with hand arthralgia.Methods:Ninety-seven patients were recruited in Family Medicine Consultation and in Rheumatology Consultation of the Hospital Universitario “Dr. José Eleuterio González” in Monterrey, Nuevo León, México. Eligible patients were adults (aged≥18 years) with hand arthralgia (that wasn’t caused by trauma) as their chief complaint. After obtaining informed consent and after a questionnaire application, patients were submitted to AST maneuver, using an automated compressor with different forces already predetermined in the interface of the software used for compression.Results:In this cohort of 98 patients, 79 (80.6%) were women. The mean age was 51.14 years (SD 14.66). Ninety-six (97.9%) patients were right handed. The diagnoses were Osteoarthritis (OA) (16.3%), RA (5.1%), Undifferentiated arthritis (1.2%), Psoriatic arthritis (1.2%) and Fibromyalgia (2%). Force measures according to diagnoses are reported in Table 1.Table 1.Diagnoses and mean forcesDiagnosisn (%)Right hand force mean (kg/s2) (SD)Left hand force mean (kg/s2) (SD)OA16 (16.3)3.53 (2.74)3.18(2.73)RA5 (5.1)3.60 (2.53)3.16(1.36)UA1 (1.2)7.60(0)8.70(0)PsA1 (1.2)7.60(0)7.80(0)FM2 (2.0)4.11(4.40)1.75(1.06)OA, Osteoarthritis;RA, Rheumatoid Arthritis;UA, Undifferentiated Arthritis;PsA, Psoriatic Arthritis;FM, Fibromyalgia;SD, Standard DeviationConclusion:In the cases of RA and OA, the means of force to obtain a positive AST was lower than in the rest of the diagnoses.References:[1]Stack R, Nightingale P, Jinks C, Shaw K, Herron-Marx S, Horne R et al. Delays between the onset of symptoms and first rheumatology consultation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK: an observational study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(3):e024361.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Primary Care Tracks in Medical Schools

PRiMER ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maribeth P. Williams ◽  
Denny Fe Agana ◽  
Benjamin J. Rooks ◽  
Grant Harrell ◽  
Rosemary A. Klassen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Clerkship Director ◽  
Medicine Clerkship ◽  
Faculty Mentorship

Introduction: With the estimated future shortage of primary care physicians there is a need to recruit more medical students into family medicine. Longitudinal programs or primary care tracks in medical schools have been shown to successfully recruit students into primary care. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of primary care tracks in departments of family medicine.  Methods: Data were collected as part of the 2016 CERA Family Medicine Clerkship Director Survey. The survey included questions regarding the presence and description of available primary care tracks as well as the clerkship director’s perception of impact. The survey was distributed via email to 125 US and 16 Canadian family medicine clerkship directors.  Results: The response rate was 86%. Thirty-five respondents (29%) reported offering a longitudinal primary care track. The majority of tracks select students on a competitive basis, are directed by family medicine educators, and include a wide variety of activities. Longitudinal experience in primary care ambulatory settings and primary care faculty mentorship were the most common activities. Almost 70% of clerkship directors believe there is a positive impact on students entering primary care.  Conclusions: The current tracks are diverse in what they offer and could be tailored to the missions of individual medical schools. The majority of clerkship directors reported that they do have a positive impact on students entering primary care.

scholarly journals Systematic Review Investigating Multi-disciplinary Team Approaches to Screening and Early Diagnosis of Dementia in Primary Care – What are the Positive and Negative Effects and Who Should Deliver It?

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Smith ◽  
Jane Cross ◽  
Fiona Poland ◽  
Felix Clay ◽  
Abbey Brookes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Initial Contact ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Early Diagnostic

Background: Primary care services frequently provide the initial contact between people with dementia and health service providers. Early diagnosis and screening programmes have been suggested as a possible strategy to improve the identification of such individuals and treatment and planning health and social care support. Objective: To determine what early diagnostic and screening programmes have been adopted in primary care practice, to explore who should deliver these and to determine the possible positive and negative effects of an early diagnostic and screening programme for people with dementia in primary care. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using published and unpublished research databases. All papers answering our research objectives were included. A narrative analysis of the literature was undertaken, with the CASP tools used appropriately to assess study quality. Results: Thirty-three papers were identified of moderate to high quality. The limited therapeutic options for those diagnosed with dementia means that even if such a programme was instigated, the clinical value remains questionable. Furthermore, accuracy of the diagnosis remains difficult to assess due to poor evidence and this raises questions regarding whether people could be over- or under-diagnosed. Given the negative social and psychological consequences of such a diagnosis, this could be devastating for individuals. Conclusion: Early diagnostic and screening programmes have not been widely adopted into primary care. Until there is rigorous evidence assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of such programmes, there remains insufficient evidence to support the adoption of these programmes in practice.

scholarly journals Use of healthcare resources in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Enrique Machado-Alba ◽  
Manuel E. Machado-Duque ◽  
Andres Gaviria-Mendoza ◽  
Juan Manuel Reyes ◽  
Natalia Castaño Gamboa
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Pharmacological Treatment ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Healthcare Resources ◽  
Conventional Dmards ◽  
Disease Modifying

Abstract Introduction/objectives The objective of this study is to describe the treatment patterns and use of healthcare resources in a cohort of Colombian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or tofacitinib. Method This is a descriptive study from a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with RA who were treated with bDMARDs or tofacitinib after failure of conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) or first bDMARD. Patients who were receiving pharmacological treatment between 01 January 2014 and 30 June 2018 were included. The analysis is through the revision of claim database and electronical medical records. Demographic and clinical data were collected. The costs of healthcare resources were estimated from the billing expense of healthcare service provider. Results We evaluated 588 RA patients on treatment with bDMARDs (n = 505) or tofacitinib (n = 83), most of them were in combination with cDMARDs (85.4%). The 88.1% were females and mean age was 57.3 ± 12.5 years. The median evolution of RA since diagnosis was 9 years (IQR:4–17.2). The mean duration of use during follow-up of the bDMARDs or tofacitinib was similar, with a mean of 9.8 ± 1.9 months. It was identified that 394 (67.0%) discontinued therapy. The average annual direct cost of care per patient was USD 8997 ± 2172, where 97.2% was due to drug costs. The average annual cost of treatment per patient with bDMARDs was USD 8604 and tofacitinib was USD 6377. Conclusions In the face of a first failure of cDMARD, bDMARDs are frequently added. A high frequency of patients do not persist treatment during the first year of follow-up. The pharmacological treatment is the most representative cause of healthcare costs. Key Points• Rheumatoid arthritis is a disease with a high burden of comorbidities, complications, and worse health-related quality of life and is associated with elevated healthcare costs.• The biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib medications are indicated for those with significant progression of the disease and when there is a need for alternatives to achieve low levels of activity and remission.• Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib represent a significant economic burden to the health system, especially in the costs derived from pharmacological treatment.

Billing Codes Determine Lower Physician Income for Primary Care and Non-Procedural Specialties

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arielle L. Langer ◽  
Miriam Laugesen
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Direct Consequence ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Income Differences ◽  
Income Gap ◽  
Physician Income ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The income gap between specialists and primary care physicians and among specialists is well established, but the drivers of this difference are not well delineated. Using the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Survey, we sought to isolate and compare premiums paid to physicians for specialization and the proportion of time spent on offices visit rather than procedures. We divided medical subspecialties according the proportion of Medicare billing for Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes for the specialty as a whole. We report substantial differences in income across physician specialty, and over 70 percent of the difference in income remained controlling for factors that may confound the relationship between income and specialty including gender, location and type of practice, and hours. We note a large variation in premiums for specialization: 11.3–46.8 percent above family medicine after controlling for confounders. Classifying medical subspecialties by E&M billing as procedural versus non-procedural specialties revealed clear income differences. Controlling for confounders, procedural medical specialties earned 37.5 percent more than family medicine, as compared with 15.3 percent for non-procedural medical specialties. This analysis suggests that differences in physician income and resulting incentives are a direct consequence of the payment structure itself, rather than compensation for additional years of training or a reflection of different underlying demographics.

Information Technology in Primary Care Practice in the United States

2011 ◽  
pp. 131-163
Author(s):  
James G. Anderson ◽  
E. Andres Balas
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Information Technology ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
It Applications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

The objective of this study was to assess the current level of information technology used by primary care physicians in the U.S. Primary care physicians listed by the American Medical Association were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a Web-based questionnaire. A total of 2,145 physicians responded. Overall between 20% and 25% of primary care physicians reported using electronic medical records, e-prescribing, point-of-care decision support tools and electronic communication with patients. This indicates a slow rate of adoption since 2000-2001. Differences in adoption rates suggest that future surveys need to differentiate primary care and office-based physicians by specialty. An important finding is that one-third of the physicians surveyed expressed no interest in the four IT applications. Overcoming this barrier may require efforts by medical specialty societies to educate their members as to the benefits of IT in practice. The majority of physicians perceived benefits of IT, but they cited costs, vendor inability to deliver acceptable products and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as major barriers to implementation of IT applications. Overcoming the cost barrier may require that payers and the federal government share the costs of implementing these IT applications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document