scholarly journals Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Primary Care Access for Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4011-4011
Author(s):  
Ying Ling ◽  
Kelvin Chan ◽  
Aditi Patrikar ◽  
Ning Liu ◽  
Aisha Lofters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Myeloid Malignancy ◽  
Primary Care Access ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Virtual Visits ◽  
Unplanned Hospitalizations ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction: Primary care physicians are essential to cancer care. They frequently identify signs and symptoms leading to a diagnosis of cancer, and provide ongoing support and management of non-cancer health conditions during cancer treatment. Both primary care and cancer care have been greatly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the United States, cancer-related patient encounters and cancer screening decreased over 40% and 80% respectively in January to April 2020 compared to 2019 (London et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2020). However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care access for cancer patients remain unclear. Methods: We undertook a population-based, retrospective cohort study using healthcare databases held at ICES in Ontario, Canada. Patients with a new lymphoid or myeloid malignancy diagnosed within the year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, between July 1, 2019 and September 30, 2019 (COVID-19 cohort) were compared to patients diagnosed in years unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic, between July 1, 2018 - September 30, 2018 and July 1, 2017 - September 30, 2017 (pre-pandemic cohort). Both groups were followed for 12 months after initial cancer diagnosis. In the COVID-19 cohort, this allowed for at least 4 months of follow-up data occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was number of in-person and virtual visits with a primary care physician. Secondary outcomes of interest included number of in-person and virtual visits with a hematologist, number of visits to the emergency department (ED), and number of unplanned hospitalizations. Outcomes, reported as crude rates per 1000 person-months, were compared between the COVID-19 and pre-pandemic cohorts using Poisson regression modelling. Results: We identified 2882 individuals diagnosed with a new lymphoid or myeloid malignancy during the defined COVID-19 timeframe and compared them to 5997 individuals diagnosed during the defined pre-pandemic timeframe. The crude rate of in-person primary care visits per 1000 person-months significantly decreased from 574.4 [95% CI 568.5 - 580.4] in the pre-pandemic cohort to 402.5 [395.3 - 409.7] in the COVID-19 cohort (p < 0.0001). Telemedicine visits to primary care significantly increased from 5.3 [4.8 - 5.9] to 173.0 [168.4 - 177.8] (p < 0.0001). The rate of combined in-person and telemedicine visits to primary care did not change from 579.8 [573.8 - 585.8] in the pre-pandemic cohort to 575.5 [566.9 - 584.2] in the COVID-19 cohort (p = 0.43). In-person visits to hematologists decreased from 504.1 [498.5 - 509.7] to 432.8 [425.3 - 440.3] (p < 0.0001), and telemedicine visits to hematologists increased from 6.6 [6.0 - 7.3] to 75.9 [72.8 - 79.1] (p < 0.0001). The rate of combined visits to hematologists did not change from 510.7 [505.1 - 516.4] to 508.7 [500.6 - 516.8] (p = 0.68). The rate of ED visits significantly decreased from 95.1 [92.7 - 97.6] in the pre-pandemic cohort to 84.7 [81.4 - 88.0] in the COVID-19 cohort (p < 0.0001). The rate of unplanned hospitalizations did not change from 64.8 [62.8 - 66.8] to 65.7 [62.9 - 68.7] (p = 0.60). Conclusions: Primary care visits for patients with hematologic malignancies did not significantly change during the pandemic, but there was a sizeable shift from in-person to telemedicine visits. Similar findings were seen for visits to hematologists. While the rate of visits to the ED decreased, potentially due to concern of being exposed to the COVID-19 virus, the shift in ambulatory practices did not seem to impact the rate of unplanned hospitalizations. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals The Impact of Digital-First Consultations on Workload in General Practice: Modeling Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Salisbury ◽  
Mairead Murphy ◽  
Polly Duncan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Primary Care Access ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Specialist Services ◽  
Key Variables ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Health services in many countries are promoting digital-first models of access to general practice based on offering online, video, or telephone consultations before a face-to-face consultation. It is claimed that this will improve access for patients and moderate the workload of doctors. However, improved access could also potentially increase doctors’ workload. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to explore whether and under what circumstances digital-first access to general practice is likely to decrease or increase general practice workload. METHODS A process map to delineate primary care access pathways was developed and a model to estimate general practice workload constructed in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp). The model was populated using estimates of key variables obtained from a systematic review of published studies. A MEDLINE search was conducted for studies published in English between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2019. Included papers provided quantitative data about online, telephone, or video consultations for unselected patients requesting a general practice in-hours consultation for any problem. We excluded studies of general practitioners consulting specialists, consultations not conducted by doctors, and consultations conducted after hours, in secondary care, in specialist services, or for a specific health care problem. Data about the following variables were extracted from the included papers to form the model inputs: the proportion of consultations managed digitally, the proportion of digital consultations completed without a subsequent consultation, the proportion of subsequent consultations conducted by telephone rather than face-to-face, consultation duration, and the proportion of digital consultations that represent new demand. The outcome was general practice workload. The model was used to test the likely impact of different digital-first scenarios, based on the best available evidence and the plausible range of estimates from the published studies. The model allows others to test the impact on workload of varying assumptions about model inputs. RESULTS Digital-first approaches are likely to increase general practice workload unless they are shorter, and a higher proportion of patients are managed without a subsequent consultation than observed in most published studies. In our base-case scenarios (based on the best available evidence), digital-first access models using online, telephone, or video consultations are likely to increase general practitioner workload by 25%, 3%, and 31%, respectively. An important determinant of workload is whether the availability of digital-first approaches changes the demand for general practice consultations, but there is little robust evidence to answer this question. CONCLUSIONS Digital-first approaches to primary care could increase general practice workload unless stringent conditions are met. Justification for these approaches should be based on evidence about the benefits in relation to the costs, rather than assumptions about reductions in workload. Given the potential increase in workload, which in due course could worsen problems of access, these initiatives should be implemented in a staged way alongside careful evaluation.

The impact of primary care access on mortality in lung cancer patients from Bronx, New York.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18614-e18614
Author(s):  
Christopher Su ◽  
Vincent Chau ◽  
Balazs Halmos ◽  
Chirag D Shah ◽  
Rasim A. Gucalp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
New York ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Primary Care Access ◽  
Care Access ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Low-acuity emergency department use among patients in different primary care models in Hamilton and Ontario

2021 ◽  
pp. 084047042110120
Author(s):  
Olivia Ly ◽  
David Price ◽  
Refik Saskin ◽  
Michelle Howard
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
Primary Care Access ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Care Models ◽  
Ed Visits ◽  
Primary Care Practices ◽  
The Impact

Jurisdictions such as Hamilton, Ontario, where most primary care practices participate in patient enrolment models with enhanced after-hours access, may demonstrate overall improved health equity outcomes. Non-urgent Emergency Department (ED) use has been suggested as an indicator of primary care access; however, the impact of primary care access on ED use is uncertain and likely varies by patient and contextual factors. This population-based, retrospective study investigated whether or not different primary care models were associated with different rates of non-urgent ED visits in Hamilton, a city with relatively high neighbourhood marginalization, compared to the rest of Ontario from 2014/2015 to 2017/2018. In Ontario, enrolment capitation-based practices had more non-urgent ED visits than non-enrolment fee-for-service practices. In Hamilton, where most of the city’s family physicians are in enrolment capitation-based practices, differences between models were minimal. The influence of primary care reforms may differ depending on how they are distributed within regions.

scholarly journals The impact of chronic diseases and primary care access on health status among elderly populations in rural China

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yixing Yang ◽  
Tai zhang ◽  
Zhaoquan Huang ◽  
Dong Gao ◽  
Zhenyou Guo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Rural China ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Primary Care Access ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Descriptive System ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective This study aimed to examine the patterns of chronic conditions and the role of primary care access on health status among rural elderly.Methods 6451 elderly aged ≥ 60 years from 5540 households in 116 villages in western rural areas of China were randomly selected and assessed the their health status using the EQ-5D-3L instrument. EQ-5D descriptive system and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were descriptive analyses by patterns of chronic conditions. We identified the impact of multimorbidity and primary care access on health status using multilevel linear model.Results 55% of the pooled sample reported at least one chronic condition, and 30.2% had more than one. Hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis and chronic bronchitis were the most frequently reported conditions. After adjustment for sociodemographic status and patterns of chronic conditions, primary care access significantly associated with health status for the elderly in late life.Conclusion Primary care access and health services should take priority action for rural elderly, especially elderly with multimobidity in lower household income, living in mountainous areas where distance to township hospital is long.

scholarly journals Primary Care Access and Emergency Room Use Among Older Veterans

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (S2) ◽  
pp. 689-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Werner ◽  
Anne Canamucio ◽  
Steven C. Marcus ◽  
Christian Terwiesch
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Room ◽  
Primary Care Access ◽  
Care Access

Evolving oncology provider perspectives on care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18609-e18609
Author(s):  
Divya Ahuja Parikh ◽  
Meera Vimala Ragavan ◽  
Sandy Srinivas ◽  
Sarah Garrigues ◽  
Eben Lloyd Rosenthal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advanced Practice ◽  
Curative Surgery ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

e18609 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid changes in cancer care delivery. We sought to examine oncology provider perspectives on clinical decisions and care delivery during the pandemic and to compare provider views early versus late in the pandemic. Methods: We invited oncology providers, including attendings, trainees and advanced practice providers, to complete a cross-sectional online survey using a variety of outreach methods including social media (Twitter), email contacts, word of mouth and provider list-serves. We surveyed providers at two time points during the pandemic when the number of COVID-19 cases was rising in the United States, early (March 2020) and late (January 2021). The survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Chi-squared tests to evaluate differences in early versus late provider responses. Results: A total of 132 providers completed the survey and most were white (n = 73/132, 55%) and younger than 49 years (n = 88/132, 67%). Respondents were attendings in medical, surgical or radiation oncology (n = 61/132, 46%), advanced practice providers (n = 48/132, 36%) and oncology fellows (n = 16/132, 12%) who predominantly practiced in an academic medical center (n = 120/132, 91%). The majority of providers agreed patients with cancer are at higher risk than other patients to be affected by COVID-19 (n = 121/132, 92%). However, there was a significant difference in the proportion of early versus late providers who thought delays in cancer care were needed. Early in the pandemic, providers were more likely to recommend delays in curative surgery or radiation for early-stage cancer (p < 0.001), delays in adjuvant chemotherapy after curative surgery (p = 0.002), or delays in surveillance imaging for metastatic cancer (p < 0.001). The majority of providers early in the pandemic responded that “reducing risk of a complication from a COVID-19 infection to patients with cancer” was the primary reason for recommending delays in care (n = 52/76, 68%). Late in the pandemic, however, providers were more likely to agree that “any practice change would have a negative impact on patient outcomes” (p = 0.003). At both time points, the majority of providers agreed with the need for other care delivery changes, including screening patients for infectious symptoms (n = 128/132, 98%) and the use of telemedicine (n = 114/132, 86%) during the pandemic. Conclusions: We found significant differences in provider perspectives of delays in cancer care early versus late in the pandemic which reflects the swiftly evolving oncology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies are needed to determine the impact of changes in treatment and care delivery on outcomes for patients with cancer.

Impact of Health Plan Deductibles and Health Insurance Marketplace Enrollment on Health Care Experiences

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 483-497
Author(s):  
Weiwei Chen ◽  
Timothy F. Page
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Plans ◽  
Medical Needs ◽  
Care Access ◽  
Health Care Experiences ◽  
Monitoring Survey ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Impact

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have become increasingly prevalent among employer-sponsored health plans and plans offered through the Health Insurance Marketplace in the United States. This study examined the impact of deductible levels on health care experiences in terms of care access, affordability, routine checkup, out-of-pocket cost, and satisfaction using data from the Health Reform Monitoring Survey. The study also tested whether the experiences of Marketplace enrollees differed from off-Marketplace individuals, controlling for deductible levels. Results from multivariable and propensity score weighted regression models showed that many of the outcomes were adversely affected by deductible levels and Marketplace enrollment. These results highlight the importance of efforts to help individuals choose the plan that fits both their medical needs and their budgets. The study also calls for more attention to improving provider acceptance of HDHPs and Marketplace plans as these plans become increasingly common over time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document