Improving dementia diagnosis and management in primary care: a cohort study of the impact of a training and support program on physician competency, practice patterns, and community linkages

Background: Up to 70% of patients report ongoing symptoms four weeks after hospitalisation for pneumonia, and the impact on primary care is poorly understood. Aim: To investigate the frequency of primary care consultations after hospitalisation for pneumonia, and the reasons for consultation. Design: Population-based cohort study. Setting: UK primary care database of anonymised medical records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), England. Methods: Adults with the first ICD-10 code for pneumonia (J12-J18) recorded in HES between July 2002-June 2017 were included. Primary care consultation within 30 days of discharge was identified as the recording of any medical Read code (excluding administration-related codes) in CPRD. Competing-risks regression analyses were conducted to determine the predictors of consultation and antibiotic use at consultation; death and readmission were competing events. Reasons for consultation were examined. Results: Of 56,396 adults, 55.9% (n=31,542) consulted primary care within 30 days of discharge. The rate of consultation was highest within 7 days (4.7 per 100 person-days). The strongest predictor for consultation was a higher number of primary care consultations in the year prior to index admission (adjusted sHR 8.98, 95% CI 6.42-12.55). The commonest reason for consultation was for a respiratory disorder (40.7%, n=12,840), 12% for pneumonia specifically. At consultation, 31.1% (n=9,823) received further antibiotics. Penicillins (41.6%, n=5,753) and macrolides (21.9%, n=3,029) were the commonest antibiotics prescribed. Conclusion: Following hospitalisation for pneumonia, a significant proportion of patients consulted primary care within 30 days, highlighting the morbidity experienced by patients during recovery from pneumonia.

Download Full-text

Influence of Weekday of Admission and Level of Distress on Length of Hospital Stay in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-111329/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Emanuel Brunner ◽

André Meichtry ◽

Davy Vancampfort ◽

Reinhard Imoberdorf ◽

David Gisi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Back Pain ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Linear Model ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Complex Problem ◽

Interdisciplinary Management ◽

Prolonged Length ◽

The Impact

Abstract BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is often a complex problem requiring interdisciplinary management to address patients’ multidimensional needs. The inpatient care for patients with LBP in primary care hospitals is a challenge. In this setting, interdisciplinary LBP management is often unavailable during the weekend. Delays in therapeutic procedures may result in prolonged length of hospital stay (LoS). The impact of delays on LoS might be strongest in patients reporting high levels of psychological distress. Therefore, this study investigates which influence the weekday of admission and distress have on LoS of inpatients with LBP.MethodsRetrospective cohort study conducted between 1 February 2019 and 31 January 2020. ANOVA was used to test the hypothesized difference in mean effects of the weekday of admission on LoS. Further, a linear model was fitted for LoS with distress, categorical weekday of admission (Friday/Saturday vs. Sunday-Thursday), and their interactions.ResultsWe identified 173 patients with LBP. Mean LoS was 7.8 days (SD=5.59). Patients admitted on Friday (mean LoS=10.3) and Saturday (LoS=10.6) had longer stays but not those admitted on Sunday (LoS=7.1). Analysis of the weekday effect (Friday/Saturday vs. Sunday-Thursday) showed that admission on Friday or Saturday was associated with significant increase in LoS compared to admission on other weekdays (t=3.43, p=<0.001). 101 patients (58%) returned questionnaires, and complete data on distress was available from 86 patients (49%). According to a linear model for LoS, the effect of distress on LoS was significantly modified (t=2.51, p=0.014) by dichotomic weekdays of admission (Friday/Saturday vs. Sunday-Thursday).ConclusionsPatients with LBP are hospitalized significantly longer if they have to wait more than two days for interdisciplinary LBP management. This particularly affects patients reporting high distress. Our study provides a platform to further explore whether interdisciplinary LBP management addressing patients’ multidimensional needs reduces LoS in primary care hospitals.

Download Full-text

Overcoming Barriers to Early Dementia Diagnosis and Management in Primary Care

Journal of General Internal Medicine ◽

10.1007/s11606-020-05967-z ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Emily Morgan ◽

Bryanna De Lima ◽

Tatyana Aleksandrova ◽

Lisa Sanders ◽

Elizabeth Eckstrom

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Dementia Diagnosis ◽

Diagnosis And Management ◽

Early Dementia

Download Full-text

Did the COVID-19 pandemic result in more family physicians stopping practice? Results from Ontario, Canada

10.1101/2021.09.21.21263891 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Tara Kiran ◽

Michael E. Green ◽

Fangyun C. Wu ◽

Alexander Kopp ◽

Lidija Latifovic ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Practice Patterns ◽

Family Physicians ◽

Absolute Number ◽

Physician Practice ◽

Physician Practice Patterns ◽

Fee For Service ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

The Impact ◽

The Given

AbstractPurposeTo understand changes in family physician practice patterns and whether more family physicians stopped working during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years.MethodsWe analyzed administrative data from Ontario, Canada two ways: cross-sectional and longitudinal. First, we identified the percentage and characteristics of all family physicians who had a minimum of 50 billing days in 2019 but no billings during the first six months of the pandemic. Second, for each year from 2010 to 2020, we calculated the percentage of physicians who billed for services in the first quarter of the calendar year but submitted no bills between April and September of the given year.ResultsWe found 3.1% of physicians working in 2019 (N=385/12,247) reported no billings in the first six months of the pandemic. Compared with other family physicians, a higher portion were age 75 or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%, p<0.001), had fee-for-service reimbursement (38% vs 25%, p<0.001), and had a panel size under 500 patients (40% vs 25%, p<0.001). Between 2010 and 2019, an average of 1.6% of physicians who practiced in the first quarter had no billings in each of the second and third quarters of the calendar year compared to 3.0% in 2020 (p<0.001).ConclusionsApproximately twice as many family physicians stopped work in Ontario, Canada during COVID-19 compared to previous years, but the absolute number was small and those who did had smaller patient panels. More research is needed to understand the impact on primary care attachment and access to care.

Download Full-text

Advanced Access scheduling in general practice and use of primary care: a Danish population-based matched cohort study

BJGP Open ◽

10.3399/bjgpopen20x101091 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (5) ◽

pp. bjgpopen20X101091

Author(s):

Maria Bang ◽

Henrik Schou Pedersen ◽

Bodil Hammer Bech ◽

Claus Høstrup Vestergaard ◽

Jannik Falhof ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

General Practice ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Population Based ◽

Matched Cohort ◽

Face To Face ◽

Matched Cohort Study ◽

Adjusted Incidence Rate ◽

Advanced Access ◽

The Impact

BackgroundAdvanced access scheduling (AAS) allows patients to receive care from their GP at the time chosen by the patient. AAS has shown to increase the accessibility to general practice, but little is known about how AAS implementation affects the use of in-hours and out-of-hours (OOH) services.AimTo describe the impact of AAS on the use of in-hours and OOH services in primary care.Design & settingA population-based matched cohort study using Danish register data.MethodA total of 161 901 patients listed in 33 general practices with AAS were matched with 287 837 reference patients listed in 66 reference practices without AAS. Outcomes of interest were use of daytime face-to-face consultations, and use of OOH face-to-face and phone consultations in a 2-year period preceding and following AAS implementation.ResultsNo significant differences were seen between AAS practices and reference practices. During the year following AAS implementation, the number of daytime face-to-face consultations was 3% (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.99 to 1.07) higher in the AAS practices compared with the number in the reference practices. Patients listed with an AAS practice had 2% (aIRR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.92 to 1.04) fewer OOH phone consultations and 6% (aIRR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.86 to 1.02) fewer OOH face-to-face consultations compared with patients listed with a reference practice.ConclusionThis study showed no significant differences following AAS implementation. However, a trend was seen towards slightly higher use of daytime primary care and lower use of OOH primary care.

Download Full-text

Peripheral arterial disease diagnosis and management in primary care: a qualitative study

BJGP Open ◽

10.3399/bjgpopen19x101659 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 (3) ◽

pp. bjgpopen19X101659 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jan Lecouturier ◽

Jason Scott ◽

Nikki Rousseau ◽

Gerard Stansby ◽

Andrew Sims ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Qualitative Study ◽

Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽

Arterial Disease ◽

Disease Diagnosis ◽

Diagnosis And Management ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Peripheral Arterial ◽

The Impact

BackgroundPatients diagnosed with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are at an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and PAD progression. If diagnosed early, cardiovascular risk factors can be treated and the risk of other cardiovascular diseases can be reduced. There are clear guidelines on PAD diagnosis and management, but little is known about the issues faced in primary care with regards adherence to these, and about the impact of these issues on patients.AimTo identify the issues for primary care health professionals (HPs) and patients in PAD diagnosis and management, and to explore the impact of these on HPs and PAD patients.Design & settingQualitative study conducted in a primary care setting in the North East of England. Data was collected between December 2014 and July 2017.MethodSemi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with PAD register patients (n = 17), practice nurses ([PNs], n = 17), district nurses (DNs], n = 20), tissue viability nurses (n = 21), and GPs (n = 21).ResultsHPs’ attitudes to PAD, difficulty accessing tests, and patient delays impacted upon diagnosis. Some HPs had a reactive approach to PAD identification. Patients lacked understanding about PAD and some reported a delay consulting their GP after the onset of PAD symptoms. After diagnosis, few were attending for regular GP follow-up.ConclusionPatient education about PAD symptoms and risks, and questioning about exercise tolerance, could address the problem of under-reporting. Annual reviews could provide an opportunity to probe for PAD symptoms and highlight those requiring further investigation. Improved information when PAD is diagnosed and, considering the propensity for patients to tolerate worsening symptoms, the introduction of annual follow-up (at minimum) is warranted.

Download Full-text