scholarly journals Efficiency of primary spine care as compared to conventional primary care: a retrospective observational study at an Academic Medical Center

2022 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Serena Bezdjian ◽  
James M. Whedon ◽  
Robb Russell ◽  
Justin M. Goehl ◽  
Louis A. Kazal
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Opioid Analgesic ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Initial Visit ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Spine Care ◽  
Primary Spine

Abstract Background Primary Spine Care (PSC) is an innovative model for the primary management of patients with spine-related disorders (SRDs), with a focus on the use of non-pharmacological therapies which now constitute the recommended first-line approach to back pain. PSC clinicians serve as the initial or early point of contact for spine patients and utilize evidence-based spine care pathways to improve outcomes and reduce escalation of care (EoC; e.g., spinal injections, diagnostic imaging, hospitalizations, referrals to a specialist). The present study examined 6-month outcomes to evaluate the efficiency of care for patients who received PSC as compared to conventional primary care. We hypothesized that patients seen by a PSC clinician would have lower rates of EoC compared to patients who received usual care by a primary care (PC) clinician. Methods This was a retrospective observational study. We evaluated 6-month outcomes for two groups seen and treated for an SRD between February 01, 2017 and January 31, 2020. Patient groups were comprised of N = 1363 PSC patients (Group A) and N = 1329 PC patients (Group B). We conducted Pearson chi-square and logistic regression (adjusting for patient characteristics that were unbalanced between the two groups) to determine associations between the two groups and 6-month outcomes. Results Within six months of an initial visit for an SRD, a statistically significantly smaller proportion of PSC patients utilized healthcare resources for spine care as compared to the PC patients. When adjusting for patient characteristics, those who received care from the PSC clinician were less likely within 6 months of an initial visit to be hospitalized (OR = .47, 95% CI .23–.97), fill a prescription for an opioid analgesic (OR = .43; 95% CI .29–.65), receive a spinal injection (OR = .56, 95% CI .33–.95), or have a visit with a specialist (OR = .48, 95% CI .35–.67) as compared to those who received usual primary care. Conclusions Patients who received PSC in an academic primary care clinic experienced significantly less escalation of their spine care within 6 months of their initial visit. The PSC model may offer a more efficient approach to the primary care of spine problems for patients with SRDs, as compared to usual primary care.

scholarly journals Understanding the use of email consultation in primary care using a retrospective observational study with data of Dutch electronic health records

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. e019233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine W J Huygens ◽  
Ilse C S Swinkels ◽  
Robert A Verheij ◽  
Roland D Friele ◽  
Onno C P van Schayck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Electronic Health Record Data ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Electronic Health

ObjectivesIt is unclear why the use of email consultation is not more widespread in Dutch general practice, particularly because, since 2006, its costs can be reimbursed. To encourage further implementation, it is needed to understand the current use of email consultations. This study aims to understand the use of email consultation by different patient groups, compared with other general practice (GP) consultations.SettingFor this retrospective observational study, we used Dutch routine electronic health record data obtained from NIVEL Primary Care Database for the years 2010 and 2014.Participants200 general practices were included in 2010 (734 122 registered patients) and 434 in 2014 (1 630 386 registered patients).Primary outcome measuresThe number and percentage of email consultations and patient characteristics (age, gender, neighbourhood socioeconomic status and diagnoses) of email consultation users were investigated and compared with those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. General practice characteristics were also taken into account.Results32.0% of the Dutch general practices had at least one email consultation in 2010, rising to 52.8% in 2014. In 2014, only 0.7% of the GP consultations were by email (the others comprised home visits, telephone and face-to-face consultations). Its use highly varied among general practices. Most email consultations were done for psychological (14.7%); endocrine, metabolic and nutritional (10.9%); and circulatory (10.7%) problems. These diagnosis categories appeared less frequently in telephone and face-to-face consultations. Patients who had an email consultation were older than patients who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In contrast, patients with diabetes who had an email consultation were younger.ConclusionEven though email consultation was done in half the general practices in the Netherlands in 2014, the actual use of it is extremely low. Patients who had an email consultation differ from those who had a telephone or face-to-face consultation. In addition, the use of email consultation by patients is dependent on its provision by GPs.

scholarly journals Incidence of dizziness and vertigo in Japanese primary care clinic patients with lifestyle-related diseases: an observational study

2015 ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masaoki Wada ◽  
Taro Takeshima ◽  
Yosikazu Nakamura ◽  
Shoichiro Nagasaka ◽  
Toyomi Kamesaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Lifestyle Related Diseases

scholarly journals Evaluating the Effects of Opioid Prescribing Policies on Patient Outcomes in a Safety-net Primary Care Clinic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher L. Rowe ◽  
Kellene Eagen ◽  
Jennifer Ahern ◽  
Mark Faul ◽  
Alan Hubbard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Opioid Analgesic ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Difference In Differences ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Control Clinic ◽  
Analgesic Use

Abstract Background After decades of liberal opioid prescribing, multiple efforts have been made to reduce reliance upon opioids in clinical care. Little is known about the effects of opioid prescribing policies on outcomes beyond opioid prescribing. Objective To evaluate the combined effects of multiple opioid prescribing policies implemented in a safety-net primary care clinic in San Francisco, CA, in 2013–2014. Design Retrospective cohort study and conditional difference-in-differences analysis of nonrandomized clinic-level policies. Patients 273 patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in 2013 at either the treated (n=151) or control clinic (n=122) recruited and interviewed in 2017–2018. Interventions Policies establishing standard protocols for dispensing opioid refills and conducting urine toxicology testing, and a new committee facilitating opioid treatment decisions for complex patient cases. Main Measures Opioid prescription (active prescription, mean dose in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) from electronic medical charts, and heroin and opioid analgesics not prescribed to the patient (any use, use frequency) from a retrospective interview. Key Results The interventions were associated with a reduction in mean prescribed opioid dose in the first three post-policy years (year 1 conditional difference-in-differences estimate: −52.0 MME [95% confidence interval: −109.9, −10.6]; year 2: −106.2 MME [−195.0, −34.6]; year 3: −98.6 MME [−198.7, −23.9]; year 4: −72.6 MME [−160.4, 3.6]). Estimates suggest a possible positive association between the interventions and non-prescribed opioid analgesic use (year 3: 5.2 absolute percentage points [−0.1, 11.2]) and use frequency (year 3: 0.21 ordinal frequency scale points [0.00, 0.47]) in the third post-policy year. Conclusions Clinic-level opioid prescribing policies were associated with reduced dose, although the control clinic achieved similar reductions by the fourth post-policy year, and the policies may have been associated with increased non-prescribed opioid analgesic use. Clinicians should balance the urgency to reduce opioid prescribing with potential harms from rapid change.

Vision Screening Among Primary Care Clinic Patients

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 137 (Supplement 3) ◽  
pp. 93A-93A
Author(s):  
Lwbba Chait ◽  
Angeliki Makri ◽  
Rawan Nahas ◽  
Gwen Raphan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Vision Screening ◽  
Care Clinic

scholarly journals Elderly Patients in Primary Care are Still at Risks of Receiving Potentially Inappropriate Medications

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110350
Author(s):  
Pasitpon Vatcharavongvan ◽  
Viwat Puttawanchai
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Medications ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Inappropriate Medications

Background Most older adults with comorbidities in primary care clinics use multiple medications and are at risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescription. Objective This study examined the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs using Thai criteria for PIMs. Methods This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were collected from electronic medical records in a primary care clinic in 2018. Samples were patients aged ≥65 years old with at least 1 prescription. Variables included age, gender, comorbidities, and medications. The list of risk drugs for Thai elderly version 2 was the criteria for PIMs. The prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs were calculated, and multiple logistic regression was conducted to examine associations between variables and PIMs. Results Of 2806 patients, 27.5% and 43.7% used ≥5 medications and PIMs, respectively. Of 10 290 prescriptions, 47% had at least 1 PIM. The top 3 PIMs were anticholinergics, proton-pump inhibitors, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Polypharmacy and dyspepsia were associated with PIM prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio 2.48 [95% confident interval or 95% CI 2.07-2.96] and 3.88 [95% CI 2.65-5.68], respectively). Conclusion Prescriptions with PIMs were high in the primary care clinic. Describing unnecessary medications is crucial to prevent negative health outcomes from PIMs. Computer-based clinical decision support, pharmacy-led interventions, and patient-specific drug recommendations are promising interventions to reduce PIMs in a primary care setting.

scholarly journals 140. Symptoms and Situations Predispose Patients to Use Antibiotics Without Medical Advice

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S200-S200
Author(s):  
Michael Hansen ◽  
Barbara Trautner ◽  
Roger Zoorob ◽  
George Germanos ◽  
Osvaldo Alquicira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Primary Care Clinic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Primary Care Clinics ◽  
Primary Care Patients ◽  
Emergency Department Patients

Abstract Background Use of antibiotics without a prescription (non-prescription use) contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Non-prescription use includes obtaining and taking antibiotics without a prescription, taking another person’s antibiotics, or taking one’s own stored antibiotics. We conducted a quantitative survey focusing on the factors that impact patients’ decisions to use non-prescription antibiotics. Methods We surveyed patients visiting public safety net primary care clinics and private emergency departments in a racially/ethnically diverse urban area. Surveys were read aloud to patients in Spanish and English. Survey domains included patients’ perspectives on which syndromes require antibiotic treatment, their perceptions of health care, and their access to antibiotics without a prescription. Results We interviewed 190 patients, 122 from emergency departments (64%), and 68 from primary care clinics (36%). Overall, 44% reported non-prescription antibiotic use within the past 12 months. Non-prescription use was higher among primary care clinic patients (63%) than the emergency department patients (39%, p = 0.002). The majority felt that antibiotics would be needed for bronchitis (78%) while few felt antibiotics would be needed for diarrhea (30%) (Figure 1). The most common situation identified “in which respondents would consider taking antibiotics without contacting a healthcare provider was “got better by taking this antibiotic before” (Figure 2). Primary care patients were more likely to obtain antibiotics without prescription from another country than emergency department patients (27% vs. 13%, P=0.03). Also, primary care patients were more likely to report obstacles to seeking a doctor’s care, such as the inability to take time off from work or transportation difficulties, but these comparisons were not statistically significant. Figure 1. Patients’ agreement that antibiotics would be needed varied by symptom/syndrome. Figure 2. Situations that lead to non-prescription antibiotic use impacted the two clinical populations differently Conclusion Non-prescription antibiotic use is a widespread problem in the two very different healthcare systems we included in this study, although factors underlying this practice differ by patient population. Better understanding of the factors driving non-prescription antibiotic use is essential to designing patient-focused interventions to decrease this unsafe practice. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document