Primary Care Use by Specialty Clinic Patients at a County Hospital

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua J. Fenton ◽  
Peter Solberg ◽  
Karen Vranizan ◽  
Kevin Grumbach
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. e51-e56
Author(s):  
Lauren Hennein ◽  
Kimberly A. Spaulding ◽  
Veronika Karlegan ◽  
Ogonna N. Nnamani Silva ◽  
Alejandra G. de Alba Campomanes

Abstract Objective Eye health among the homeless community is important, as poor vision makes this population vulnerable and adds significantly to the social and health burden. There is limited knowledge on patient follow-up rates for their eye conditions and barriers to accessing care in this population. The purpose of this retrospective chart review study is to examine follow-up rates and barriers to care for patients referred from a free, medical-student run ophthalmology clinic at a homeless shelter. Methods All patients evaluated at a free ophthalmology clinic from September 2017 to September 2018 were included; no patients were excluded. If indicated, patients were referred for advanced ophthalmologic care at a local county hospital and free eyeglasses at a nonprofit organization. Primary outcomes were follow-up rates at the county hospital and nonprofit organization. Secondary outcomes included prespecified baseline variables hypothesized to be associated with follow-up rates. These categorical variables were compared with Chi-square testing to determine their association with follow-up rates. The hypothesis being tested was formulated before data collection. Results Of the 68 patients, 84% were males with a mean age of 50 years. Overall, 40 patients were referred for free eyeglasses and 17 to the county hospital. Of those referred, 14 patients presented for free eyeglasses and 7 presented to the county hospital. About 79% of patients with a pre-established primary care provider presented to their appointment compared with 20% of those without one (p = 0.03). The 44% of patients with a high school diploma presented while all patients without a high school diploma failed to present (p = 0.04). Vision-threatening conditions identified at the shelter clinic did not affect follow-up rates (p = 0.79). Conclusion Less than half of referred patients in our study presented to their appointments. Barriers to presentation included no primary care provider and lower educational status, with no improvement in follow-up rates among those referred for vision-threatening conditions. Interventions such as health coaching with particular attention to educating patients on the effects of vision-threatening conditions may be warranted, particularly for those not looped into the health care system and those of lower educational attainment.


Author(s):  
David Meinert ◽  
Dane K. Peterson

Despite the numerous purported benefits of Electronic Medical Records (EMR), the medical profession has been extremely reluctant to embrace the technology. One of the barriers believed to be responsible for the slow adoption of EMR technology is resistance by many physicians who are not convinced of the advantages of using EMR systems. This study examined potential characteristics of physicians that might help identify those individuals that are most likely to pose a threat to the successful implementation of an EMR system in a multi-specialty clinic. The results demonstrated that older physicians and physicians with only minimal computer skills are more likely to have negative attitudes regarding EMR technology. Medical specialists were most likely to have positive attitudes with respects to the use of EMR systems, while primary care physicians were most likely to have doubts regarding the purported benefits of EMR technology. [Article copies are available for purchase from InfoSci-on-Demand.com]


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 118-119
Author(s):  
Austin Taylor Jones ◽  
Lisa Moreno-Walton ◽  
Kanayo R. Okeke-Eweni ◽  
Keanan M. McGonigle ◽  
David H. Yang ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective of this study is to assess differences in outcomes between African Americans (AAs) and whites along the HCV care cascade. Primary outcome was retention in the HCV care cascade, measured in two ways. For viral RNA confirmation, retention was a percentage of those having screened antibody reactive. For hepatic ultrasound, primary care, HCV specialty clinic, treatment initiation, and sustained viral load (SVR), retention was a percentage of those found chronically infected by positive RNA viral load. Secondary outcome was time to follow-up from antibody screening to each subsequent step in the care cascade. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A retrospective cohort study was performed. AA and white patients who tested HCV antibody reactive from March to October 2015 at the University Medical Center (UMC) Emergency Department in New Orleans, LA were included in this study. Outcomes were assessed using the HCV Continuum of Care model, delineating successive stages of care from identification to cure. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 728 patients screened HCV antibody reactive, including 446 AAs and 282 whites. AAs (53.5 years, SD 10.2) were disproportionately older than whites (46.7 years, SD 11.9) (p <0.001), more likely to be insured (89.2% vs 78.7%, p<0.001), had higher rates of Medicare (28.0% vs 12.1%, p<0.001), and less frequent history of intravenous drug use (IVDU) (32.3% vs 46.1%, p<0.001). For AAs, retention in the treatment cascade was 96.2% for viral RNA confirmation, 50.9% for hepatic ultrasound, 26.8% for primary care, 35.2% for HCV specialty clinic, 14.5% for treatment initiation, and 9.6% for sustained viral response (SVR). Among whites, retention in the treatment cascade was 96.8% for viral RNA confirmation, 37.8% for hepatic ultrasound, 16.1% for primary care, 23.3% for HCV specialty clinic, 8.8% for treatment initiation, and 7.8% for SVR. AAs had a higher likelihood of receiving a hepatic ultrasound (OR=1.70; CI=1.19-2.25; p<0.005), following up with primary care (OR = 1.91, CI=1.21-3.02, p<0.005), and attending the viral hepatitis specialty clinic (OR=1.79, CI=1.20-2.68, p<0.005), as compared to their white counterparts. After adjusting for age, insurance, and history of IVDU, AAs did not have a higher likelihood of receiving a hepatic ultrasound (aOR=1.09, CI=0.995-1.19) or seeking primary care (aOR=1.05, CI=0.98-1.14). AAs had attenuated odds of attending viral hepatitis specialty clinic (aOR=1.09, CI = 1.01-1.19). There was no statistically significant difference in follow-up time in the treatment cascade for AAs versus whites. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Race alone cannot explain differences in achievement along the care cascade. Significant differences in retention along the HCV care cascade appear to be related primarily to differences in age and insurance status. In our population, older AAs are disproportionately insured through Medicare, thereby expanding their access to health resources. Their white counterparts are younger and more uninsured, leading to decreased access to care and ability to attend HCV follow-up appointments. ED HCV screening programs are still in their infancy and have opportunities to improve their linkage to care rates. Additional interventions are needed to better connect patients screened positive in the ED to HCV specialist care, preserving equity across racial groups.


2011 ◽  
pp. 1491-1502
Author(s):  
David Meinert ◽  
Dane K. Peterson

Despite the numerous purported benefits of Electronic Medical Records (EMR), the medical profession has been extremely reluctant to embrace the technology. One of the barriers believed to be responsible for the slow adoption of EMR technology is resistance by many physicians who are not convinced of the advantages of using EMR systems. This study examined potential characteristics of physicians that might help identify those individuals that are most likely to pose a threat to the successful implementation of an EMR system in a multi-specialty clinic. The results demonstrated that older physicians and physicians with only minimal computer skills are more likely to have negative attitudes regarding EMR technology. Medical specialists were most likely to have positive attitudes with respects to the use of EMR systems, while primary care physicians were most likely to have doubts regarding the purported benefits of EMR technology.


2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. 1077-1078
Author(s):  
Simon Braithwaite ◽  
Jonny Coppel ◽  
Lucy Everson ◽  
Jessica Kearney ◽  
Lucy Gibson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 205970022199892
Author(s):  
Bruce Taubman ◽  
A Michael Luciani ◽  
David B Gealt ◽  
Thomas P Drake ◽  
Philip Cochetti ◽  
...  

Objective Absent adequate randomized control trials to inform appropriate treatment for concussion in pediatric patients, guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and observational data that may not apply to all groups. This study examines differences in the previous clinical care between concussed patients who present in pediatric practice and specialty clinics. Differences found might influence treatment recommendations for each setting. Study design Prospective data collected from a pediatric practice in 2011 to 2013 were compared to chart review data from two specialty clinics between 2015 and 2017. In all three groups patients 11–19 years of age with an ICD9 billing code for concussion were included if they met the 4th International Consensus definition of concussion. Patients were excluded if hospitalized or had abnormal CNS imaging. Results The time between injury and presentation was substantially longer in specialty clinic patients versus those seen in the primary pediatric care office. (median 10 vs. 2 days-p < 0.001) Primary care patients presenting had higher rates of immediate rest after injury, 61.4% vs 27.9% (p < 0.001). More specialty clinic patients had been seen in the emergency departments prior to presentation (47.5% vs. 18.8% p < 0.001) regardless of rest status at presentation to the office. Conclusion Several differences in previous clinical care between the groups were found. These included the time of presentation from injury, rates of cognitive rest both immediate and non-immediate, and emergency department visits. These differences may have implications for management recommendations. Accordingly, the appropriate treatment for patients seen by the primary pediatric care physicians may be different from those referred to specialty care. Given these findings randomized controlled trails should be conducted independently in both groups of patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document