scholarly journals Processes and outcomes of diabetes mellitus care by different types of team primary care models

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0241516
Author(s):  
Fangjian Guo ◽  
Yu-Li Lin ◽  
Mukaila Raji ◽  
Bruce Leonard ◽  
Lin-Na Chou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Preventable Hospitalizations ◽  
Team Care ◽  
Outcomes Of Care ◽  
Care Practices

Background Team care improves processes and outcomes of care, especially for patients with complex medical conditions that require coordination of care. This study aimed to compare the processes and outcomes of care provided to older patients with diabetes by primary care teams comprised of only primary care physicians (PCPs) versus team care that included nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs). Methods We studied 3,524 primary care practices identified via social network analysis and 306,741 patients ≥66 years old diagnosed with diabetes in or before 2015 in Medicare data. Guideline-recommended diabetes care included eye examination, hemoglobin A1c test, and nephropathy monitoring. High-risk medications were based on recommendations from the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. Preventable hospitalizations were defined as hospitalizations for a potentially preventable condition. Results Compared with patients in the PCP only teams, patients in the team care practices with NPs or PAs received more guideline-recommended diabetes care (annual eye exam: adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00–1.08), 1.08 (95% CI: 1.03–1.13), and 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05–1.15), and HbA1C test: aOR: 1.11 (95% CI: 1.04–1.18), 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02–1.20), and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.06–1.25) for PCP/NP, PCP/NP/PA, and PCP/PA teams). Patients in the PCP/NP and the PCP/PA teams had a slightly higher likelihood of being prescribed high-risk medications (aOR: 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00–1.07), and 1.06 (95% CI: 1.02–1.11), respectively). The likelihood of preventable hospitalizations was similar among patients cared for by various types of practices. Conclusion The team care practices with NPs or PAs were associated with better adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations for diabetes compared to PCP only practices. Both practices had similar outcomes. Further efforts are needed to explore new and cost-effective team-based care delivery models that improve process, outcomes, and continuity of care, as well as patient care experiences.

scholarly journals Potential COVID-19 vaccination opportunities in primary care practices in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay Basu ◽  
Rebecca Weintraub ◽  
Ishani Ganguli ◽  
Russell Phillips ◽  
Robert Phillips ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Expenditure ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Care Practices ◽  
Primary Care Practices

AbstractRapid, widespread COVID-19 vaccination is critical to pandemic mitigation and recovery. To help policymakers interested in further enhancing primary care delivery of COVID-19 vaccines, it is important to estimate the absolute number of vaccination opportunities, and identify how these opportunities may fall disproportionately among different communities given the unequal way that COVID-19 falls upon communities of color, low-income, and rural communities. To quantify the potential benefits of greater primary care engagement in vaccination efforts, we estimated the number of potential vaccination opportunities (PVOs) in primary care in the remaining calendar months of year 2021, and the possible uptake if we supplied enough vaccine to primary care practices to fulfill their opportunities. To estimate how many potential vaccination opportunities (PVOs) may occur in primary care, we used three sets of data, analyzing the latest available waves of the following: (i) the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS, 2016, N = 677 providers); (ii) the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, 2018, N = 29,839 individuals in 29,839 households); and (iii) the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS, 2018, N = 40,025 individuals in 14,500 households). Per the NAMCS data, which provide a nationally-representative sample of ambulatory care visits, primary care physicians normally provide 40.2 million primary care visits per month. The majority of the primary care utilization is absorbed by those aged 16 to 64 years old who are not otherwise priority groups (i.e., not having chronic diseases as defined by ACIP) but the second large group of visits are those with a chronic disease (27.2% of all visits). As compared to the NAMCS data providing an estimate of care from the perspective of providers, the overall sample in NHIS provides a view of primary care access and utilization from a population perspective. Per NHIS, 34% of the civilian US population saw a generalist physician in the prior calendar year, or 109.8 million people. Overall, we would estimate that over the latter half of calendar year 2021, approximately 15 million potential vaccine opportunities per month would be available through US primary care practices.

Fool’s Gold: Psychologists Using Disingenuous Reasoning to Mislead Legislatures into Granting Psychologists Prescriptive Authority

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychotropic Medications ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Prescriptive Authority

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.

scholarly journals Transition from specialist to primary diabetes care: A qualitative study of perspectives of primary care physicians

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Brez ◽  
Margo Rowan ◽  
Janine Malcolm ◽  
Sheryl Izzi ◽  
Julie Maranger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians

Delivery of Survivorship Care by Primary Care Physicians: The Perspective of Breast Cancer Patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 933-938 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun J. Mao ◽  
Marjorie A. Bowman ◽  
Carrie T. Stricker ◽  
Angela DeMichele ◽  
Linda Jacobs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Multivariate Regression ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Postmenopausal Breast Cancer ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Survivorship Care ◽  
General Care

Purpose Most of the 182,460 women diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States this year will become long-term survivors. Helping these women transition from active treatment to survivorship is a challenge that involves both oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aims to describe postmenopausal breast cancer survivors' (BCS) perceptions of PCP-related survivorship care. Patients and Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 300 BCSs seen in an outpatient breast oncology clinic at a large university hospital. The primary outcome measure was a seven-item self-reported measure on perceived survivorship care (Cronbach's α = .89). Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with perceived care delivery. Results Overall, BCSs rated PCP-related survivorship care as 65 out of 100 (standard deviation = 17). The areas of PCP-related care most strongly endorsed were general care (78%), psychosocial support (73%), and health promotion (73%). Fewer BCSs perceived their PCPs as knowledgeable about cancer follow-up (50%), late effects of cancer therapies (59%), or treating symptoms related to cancer or cancer therapies (41%). Only 28% felt that their PCPs and oncologists communicated well. In a multivariate regression analysis, nonwhite race and level of trust in the PCP were significantly associated with higher perceived level of PCP-related survivorship care (P = .001 for both). Conclusion Although BCSs perceived high quality of general care provided by their PCPs, they were not as confident with their PCPs' ability to deliver cancer-specific survivorship care. Interventions need to be tested to improve oncology-primary care communication and PCP knowledge of cancer-specific survivorship care.

Mobile Healthcare System Provided by Primary Care Physicians Improves Quality of Diabetes Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 88
Author(s):  
Tae Jung Oh ◽  
Jie-Eun Lee ◽  
Seok Kim ◽  
Sooyoung Yoo ◽  
Hak Chul Jang
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Mobile Healthcare ◽  
Quality Of Diabetes Care

Abstract 3892: Brooklyn AWAReness of StrokE in Diabetes Mellitus

Stroke ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kessarin Panichpisal ◽  
Benedict Tan ◽  
Yogesh Moradiya ◽  
Hasan Memon ◽  
Volodymyr Vulkanov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Risk Factor ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Medical Complications ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Stroke Risk Factor

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common risk factor for stroke. Hence stroke awareness is very critical in diabetic patients. In order to design effective educational strategies for stroke intervention and prevention in this high risk group, we assessed the current status of knowledge about stroke symptoms, risk factors and activation of emergency medical services in individuals with DM. METHOD: A hospital-based survey was conducted between February and August 2011. Subjects who have DM were interviewed at 2 sites by trained Internal medicine, Neurology residents and medical students using a structured, closed-ended questionnaire. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty subjects were interviewed, 64% female and 71% Caribbean-American and African-American. Seventy five percent of subjects had hypertension. Only sixty percent of subjects knew that they were high risk of stroke and only 46% had been informed by their primary care physician about this risk. More than 75% did not know their hemoglobin a1c and cholesterol levels. Stroke and diabetic ketoacidosis were the least recognized medical complications of DM (29%) while diabetic foot ulcer and diabetic nephropathy were the most recognized complications (54%). Hypertension was the most identified stroke risk factor (66%). Eighty-nine percent of respondents identified two or more stroke symptoms. Only 58% of respondents would call 911 for a stroke scenario. Subjects having DM > 10 years (p=0.02) and graduating from high school (p=0.002) were more likely to call 911, while people who had a history of kidney disease were less likely to call 911 (p=0.024). The two most common sources of information about stroke that DM patients received were from their primary care physicians (43%) and family and friends (35%). CONCLUSION: Stroke is one of the least recognized medical complications in DM patients. Primary care physicians play a very important role of stroke education in this high risk population.

scholarly journals The impact of COVID-19 on chronic care according to providers: a qualitative study among primary care practices in Belgium

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrien Danhieux ◽  
Veerle Buffel ◽  
Anthony Pairon ◽  
Asma Benkheil ◽  
Roy Remmen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Chronic Care ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Management Support ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Care Practices ◽  
Primary Care Practices

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic affects the processes of routine care for chronic patients. A better understanding helps to increase resilience of the health system and prepare adequately for next waves of the pandemic. Methods A qualitative study was conducted in 16 primary care practices: 6 solo working, 4 monodisciplinary and 7 multidisciplinary. Twenty-one people (doctors, nurses, dieticians) were interviewed, using semi-structured video interviews. A thematic analysis was done using the domains of the Chronic Care Model (CCM). Results Three themes emerged: changes in health care organization, risk stratification and self-management support. All participating practices reported drastic changes in organization with a collective shift towards COVID-19 care, and reduction of chronic care activities, less consultations, and staff responsible for self-management support put on hold. A transition to digital support did not occur. Few practitioners had a systematic approach to identify and contact high-risk patients for early follow-up. A practice with a pre-established structured team collaboration managed to continue most chronic care elements. Generally, practitioners expected no effects of the temporary disruption for patients, although they expressed concern about patients already poorly regulated. Conclusion Our findings show a disruption of the delivery of chronic care in the Belgium prim care context. In such contexts, the establishment of the CCM can facilitate continuity of care in crisis times. Short term actions should be directed to facilitate identifying high-risk patients and to develop a practice organization plan to organize chronic care and use digital channels for support, especially to vulnerable patients, during next waves of the epidemic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document