scholarly journals Intensive Case Management of High-Risk Patients in a Family Medicine Residency Setting

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 264-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. G. Friedhoff
2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warrick J Brewer ◽  
Timothy J Lambert ◽  
Katrina Witt ◽  
John Dileo ◽  
Cameron Duff ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-113
Author(s):  
Julienne K. Kirk, PharmD, CDE, BCPS ◽  
Matthew Q. Tran, PharmD ◽  
Samantha Pelc, PharmD ◽  
Katherine G. Moore, PharmD, BCPS, BCACP

Objective: To determine whether a pharmacist-led intervention would increase the number of naloxone prescriptions and naloxone administration education in a primary care family medicine setting.Design: Prospective quality improvement intervention in an academic family medicine clinic.Methods: We surveyed providers about naloxone knowledge, prescribing habits, and prescribing barriers. We identified patients on chronic opioid therapy, through electronic health records for the year 2019. Overdose risk categories based upon morphine milligram equivalent doses and concomitant benzodiazepine use were used to determine patients who met criteria for naloxone. Pharmacists phoned qualified patients to discuss overdose risk and naloxone benefits. Patients who accepted naloxone prescriptions used their local pharmacy through a department-approved standing order set.Results: From the survey results, there were 47 of 54 provider responses, and the majority noted that they do not routinely prescribe naloxone in high-risk patients. The predominant barriers were lack of time during visit and naloxone administration education. The population of patients from chart review included 93 high-risk patients with a mean age of 58 years. During the time of intervention, 71 patients remained eligible for naloxone coprescribing. Of the patients contacted, 29 (40 percent) accepted the intervention prescription, and subsequently, 22 picked up their prescription from the pharmacy. Sixteen received counseling with a support person. Twelve patients had naloxone already at home, and two received counseling with a support person.Conclusion: The naloxone prescribing intervention is achievable. The results of this intervention support identifying patients at increased risk of opioid overdose and offer education of a support person for naloxone in a large academic family medicine clinic.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Trovato ◽  
Karen Gunning ◽  
Karly Pippitt

Background: Pneumococcal vaccination rates among high-risk patients (eg, diabetes, asthma, smoking) seen in 2 family medicine clinics are unknown. Objectives: To assess differences in pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination rates and reasons for nonvaccination among patients with diabetes and asthma and patients who smoke. Methods: A chart review at 2 family medicine residency training clinics showed 425 patients with a medical indication for PPSV23 were seen between April 1, 2015, and April 30, 2015. One reviewer searched the electronic health records to assess reasons for nonvaccination. Results: Rates of nonvaccination were 29.8% in patients with diabetes, 58.7% in patients with asthma, and 62.5% in patients who smoke cigarettes. Patients were classified into 3 groups based on the reasons for nonvaccination: documented patient refusal, not being addressed by a provider, and being documented as low risk despite the presence of a medical indication. Conclusion: The 3 reasons for nonvaccination were vaccination not being addressed, misclassification of high-risk patients as low-risk patients for infection, and documented patient refusal. Providers overlooked vaccination more often in patients with asthma and cigarette use than in patients with diabetes. Patients seeing pharmacists were most likely to be vaccinated, whereas patients seeing physician assistants were least likely to be vaccinated. Pharmacists see patients to provide medication management and preventive care, whereas other providers treat more urgent conditions. Because indications are often overlooked and not addressed, pharmacists can play a larger role in identifying and vaccinating high-risk patients.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Smith ◽  
Menggang Yu ◽  
Jared Huling ◽  
Xinyi Wang ◽  
Allie DeLonay ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Impactability modeling promises to help solve the nationwide crisis in caring for high-need high-cost patients by matching specific case management programs with patients using a “benefit” or “impactability” score, but there are limitations in tailoring each model to a specific program and population. OBJECTIVE We evaluated the impact on Medicare ACO savings from developing a benefit score for patients enrolled in an historic case management program, then prospectively implementing the score and evaluating the results in a new case management program. METHODS We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 76,140 patients in a Medicare ACO with multiple before-and-after measures of the outcome using linked electronic health records and Medicare claims data from 2012 to 2019. There were 489 patients in the historic case management program and 1,550 matched comparison patients; 830 patients in the new program with 2,368 matched comparisons. The historic program targeted high-risk patients and assigned a centrally-located registered nurse and social worker to each patient. The new program targets high- and moderate-risk patients and assigns a nurse physically located in a primary care clinic. Our primary outcomes were any unplanned hospital events (admissions, observation stays, and ED visits), count of event-days, and Medicare payments. RESULTS In the historic program, as expected, high-benefit patients enrolled in case management had fewer events, fewer event-days, and an average $1.15 million reduction in Medicare payments per 100 patients over the subsequent year when compared to matched comparisons. For the new program, high-benefit high-risk patients enrolled in case management had fewer events, while high-benefit moderate-risk patients enrolled in case management did not differ from matched comparisons. CONCLUSIONS Although there was evidence that a benefit score could be extended to a new case management program for similar (i.e., high-risk) patients, there was no evidence that it could be extended to a moderate-risk population. Extending a score to a new program and population should include evaluation of program outcomes within key subgroups. With the increased attention to value-based care, policy makers and measure developers should consider ways to incorporate impactability modeling into program design and evaluation. CLINICALTRIAL N/A


2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A376-A376
Author(s):  
B JEETSANDHU ◽  
R JAIN ◽  
J SINGH ◽  
M JAIN ◽  
J SHARMA ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 173 (4S) ◽  
pp. 436-436
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Kane ◽  
Martha K. Terris ◽  
William J. Aronson ◽  
Joseph C. Presti ◽  
Christopher L. Amling ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document