Information Technology in Primary Care Practice in the United States

2011 ◽  
pp. 131-163
Author(s):  
James G. Anderson ◽  
E. Andres Balas
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Information Technology ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
It Applications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

The objective of this study was to assess the current level of information technology used by primary care physicians in the U.S. Primary care physicians listed by the American Medical Association were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a Web-based questionnaire. A total of 2,145 physicians responded. Overall between 20% and 25% of primary care physicians reported using electronic medical records, e-prescribing, point-of-care decision support tools and electronic communication with patients. This indicates a slow rate of adoption since 2000-2001. Differences in adoption rates suggest that future surveys need to differentiate primary care and office-based physicians by specialty. An important finding is that one-third of the physicians surveyed expressed no interest in the four IT applications. Overcoming this barrier may require efforts by medical specialty societies to educate their members as to the benefits of IT in practice. The majority of physicians perceived benefits of IT, but they cited costs, vendor inability to deliver acceptable products and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as major barriers to implementation of IT applications. Overcoming the cost barrier may require that payers and the federal government share the costs of implementing these IT applications.

scholarly journals Computerization of Primary Care in the United States

2010 ◽  
pp. 385-409
Author(s):  
James G. Anderson ◽  
E. Andrew Balas
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Web Based ◽  
It Applications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

The objective of this study was to assess the current level of information technology use by primary care physicians in the U.S. Primary care physicians listed by the American Medical Association were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a Web-based questionnaire. A total of 2,145 physicians responded. Overall, between 20% and 25% of primary care physicians reported using electronic medical records, e-prescribing, point-of-care decision support tools, and electronic communication with patients. This indicates a slow rate of adoption since 2000. Differences in adoption rates suggest that future surveys need to differentiate primary care and office-based physicians by specialty. An important finding is that one-third of the physicians surveyed expressed no interest in the four IT applications. Overcoming this barrier may require efforts by medical specialty societies to educate their members in the benefits of IT in practice. The majority of physicians perceived benefits of IT, but they cited costs, vendor inability to deliver acceptable products, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as major barriers to implementation of IT applications. Overcoming the cost barrier may require that payers and the federal government share the costs of implementing these IT applications.

scholarly journals Computerization of Primary Care in the United States

2011 ◽  
pp. 1301-1321
Author(s):  
James G. Anderson ◽  
E. Andrew Balas
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Barriers To Implementation ◽  
It Applications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

The objective of this study was to assess the current level of information technology use by primary care physicians in the U.S. Primary care physicians listed by the American Medical Association were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a Web-based questionnaire. A total of 2,145 physicians responded. Overall, between 20% and 25% of primary care physicians reported using electronic medical records, e-prescribing, pointof- care decision support tools, and electronic communication with patients. This indicates a slow rate of adoption since 2000. Differences in adoption rates suggest that future surveys need to differentiate primary care and office-based physicians by specialty. An important finding is that one-third of the physicians surveyed expressed no interest in the four IT applications. Overcoming this barrier may require efforts by medical specialty societies to educate their members in the benefits of IT in practice. The majority of physicians perceived benefits of IT, but they cited costs, vendor inability to deliver acceptable products, and concerns about privacy and confidentiality as major barriers to implementation of IT applications. Overcoming the cost barrier may require that payers and the federal government share the costs of implementing these IT applications.

The National Residency Exchange: A Proposal to Restore Primary Care in an Age of Microspecialization

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Healthcare Access ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Loan Repayment ◽  
Patient Protection

Healthcare deficiencies in the United States have long been perpetuated by a shortage of primary care providers. A core purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is to provide health insurance for America's approximately fifty million uninsured. Implementation of universal health insurance, however, does not mean sufficient healthcare access for all, since the supply of physicians does not and will not meet demand. For reasons reviewed in this Article, the current physician shortage mainly impacts primary care providers. This shortage is particularly troubling because increased provision of primary care relative to specialty care has been associated with improvement in health outcomes, disease prevention, cost effectiveness, and coordination of care. This Article highlights provisions in the PPACA that impact primary care physicians. Finally, this Article proposes the creation of a universal primary care loan repayment program and a national residency exchange designed to alleviate the U.S. primary care crisis by facilitating optimal distribution of resident physicians in each medical specialty based on community need.

scholarly journals Reducing Primary Care Provider Burnout With Pharmacist-Delivered Comprehensive Medication Management

2020 ◽  
pp. 155982762097653
Author(s):  
Nicole White
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Primary Care System ◽  
Physician Perspectives ◽  
Team Based Care

Primary care physicians have among the highest rates of burnout of any medical specialty in the United States. Team-based care is an organizational approach to meet the increasing demands on the primary care system, including the well-being of its providers. Physicians report that pharmacist-delivered comprehensive medication management improves patient care efficiency, decreases workload and provides additional work-based social support, among other benefits. Physician perspectives as well as resources for implementing physician-pharmacist collaborations are discussed.

Pediatrics as a Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Care Specialty, Cost and Reimbursement Implications

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-661
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Family Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Training Costs ◽  
Family Practice Physicians ◽  
The Cost

The National Commission on the Cost of Medical Care states that there should be an accelenation in the supply of family practice physicians as a cost-saving measure. According to the Commission, such an acceleration could be expected to contribute to the moderation of rising medical costs in two ways: (1) through the substitution of physicians who are trained in the delivery of primary care for more specialized physicians who are likely to provide more sophisticated and more expensive primary medical services and (2) through lower training costs for a given supply of physician manpower or, conversely, a larger supply for the same level of costs. In recommending only family practice, the Commission acknowledges that primary care physicians include physicians in general/family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetnics-gynecology. The Commission alleges, however, that a progressively larger proportion of physicians certified in pediatrics and internal medicine are entering subspecialty fields and are therefore trained to function as secondary and tertiary care rather than as primary care physicians The American Academy of Pediatrics submits that the statements, rationale, and recommendations ions are not substantiated by available data. A survey1 of all pediatricians in the United States conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health in 1969 reported that four out of five pediatric practitioners reported no subspecialization practice. Only 3% of the practitioners restricted their practice to a subspecialty, while 17% combined comprehensive (general) pediatric practice with a subspecialty interest. These proportions varied only slightly by region and size of community; there were somewhat more pediatrcians providing comprehensive (general) child health care in smaller communities and somewhat fewer in the Western region.

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.

Electronic cigarettes: How confident and effective are allergists, pulmonologists, and primary care physicians in their practice behavior?

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-197
Author(s):  
Sherry S. Zhou ◽  
Alan P. Baptist
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Electronic Cigarettes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fisher Exact Test ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Knowledge And Beliefs ◽  
Tobacco Cigarette ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Personal Use

Background: There has been a striking increase in electronic cigarette (EC) use in the United States. The beliefs and practices toward ECs among physicians are unknown. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate EC practice patterns among allergists, pulmonologists, and primary care physicians. Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to physicians. The survey contained 32 questions and addressed issues related to demographics, cessation counseling behaviors, personal use, and knowledge and beliefs about ECs. Statistical analysis was performed by using analysis of variance, the Pearson χ2 test, Fisher exact test, and logistic regression. Results: A total of 291 physicians completed the survey (222 primary care physicians, 33 pulmonologists, and 36 allergists) for a response rate of 46%. The allergists asked about tobacco cigarette use as frequently as did the pulmonologists and more than the primary care physicians (p < 0.001), but they rarely asked about EC use. The pulmonologists scored highest on self-reported knowledge on ECs, although all the groups answered <40% of the questions correctly. The allergists did not feel as comfortable about providing EC cessation counseling as did the pulmonologists and primary care physicians (p < 0.001). All three groups were equally unlikely to recommend ECs as a cessation tool for tobacco cigarette users. Conclusion: Allergists lacked knowledge and confidence in providing education and cessation counseling for EC users. As the number of patients who use these products continues to increase, there is an urgent need for all physicians to be comfortable and knowledgeable with counseling about ECs.

WikiRecs primary care: developing rapid recommendations for primary care through effective collaboration between systematic review and guideline teams

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Review Team ◽  
New Evidence

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.

scholarly journals Learning health systems in primary care: a systematic scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle M. Nash ◽  
Zohra Bhimani ◽  
Jennifer Rayner ◽  
Merrick Zwarenstein
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Integrated Health ◽  
Google Search

Abstract Background Learning health systems have been gaining traction over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to understand the spread of learning health systems in primary care, including where they have been implemented, how they are operating, and potential challenges and solutions. Methods We completed a scoping review by systematically searching OVID Medline®, Embase®, IEEE Xplore®, and reviewing specific journals from 2007 to 2020. We also completed a Google search to identify gray literature. Results We reviewed 1924 articles through our database search and 51 articles from other sources, from which we identified 21 unique learning health systems based on 62 data sources. Only one of these learning health systems was implemented exclusively in a primary care setting, where all others were integrated health systems or networks that also included other care settings. Eighteen of the 21 were in the United States. Examples of how these learning health systems were being used included real-time clinical surveillance, quality improvement initiatives, pragmatic trials at the point of care, and decision support. Many challenges and potential solutions were identified regarding data, sustainability, promoting a learning culture, prioritization processes, involvement of community, and balancing quality improvement versus research. Conclusions We identified 21 learning health systems, which all appear at an early stage of development, and only one was primary care only. We summarized and provided examples of integrated health systems and data networks that can be considered early models in the growing global movement to advance learning health systems in primary care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document