Assessment and management patterns for chronic musculoskeletal pain in the family practice setting.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects 11% of the US population. Most patients who experience pain, particularly chronic musculoskeletal pain, seek care in primary care settings. Assessment of the patient pain experience is the cornerstone to optimal pain management; however, pain assessment remains a challenge for medical professionals. It is unknown to what extent the assessment of pain intensity is considered in context of function and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To understand common practices related to assessment of pain and function in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A 42-item electronic survey was developed with self-reported numeric ratings and responses related to knowledge, beliefs, and current practices. All physicians and non-physician clinicians affiliated with the AAFP NRN and 2000 AAFP physician members were invited to participate. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Primary care clinicians report that chronic joint pain assessment should be comprehensive, citing assessment elements that align with the comprehensive pain assessment models. Pain intensity remains the primary focus of pain assessment in chronic joint pain and the most important factor in guiding treatment decisions, despite well-known limitations. Clinicians also report that patients with osteoarthritis should be treated by Family Medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Pain assessment is primarily limited to pain intensity scales which may contribute to worse patient outcomes. Given that most respondents believe primary care/family medicine should be primary responsible for the care of patients with osteoarthritis, awareness of and comfort with existing guidelines, validated assessment instruments and the comprehensive pain assessment models could contribute to delivery of more comprehensive care.

Quantifying diagnosis and treatment practices of opioid use disorder in primary care practices using chart review data.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a significant public health crisis. The aim sought to identify potential gaps in opioid care in primary care practices. METHODS: American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) offered a monthly online educational series to seven U.S. practices. Practices were asked to complete up to 50 chart reviews for visits during two periods: February-April, 2019, and February-April, 2022. Each chart had to have an ICD-10 diagnosis of opioid misuse, opioid dependence, or opioid use. Chart reviews consisted of 14 questions derived from an American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) Performance in Practice activity, and then, scored based on practices' responses. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic and multinomial regressions were used. RESULTS: Both periods had 173 chart reviews (total: 346) from the six practices. Most chart reviews were for patients with a diagnosis of opioid dependence (2019: 90.2%; 2022: 83.2%). Three questions for assessing OUD treatment behaviors had high levels of documentation across both time periods (>85%): other drug use, treatment readiness, and treatment discussion. DISCUSSION: Results show a gap in the treatment of patients with OUD in primary care across several clinical practice recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding OUD treatment integration to primary care remains the most promising effort to combat the opioid crisis.

Building physician wellness into the culture: evaluating a family physician well-being programme using the physician wellness inventory.

PURPOSE: Family physicians have a higher incidence of burnout, dissatisfaction, and disengagement compared to other medical specialties. Addressing burnout on the individual and systemic level is important to promoting wellness and preventing deleterious effects on physicians and patients. We used the Physician Wellness Inventory (PWI) to assess the effects of a wellness programme designed to equip family physicians with skills to address burnout. METHODS: The PWI is a fourteen-item 5-point Likert scale broken down into 3 scores; (i) career purpose, (ii) cognitive flexibility, and (iii) distress. The PWI was distributed to a cohort of n = 111 family physician scholars at 3 time points: January 2021, May-June 2021, and October 2021. The response rate was 96.4% at baseline, and 72.1% overall. Demographic information was collected to assess differences. The survey was distributed online through Qualtrics (Provo, UT). RESULTS: Cognitive Flexibility scores at the endpoint were higher for POC scholars than white scholars (P = 0.024). Distress scores for all groups decreased over time. Female scholars were more nervous, and anxious at the start than male scholars (P = 0.012), which decreased over time (P = 0.022). New career scholars were more likely than later career scholars to be distressed (P = 0.007), but both groups' distress decreased over time (P = 0.003). Later career scholars' feelings of being bothered by little interest or pleasure in doing things decreased more than new career scholars (endpoint: P = 0.022; overall: P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: The wellness programme shows improvement in PWI scores, indicating the programme content should be evaluated further for system level improvements.

Block Scheduling for LARC in a Family Medicine Residency Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Only 20% of family physicians report providing long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Clinician-related barriers include confidence and comfort with LARC counseling and insertion/removal, and limited availability and uptake. Training during residency may address barriers and increase access/availability of LARC to support reproductive autonomy. We sought to determine the impact of block scheduling LARC clinics on resident comfort and confidence with LARC counseling and insertion/removal. METHODS: LARC block schedules were established in a Midwest family medicine residency's primary clinic (FMC) and in a federally qualified health center rotation clinic. Baseline and end-of-study surveys, compared by Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, were used to assess comfort and confidence with counseling and inserting LARC. The number of LARC devices placed at the FMC were collected for the intervention year and the year prior. RESULTS: Twenty of 30 residents completed the baseline survey; 13 completed the end-of-study survey. At the group and individual levels, comfort increased for counseling on Levonorgestrel (LNG) intrauterine devices (IUDs) and for inserting implants and LNG IUDs. Individual comfort increased for copper IUDs. Resident willingness to recommend LARC increased, and more devices were placed during the intervention year than the year prior in the FMC (all: P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Block scheduling of LARC clinics was associated with increased residents' comfort and confidence with counseling and placement of implants (LNG IUDs) and with an increase in LARCs placed at one clinic. Changes to scheduling may be an effective educational strategy that may increase access/availability to LARC.

Differences in Primary Care Management of Patients With Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Based on Race and Ethnicity.

OBJECTIVE: Examine differences in care patterns around adult ADHD between race (White/Non-White) and ethnic (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) groups utilizing existing quality measures (QMs), concerning diagnosis, treatment, and medication prescribing. METHODS: The AAFP National Research Network in partnership with SUNY Upstate Medical used an EHR dataset to evaluate achievement of 10 ADHD QMs. The dataset was obtained from DARTNet Institute and includes 4 million patients of 873 behavioral and primary care practices with at least 100 patients from 2010 to 2020. Patients 18-years or older with adult ADHD were included in this analysis. RESULTS: White patients and Non-Hispanic/Latinx patients were more likely to achieve these QMs than Non-White patients and Hispanic/Latinx patients, respectively. Differences between groups concerning medication and monitoring demonstrate a disparity for Non-White and Hispanic/Latinx populations. CONCLUSIONS: Using QMs in EHR data can help identify gaps in ADHD research. There is a need to continue investigating disparities of quality adult ADHD care.

Investigating the Effect of Weather Events on Primary Care Clinicians Across the United States.

BACKGROUND: When we consider weather impacts, we mainly consider how the event affects the person, not the clinicians treating them. There is a paucity of studies discussing the effect of weather on the clinicians and the care of their patients. METHODS: A survey covering weather effects was distributed to American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN) members in August 2020. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests were completed on the survey responses. Postsurvey interviews were conducted with selected respondents about specific weather events. RESULTS: Survey respondents were US physicians (88.7%) and 84.9% indicated more than 1 type of event has affected their practice. Respondents were most affected by snow/snowstorm (81.1%) and indicated they had to close for the day or longer and staff were unable to make it into clinic (79.2%). Respondents indicated respiratory (94.5%), mental health (81.8%), and musculoskeletal conditions (50.9%) were most affected by weather. Interviews with selected respondents covered weather topics including winter, summer, and flooding. DISCUSSION: Survey respondents/interviewees indicated weather affects them in a variety of ways including issues with patients' conditions and practice effects. Clinicians have noticed a change to their areas' weather over the years, but, generally, warming is occurring.

Measuring Quality Care for Adult ADHD Patients: How Much Does Gender and Gender Identity Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Studies show adult ADHD presents differently in men and women, however few studies contrast ADHD in cisgender and gender diverse adults. We assessed care differences between these groups using previously identified quality measures (QMs). METHODS: Using EHR data, we matched a group of male ADHD patients to a female group. We followed the same procedure with a cisgender group and one identified as gender diverse through a gender dysphoria diagnosis. QM achievement was measured using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Most QMs exhibited increasing achievement over time for all groups. Variations in care quality between males and females persisted, with female patients achieving QMs more often. There were no appreciable differences between the cisgender and gender diverse groups. CONCLUSION: Though quality care for adult ADHD improved from 2010 to 2020, differences between male and female patients lingered. This effect was not observed in cisgender and gender diverse patients.

The Role of Age in Adult ADHD Quality Care: A Longitudinal Analysis of Electronic Health Record Data.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have shown that Adult ADHD presents differently in younger and older adults. We sought to assess the difference in care between these two groups using previously identified quality measures (QMs). METHODS: Using electronic health record data, we matched a younger group of ADHD patients to an older group. We then assessed the achievement of the QMs using probit models with and without interaction terms. RESULTS: The majority of QMs shown an increase in achievement for both groups over time. However, significant differences in quality of care between younger and older adult ADHD patients persisted. By the end of the study period, with the exception of three QMs, younger patients achieved the QMs more. CONCLUSION: While, in general, the quality of care for adult ADHD increased from 2010 to 2020, there were still differences in care between younger and older adult ADHD patients.

Progress and Pitfalls in the Provision of Quality Care for Adults With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: Quality care for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults has lagged behind other psychiatric disorders. We sought to assess how the achievement of quality measures (QMs) for diagnosing and treating ADHD in adults has changed over time. METHOD: We assessed 10 QMs in electronic health records (EHRs) from primary care and behavioral health clinics from 2010 to 2020 for 71,310 patients diagnosed with ADHD. RESULTS: The achievement of QMs increased over time (p < .001). Some showed increases to high levels; others remained low throughout the observation period. No patients achieved more than six of 10 QMs in any year. Small but significant effects for sex, race, ethnicity, practice ownership, practice type, and age. CONCLUSION: Increase in quality care from 2010 to 2020 along with clear evidence that more efforts are needed to improve quality of care for adults with ADHD seen in primary care.

Standardized Patient Assessments at the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit: Results from the AAFP National Research Network.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has set requirements for the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV). METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey to explore the variability in assessments and tools used during the AWV was completed by 159 primary care providers from 145 practices in 36 states. RESULTS: The results confirmed wide variation in use of specific tools during AWV and provider interest in using several specific tools if available. CONCLUSION: The results indicated a need for more comprehensive AWV content and a preference for more structured and objective ways to conduct AWV assessment.

Evaluating a Web-Based Adult ADHD Toolkit for Primary Care Clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 5% of the US adult population has Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that can negatively impact quality of life. Health care professionals report a need to increase their knowledge of and confidence in treating adult ADHD. The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN) collaborated with a panel of experts to create a web-based AAFP Adult ADHD Toolkit composed of resources to aid in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of adults with ADHD. OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of using an AAFP Adult ADHD Toolkit in a practice setting. METHODS: Ninety-seven primary and behavioral health care professionals from AAFP NRN practices (n=6) used the Toolkit for 17 weeks. Data on Toolkit use, usefulness, implementation, impact, and changes in knowledge and confidence were collected via pre-post and weekly surveys. Mixed methods, regression analyses, t-tests, and mixed ANOVA were used to assess change over time. RESULTS: Use of the Toolkit improved health care providers' knowledge by midpoint relative to baseline in areas related to treatment effects, side effects, and outcomes (3.6 vs 3.0; P = .004); existing ADHD resources (3.3 vs 2.9; P = .03); and management of ADHD in patients with comorbid conditions (3.2 vs 2.7; P = .01). By the end of the study, Toolkit use was associated with increased confidence in mental health and life history interview techniques (3.5 vs 3.0; P = .03); treatment options for ADHD with comorbid mental health disorders (3.2 vs 2.3; P ≤ .001); and treatment options for ADHD with coexisting substance use disorders (3.0 vs 2.3; P = .003). By the end of the study, most participants (n=47, 87%) reported the Toolkit addressed most of their needs related to diagnosis, treatment, and management of adult ADHD. CONCLUSION: Availability and adoption of the Toolkit into the routine care of adults with ADHD measurably increased health care professionals' knowledge especially in those providers who regularly see adult patients with ADHD.

Informing the American Academy of family Physician's Health Equity strategy - an environmental scan using the Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Many organizations have prioritized health equity and the social determinants of health (SDoH). These organizations need information to inform their planning, but, relatively few quantifiable measures exist. This study was conducted as an environmental scan to inform the American Academy of Family Physician's (AAFP's) health equity strategy. The objectives of the study were to identify and prioritize a comprehensive list of strategies in four focus areas: health equity leadership, policy, research, and diversity. METHODS: A Delphi study was used to identify and prioritize the most important strategies for reducing health inequities among the four aforementioned focus areas. Health equity experts were purposefully sampled. Data were collected in three rounds for each focus area separately. A comprehensive list of strategy statements was identified for each focus area in round one. The strategy statements were prioritized in round two and reprioritized in a final third round. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated for the final analysis. RESULTS: Fifty strategies were identified across the four focus areas. Commitment to health equity, knowledge of health inequities, and knowledge of effective strategies to address the drivers of health inequities were ranked the highest for leadership. Universal access to health care and health in all policies were ranked highest for policy. Multi-level interventions, the effect of policy, governance, and politics, and translating and disseminating health equity interventions into practice were ranked the highest for research. Providing financial support to students from minority or low-socioeconomic backgrounds, commitment from undergraduate and medical school leadership for educational equity, providing opportunities for students from minority or low-socioeconomic backgrounds to prepare for standardized tests, and equitable primary and secondary school funding were ranked highest for diversity. CONCLUSIONS: The AAFP and other medical specialty societies have an important opportunity to advance health equity. They should develop a health equity policy agenda, equip physicians and other stakeholders, use their connections with practice-based research networks to identify and translate practical solutions to address the SDoH, and advocate for a more diverse medical workforce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.