Telehealth was beneficial during COVID-19 for older Americans: A qualitative study with physicians.

BACKGROUND: Individuals aged 65 and older face unique barriers to adoption of telehealth, and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has provided a "natural experiment" in how to meet the health needs of older patients remotely. Physician perspectives on practical considerations surrounding telehealth adoption, motivations of use, and reasons for nonuse are necessary to inform the future of healthcare delivery. The objective is to understand the experiences of physicians using telemedicine for older patients. METHODS: From September to November 2020, we conducted 30-min semi-structured interviews using purposeful sampling to identify and enroll participants from diverse settings. We included 48 U.S.-based physicians (geriatrician, n = 18, primary care, n = 15, emergency, n = 15) from all geographic regions, rural-urban and academic/community settings. Audio-recorded interviews were professionally transcribed and analyzed using framework analysis. Major themes and subthemes were identified. RESULTS: Participants had a median (interquartile range) age of 37.5 (34-44.5), 27 (56%) were women. Five major themes emerged: (1) telehealth uptake was rapid and iterative, (2) telehealth improved the safety of medical care, (3) use cases were specialty-specific (for geriatricians and primary care physicians telehealth substituted for in-person visits; for emergency physicians it primarily supplemented in-person visits), (4) physicians altered clinical care to overcome older patient barriers to telehealth use, and (5) telehealth use among physicians declined in mid-April 2020, due primarily to patient needs and administrator preferences, not physician factors. CONCLUSION: In this qualitative analysis, physicians reported a rapid, iterative uptake of telehealth and attenuation of use as coronavirus disease 2019 prevalence declined. Physician experiences during the pandemic can inform interventions and policies to help buoy telehealth for ongoing healthcare delivery and ensure its accessibility for older Americans.

Role of Nurse Practitioners in Caring for Patients With Complex Health Needs.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate trends in the percentage of Medicare beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners from 2012 to 2017, to characterize beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners in 2017, and to examine how the percentage of beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners varies by practice characteristics. DESIGN: An observational study of 2012-2017 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries' ambulatory visits. We computed the percentage of beneficiaries with 1 or more ambulatory visits from nurse practitioners and the percentage of beneficiaries receiving the plurality of their ambulatory visits from a nurse practitioner versus a physician (ie, predominant provider). We compared beneficiary demographics, clinical characteristics, and utilization by the predominant provider. We then characterized the predominant provider by practice characteristics. KEY RESULTS: In 2017, 28.9% of beneficiaries received any care from a nurse practitioner and 8.0% utilized nurse practitioners as their predominant provider-an increase from 4.4% in 2012. Among beneficiaries cared for by nurse practitioners in 2017, 25.9% had 3 or more chronic conditions compared with 20.8% of those cared for by physicians. Beneficiaries cared for in practices owned by health systems were more likely to have a nurse practitioner as their predominant provider compared with those attending practices that were independently owned (9.3% vs. 7.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioners are caring for Medicare beneficiaries with complex needs at rates that match or exceed their physician colleagues. The growing role of nurse practitioners, especially in health care systems, warrants attention as organizations embark on payment and delivery reform.

Assessment of Physician Priorities in Delivery of Preventive Care.

Importance: Primary care physicians have limited time to discuss preventive care, but it is unknown how they prioritize recommended services. Objective: To understand primary care physicians' prioritization of preventive services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This online survey was administered to primary care physicians in a large health care system from March 17 to May 12, 2017. Physicians were asked whether they prioritize preventive services and which factors contribute to their choice (5-point Likert scale). Results were analyzed from July 8, 2017, to September 19, 2019. Exposures: A 2 × 2 factorial design of 2 hypothetical patients: (1) a 50-year-old white woman with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of breast cancer; and (2) a 45-year-old black man with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer. Two visit lengths (40 minutes vs 20 minutes) were given. Each patient was eligible for at least 11 preventive services. Main Outcomes and Measures: Physicians rated their likelihood of discussing each service during the visit and reported their top 3 priorities for patients 1 and 2. Physician choices were compared with the preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy, using a previously published mathematical model. Results: Of 241 physicians, 137 responded (57%), of whom 74 (54%) were female and 85 (62%) were younger than 50 years. Physicians agreed they prioritized preventive services (mean score, 4.27 [95% CI, 4.12-4.42] of 5.00), mostly by ability to improve quality (4.56 [95% CI, 4.44-4.68] of 5.00) or length (4.53 [95% CI, 4.40-4.66] of 5.00) of life. Physicians reported more prioritization in the 20- vs 40-minute visit, indicating that they were likely to discuss fewer services during the shorter visit (median, 5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-8] vs 11 [IQR, 9-13] preventive services for patient 1, and 4 [IQR, 3-6] vs 9 [IQR, 8-11] for patient 2). Physicians reported similar top 3 priorities for both patients: smoking cessation, hypertension control, and glycemic control for patient 1 and smoking cessation, hypertension control, and colorectal cancer screening for patient 2. Physicians' top 3 priorities did not usually include diet and exercise or weight loss (ranked in their top 3 recommendations for either patient by only 48 physicians [35%]), although these were among the 3 preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy based on the mathematical model. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, physicians prioritized preventive services under time constraints, but priorities did not vary across patients. Physicians did not prioritize lifestyle interventions despite large potential benefits. Future research should consider whether physicians and patients would benefit from guidance on preventive care priorities.

Using Machine Learning to Predict Primary Care and Advance Workforce Research.

PURPOSE: To develop and test a machine-learning-based model to predict primary care and other specialties using Medicare claims data. METHODS: We used 2014-2016 prescription and procedure Medicare data to train 3 sets of random forest classifiers (prescription only, procedure only, and combined) to predict specialty. Self-reported specialties were condensed to 27 categories. Physicians were assigned to testing and training cohorts, and random forest models were trained and then applied to 2014-2016 data sets for the testing cohort to generate a series of specialty predictions. Comparing the predicted specialty to self-report, we assessed performance with F1 scores and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values. RESULTS: A total of 564,986 physicians were included. The combined model had a greater aggregate (macro) F1 score (0.876) than the prescription-only (0.745; P <.01) or procedure-only (0.821; P <.01) model. Mean F1 scores across specialties in the combined model ranged from 0.533 to 0.987. The mean F1 score was 0.920 for primary care. The mean AUROC value for the combined model was 0.992, with values ranging from 0.982 to 0.999. The AUROC value for primary care was 0.982. CONCLUSIONS: This novel approach showed high performance and provides a near real-time assessment of current primary care practice. These findings have important implications for primary care workforce research in the absence of accurate data.

A physician-pharmacist collaborative care model to prevent opioid misuse.

PURPOSE: Clinical pharmacists in primary care clinics can potentially help manage chronic pain and opioid prescriptions by providing services similar to those provided within their scope of practice to patients with diabetes and hypertension. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a pharmacist-physician collaborative care model for patients with chronic pain. METHODS: The program consisted of an in-person pharmacist consultation and optional follow-up visits over 4 months in 2 primary care practices. Eligible patients had chronic pain and a long-term prescription for opioids or buprenorphine or were referred by their primary care physician (PCP). Pharmacist recommendations were communicated to PCPs via the electronic medical record (EMR) and direct communication. Mixed-methods evaluation included baseline and follow-up surveys with patients, EMR review of opioid-related clinical encounters, and provider interviews. RESULTS: Between January and October 2018, 47 of the 182 eligible patients enrolled, with 46 completing all follow-up; 43 patients (91%) had received opioids over the past 6 months. The pharmacist recommended adding or switching to a nonopioid pain medication for 30 patients, switching to buprenorphine for pain and complex persistent opioid dependence for 20 patients, and tapering opioids for 3 patients. All physicians found the intervention acceptable but wanted more guidance on prescribing buprenorphine for pain. Most patients found the intervention helpful, but some reported a lack of physician follow-up on recommended changes. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that comanagement of patients with chronic pain is feasible and acceptable. Policy changes to increase pharmacists' authority to prescribe may increase physician willingness and confidence to carry out opioid tapers and prescribe buprenorphine for pain.

Review of Physician Referrals to Orthopedic Spine versus Neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported what patients value while choosing their surgeon, but there are no studies exploring the patterns of referral to spine surgeons among primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aims to identify any trends in PCPs' referral to orthopedic surgery versus neurosurgery for spinal pathology. METHODS: In total, 450 internal medicine, family medicine, emergency medicine, neurology, and pain management physicians who practice at one of three locations (suburban community hospital, urban academic university hospital, and urban private practice) were asked to participate in the study. Consenting physicians completed our 24-question survey addressing their beliefs according to pathologies, locations of pathologies, and surgical interventions. RESULTS: Overall, 108 physicians (24%) completed our survey. Fifty-seven physicians (52.8%) felt that neurosurgeons would provide better long-term comprehensive spinal care. Overall, 66.7% of physicians would refer to neurosurgery for cervical spine radiculopathy; 52.8%, to neurosurgery for thoracic spine radiculopathy; and 56.5%, to orthopedics for lumbar spine radiculopathy. Most physicians would refer all spine fractures to orthopedics for treatment except cervical spine fractures (56.5% to neurosurgeons). Most physicians would refer to neurosurgery for extradural tumors (91.7%) and intradural tumors (96.3%). Most would refer to orthopedic surgeons for chronic pain. Finally, physicians would refer to orthopedics for spine fusion (61.1%) and discectomy (58.3%) and to neurosurgery for minimally invasive surgery (59.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Even though both orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons are intensively trained to treat a similar breath of spinal pathology, physicians vary in their referring patterns according to spinal pathology, location of pathology, and intended surgery. Education on the role of spine surgeons among PCPs is essential in ensuring unbiased referral patterns.

Some current challenges facing the athlete and their doctor.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are often responsible for the care of people involved in sporting and exercise activities at various competitive levels. Issues confronting the athlete and their primary care physician are the potentially serious risks, responsibilities and challenges facing those involved with sport and physical activity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to address three of the most important challenges currently facing the athlete and primary care physician caring for athletes. The challenges are to recognise the potential risks to the athlete of sustaining a sudden cardiac arrest, sports-related concussion or doping violation in sport, as each of these have serious implications for life, wellbeing, performance and/or reputation. Education and risk mitigation are also essential components of care that will be addressed. DISCUSSION: The primary care physician caring for athletes has a pivotal role in ensuring appropriate screening, education and ongoing surveillance to minimise the potentially serious risks facing those involved with physical activity.

Differences in referral patterns for rural primary care physicians from 2005 to 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in referral patterns in a nationally representative sample between primary care physicians (PCP) practicing in rural vs nonrural areas and changes over time. STUDY DESIGN: Using the 2005-2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and multivariate logit regression models, I compare referral patterns of PCPs in rural vs nonrural areas. DATA COLLECTION: Multiple years of data were combined. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A PCP visit was 1.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 0.1 pp, 3.8 pp) more likely to result in a referral in nonrural areas than rural areas, controlling for physician and patient characteristics, a 17 percent increase. This difference is driven by a widening gap in referral rates between nonrural and rural areas over time, with large differences in later periods. The regression-adjusted predicted probability of a PCP visit resulting in a referral was 71 percent higher in nonrural than rural areas in 2013-2014 and 92 percent higher in 2015-2016. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing that the optimal PCP referral rate is unknown, referrals are less common in rural areas with a widening gap in recent years. This difference may reflect specialist availability, distance to care, or patient preferences. As changes occur to health care financing and delivery, continuing to monitor practice patterns is important to ensure patients are receiving appropriate levels of care across geographic regions.

Hepatitis C Update and Expanding the Role of Primary Care.

Primary care physicians (PCPs) are increasing their role in the fight against the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). Approximately 3.5 million Americans currently live with chronic HCV with rising incidence among young persons, especially those affected by the opioid epidemic. Online guidelines and drug interaction checkers streamline treatment and increase accessibility for both patients and providers. Although treatment with new Direct Acting Antiviral agents ensure cure rates that routinely exceed 95%, as well as cause fewer adverse effects than previously available interferon-based regimens, some states still restrict access to HCV treatment, including by mandating which providers can prescribe and treat HCV. This special communication reviews HCV treatment resources, discusses data demonstrating similar cure rates between PCPs and specialists, and argues that capacity-building among PCPs will be necessary to control the HCV epidemic.

Three Years Down the Road: The Aftermath of the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.

The 2016 CDC guidelines for opioid prescribing by primary care physicians have exposed some shortfalls in our thinking about opioid use and stranded many chronic pain patients with inadequate analgesia. Opioid prescribing rates started to decline in 2012, but still remain high. The response from providers to the 2016 guidelines have led to unintended consequences. Some of the CDC guidance seems arbitrary and not supported by evidence (the 90 MME per day cutoff). Patient and prescriber education, the role of buprenorphine (an atypical Schedule III opioid), and abuse-deterrent opioids are not mentioned at all but could play crucial roles in reducing abuse. Opioid use disorder (OUD) is not defined by the guidance which calls on primary care physicians to recognize and treat it. Opioid withdrawal syndrome is not mentioned and tapering plans, although advised, are not described in a practical way. While the morbidity and mortality associated with OUD are public health crises, so is untreated pain. Chronic pain patients deserve consideration, yet emerge as the silent epidemic within the opioid crisis. To be sure, there is much good in the CDC guidance or any guidelines that urge caution and care in opioid prescribing. Pain specialists must speak out to advocate for patients dealing with pain, to educate patients and prescribers about analgesic options, and to make sure that pain is adequately treated particularly in vulnerable populations.

Converting habits of antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections in German primary care - study protocol of the cluster-randomized controlled CHANGE-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The overuse of antibiotics is a major cause for the worldwide rise of antibiotic resistance. Although it is well known that acute respiratory tract infections (ARTI) are mainly caused by viruses and are often self limiting, antibiotics are too frequently prescribed in primary care. CHANGE-3 examines whether a complex intervention focusing on improving communication and provision of prescribing feedback reduces antibiotic use in patients suffering from ARTI. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHANGE-3 trial is a cluster-randomized controlled trial nested within a web-based public campaign conducted in two regions in Germany. A total of 114 medical practices will be included. Practices randomized to the intervention will receive a practice-specific antibiotic-prescription feedback and an educational outreach visit. During the visit the whole practice team will receive an introduction to e-learning modules addressing patient-centered communication on antibiotics. Furthermore, the practices will receive tablet PCs with information on antibiotics and the treatment of ARTI to be presented to patients. Practices randomized to the control will provide care as usual. The primary outcome measure is the antibiotic prescribing rate for patients with a history of ARTI. Data collected before the intervention, during the intervention and after the intervention will be compared. The use of narrow- vs. broad-spectrum antibiotics will be analyzed as a secondary outcome. A process evaluation is also part of the trial. DISCUSSION: This study should contribute to the growing body of research on reducing antibiotic prescription. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15061174 . Registered retrospectively on 13 July 2018.

ECHO Autism STAT: Accelerating Early Access to Autism Diagnosis.

Although early diagnosis of autism is critical for promoting access to early intervention, many children experience significant diagnostic delays. Shortages of healthcare providers, limited capacity at autism centers, and geographic and socioeconomic challenges contribute to these delays. The current pilot study examined the feasibility of a new model for training community-based primary care providers (PCPs) in underserved areas in screening and diagnosis of young children at highest risk for autism. By combining hands-on training in standardized techniques with ongoing virtual mentorship and practice, the program emphasized both timely diagnosis and appropriate referral for more comprehensive assessment when necessary. Results indicated improvements in PCP practice and self-efficacy, and feasibility of the model for enhancing local access to care.

Burnout Among Physicians, Advanced Practice Clinicians and Staff in Smaller Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017. SETTING: Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS: 10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE: Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS: Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Protocol of a cluster randomized trial to investigate the impact of a type 2 diabetes risk prediction model on change in physical activity in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists on the impact of diabetes risk scores, e.g. on physicians and patient's behavior, perceived risk of persons, shared-decision making and particularly on patient's health. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of a non-invasive type 2 diabetes risk prediction model in the primary health care setting as component of routine health checks on change in physical activity. METHODS: Parallel group cluster randomized controlled trial including 30 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 300 participants in the region of Düsseldorf and surrounding urban and rural municipalities, West Germany. On cluster level, PCPs will be randomized into intervention or control group using a biased coin minimization technique. Participants in the control group are going to have a routine health check "Check-up 35" which is recommended biannually for all people ≥35 years of age in Germany. In the intervention group, the routine health check is expanded by usage of a non-invasive diabetes risk prediction model (German Diabetes Risk Score). Primary outcome is change in physical activity after 1 year. Secondary outcomes include aspects of targeted counseling, motivation of participant's to change lifestyle, perceived and objectively measured diabetes risk, acceptance of diabetes risk scores, quality of life, depression and anxiety. Patients will be followed over 12 months. Hierarchical or mixed models will be conducted, including a random intercept to adjust for cluster, the respective baseline value, and covariates to compare the groups. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial will enhance our knowledge on the clinical impact of diabetes risk scores for the first time in the real-life primary health care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03234322 , registered on July 28, 2017.

A Comparison of Electronic Patient-Portal Use Among Patients with Resident and Attending Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: Electronic patient-portals offer the potential to enhance patient-physician communication and health outcomes but differential use may create or worsen disparities. While prior studies identified patient characteristics associated with patient-portal use, the role of physician factors is less known. We investigated differences in overall and patterns of portal use for patients with resident and attending primary care providers (PCPs). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of all established patients with a resident or attending PCP seen at an academic internal medicine practice (two sites) between May 1, 2014, and April 30, 2015. We defined patient-portal use as having accessed any "active" (secure messaging, medication refill request), or "passive" (viewing labs, after visit summaries, or appointments) patient-portal function more than once over the study period. We used generalized linear models clustered on PCP to examine the odds of patient-portal use by PCP type, adjusted for patient age, gender, preferred language, race/ethnicity, insurance, and visits. Among patient-portal users, we examined the association of PCP type with "active use" utilizing the same method. RESULTS: The mean patient age (n = 17,699) was 54.2 (SD 17.5), with 47.2% White, 23.6% Asian, 8.8% Black, 8.4% Latino, and 12% other/unknown. The majority (61.8%) had private insurance, and attending PCPs (76.9%). Although 72.3% enrolled in the patient-portal, only 53.4% were portal users; 40.0% were active users. There were 47 attending and 62 resident physicians. Patients with resident PCPs had lower odds of using the portal compared to those with attending PCPs (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.50-0.59). Similarly, among portal users, residents' patients had lower odds of being active users of the portal (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.87). CONCLUSION: Given the lower patient-portal use among residents' patients, residency programs should develop curricula to bolster trainee competence in using the patient-portal for communication and to enhance the patient-physician relationship. Future research should explore additional physician factors that impact portal use.

Provider Specialty, Anticoagulation Prescription Patterns, and Stroke Risk in Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Differences in anticoagulation rates and direct oral anticoagulant use by provider specialty may identify an area of practice improvement to reduce future stroke events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined anticoagulant prescription fills in 388 045 (mean age, 68±15 years; 59% male) patients with incident AF from the MarketScan databases between 2009 and 2014. Provider specialty and filled anticoagulant prescriptions around the time of AF diagnosis (3 months before through 6 months after) were obtained from outpatient services and pharmacy claims. We estimated the association of provider specialty (cardiology versus primary care) with filling oral anticoagulant prescriptions, adjusting for patient characteristics. The risk of stroke and bleeding events also was explored. A total of 235 739 patients (61%) had a cardiology provider claim, whereas 152 306 (39%) were exclusively managed by primary care. Patients seen by cardiology providers were more likely to fill anticoagulant prescriptions than those seen by primary care (39% versus 27%; relative risk, 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-1.40). Differences were observed for direct oral anticoagulants (relative risk, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.71-1.78) and warfarin (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.22-1.26). A reduced risk of stroke events was observed among those seen by cardiology providers (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) compared with primary care, without an increased bleeding risk (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Patients seen by an outpatient cardiology provider shortly after AF diagnosis were more likely to initiate oral anticoagulation and were at lower risk of future stroke events without a higher rate of bleeding. Early referral to cardiology specialists may increase initiation of anticoagulant therapies and improve outcomes in AF.