Prolonging the return visit interval in primary care.

PURPOSE: Extending the scheduled return visit interval has been suggested as one means to improve clinic access to the provider. However, prolonging the return visit interval may affect quality of care if prevention measures and chronic disease management receive less attention as clinic visits become less frequent. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a comprehensive education program could encourage providers to lengthen their return visit interval without compromising performance on key quality indicators. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study monitoring scheduling and performance data of primary care providers at the Milwaukee Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Following collection of baseline data (January through June 1999), providers were encouraged to lengthen the return visit interval while increasing reliance on nurses and other clinic staff for interim management of chronic disease. Provider-specific feedback of return visit interval and performance data was utilized to motivate behavioral change. Scheduling and clinical data were abstracted from random medical record audits performed at baseline and from July through December in the years 2000 and 2001. RESULTS: Compared with the baseline period, the percent of patients scheduled > or =6 months was significantly increased among staff providers and medicine residents at 2 years (Staff providers: 31% vs. 62%, P <0.001; Medicine residents: 22 vs. 44%, P <0.001). Colorectal screening, pneumonia immunizations, and achievement of therapeutic goals for diabetes, hypertension, and lipid disorders significantly improved at 2 years compared with baseline measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Educational interventions can successfully retrain providers to extend the return visit interval and reduce the scheduling of routine and perhaps unnecessary appointments. This can be accomplished without compromising important performance monitors for diabetes, lipid disorders, hypertension, and prevention.

Analysis of Web access logs for surveillance of influenza.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the level of influenza in a population correlates with the number of times that internet users access information about influenza on health-related Web sites. We obtained Web access logs from the Healthlink Web site. Web access logs contain information about the user and the information the user accessed, and are maintained electronically by most Web sites, including Healthlink. We developed weekly counts of the number of accesses of selected influenza-related articles on the Healthlink Web site and measured their correlation with traditional influenza surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using the cross-correlation function (CCF). We defined timeliness as the time lag at which the correlation was a maximum. There was a moderately strong correlation between the frequency of influenza-related article accesses and the CDC's traditional surveillance data, but the results on timeliness were inconclusive. With improvements in methods for performing spatial analysis of the data and the continuing increase in Web searching behavior among Americans, Web article access has the potential to become a useful data source for public health early warning systems.

Efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly rosuvastatin in patients with previous statin intolerance.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who could benefit from hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme-A reductase inhibitors (statins) are unable to take statins because of myalgias while taking previous statin therapy. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly rosuvastatin in patients with documented myalgias on statins who were not currently taking a statin and not at low-density lipoprotein (LDL) goal. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study we enrolled a total of 17 Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care patients with a diagnosis of hyperlipidemia and a history of myalgias on statin therapy who were not currently on a statin and not at LDL goal. Two 8-week treatment phases consisted of rosuvastatin 5 mg once-weekly or matching placebo, with a dose titration to 10 mg once-weekly if not at LDL goal at week 4. The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in the mean percentage change in LDL from baseline between rosuvastatin and placebo. RESULTS: A significant difference in the mean percentage change in LDL from baseline for rosuvastatin vs. placebo was identified (12.2% reduction vs. 0.4% reduction, respectively; P = .002). Two of the 17 patients (11.8%) in the placebo treatment phase and three of the 15 patients (20%) in the rosuvastatin treatment phase experienced myalgias requiring cessation of therapy. In addition, three patients (20%) were able to attain LDL goal on rosuvastatin compared with zero patients (0%) on placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly low-dose rosuvastatin is an effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy option for patients not at LDL goal and previously unable to tolerate statins because of a history of myalgias.

A comparison of health information needs between patients at a suburban hospital-based clinic and two underserved inner city clinics.

A needs assessment was conducted and the results were analyzed to determine and compare the health information seeking habits and needs of outpatients at a suburban hospital-based clinic and at two clinics located in underserved areas of the inner city.