Effects of multicomponent primary care-based intervention on immunization rates and missed opportunities to vaccinate adults.

BACKGROUND: Adult immunization rates are below Healthy People 2020 targets. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to improve adult immunization rates. METHODS: This prospective interventional before-and-after non-randomized study was conducted through the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network with 43 primary care physicians from a large multi-specialty healthcare organization (multicomponent intervention group n = 23; comparator group n = 20) in the United States. The multicomponent intervention included provider reminders, quarterly provider-level performance reports, provider education, patient visual aid materials, and standing orders on adult pneumococcal, influenza, and zoster immunizations. We assessed individual and comparative provider-level vaccination rates and missed opportunities detailing concordance with targets established by Healthy People 2020 for pneumococcal, influenza, and zoster immunizations. RESULTS: Vaccination rates increased after 12 months in intervention and comparator groups respectively for: a). influenza from 44.4 ± 16.7 to 51.3% ± 12.9% (by 6.9 percentage points, p = 0.001) and from 35.1 ± 19.1 to 41.3% ± 14.2%, (by 6.2 percentage points, p = 0.01); b). pneumococcal vaccinations in older adults from 62.8 ± 17.6 to 81.4% ± 16.6% (by 18.6 percentage points, for p < 0.0001) and from 55.9 ± 20.0 to 72.7% ± 18.4% (by 16.7 percentage points, p < 0.0001); and c). zoster from 37.1 ± 13.4 to 41.9% ± 13.1% (by 4.8 percentage points, p < 0.0001) and from 35.0 ± 18.7 to 42.3% ± 20.9% (7.3 percentage points, p = 0.001). Pneumococcal vaccinations in adults at risk did not change from baseline in intervention group (35.7 ± 19.6 to 34.5% ± 19.0%, p = 0.3) and improved slightly in comparator group (24.3 ± 20.1 to 28.2% ± 20.0%, p = 0.003). Missed opportunities reduced after 12 months, most noticeably, for: a). for influenza from 57.7 to 48.6% (by 9.1 percentage points, p < 0.0001) and from 69.7 to 59.6% (by 10.1 percentage points, p < 0.0001); b). pneumococcal vaccinations in older adults from 18.1 to 11.5% (by 6.6 percentage points p < 0.0001) and from 24.6 to 20.4% (by 4.3 percentage points, p < 0.0001) in intervention and comparator groups respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent interventions show promise in improving vaccination rates and reducing missed opportunities in older adults for pneumococcal and zoster vaccines and vaccination against influenza. Provider reminders remain the most effective strategy when delivered either as a component of these interventions or alone.

Advance Care Planning Among Users of a Patient Portal During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is the process of discussing health care treatment preferences based on patients' personal values, and it often involves the completion of advance directives. In the first months of 2020, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began circulating widely in the American state of Colorado, leading to widespread diagnosis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), hospitalizations, and deaths. In this context, the importance of technology-based, non-face-to-face methods to conduct advance care planning via patient portals has increased. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rates of use of a web-based advance care planning tool through a health system-based electronic patient portal both before and in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In 2017, we implemented web-based tools through the patient portal of UCHealth's electronic health record (EHR) for patients to learn about advance care planning and complete an electronically signed medical durable power of attorney (MDPOA) to legally appoint a medical decision maker. Patients accessing the portal can complete and submit a legally valid MDPOA, which becomes part of their medical record. We collected data on the patients' date of MDPOA completion, use of advance care planning messaging, age, sex, and geographic location during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (December 29, 2019, to May 30, 2020). RESULTS: Over a 5-month period that includes the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colorado, total monthly use of the advance care planning portal tool increased from 418 users in January to 1037 users in April and then decreased slightly to 815 users in May. The number of MDPOA forms submitted per week increased 2.4-fold after the stay-at-home order was issued in Colorado on March 26, 2020 (P<.001). The mean age of the advance care planning portal users was 47.7 years (SD 16.1), and 2206/3292 (67.0%) were female. Women were more likely than men to complete an MDPOA, particularly in younger age groups (P<.001). The primary use of the advance care planning portal tools was the completion of an MDPOA (3138/3292, 95.3%), compared to sending an electronic message (148/3292, 4.5%). Over 50% of patients who completed an MDPOA did not have a prior agent in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a web-based patient portal to complete an MDPOA increased substantially during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colorado. There was an increase in advance care planning that corresponded with state government shelter-in-place orders as well as public health reports of increased numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Patient portals are an important tool for providing advance care planning resources and documenting medical decision makers during the pandemic to ensure that medical treatment aligns with patient goals and values.

Adoption of a Portal for the Primary Care Management of Pediatric Asthma: A Mixed-Methods Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals may improve communication between families of children with asthma and their primary care providers and improve outcomes. However, the feasibility of using portals to collect patient-reported outcomes from families and the barriers and facilitators of portal implementation across diverse pediatric primary care settings have not been established. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the feasibility of using a patient portal for pediatric asthma in primary care, its impact on management, and barriers and facilitators of implementation success. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods implementation study in 20 practices (11 states). Using the portal, parents of children with asthma aged 6-12 years completed monthly surveys to communicate treatment concerns, treatment goals, symptom control, medication use, and side effects. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of portal use with child characteristics and changes to asthma management. Ten clinician focus groups and 22 semistructured parent interviews explored barriers and facilitators of use in the context of an evidence-based implementation framework. RESULTS: We invited 9133 families to enroll and 237 (2.59%) used the portal (range by practice, 0.6%-13.6%). Children of parents or guardians who used the portal were significantly more likely than nonusers to be aged 6-9 years (vs 10-12, P=.02), have mild or moderate/severe persistent asthma (P=.009 and P=.04), have a prescription of a controller medication (P<.001), and have private insurance (P=.002). Portal users with uncontrolled asthma had significantly more medication changes and primary care asthma visits after using the portal relative to the year earlier (increases of 14% and 16%, respectively). Qualitative results revealed the importance of practice organization (coordinated workflows) as well as family (asthma severity) and innovation (facilitated communication and ease of use) characteristics for implementation success. CONCLUSIONS: Although use was associated with higher treatment engagement, our results suggest that achieving widespread portal adoption is unlikely in the short term. Implementation efforts should include workflow redesign and prioritize enrollment of symptomatic children. CLINICALTRIAL: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01966068; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01966068 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6i9iSQkm3).

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.

Effectiveness of 2 methods of promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and emotional well-being with the americans in motion--healthy interventions approach.

PURPOSE: An increasing number of Americans are putting their health at risk from being overweight. We undertook a study to compare patient-level outcomes of 2 methods of implementing the Americans In Motion-Healthy Interventions (AIM-HI) approach to promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and emotional well-being. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial in which 24 family medicine practices were randomized to (1) an enhanced practice approach in which clinicians and office staff used AIM-HI tools to make personal changes and created a healthy environment, or (2) a traditional practice approach in which physicians and staff were trained and asked to use the tools with patients. Of the 610 patients enrolled, 331 were in healthy practices, and 279 were in traditional practices. At 0, 4, and 10 months we assessed blood pressure, body mass index, fasting blood glucose and insulin levels, nuclear magnetic resonance lipoprotein profiles, fitness, dietary intake, physical activity, and emotional well-being. Outcome data were analyzed using linear, mixed-effects multivariate models, adjusting for practices as a random effect. RESULTS: Regardless of patient group, 16.2% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (n = 378 patients, 62% of enrollees) and 10% of all patients enrolled lost 5% or more of their body weight; 16.7% of patients who completed a 10-month visit (10.3% of all enrollees) had a 2-point or greater increase in their fitness level; and 29.2% of 10-month completers (18.0% of all enrollees) lost 5% or more of their body weight and/or increased their fitness level by 2 or more points. There were no significant differences in these outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the 2 groups in the primary and most secondary outcomes. Both patient groups were able to show significant before-after improvements in selected patient-level outcomes.

Testing to prevent colon cancer: results from a rural community intervention.

PURPOSE: Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Despite tests that can detect and enable removal of precancerous polyps, effectively preventing this disease, screening for colon cancer lags behind other cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a community-based participatory approach to increase colon cancer screening. METHODS: Using a community-based participatory research approach, the High Plains Research Network and their Community Advisory Council developed a multicomponent intervention-Testing to Prevent Colon Cancer-to increase colon cancer screening. A controlled trial compared 9 intervention counties in northeast Colorado with 7 control counties in southeast Colorado. We performed a baseline and postintervention random digit-dial telephone survey and conducted both intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses. RESULTS: In all, 1,050 community members completed a preintervention questionnaire and 1,048 completed a postintervention questionnaire. During the study period, there was a 5% absolute increase in the proportion of respondents who reported ever having had any test in the intervention region (from 76% to 81%) compared with no increase in the control region (77% at both time points) (P = .22). No significant differences between these groups were found in terms of being up to date generally or on specific tests. The extent of exposure to intervention materials was associated with a significant and cumulative increase in screening. CONCLUSIONS: This community-based multicomponent intervention engaged hundreds of community members in wide dissemination aimed at increasing colorectal cancer screening. Although we did not find any statistically significant differences, the findings are consistent with an intervention-related increase in screening and provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of such interventions to improve colon cancer screening.

COVID-19 Proactive Disease Management Using COVID Virtual Hospital in a Rural Community.

Purpose: A community teaching hospital serving a rural population established an intensive "hospital at home" program for patients with COVID-19 utilizing disease risk stratification and pulse oximeter readings to dictate nurse and clinician contact. Herein, we report patient outcomes and provider experiences resulting from this "virtual" approach to triaging pandemic care. Methods: COVID-19-positive patients appropriate for outpatient management were enrolled in our COVID Virtual Hospital (CVH). Patients received pulse oximeters and instructions for home monitoring of vital signs. CVH nurses contacted the patient within 12-48 hours. The primary care provider was alerted of the patient's diagnosis and held a virtual visit with patient within 2-3 days. Nurses completed a triage form during each patient call; the resulting risk score determined timing of subsequent calls. CVH-relevant patient outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, mortality, and disease-related hospitalization. Additionally, a survey of providers was conducted to assess CVH experience. Results: From April 22, 2020, to December 21, 2020, 1916 patients were enrolled in the CVH, of which 195 (10.2%) had subsequent visits to the ED. Among those 195 ED visits, 102 (52.3%) were nurse-directed while 93 (47.7%) were patient self-directed; 88 (86.3%) nurse-directed ED visits were subsequently admitted to inpatient care and 14 were discharged home. Of the 93 self-directed ED visits, 3 (3.2%) were admitted. A total of 91 CVH patients (4.7%) were ultimately admitted to inpatient care. Seven deaths occurred among CVH patients, 5 of whom had been admitted for inpatient care. Among 71 providers (23%) who responded to the survey, 94% and 93% agreed that the CVH was beneficial to providers and patients, respectively. Conclusions: Proactive in-home triage of patients with COVID-19 utilizing a virtual hospital model minimized unnecessary presentations to ED and likely prevented our rural hospital from becoming overwhelmed during year one of the pandemic.

What Patients Call Their Inhalers Is Associated with "Asthma Attacks".

BACKGROUND: Clinician-patient miscommunication contributes to worse asthma outcomes. What patients call their asthma inhalers and its relationship with asthma morbidity are unknown. METHODS: Inhaler names were ascertained from Black and Latinx adults with moderate-severe asthma and categorized as "standard" if based on brand/generic name or inhaler type (i.e., controller vs. rescue) or "non-standard" for other terms (i.e., color, device type, e.g., "puffer," or unique names). Clinical characteristics and asthma morbidity measures were evaluated at baseline: self-reported asthma exacerbations one year before enrollment (i.e., systemic corticosteroid bursts, emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC) visits, or hospitalizations), and asthma control and quality of life. Multivariable regression models tested the relationship between non-standard names and asthma morbidity measures, with adjustments. RESULTS: Forty-four percent (502/1150) of participants used non-standard inhaler names. These participants were more likely to be Black (p=0.006), from the Southeast (p<0.001), and have fewer years with asthma (p=0.012) relative to those who used standard names. Non-standard inhaler names was associated with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.50, p=0.001; 1.8 vs. 1.5 events) for corticosteroid bursts for asthma, an IRR=1.43 (95% CI, 1.21-1.69, p<0.001; 1.9 vs. 1.4 events) for ED/UC visits for asthma, and an odds ratio=1.57 (95% CI, 1.12-2.18, p=0.008; 0.5 vs. 0.3 events) for asthma hospitalizations after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who use non-standard names for asthma inhalers experience increased asthma morbidity. Ascertaining what patients call their inhalers may be a quick method to identify those at higher risk of poor outcomes.

Prenatal Care via Telehealth.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, providers and patients explored the use of telehealth on a wide and rapid scale. Reflecting on how prenatal providers and pregnant patients used telehealth during the pandemic and afterward, we review existing and new lessons learned from the pandemic. This article summarizes international and national guidelines on prenatal care, presents practice examples on how telehealth and remote patient monitoring were used during the COVID-19 pandemic, and offers lessons learned and suggestions for future care.

Stimulant Prescribing Error Assessment Rubric Development.

OBJECTIVE: Stimulant medications are used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults. However, stimulants are among the most frequently prescribed medications that have a potential to be used nonmedically. We sought to define types of errors associated with treatment of ADHD in adults and to describe a classification rubric for stimulant-related prescribing faults. METHODS: An expert panel conducted a scoping review of the literature and rubric development. The literature search including relevant English language publications indexed in Medline (1990-present, human) and Embase (1990-present, human). In addition, we reviewed relevant documentation such as medication labels and guides containing information related to medications used for the treatment of adult ADHD. The initial version draft rubric was developed by adapting an existing framework for prescribing errors. The expert panel further defined a classification rubric and developed error subcategories, classifications, and descriptions. RESULTS: Two error categories were identified. Category 1 errors are errors resulting from prescribing faults, which further included errors in decision making/judgment; errors related to monitoring for potential harm of stimulants; possible errors: events that should generally be avoided or be used with caution; and suboptimal prescribing. Category 2 errors result from prescription writing, further defined as failure to communicate essential information and transcription errors. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive description of medication errors associated with stimulant and related medications. Our findings have the potential to assist decision making and to tailor delivery programs, recommendations, guidelines, and clinical decision support health information technology on stimulant prescribing and monitoring.

Human-Centered Design of an Advance Care Planning Group Visit for Mild Cognitive Impairment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While advance care planning (ACP) is critical for ensuring optimal end-of-life outcomes among individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), many individuals who may benefit from ACP have not initiated this process. This article aims to describe the iterative design of an MCI group visit-based intervention and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used human-centered design, rapid-cycle prototyping, and multiple methods to adapt an ENgaging in Advance Care planning Talks (ENACT) Group Visits intervention. We convened an advisory panel of persons with MCI and care partners (n = 6 dyads) to refine the intervention and conducted a single-arm pilot of 4 MCI ENACT intervention prototypes (n = 13 dyads). We used surveys and interviews to assess outcomes from multiple perspectives. RESULTS: The advisory panel affirmed that ACP is a priority for individuals with MCI, described the need for ACP in a group setting, and suggested refinements to ACP resources for the MCI ENACT intervention. Feasibility of recruitment was limited. MCI ENACT intervention participants strongly agreed that group discussions provided useful information and recommended the intervention. Themes supporting acceptability included (a) feedback on acceptability of the intervention, (b) previous experiences with ACP, and (c) reasons for participation, including desire for discussions about MCI and how it relates to ACP. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Despite stakeholders' positive ratings of acceptability of the MCI ENACT intervention, future work is needed to enhance the feasibility of recruitment to support implementation into clinical settings.

Points of Concordance, Points of Discordance: A Qualitative Examination of Telemedicine Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: Health systems undertook a rapid transition to increase the use of telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. A continued need for telemedicine services in the coming years is likely. This article examines telemedicine from multiple stakeholders' perspectives considering reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) outcomes. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with primary care practice team members and patients. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify themes in experiences and perceptions related to telemedicine implementation. The RE-AIM implementation framework was applied to thematic findings to understand influences on implementation outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-four practice members and 17 patients across 5 clinics participated. All stakeholder groups reported that technological capabilities influenced patients' access to telemedicine and that certain patients and reasons for visits were not appropriate for telemedicine. All groups felt that telemedicine was a good option for some patients some of the time but not all patients all of the time. DISCUSSION: Telemedicine works well if it is used for the appropriate visits and patient types and with needed technological elements. Older age may limit the feasibility of telehealth for some patients. Added administrative work and associated costs support systematic screening to determine visit appropriateness for telemedicine.

Card studies for observational research in practice.

PURPOSE: Observational studies that collect patient-level survey data at the point-of-care are often called card studies. Card studies have been used to describe clinical problems, management, and outcomes in primary care for more than 30 years. In this article we describe 2 types of card studies and the methods for conducting them. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive review of card studies conducted in 3 Colorado practice-based research networks and several other networks throughout the United States. We summarized experiences of the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP). RESULTS: Card studies can be designed to study specific conditions or care (clinicians complete a card when they encounter patients who meet inclusion criteria) and to determine trends and prevalence of conditions (clinicians complete a card on all patients seen during a period). Data can be collected from clinicians and patients and can be linked. CONCLUSIONS: Card studies provide cross-sectional descriptive data about clinical care, knowledge and behavior, perception of care, and prevalence of conditions. Card studies remain a robust method for describing primary care.

Feasibility, Implementation and Outcomes of Tablet-Based Two-Step Screening for Adult ADHD in Primary Care Practice.

Background: Primary care clinicians need to recognize and diagnose Adult ADHD (AADHD). We tested the feasibility and outcomes of a two-step screening process for AADHD in primary care. Methods: Seven practices screened patients using computerized surveys. Patients screening positive completed the AADHD Quality of Life (AAQoL). We explored the impact of screening on workflow and the acceptability to patients, and identified key barriers/opportunities to continuing screening. Results: Of the 711 participating adults, 188 (26.4%) screened positive, of which 32 (17.0%) had scores at least one standard deviation below means on two or more domains on the AAQoL (average 23.6 ± 7.3). These 32 individuals represented 4.5% of all participants. Clinicians were willing to screen, diagnose, and treat AADHD, but need additional resources. The screening process and technology was acceptable to patients and staff. Conclusions: A two-step screening method shows promise for routine screening for AADHD.

Lessons Learned During COVID-19 That Can Move Telehealth in Primary Care Forward.

INTRODUCTION: Our university hospital-based primary care practices transitioned a budding interest in telehealth to a largely telehealth-based approach in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. INITIAL WORK: Implementation of telehealth began in 2017. Health system barriers, provider and patient reluctance, and inadequate reimbursement prevented widespread adoption at the time. COVID-19 served as the catalyst to accelerate telehealth efforts. IMPLEMENTATION: COVID-19 resulted in the need for patient care with "social distancing." In addition, due to the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and other insurers began expanded reimbursement for telehealth. More than 2000 providers received virtual health training in less than 2 weeks. In March 2020, we provided 2376 virtual visits, and in April 5293, which was more than 75 times the number provided in February; 73% of all visits in April were virtual (up from 0.5% in October 2019). As COVID-19 cases receded in May, June, and July, patient demand for virtual visits decreased, but 28% of visits in July were still virtual. LESSONS LEARNED: Several key lessons are important for future efforts regarding clinical implementation: (1) prepare for innovation, (2) cultivate an innovation mindset, (3) standardize (but not too much), (4) technological innovation is necessary but not sufficient, and (5) communicate widely and often.

Patients' question-asking behavior during primary care visits: a report from the AAFP National Research Network.

PURPOSE: The Ask Me 3 (AM3) health communication program encourages patients to ask specific questions during office visits with the intention of improving understanding of their health conditions and adherence to treatment recommendations. This study evaluated whether implementing AM3 improves patients' question-asking behavior and increases adherence to prescription medications and lifestyle recommendations. METHODS: This randomized trial involved 20 practices from the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network that were assigned to an AM3 intervention group or a control group. Forty-one physicians in the practices were each asked to enroll at least 20 patients. The patients' visits were audio recorded, and recordings were reviewed to determine whether patients asked questions and which questions they asked. Patients were interviewed 1 to 3 weeks after the visit to assess their recall of physicians' recommendations, rates of prescription filling and taking, and attempts at complying with lifestyle recommendations. RESULTS: The study enrolled 834 eligible patients in 20 practices. There were no significant difference between the AM3 and control patients in the rate of asking questions, but this rate was high (92%) in both groups. There also were no differences in rates of either filling or taking prescriptions, although rates of these outcomes were fairly high, too. Control patients were more likely to recall that their physician recommended a lifestyle change, however (68% vs 59%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: In a patient population in which asking questions already occurs at a high rate and levels of adherence are fairly high, we found no evidence that the AM3 intervention results in patients asking specific questions or more questions in general, or in better adherence to prescription medications or lifestyle recommendations.

An electronic practice-based network for observational comparative effectiveness research.

The Distributed Ambulatory Research in Therapeutics Network (DARTNet) is a federated network of electronic health data from 8 organizations representing more than 500 clinicians and more than 400 000 patients. DARTNet was designed to increase knowledge of the comparative effectiveness of prescription medications and medical devices. Traditional observational comparative effectiveness research is conducted using large data sets, such as claims databases. Such databases do not provide important clinical information that is critical to understanding comparative effectiveness. By linking electronic health records, laboratory and imaging data, and administrative data from diverse and geographically disparate patients, DARTNet provides important new insight into the comparative effectiveness of oral diabetes medications, and it is ready for expansion to further enable effectiveness research.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Patterns of Health Professionals Toward Medical and Non-medical Stimulant Use by Young Adults.

BACKGROUND: The role of family physicians (FPs) and college health professionals (CHPs) in stimulant treatment and nonmedical use of stimulants is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current practices, concerns, needs, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators to appropriate pharmacological treatment of teens and young adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and prevention of nonmedical use and diversion. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey developed by the project team and experts in the field, delivered to national sample of FPs and CHPs. RESULTS: A total of 794 completed surveys were analyzed. The average age of respondents was 51.6 ± 10.3 years; 50.6% of the respondents were female. The majority of CHPs (80.6%) reported they spend 75% to 100% of their time with patients age 17 to 24 years and 74.0% of FPs reported they spend less than 25% of their time with this age group. The majority (91.7%) of the respondents indicated that untreated ADHD affects quality of life, and 76.4% indicated untreated ADHD is often associated with risky behaviors. More CHPs than FPs always refer out for ADHD diagnosis (70.7% vs 52.1%; P < .001). Most respondents (81.2%) were concerned with ADHD medication diversion, and 84.2% believed that diversion or abuse is a problem overall. Respondents indicated they are unprepared to provide patient education on decisions about pharmacotherapy or behavioral therapy choices for adult ADHD. CONCLUSION: There is an opportunity to enhance safety and effectiveness of ADHD management in young adults. Additional resources and interventions are needed to improve medication management, reduce misuse, and ensure safe and appropriate use of stimulants.

Representativeness of PBRN physician practice patterns and related beliefs: the case of the AAFP National Research Network.

PURPOSE: We wanted to compare survey responses from members of a national practice-based research network (PBRN) with those of a larger sample of family physicians to assess the generalizability of findings from the PBRN to the larger physician population. METHODS: The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN) conducted 3 separate national surveys among random samples of AAFP active members and physician members of the AAFP NRN. The surveys assessed self-reported clinical behaviors and beliefs related to hepatitis C, hyperlipidemia, and pharyngitis. Bivariate comparisons were conducted to detect statistical differences between the AAFP and AAFP NRN respondents on both demographic and clinically relevant survey items. Multivariate analyses of outcomes were found to be statistically significant at the bivariate level. RESULTS: Response rates to the surveys ranged from 53% to 59% for AAFP members and 60% to 72% for AAFP NRN members. The most consistent differences (P <.05) in demographic comparisons were for percentage of time spent in patient care, practice location, practice type, and census region. Bivariate comparisons found the groups differed on 8 (12%) of 66 clinically relevant survey items, with the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons reducing these items to 4 (6%). These comparisons were followed by multivariate analyses of outcomes that were found statistically significant at bivariate level. CONCLUSIONS: The AAFP NRN and AAFP membership differed on several demographic characteristics, but network members were overall more representative than not of the AAFP active membership in their self-reported clinical behaviors and related beliefs.

EPIDEMIOLOGY of NECK INJURIES ACCOMPANYING SPORT CONCUSSIONS in YOUTH OVER a 13-YEAR PERIOD IN a COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

BACKGROUND: The same trauma that produces concussion may also produce neck injury. The signs of concussion and neck injury are similar, and symptoms after acceleration-deceleration trauma to the head-neck complex do not accurately discriminate between them. Research on the epidemiology of neck injury among sport-concussed youth is sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of diagnosed neck injury in non-sport-related concussion (Non-SRC) versus sport-related concussion (SRC) in youth by age, sex, and sport. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional epidemiologic study. METHODS: De-identified data from community-based electronic health records over 13 years were extracted to analyze rates and characteristics of neck injuries among non-SRCs and SRCs in youth aged five to 21. Neck injury diagnosis prevalence rates and odds ratios were calculated to estimate risk of neck injury among concussed youth, comparing non-SRCs to SRCs by age and sex. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand, eight hundred eighty-five concussion records were extracted, of which 3,040 SRCs and 2,775 non-SRCs in youth aged five to 21 were identified by cross-filtering sport-related keywords (e.g., football, basketball, soccer, running, swimming, batting, horseback riding, skiing, etc.) with all ICD-9 and ICD-10 concussion codes. The prevalence of neck injuries diagnosed among SRCs (7.2%) was significantly different than the prevalence of neck injuries diagnosed among non-SRCs (12.1%, p < 0.000). Neck injury diagnoses were significantly more prevalent in females overall (p < 0.000) and among non-SRCs (p < 0.000). The prevalence of neck injury diagnoses was not significantly higher in concussed females versus concussed males with SRC (p = 0.164).Among youth aged five to 21 exposed to concussions, non-SRCs were more likely to be accompanied by a neck injury diagnosis than SRCs (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.39 to 1.98; p < 0.000). Similarly, female-to-male neck injury proportion ratios were significantly higher in females in non-SRCs compared to SRCs (IPR 1.90, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.25, p < 0.000).Sports with highest prevalence of concussion differ from sports with highest prevalence of concussion-related neck injury in both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of diagnosed neck injuries in youth was higher in non-SRCs compared to SRCs (12.1 vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001), with the highest prevalence at age 14 in both sexes. The risk of neck injury diagnosis accompanying concussion was significantly higher in females compared to males (6.1% difference; p < 0.000).