Roles and Responsibilities of the Global Specialist Digital Health Workforce: Analysis of Global Census Data.

Background: The Global Specialist Digital Health Workforce Census is the largest workforce survey of the specialist roles that support the development, use, management, and governance of health data, health information, health knowledge, and health technology. Objective: This paper aims to present an analysis of the roles and functions reported by respondents in the 2023 census. Methods: The 2023 census was deployed using Qualtrics and was open from July 1 to August 13, 2023. A broad definition was provided to guide respondents about who is in the specialist digital health workforce. Anyone who self-identifies as being part of this workforce could undertake the survey. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis of the functions respondents reported in their roles. Results: A total of 1103 respondents completed the census, with data reported about their demographic information and their roles. The majority of respondents lived in Australia (n=870, 78.9%) or New Zealand (n=130, 11.8%), with most (n=620, 56.3%) aged 35-54 years and identifying as female (n=720, 65.3%). The top four occupational specialties were health informatics (n=179, 20.2%), health information management (n=175, 19.8%), health information technology (n=128, 14.4%), and health librarianship (n=104, 11.7%). Nearly all (n=797, 90%) participants identified as a manager or professional. Less than half (430/1019, 42.2%) had a formal qualification in a specialist digital health area, and only one-quarter (244/938, 26%) held a credential in a digital health area. While two-thirds (502/763, 65.7%) reported undertaking professional development in the last year, most were self-directed activities, such as seeking information or consuming online content. Work undertaken by specialist digital health workers could be classified as either leadership, functional, occupational, or technological. Conclusions: Future specialist digital health workforce capability frameworks should include the aspects of leadership, function, occupation, and technology. This largely unqualified workforce is undertaking little formal professional development to upskill them to continue to support the safe delivery and management of health and care through the use of digital data and technology.

Pediatric subspecialty outreach clinics: reach and impact on access to care.

BACKGROUND: Recent research highlighting a shortage of pediatric subspecialists in the United States has shown wide variations in the distance from children to the nearest subspecialists but has not accounted for subspecialty outreach clinics, in which specialists may improve access in rural areas by periodically staffing clinics there. This study aimed to determine the impact of pediatric subspecialty outreach clinics on the driving times to the nearest pediatric subspecialists for children in Maine. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized administrative data on the schedule and location of pediatric subspecialty clinics in Maine in 2022 to estimate the driving time from each ZIP-code tabulation area to the nearest subspecialist, with and without the inclusion of outreach clinics. Using 2020 census data, we calculated the median and interquartile ranges of driving times for the state's overall child population, as well as for children living in urban and rural areas. RESULTS: Of 207,409 individuals under 20 years old in Maine, 68% were located closer to an outreach location than to a clinical hub. Across the seven subspecialties offering outreach clinics, outreach clinics decreased median driving times to the nearest pediatric subspecialist by 5 to 26 minutes among all children, and by 16 to 46 minutes among rural children. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric subspecialty outreach clinics can substantially reduce the driving time to the nearest pediatric subspecialist , especially for children living in rural areas. The use of outreach clinics should be accounted for in research describing the geographic access or barriers to care. Expanding the number of outreach clinics should be considered by policymakers hoping to improve access.

Patients report high information coordination between rostered primary care physicians and specialists: A cross-sectional study.

Our study aimed to describe patient experience of information coordination between their primary care physician and specialists and to examine the associations between their experience and their personal and primary care characteristics. We conducted a cross-sectional study of Ontario residents rostered to a primary care physician and visited a specialist physician in the previous 12 months by linking population-based health administrative data to the Health Care Experience Survey collected between 2013 and 2020. We described respondents' sociodemographic and health care utilization characteristics and their experience of information coordination between their primary care physician and specialists. We measured the adjusted association between patient-reported measures of information coordination before and after respondents received care from a specialist physician and their type of primary care model. 1,460 out 20,422 (weighted 7.5%) of the respondents reported that their specialist physician did not have basic medical information about their visit from their primary care physician in the previous 12 months. 2,298 out of 16,442 (weighted 14.9%) of the respondents reported that their primary care physician seemed uninformed about the care they received from the specialist. Females, younger individuals, those with a college or undergraduate level of education, and users of walk-in clinics had a higher likelihood of reporting a lack of information coordination between the primary care and specialist physicians. Only respondents rostered to an enhanced fee-for-service model had a higher odds of reporting that the specialist physician did not have basic medical information about their visit compared to those rostered to a Family Health Team (OR 1.22, 95% Cl 1.12-1.40). We found no significant association between respondent's type of primary care model and that their primary care physician was uninformed about the care received from the specialist physician. In this population-based health study, respondents reported high information coordination between their primary care physician and specialists. Except for respondents rostered to an enhanced fee-for-service model of care, we did not find any difference in information coordination across other primary care models.

Patient regional index: a new way to rank clinical specialties based on outpatient clinics big data.

BACKGROUND: Many existing healthcare ranking systems are notably intricate. The standards for peer review and evaluation often differ across specialties, leading to contradictory results among various ranking systems. There is a significant need for a comprehensible and consistent mode of specialty assessment. METHODS: This quantitative study aimed to assess the influence of clinical specialties on the regional distribution of patient origins based on 10,097,795 outpatient records of a large comprehensive hospital in South China. We proposed the patient regional index (PRI), a novel metric to quantify the regional influence of hospital specialties, using the principle of representative points of a statistical distribution. Additionally, a two-dimensional measure was constructed to gauge the significance of hospital specialties by integrating the PRI and outpatient volume. RESULTS: We calculated the PRI for each of the 16 specialties of interest over eight consecutive years. The longitudinal changes in the PRI accurately captured the impact of the 2017 Chinese healthcare reforms and the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic on hospital specialties. At last, the two-dimensional assessment model we devised effectively illustrates the distinct characteristics across hospital specialties. CONCLUSION: We propose a novel, straightforward, and interpretable index for quantifying the influence of hospital specialties. This index, built on outpatient data, requires only the patients' origin, thereby facilitating its widespread adoption and comparison across specialties of varying backgrounds. This data-driven method offers a patient-centric view of specialty influence, diverging from the traditional reliance on expert opinions. As such, it serves as a valuable augmentation to existing ranking systems.

Specialist care visits outside the hospital by South Australian older adults.

BACKGROUND: Limited access to specialist medical services is a major barrier to healthcare in rural areas. We compared rural-urban specialist doctor consultations outside hospital by older adults (≥ 60 years) across South Australia. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were available from the South Australia's Department of Health. The Modified Monash Model (MM1-7) of remoteness was used to categorize data into rural (MM 3-4), remote (MM5-7), and urban (MM1-MM2) of participants in urban and non-urban South Australia. The analysis was conducted on older adults (n = 20,522), self-reporting chronic physical and common mental health conditions. RESULTS: Specialist doctor consultation in the past 4 weeks was 14.6% in our sample. In multivariable analysis, increasing age (odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2-1.4), higher education (odds ratio 1.5, 95% CI: 1.3-1.9), physical health conditions [diabetes (odds ratio 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3); cancer (odds ratio1.8, 95% CI: 1.7-2.0); heart disease (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI: 1.6-2.1)], and common mental disorders [depression (odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.5); anxiety (odds ratio 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.6)] were associated with higher specialist care use. Specialist care use among rural (odds ratio 0.8, 95% CI: 0.6-0.9), and remote (odds ratio 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7-0.9) older people was significantly lower than their urban counterparts after controlling for age, education, and chronic disease. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate a disparity in the use of out of hospital specialist medical services between urban and non-urban areas.

Characterizing physician directory data quality: variation by specialty, state, and insurer.

BACKGROUND: As U.S. legislators are urged to combat ghost networks in behavioral health and address the provider data quality issue, it becomes important to better characterize the variation in data quality of provider directories to understand root causes and devise solutions. Therefore, this manuscript examines consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information for physician entries from 5 national health plan provider directories by insurer, physician specialty, and state. METHODS: We included all physicians in the Medicare Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) found in ≥ 2 health insurer physician directories across 5 large national U.S. health insurers. We examined variation in consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information among physicians by insurer, physician specialty, and state. RESULTS: Of 634,914 unique physicians in the PECOS database, 449,282 were found in ≥ 2 directories and included in our sample. Across insurers, consistency of address information varied from 16.5 to 27.9%, consistency of phone number information varied from 16.0 to 27.4%, and consistency of specialty information varied from 64.2 to 68.0%. General practice, family medicine, plastic surgery, and dermatology physicians had the highest consistency of addresses (37-42%) and phone numbers (37-43%), whereas anesthesiology, nuclear medicine, radiology, and emergency medicine had the lowest consistency of addresses (11-21%) and phone numbers (9-14%) across health insurer directories. There was marked variation in consistency of address, phone number, and specialty information by state. CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating a large national sample of U.S. physicians, we found minimal variation in provider directory consistency by insurer, suggesting that this is a systemic problem that insurers have not solved, and considerable variation by physician specialty with higher quality data among more patient-facing specialties, suggesting that physicians may respond to incentives to improve data quality. These data highlight the importance of novel policy solutions that leverage technology targeting data quality to centralize provider directories so as not to not reinforce existing data quality issues or policy solutions to create national and state-level standards that target both insurers and physician groups to maximize quality of provider information.

Factors associated with medical students' career choice in different specialties: a multiple cross-sectional questionnaire study at a German medical school.

BACKGROUND: Given the shortage and unequal distribution of physicians across specialties, we aimed to evaluate factors associated with medical students' career choices, including background, personality traits, educational experience, personal interests, lifestyle considerations, and the awareness of work requirements. METHODS: We conducted multiple cross-sectional surveys of students; a 159-item online questionnaire was designed and students from three different stages of the six-year medical degree course (outset, clinical phase, and on graduation) were invited to complete the survey. Data were collected between May 2021 and April 2023. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent to 1406 students, of whom 683 replied (49%); 481 respondents were female (70%). The top specialty choices across the respondents were internal medicine, surgery, and general practice, with anaesthesiology, paediatric and adolescent medicine (ranging 11-15%), and obstetrics and gynaecology also receiving interest, with 6% undecided. In particular, female students lost interest in surgery during the course of study in favour of the other options. The choice of general practice was associated with more vocational training, prior positive experiences with the specialty, and lower grades in the university entry examination. Clinical clerkships in a specific (freely chosen) specialty aligned with career choice, while the final practical year did not have an impact on career decision-making. All students highly desired regulated working hours and work-life-balance; however, students choosing surgery rated these items as less important. Willingness to work in a hospital environment was highly associated with choosing anaesthesiology and surgery, whereas rural areas and practices were associated with general practice. Higher scores at agreeableness were associated with choosing paediatric and adolescent medicine by more female students, whereas lower neuroticism values were associated with the choice of anaesthesiology. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the intricate nature of decision-making and shed light on various aspects that contribute to the process of selecting a specialty. By identifying and addressing influencing factors, we can develop targeted interventions and policies to enhance diversity and distribution across medical specialisations and to aim for high-quality and equitable healthcare that matches the specific needs of both individuals and the population as a whole.

Factors Affecting Specialty Training Preference Among UK Medical Students (FAST): Protocol for a National Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The UK medical education system faces a complex landscape of specialty training choices and heightened competition. The Factors Affecting Specialty Training Preference Among UK Medical Students (FAST) study addresses the need to understand the factors influencing UK medical students' specialty choices, against a backdrop of increasing challenges in health care workforce planning. OBJECTIVE: The primary objectives of the FAST study are to explore UK medical students' preferred specialties and the factors that influence these choices. Secondary objectives are to evaluate students' confidence in securing their chosen specialty, to understand how demographic and academic backgrounds affect their decisions, and to examine how specialty preferences and confidence levels vary across different UK medical schools. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey design will be used to collect data from UK medical students. The survey, comprising 17 questions, uses Likert scales, multiple-choice formats, and free-text entry to capture nuanced insights into specialty choice factors. The methodology, adapted from the Ascertaining the Career Intentions of UK Medical Students (AIMS) study, incorporates adjustments based on literature review, clinical staff feedback, and pilot group insights. This approach ensures comprehensive and nondirective questioning. Data analysis will include descriptive statistics to establish basic patterns, ANOVA for group comparisons, logistic regression for outcome modeling, and discrete choice models for specialty preference analysis. RESULTS: The study was launched nationally on December 4, 2023. Data collection is anticipated to end on March 1, 2024, with data analysis beginning thereafter. The results are expected to be available later in 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The FAST study represents an important step in understanding the factors influencing UK medical students' career pathways. By integrating diverse student perspectives across year groups and medical schools, this study seeks to provide critical insights into the dynamics of specialty, or residency, selection. The findings are anticipated to inform both policy and educational strategies, aiming to align training opportunities with the evolving needs and aspirations of the future medical workforce. Ultimately, the insights gained may guide initiatives to balance specialty distribution, improve career guidance, and improve overall student satisfaction within the National Health Service, contributing to a more stable and effective health care system. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55155.

Health Insurance Type and Outpatient Specialist Care Among Children With Asthma.

Importance: Although children with asthma are often successfully treated by primary care clinicians, outpatient specialist care is recommended for those with poorly controlled disease. Little is known about differences in specialist use for asthma among children with Medicaid vs private insurance. Objective: To examine differences among children with asthma regarding receipt of asthma specialist care by insurance type. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study using data from the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database (APCD) between 2014 to 2020, children with asthma were identified and differences in receipt of outpatient specialist care by whether their insurance was public (Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program) or private were examined. Eligible participants included children with asthma in 2015 to 2020 aged 2 to 17 years. Data analysis was conducted from January 2023 to April 2024. Exposure: Medicaid vs private insurance. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was receipt of specialist care (any outpatient visit with a pulmonology, allergy and immunology, or otolaryngology physician). Multivariable logistic regression models estimated differences in receipt of specialist care by insurance type accounting for child and area characteristics including demographics, health status, persistent asthma, calendar year, and zip code characteristics. Additional analyses examined if the associations of specialist care with insurance type varied by asthma persistence and severity, and whether associations varied over time. Results: Among 198 101 unique children, there were 432 455 child-year observations (186 296 female [43.1%] and 246 159 male [56.9%]; 211 269 aged 5 to 11 years [48.9%]; 82 108 [19.0%] with persistent asthma) including 286 408 (66.2%) that were Medicaid insured and 146 047 (33.8%) that were privately insured. Although persistent asthma was more common among child-year observations with Medicaid vs private insurance (57 381 [20.0%] vs 24 727 [16.9%]), children with Medicaid were less likely to receive specialist care. Overall, 64 239 child-year observations (14.9%) received specialist care, with substantially lower rates for children with Medicaid vs private insurance (34 093 child-year observations [11.9%] vs 30 146 child-year observations [20.6%]). Regression-based estimates confirmed these disparities; children with Medicaid had 55% lower odds of receiving specialist care (adjusted odds ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.47) and a regression-adjusted 9.7 percentage point (95% CI, -10.4 percentage points to -9.1 percentage points) lower rate of receipt of specialist care. Compared with children with private insurance, there was an additional 3.2 percentage point (95% CI, 2.0 percentage points to 4.4 percentage points) deficit for children with Medicaid with persistent asthma. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, children with Medicaid were less likely to receive specialist care, with the largest gaps among those with persistent asthma. These findings suggest that closing this care gap may be one approach to addressing ongoing disparities in asthma outcomes.

Association between rural exposure/experience and practice location 10 years postgraduation, stratified by specialty: evidence from a cohort study of graduates from nine Australian universities.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the associations between specialty type and practice location at postgraduate year 10 (PGY10), matched with PGY5 and PGY8 work locations, and earlier rural exposure/experience. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of medicine graduates from nine Australian universities. PARTICIPANTS: 1220 domestic medicine graduates from the class of 2011. OUTCOME MEASURES: Practice location recorded by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in PGY10; matched graduate movement between PGYs 5, 8 and 10 as classified by the Modified Monash Model, stratified by specialty type (predominantly grouped as general practitioner (GP) or non-GP). RESULTS: At PGY10, two-thirds (820/1220) had achieved fellowship. GPs were 2.8 times more likely to be in non-metropolitan practice (28% vs 12%; 95% CI 2.0 to 4.0, p<0.001) than graduates with non-GP (all other) specialist qualifications. More than 70% (71.4%) of GPs who were in non-metropolitan practice in PGY5 remained there in both PGY8 and PGY10 versus 29.0% of non-GP specialists and 36.4% of non-fellowed graduates (p<0.001). The proportion of fellowed graduates observed in non-metropolitan practice was 14.9% at PGY5, 16.1% at PGY8 and 19.0% at PGY10, with this growth predominantly from non-GP specialists moving into non-metropolitan locations, following completion of metropolitan-based vocational training. CONCLUSIONS: There are strong differences in practice location patterns between specialty types, with few non-GP specialists remaining in non-metropolitan practice between PGY5 and PGY10. Our study reinforces the importance of rural training pathways to longer-term work location outcomes and the need to expand specialist vocational training which supports more rural training opportunities for trainees outside general practice.

Generalist, specialist, or expert in palliative care? A cross-sectional open survey on healthcare professionals' self-description.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided by generalist healthcare professionals (HCPs) if possible and by palliative care specialists if necessary. However, it still needs to be clarified what specialist expertise entails, what specialized care consists of, and which training or work experience is needed to become a palliative care specialist. In addition to generalists and specialists, 'experts' in palliative care are recognized within the nursing and medical professions, but it is unclear how these three roles relate. This study aims to explore how HCPs working in palliative care describe themselves in terms of generalist, specialist, and expert and how this self-description is related to their work experience and education. METHODS: A cross-sectional open online survey with both pre-structured and open-ended questions among HCPs who provide palliative care. Analyses were done using descriptive statistics and by deductive thematic coding of open-ended questions. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-four HCPs filled out the survey; 74% received additional training, and 79% had more than five years of working experience in palliative care. Based on working experience, 17% describe themselves as a generalist, 34% as a specialist, and 44% as an expert. Almost three out of four HCPs attributed their level of expertise on both their education and their working experience. Self-described specialists/experts had more working experience in palliative care, often had additional training, attended to more patients with palliative care needs, and were more often physicians as compared to generalists. A deductive analysis of the open questions revealed the similarities and distinctions between the roles of a specialist and an expert. Seventy-six percent of the respondents mentioned the importance of having both specialists and experts and wished more clarity about what defines a specialist or an expert, how to become one, and when you need them. In practice, both roles were used interchangeably. Competencies for the specialist/expert role consist of consulting, leadership, and understanding the importance of collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Although the grounds on which HCPs describe themselves as generalist, specialist, or experts differ, HCPs who describe themselves as specialists or experts mostly do so based on both their post-graduate education and their work experience. HCPs find it important to have specialists and experts in palliative care in addition to generalists and indicate more clarity about (the requirements for) these three roles is needed.

Specialties preference by gender among medical students at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, South Africa.

BACKGROUND:  To determine the speciality preferences and the gender differences in the choice of speciality among medical students at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, South Africa. METHODS:  This cross-sectional study was conducted among fourth- to sixth-year medical students. A structured self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data. Data analysis was performed using STATA version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, United States). RESULTS:  A total of 174 students participated (response rate of 74%). Their median age was 23 years with interquartile range of 2 years. More than half (57%) were females. About 83% had no previous qualifications. Most (89%) have shown interest in pursuing specialist training. Surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology and internal medicine were the most selected specialities, while family medicine, ophthalmology, forensic medicine, public health medicine, ear, nose and throat, and accident and emergency medicine were the least preferred. Males were more likely interested in surgery and internal medicine, while females preferred obstetrics and gynaecology. CONCLUSION:  The majority of the medical students intends to pursue their postgraduate medical training. Even though the results were not statistically significant, there are gender differences in speciality preferences. There is a need to develop and implement career guidance and recruitment plans to deal with specialities with poor recruitment and gender imbalance.Contribution: To deal with specialties with poor and gender imbalance, career guidance and recruitment plans must be developed and implemented.

The effects of gender discrimination on medical students' choice of specialty for their (junior) residency - a survey among medical students in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Gender discrimination is known to affect societies in many different settings. Medical education is no exception. This study focusses on the consequences, gender discrimination can have on medical students and their choice of (junior) residency specialty. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed and distributed among the 40 medical faculties in Germany. The study population contained medical students in their fifth and sixth academic year. RESULTS: The survey's participants consisted of 759 students from 31 universities. Female medical students experienced significantly more gender discrimination compared to their male colleagues (f = 487, 87.9% vs. m = 76, 45.8%, p < 0.0001). The specialties with the most reported gender discrimination were family medicine (f = 180, 42.9% vs. m = 15, 23.8%, p < 0.05), followed by surgery (f = 369, 87.4% vs. m = 44, 69.8%, p < 0.05), internal medicine (f = 282, 67.3% vs. m = 37, 58.7%, ns), orthopaedics/casualty surgery (f = 270, 65.1% vs. m = 32, 50.8%, p < 0.05), and gynaecology (women (f = 142, 34.1% vs. m = 34, 54.0%, p < 0.05). Gynaecology was the only specialty, men experienced more discrimination compared to women. Among the students that ever changed their specialty of choice (f = 346 (73.3%) m = 95 (72%)), significantly more women than men claimed gender discrimination to be one of the main three reasons for their specialty choice (f = 42, 12.1% vs. m = 1, 1.1%, p < 0.05). In addition, 53 students (f = 50 (10.6%) m = 3 (2.3%)) stated to rule out a specialty from the beginning due to gender discrimination. CONCLUSION: Gender discrimination is frequently experienced by medical students in Germany. It influences their choice of medical specialty directly. Our data suggest a fundamental problem that proposes and implicates certain specialties to be attractive for only one gender.

Restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage provider networks across physician specialties.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to measure specialty provider networks in Medicare Advantage (MA) and examine associations with market factors. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We relied on traditional Medicare (TM) and MA prescription drug event data from 2011 to 2017 for all Medicare beneficiaries in the United States as well as data from the Area Health Resources File. STUDY DESIGN: Relying on a recently developed and validated prediction model, we calculated the provider network restrictiveness of MA contracts for nine high-prescribing specialties. We characterized network restrictiveness through an observed-to-expected ratio, calculated as the number of unique providers seen by MA beneficiaries divided by the number expected based on the prediction model. We assessed the relationship between network restrictiveness and market factors across specialties with multivariable linear regression. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Prescription drug event data for a 20% random sample of beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug coverage from 2011 to 2017. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Provider networks in MA varied in restrictiveness. OB-Gynecology was the most restrictive with enrollees seeing 34.5% (95% CI: 34.3%-34.7%) as many providers as they would absent network restrictions; cardiology was the least restrictive with enrollees seeing 58.6% (95% CI: 58.4%-58.8%) as many providers as they otherwise would. Factors associated with less restrictive networks included the county-level TM average hierarchical condition category score (0.06; 95% CI: 0.04-0.07), the county-level number of doctors per 1000 population (0.04; 95% CI: 0.02-0.05), the natural log of local median household income (0.03; 95% CI: 0.007-0.05), and the parent company's market share in the county (0.16; 95% CI: 0.13-0.18). Rurality was a major predictor of more restrictive networks (-0.28; 95% CI: -0.32 to -0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that rural beneficiaries may face disproportionately reduced access in these networks and that efforts to improve access should vary by specialty.

Medicaid Acceptance Varies by Physician Seniority and Specialty in California.

Given varied insurance acceptances and differing pay between insurances, our objective was to examine the number of California physicians enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid (Medi-Cal), stratified by specialty and graduation year. Medi-Cal and Medicare providers were extracted from publicly available databases (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and California Health and Human Services) and were subsequently merged into one dataset using National Provider Identifier. From there, we stratified physicians by specialty and graduation year. We found that emergency medicine, radiology, pathology, anesthesiology, general surgery, and internal medicine had the highest percent of Medi-Cal-accepting physicians, whereas dermatology, psychiatry, physical medicine & rehabilitation, and plastic & reconstructive surgery physicians had the lowest. There also appears to be an inverse relationship between acceptance of Medi-Cal and earlier year of graduation (P < 0.05). This study demonstrated striking variability in Medi-Cal acceptance based upon physician years in practice and specialty. Older, experienced physicians, as well as physicians of certain specialties, are less likely to accept Medi-Cal.

¿Cómo evolucionó la distribución de médicas y médicos especialistas en Argentina?: un análisis demográfico de la profesión médica al 2020 / How did the distribution of doctors and medical specialists evolve in Argentina?: a demographic analysis of the medical profession to 2020

Las políticas sobre trabajadores/as de salud deben garantizar su distribución adecuada. En Argentina dicha distribución es desigual, sobre todo en especialistas en atención primaria de la salud (APS). El objetivo de este trabajo fue describir la distribución de médicos/as, especialistas lineales y en APS en Argentina, durante el año 2020, teniendo en cuenta la situación económica y sanitaria de cada jurisdicción. Se trata de un trabajo descriptivo y analítico, que utilizó fuentes de datos primarias y secundarias. Se correlacionó la tasa de mortalidad infantil y el producto bruto per cápita de cada jurisdicción ordenándolas de mejores a peores indicadores. La tasa de médicos fue 3,88 médicos/as cada 1000 habitantes, 72% concentrándose en 4 jurisdicciones (Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Córdoba y Santa Fe). El 53% son especialistas y el 27,6% lo son en APS. CABA tuvo una tasa de 16,5 médicos/as por mil; Santiago del Estero y Formosa alcanzaron valores de 1,8 y 1,9 médicas/os por mil habitantes respectivamente. Con respecto a 2014, se observó disminución de especialistas en APS (-14,8%), registrándose las mayores pérdidas en Santiago del Estero, Formosa y Catamarca (-84,5%; -70,1% y -87,3%). La situación nacional sobre la distribución de médicos/as en Argentina desde 1954 a la actualidad fue empeorando en detrimento de las provincias con mayores necesidades. La baja adherencia al sistema de residencias a especialidades de APS pronostica un empeoramiento de la situación de no haber cambios estructurales. Será necesario un fortalecimiento del rol rector del estado en el abordaje de esta problemática (AU)

Policies on health workers must guarantee their adequate distribution. In Argentina, this distribution is unequal, particularly among primary care specialists (PHC).The objective of this article is to describe the distribution of physicians, PHC and non-PHC specialists in Argentina in 2020, considering the economic and health situation of each jurisdiction.We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study with an analytical stage using primary and secondary data sources. The jurisdictions were classified according to the correlation between infant mortality rate and gross product per capita.The rate of physicians in Argentina in 2020 was 3.88 physicians per 1,000 inhabitants. 72% are concentrated in 4 jurisdictions (City of Buenos Aires, Province of Buenos Aires, Córdoba and Santa Fe). 53% are specialists and 27.6% are PHC specialists. The City of Buenos Aires has a rate of 16.5 physicians per thousand; and Santiago del Estero and Formosa reach values of 1.8 and 1.9 physicians per thousand inhabitants, respectively.There was a decrease in PHC specialists (-14.8%), with major losses recorded in Santiago del Estero, Formosa and Catamarca (-84.5%; -70.1% and -87.3%, respectively).The distribution of physicians in Argentina from 1954 to the present has worsened to the detriment of the provinces with the greatest needs. The lack of adheren-ce to the specialty of PHC predicts a worsening of the situation if there are no structural changes. It is necessary to strengthen the leading role of the state in addressing this problem (AU)

Physician perspectives on delays in cancer diagnosis in Alberta: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Delays in cancer diagnosis have been associated with reduced survival, decreased quality of life after treatment, and suboptimal patient experience. The objective of the study was to explore the perspectives of a group of family physicians and other specialists regarding potentially avoidable delays in diagnosing cancer, and approaches that may help expedite the process. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using interviews with physicians practising in primary and outpatient care settings in Alberta between July and September 2019. We recruited family physicians and specialists who were in a position to discuss delays in cancer diagnosis by email via the Cancer Strategic Clinical Network and the Alberta Medical Association. We conducted semistructured interviews over the phone, and analyzed data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven family physicians and 22 other specialists (including 7 surgeons or surgical oncologists, 3 pathologists, 3 radiologists, 2 emergency physicians and 2 hematologists) participated in interviews; 22 were male (66.7%). We identified 4 main themes describing 9 factors contributing to potentially avoidable delays in diagnosis, namely the nature of primary care, initial presentation, investigation, and specialist advice and referral. We also identified 1 theme describing 3 suggestions for improvement, including system integration, standardized care pathways and a centralized advice, triage and referral support service for family physicians. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest the need for enhanced support for family physicians, and better integration of primary and specialty care before cancer diagnosis. A multifaceted and coordinated approach to streamlining cancer diagnosis is required, with the goals of enhancing patient outcomes, reducing physician frustration and optimizing efficiency.

Perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family members on long-term opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are currently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and some patients use opioids continuously for long-term treatment. Stakeholders' awareness about long-term opioid therapy is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family caregivers about long-term opioid use in CNCP management. METHODS: This study was a qualitative study and adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Pain specialists (n = 12), patients (n = 14), and family members (n = 9) were recruited to the study by purposive sampling at the Pain Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, verbatim transcribed, conceptually coded, and analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0. RESULTS: All groups of participants described opioids as non-first-line drugs for pain management. Opioids should be prescribed only for severe pain, when non-opioid pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies are not effective. Patients reported that the benefits of opioids were for pain relief, while physicians and most family members highlighted that opioid use should improve functional outcomes. Physicians and family members expressed concerns about opioid-related side effects, harm, and adverse events, while patients did not. Patients confirmed that they would continue using opioids for pain management under supervision. However, physicians stated that they would taper off or discontinue opioid therapy if patients' pain relief or functional improvement was not achieved. Both patients and family members were willing to consider non-pharmacological therapies if potential benefits existed. Patient education, doctor-patient/family relationships, and opioid prescription policies were proposed to enhance CNCP management. CONCLUSION: Long-term opioid therapy for CNCP may be beneficial in patients who have established realistic treatment goals (for both pain relief and functional improvement) with their physicians. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits, adverse events, and drug-related aberrant behaviors are necessary. Integrated multimodal multidisciplinary therapies and family member collaborations are also important for improving CNCP management.

Dementia Care in Diverse Older Adults in the U.S. Deep South and the Rest of the United States.

BACKGROUND: Use of specialists and recommended drugs has beneficial effects for older adults living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD). Gaps in care may exist for minorities, e.g., Blacks, and especially in the United States (U.S.) Deep South (DS), a poor U.S. region with rising ADRD cases and minority overrepresentation. Currently, we have little understanding of ADRD care utilization in diverse populations in this region and elsewhere in the U.S. (non-DS), and the factors that adversely impact it. OBJECTIVE: To examine utilization of specialists and ADRD drugs (outcomes) in racial/ethnic groups of older adults with ADRD and the personal or context-level factors affecting these outcomes in DS and non-DS. METHODS: We obtained outcomes and personal-level covariates from claims for 127,512 Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD in 2013-2015, and combined county-level data in exploratory factor analysis to define context-level covariates. Adjusted analyses tested significant association of outcomes with Black/White race and other factors in DS and non-DS. RESULTS: Across racial/ethnic groups, 33%-43% in DS and 43%-50% in non-DS used specialists; 47%-55% in DS and 41%-48% in non-DS used ADRD drugs. In adjusted analyses, differences between Blacks and Whites were not significant. Vascular dementia, comorbidities, poverty, and context-level factor "Availability of Medical Resources" were associated with specialist use; Alzheimer's disease and senile dementia, comorbidities, and specialist use were associated with drug use. In non-DS only, other individual, context-level covariates were associated with the outcomes. CONCLUSION: We did not observe significant gaps in ADRD care in DS and non-DS; however, research should further examine determinants of low specialist and drug use in these regions.