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.

Data collection outcomes comparing paper forms with PDA forms in an office-based patient survey.

PURPOSE: We compared the completeness of data collection using paper forms and using electronic forms loaded on handheld computers in an office-based patient interview survey conducted within the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. METHODS: We asked 19 medical assistants and nurses in family practices to administer a survey about pneumococcal immunizations to 60 older adults each, 30 using paper forms and 30 using electronic forms on handheld computers. By random assignment, the interviewers used either the paper or electronic form first. Using multilevel analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and clustering of forms by practice, we analyzed the completeness of the data. RESULTS: A total of 1,003 of the expected 1,140 forms were returned to the data center. The overall return rate was better for paper forms (537 of 570, 94%) than for electronic forms (466 of 570, 82%) because of technical difficulties experienced with electronic data collection and stolen or lost handheld computers. Errors of omission on the returned forms, however, were more common using paper forms. Of the returned forms, only 3% of those gathered electronically had errors of omission, compared with 35% of those gathered on paper. Similarly, only 0.04% of total survey items were missing on the electronic forms, compared with 3.5% of the survey items using paper forms. CONCLUSIONS: Although handheld computers produced more complete data than the paper method for the returned forms, they were not superior because of the large amount of missing data due to technical difficulties with the hand-held computers or loss or theft. Other hardware solutions, such as tablet computers or cell phones linked via a wireless network directly to a Web site, may be better electronic solutions for the future.

A national survey of primary care practice-based research networks.

PURPOSE: Increasing numbers of primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are being developed in the United States to perform research relevant to everyday practice. To assess the current status and potential value of this resource, we surveyed US primary care PBRNs in operation from late 2003 to early 2004. METHODS: We performed a Web-based survey and structured interviews with PBRN directors and administrative officers, assessing PBRNs' history, size, location, organization, resources, operations, and productivity (funding obtained, studies performed, and articles published). RESULTS: Of 111 primary care PBRNs identified, 89 (80%) responded to the survey. The 86 (77%) meeting the criteria for primary care PBRNs contained 1,871 practices, 12,957 physicians (mean 152 per PBRN, median 100), and 14.7 million patients (mean 229,880 per PBRN, median 105,000). Minority and underinsured patients were overrepresented. The average PBRN was young (4.4 +/- 5.7 years): one-half had performed 3 or fewer studies. Three-quarters were affiliated with universities. Common research foci included prevention, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, and mental health. Respondent PBRNs had published more than 600 articles in peer-reviewed journals. PBRNs studying questions posed by outside researchers had more federal funding (84% vs 27%, P=.006). PBRNs citing funding as a weakness relied more on local resources to fund research projects (70% vs 40%, P=.036). CONCLUSIONS: American primary care PBRNs are mainly young, diverse, and pursuing a variety of research foci. Most have university links and provide a dynamic town-gown relationship that could be a vital national resource for improving primary care, translating research into practice, and meeting the National Institutes of Health Roadmap goals. PBRNs merit further attention from both private and public funding agencies and researchers interested in studying the delivery of primary care.

Use of Point-of-Care Tests (POCTs) by US Primary Care Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: Point-of-care testing (POCT) has been used in the United States for several decades to diagnose and monitor acute and chronic medical conditions. The aim of this study is to assess the use of POCT and perceived benefits of and concerns regarding POCT among US family physicians. METHODS: A total of 405 US family physicians responded to an electronic survey about their use of POCT for diagnosing and monitoring illnesses and for reducing referrals for specialty care. Respondents were also asked about the frequency of, benefits of, and concerns regarding the use of POCT. RESULTS: The top 10 conditions for which physicians reported using POCT for diagnosis are diabetes mellitus, urinary tract infections, strep throat, influenza, pregnancy, anemia, infectious mononucleosis, anticoagulation, acute cardiac conditions, and lipid disorders. More than half of the respondents use or would use >15 kinds of POCTs at least weekly. The perceived benefits of POCT included immediately available results and physician/patient satisfaction; perceived concerns included the accuracy and cost of the tests. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that a variety of point-of-care tests are used by US family physicians for immediate diagnosis and monitoring. With continuing technical improvements and decreasing costs, it is highly likely that POCT use will increase dramatically.

Issues and initiatives in the testing process in primary care physician offices.

BACKGROUND: Errors occur frequently in management of the testing process in primary care physicians' offices. These errors may result in significant harm to patients and lead to inefficient practice. Important issues are summarized for primary care clinicians and their offices toconsider in improving the management of the testing processes. METHODS: To identify published efforts to improve management of the testing process, a literature search was performed and the references from the identified articles were checked for additional studies. Descriptive studies, expert opinion pieces, and controlled trials were all included. Unpublished results of ongoing studies in laboratory testing errors in primary care practice are presented. RESULTS: A conceptual model of the testing process was developed, with identified general and specific errors that occur in the testing process. On the basis largely of descriptive studies, ways are described to reduce testing process errors and the harm resulting from these errors. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of processes, computerized test tracking systems (especially those embedded in electronic medical records), and attention to human factors issues are likely to reduce errors and harm. These ideas need confirmation in well-designed randomized trials and quality improvement initiatives.

A randomized controlled trial of two interventions to improve medication reconciliation.

OBJECTIVE: Medication errors can be caused by lack of agreement between what physicians believe patients are taking and what patients actually take. There has been little systematic research to find the best way to reconcile medication lists in primary care. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of 2 interventions on agreement between electronic medical record medication lists and what patients report actually taking. METHODS: This study was a factorial randomized trial that randomized 440 eligible patients (English-speaking, age 18 and older, taking at least 2 prescriptions) visiting 20 primary care physicians; 367 completed the study. Interventions included (1) providing patients a printed copy of their current medication list at check-in and (2) beginning the medication review with an open-ended question. Patients were randomized to receive no intervention, one or the other intervention, or both interventions. The outcome measure was agreement on all prescription and nonprescription medications, vitamins, and supplements between the list from the electronic medical record after the visit and a list based on patient report generated during a phone interview within a week of the office visit. RESULTS: Agreement rates between medication lists and patient report for the 4 study groups were: 67.4% in the no intervention group, 66.7% in the printed list only group, 58.1% in the open-ended question only group, and 75.6% in the combined intervention group. Both a printed list and beginning a medication discussion with an open-ended question were required before any significant increase in agreement was observed. CONCLUSIONS: While neither intervention alone improved medication list agreement, these interventions may have value in a multistep protocol to improve the agreement of medication lists in primary care offices. Baseline agreement was much higher than expected, possibly reflecting a Hawthorne effect.

Clinicians' management of children and adolescents with acute pharyngitis.

OBJECTIVE: Sore throat is a common complaint in children and adolescents. With increasing antimicrobial resistance because of antimicrobial overuse, accurate diagnosis is imperative. Appropriate management of acute pharyngitis depends on proper use and interpretation of clinical findings, rapid antigen-detection tests, and throat cultures. We surveyed pediatricians and family physicians to evaluate their management strategies for children and adolescents with acute pharyngitis and to assess the availability and use of diagnostic tests in office practice. METHODS: In 2004, surveys were mailed to a random sample of 1000 pediatrician members of the American Academy of Pediatrics and 1000 family physician members of the American Academy of Family Physicians. We assessed factors associated with physicians using an appropriate management strategy for treating acute pharyngitis. RESULTS: Of 948 eligible responses, 42% of physicians would start antimicrobials before knowing diagnostic test results and continue them despite negative results, with 27% doing this often or always. When presented with clinical scenarios of patients with acute pharyngitis, < or =23% chose an empirical approach, 32% used an inappropriate strategy for a child with pharyngitis suggestive of group A Streptococcus, and 81% used an inappropriate strategy for a child with findings consistent with viral pharyngitis. Plating cultures in the office was associated with an appropriate management strategy, although not statistically significant. Solo/2-person practice and rural location were both independent factors predicting inappropriate strategies. CONCLUSIONS: There is much room for improvement in the management of acute pharyngitis in children and adolescents. Most physicians use appropriate management strategies; however, a substantial number uses inappropriate ones, particularly for children with likely viral pharyngitis. Efforts to help physicians improve practices will need to be multifaceted and should include health policy and educational approaches.

Practice-based research networks: the laboratories of primary care research.

Medical research has traditionally been based in academic centers, and the findings are frequently not applicable in community primary care settings. The result is a large gap between the possible and the practical in delivering high-quality primary medical care in the United States. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs), laboratories for primary care clinical research, are the appropriate vehicles for uniting the worlds of community primary care practice and clinical research. Although they have received little attention in the mainstream of clinical and health services research, PBRNs have already reported a variety of findings useful for primary care providers, and these networks have helped to identify key issues in healthcare delivery that affect important outcomes. In this report, we outline the rationale for and history of PBRNs. We describe the organization and work of several productive PBRNs, giving examples of their studies that have changed the standards of modern primary care practice. Finally, we describe a developing electronic process for identifying research questions obtained directly from primary care providers that can be used to focus the national primary care research agenda on questions of clinical relevance and importance. As electronic technologies are fully developed and tested, they will facilitate communication between clinicians and researchers, thereby improving the effectiveness and efficiency of practice-based research.