Reported Political Participation by Physicians vs Nonphysicians.

This study uses survey data to compare rates of political participation between US physicians and nonphysicians from 2017 to 2021.

An Analysis of Trainee Status of the Primary Care Physician and Ambulatory Care Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Prior studies report disparities in outcomes for patients cared for by trainees vs faculty physicians at academic medical centers. This study examined the effect of having a trainee as the primary care physician vs a faculty member on routine population health outcomes after adjusting for differences in social determinants of health and primary care retention. METHOD: This cohort study assessed 38,404 patients receiving primary care at an academic hospital-affiliated practice by 60 faculty and 110 internal medicine trainees during academic year 2019. The effect of primary care practitioner trainee status on routine ambulatory care metrics was modeled using log-binomial regression with generalized estimating equation methods to account for physician-level clustering. Risk estimates before and after adjusting for social determinants of health and loss to follow-up are presented. RESULTS: Trainee and faculty cohorts had similar distributions of acute illness burden; however, patients in the trainee cohort were significantly more likely to identify as a race other than White (2,476 [52.6%] vs 14,785 [38.5%], P < .001), live in a zip code associated with poverty (1,688 [35.9%] vs 9,122 [23.8%], P < .001), use public health insurance (1,021 [21.7%] vs 6,108 [15.9%], P < .001), and have limited English proficiency (1,415 [30.1%] vs 5,203 [13.6%], P < .001). In adjusted analyses, trainee status of primary care physician was not associated with lack of breast cancer screening but was associated with missed opportunities to screen for colorectal cancer (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.88), control type 2 diabetes mellitus (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94), and control hypertension (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physician trainee status was associated with poorer quality of care in the ambulatory setting after adjusting for differences in socioeconomic factors and loss to follow-up, highlighting a potential ambulatory training gap.

Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

Low Rate of Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in an Academic Primary Care Practice with Resident Trainees.

BACKGROUND: A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure. RESULTS: Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups. CONCLUSION: Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in Telehealth vs In-Person Visits.

Importance: Use of telehealth has increased substantially in recent years. However, little is known about whether the likelihood of completing recommended tests and specialty referrals-termed diagnostic loop closure-is associated with visit modality. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for tests and referrals ordered at telehealth visits vs in-person visits and identify associated factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study, all patient visits from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, at 1 large urban hospital-based primary care practice and 1 affiliated community health center in Boston, Massachusetts, were evaluated. Main Measures: Prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for (1) colonoscopy referrals (screening and diagnostic), (2) dermatology referrals for suspicious skin lesions, and (3) cardiac stress tests. Results: The study included test and referral orders for 4133 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [11.7] years; 2163 [52.3%] women; 203 [4.9%] Asian, 1146 [27.7%] Black, 2362 [57.1%] White, and 422 [10.2%] unknown or other race). A total of 1151 of the 4133 orders (27.8%) were placed during a telehealth visit. Of the telehealth orders, 42.6% were completed within the designated time frame vs 58.4% of those ordered during in-person visits and 57.4% of those ordered without a visit. In an adjusted analysis, patients with telehealth visits were less likely to close the loop for all test types compared with those with in-person visits (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that rates of loop closure were low for all test types across all visit modalities but worse for telehealth. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a patient safety challenge in primary care that may be of particular concern during telehealth encounters.

Completion Rates and Timeliness of Diagnostic Colonoscopies for Rectal Bleeding in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Rectal bleeding is the most common presenting symptom of colorectal cancer, and guidelines recommend timely follow-up, usually with colonoscopy to ensure timely diagnoses of colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Identify loop closure rates and vulnerable process points for patients with rectal bleeding. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, using medical record review of patients aged ≥ 40 with index diagnosis of rectal bleeding at 2 primary practices-an urban academic practice and affiliated community health center, between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Patients were classified as having completed recommended follow-up workup ("closed loop") vs. not ("open loop"). Open loop patient cases were categorized into six types of process failures. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 837 patients had coded diagnoses of rectal bleeding within study window. Sixty-seven were excluded based on prior colectomy, clinical presentation more consistent with upper GI bleed, no rectal bleeding documented on chart review, or expired during the follow-up period, leaving 770 patients included. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were percentages of patient cases classified as "open loops" and distribution of these cases into six categories of process failure that were identified. KEY RESULTS: 22.3% of patients (N = 172) failed to undergo timely recommended workup for rectal bleeding. Largest failure categories were patients for whom no procedure was ordered (N = 62, 36%), followed by patients with procedures ordered but never scheduled (N = 44, 26%) or scheduled but subsequently cancelled or not kept (N = 31, 18%). While open loops increased after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this difference was not significant within our study period. CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients presenting to primary care with rectal bleeding fail to undergo recommended workup. The majority either have no procedure ordered, or procedure ordered but never scheduled or cancelled and not kept, suggesting these are important failure modes to target in future interventions. Ensuring reliable ordering and processes for timely scheduling and completion of procedures represent critical areas for improving the diagnostic process for patients with rectal bleeding in primary care.

Unmasking a Vulnerable Patient Care Process: A Qualitative Study Describing the Current State of Resident Continuity Clinic in a Nationwide Cohort of Internal Medicine Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND: Residents serve as access points to the health care system for the most vulnerable patients in the United States. Two large academic medical centers have identified performance gaps between resident and faculty physicians. Our intent in this study was to measure the scope of resident-faculty performance gaps in a nationwide sample and identify potential targets for intervention. METHODS: This is a qualitative study of 12 residency programs representing 4 out of 5 US regions. Main measures include perceptions of population health performance in resident versus faculty populations, description of precepting model employed, perceptions of differences between resident and faculty patients, and handoff processes at the time of graduation. RESULTS: Of the 8 programs that routinely compare resident and faculty performance, half had confirmed the presence of outcome disparities on routine population health metrics. Seven out of 12 programs employ a 1:1 preceptor:resident comanagement structure. Ten of the 12 programs perceived that resident panels were more psychosocially complex; 2 had a formal process to measure this. Four of the 12 programs had a process to monitor patient loss to follow-up after resident transition. CONCLUSIONS: Resident-faculty performance disparities may be a widespread problem nationally. Potential targets for intervention include increased preceptor engagement, improving access for empanelment in the faculty practice for vulnerable patient populations, and employing more robust handoff practices. Integrating a culture of quality improvement to continuously monitor important educational metrics such as outcome disparities, panel demographics, educational continuity, and patient loss in the resident panel should be a routine practice for academic health centers.

"Patient Lost to Follow-up": Opportunities and Challenges in Delivering Primary Care in Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: Academic health centers (AHCs) face unique challenges in providing continuity to a medically and socially complex patient population. Little is known about what drives patient loss in these settings. OBJECTIVE: Determine physician- and patient-based factors associated with patient loss in AHCs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, embedded qualitative analysis. SETTING: Academic health center. PARTICIPANTS: All visits from 7/1/2014 to 6/30/2019; 89 physicians (51%) participated in a qualitative analysis. MEASURES: Physician-based factors (gender, years of service, hours of practice per week, trainee status, and departure during the study period) and patient-based factors (age, gender, race, limited English proficiency, public health insurance, chronic illness burden, and severe psychiatric illness burden) and their association with patient loss to follow-up, defined as a lapse in provider visit greater than 3 years. RESULTS: We identified 402,415 visits for 41,876 distinct patients. A total of 9332 (22.3%) patients were lost to follow-up. Patient factors associated with loss to follow-up included patient age < 40 (HR 3.12 (2.94-3.33)), identification as non-white (HR 1.07 (1.10-1.13)), limited English proficiency (HR 1.18 (1.04-1.33)), and use of public insurance (HR 1.12 (1.04-1.21)). Provider factors associated with patient loss included trainee status (HR 3.74 (2.43-5.75)) and having recently departed from the practice (HR 1.98, 1.66-2.35). Structured interviews with clinical providers revealed unfavorable relationships with providers and staff (35%), inconvenience accessing primary care (23%), unreliable health insurance (18%), difficulty accessing one's primary care provider (14%), and patient/provider transitions (10%) as reasons for patient loss. CONCLUSIONS: Younger patient age, markers of social vulnerability, and physician transiency are associated with patient loss at AHCs, providing targets to improve continuity of care within these settings.

Fresh frozen plasma transfusion in acute variceal haemorrhage: Results from a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion is often used in the management of acute variceal haemorrhage (AVH) despite best practice advice suggesting otherwise. OBJECTIVE: We investigated if FFP transfusion affects clinical outcomes in AVH. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 244 consecutive, eligible patients admitted to five tertiary health care centres between 2013 and 2018 with AVH. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Multivariable regression analyses were used to study the association of FFP transfusion with mortality at 42 days (primary outcome) and failure to control bleeding at 5 days and length of stay (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: Patients who received FFP transfusion (n = 100) had higher mean Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and more severe variceal bleeding than those who did not received FFP transfusion (n = 144). Multivariable analysis showed that FFP transfusion was associated with increased odds of mortality at 42 days (odds ratio [OR] 9.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.71-23.90). FFP transfusion was also associated with failure to control bleeding at 5 days (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.28-11.70) and length of stay >7 days (adjusted OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.03-3.42). The independent association of FFP transfusion with mortality at 42 days persisted when the cohort was restricted to high-risk patients and in patients without active bleeding. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Fresh frozen plasma transfusion in AVH is independently associated with poor clinical outcomes. As this an observational study, there may be residual bias due to confounding; however, we demonstrate no benefit and potential harm with FFP transfusions in AVH.

Defining the Resident Continuity Clinic Panel Along Patient Outcomes: a Health Equity Opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Continuity clinics are a critical component of outpatient internal medicine training. Little is known about the population of patients cared for by residents and how these physicians perform. OBJECTIVES: To compare resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures. To identify potential associations with differences in performance, specifically medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Large academic primary care clinic caring for 40,000 patients. One hundred ten internal medicine residents provide primary care for 9,000 of these patients; the remainder are cared for by faculty. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis using review of the medical record and hospital administrative data. MAIN MEASURES: We compared resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures, including cancer screening rates, chronic disease care, acute and chronic medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. We evaluated the success of resident transition by measuring rates of kept continuity visits 18 months after graduation. KEY RESULTS: Performance on all clinical outcomes was significantly better for faculty compared to residents. Despite similar levels of medical complexity compared to faculty patients, resident patients had significantly higher levels of psychosocial vulnerability across all measured domains, including health literacy, economic vulnerability, psychiatric illness burden, high-risk behaviors, and patient engagement. Resident patients experienced higher rates of patient loss than faculty patients (38.5 vs. 18.8%) with only 46.5% of resident patients with a kept continuity appointment in the practice 18 months after graduation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large academic practice, resident performance on standard population health measures was significantly lower than faculty. This may be explained in part by the burden of psychosocial vulnerability of their patients and systems that do not effectively transition patients after graduation. These findings present an opportunity to improve structural equity for these vulnerable patients and developing physicians.