Feasibility of Patient Navigation for Care Planning in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVES: To help better control chronic conditions we need to address root causes of poor health like unhealthy behaviors, mental health, and social needs. However, addressing these needs in primary care is difficult. One solution may be connecting patients with a navigator for support creating a personal care goal. METHODS: As part of an RCT to evaluate a feasible approach to care planning, 24 clinicians from 12 practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) and 87 intervention patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions participated in a care planning intervention. We had a structured process to guide patients, train navigators, and adapt the navigation process to meet the needs of each practice. RESULTS: Only 1 practice had bandwidth for staff to serve as a patient navigator, even for extra pay. For the other 11 practices, a research team member needed to provide navigation services. On average, patients wanted 25 weeks of support to complete care plans. The average time patients needed to speak with navigators on the phone was 7 min and 3 s. In exit interviews, patients consistently shared how motivational it was to have a caring person check in on them, offer help, and hold them accountable. CONCLUSION: Patient navigation to address care plans should be feasible. The time commitment is minimal. It does not require intensive training, and primary care is already doing much of this work. Yet, given the burden and competing demands in primary care, this help cannot be offered without additional resources.

Understanding the Value of the Wellness Visit: A Descriptive Study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical preventive services can reduce mortality and morbidity, but Americans receive only half of the recommended care. Although wellness visits protect time for clinicians to review needs and discuss care with patients, studies have not shown that having a wellness visit improves health outcomes. This study seeks to understand the types of discussions and volume of care delivered during wellness visits. METHODS: Using a sample of 1,008 patients scheduled for a wellness visit from 22 primary care clinicians across 3 states from 2018 to 2019, electronic health records were reviewed, and a subset of visits was audio recorded. The discussion and delivery of clinical preventive services, as recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, were measured, and new diagnoses were identified from the clinical preventive services. Analyses were completed in 2020. RESULTS: Even though patients were up to date with 80% of the recommended clinical preventive services 3 months after the visit, only 0.5% of patients were up to date with all the recommended clinical preventive services. On average, 6.9 clinical preventive service discussions occurred during each wellness visit on the basis of electronic health records review, and 7.7 clinical preventive services discussions occurred on the basis of audio recordings. An average of 0.4 new diagnoses was identified, including cancer diagnoses, cardiovascular risks, and infections. CONCLUSIONS: Wellness visits are an important time for patients and clinicians to discuss prevention strategies and to deliver recommended clinical preventive services, leading to the identification of previously unrecognized diagnoses. This will improve patients' health. Policies and incentives that promote wellness visits are important, and efforts are needed to deliver them to those most in need.

What Family Physicians Really Think of Maintenance of Certification Part II Activities.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines how improving curricular content and technical interface issues could make maintenance of certification activities more meaningful to American Board of Family Medicine diplomates completing Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians (MC-FP) Program self-assessment modules (SAMs). METHODS: We used a sequential exploratory design to analyze quantitative and qualitative data from 320,500 surveys of family physicians who completed a SAM between January 2004 and April 2013. This included numeric rating scales and free text comments. Basic statistical rankings, template-based automated coding, and emergent coding were used to analyze SAM experience and identify thematic content. RESULTS: Across SAMs, numeric ratings were universally high and positive free text comments outnumbered negative comments two to one. When comparing feedback on the knowledge assessment and clinical simulation (CS) activities, SAMs were rated less favorably when the frequency of ideas identified by participants as most prevalent in one activity mismatched those identified as most prevalent in the companion activity. Participants were also critical of navigation issues, technical issues, and a lack of realness in the CS activity. DISCUSSION: Whether analyzed through quantitative data, qualitative data, or mixed methods, a large majority of participants rated their experience with SAMs highly. When individual SAMs were rated poorly, it seemed to be due to discordance in ideas emphasized between the knowledge assessment and CS components, or an opinion regarding the SAM topic that existed independent of the SAM process.