Hospitalists' perception of their communication with primary care providers - survey results from six hospitals in Central Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the increasing complexity of the healthcare system, effective communication and data exchange between hospitalists (in-hospital physicians) and primary care physicians (PCPs) is both central and challenging. In Switzerland, little is known about hospitalists' perception of their communication with PCPs. The primary objective was to assess hospitalists' satisfaction with their communication with PCPs. Secondary objectives addressed all information about the referral process and communication with PCPs during and after the hospital encounter. Lastly, the results of a previous survey among PCPs were juxtaposed to compare their responses to similar questions. METHODS: This study surveyed hospitalists in six hospitals in the Central Switzerland region. The survey was sent via email to hospitalists from November 2021 to February 2022. The questionnaire contained 17 questions with single- and multiple-choice answers and the option of free-text entry. Exploratory multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse independent associations. RESULTS: In total, 276 of 1134 hospitalists responded (response rate 24.3%): (1) the majority of hospitalists are satisfied with the general communication (n = 162, 58.7%) as well as with referral letters (n = 145, 52.5%), (2) preferred information channels for referral letters are email (n = 212, 76.8%) and electronic portals (n = 181, 65.5%), (3) the three most important items of information in referrals are: medication list, diagnoses and reason for referral. In multivariable regression, compared to other clinicians, internists independently favoured informing PCPs of emergency admissions of their patients in a timely manner (OR 2.04; 95%CI 1.21-3.49). Comparing responses from PCPs (n = 109), the most prominent discrepancy was that 67% (n = 184) of hospitalists claimed to "always" inform after an encounter, whereas only 7% (n = 8) of PCPs agreed. CONCLUSION: Most hospitalists are satisfied with the communication with PCPs and prefer electronic communication channels. Room for improvement was found around timely transmission of patient information before and after hospital encounters.

The extent of interruptions to primary care medical officers' consultations in the Western Cape.

BACKGROUND:  Administrative tasks are an increasing burden for primary care doctors globally and linked to burnout. Many tasks occur during consultations. They cause interruptions with possible effects on patients' and doctors' experiences and care. The burden and typology of interruptions of doctors in primary care consultations have not been studied in South Africa. Given the link between administrative loads and burnout, describing the extent of these interruptions would help. This study's aim was to assess the extent of interruptions on primary care doctors in the Western Cape. METHODS:  This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. Doctors from rural and urban primary care clinics in the Western Cape answered an online self-administered survey on the types of interruptions experienced during consultations. Interruptions were categorised and their prevalence calculated. Clinical and non-clinical interruption categories were compared. RESULTS:  There were 201 consultations from 30 doctors. Most interruptions were from retrieving and recording the current patient's information (93.0%), paperwork for other patients (50.7%), and telephone calls about the current patient (41.8%). Other prevalent interruptions were for emergencies (39.8%) and acquiring consumables (37.3%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) of four (2-4) interruption types per consultation was higher than global settings. CONCLUSION:  Doctors experienced many interruptions during consultations. Their wide range included interruptions unrelated to the current patient.Contribution: This study adds insights from the global south on clinicians' administrative burden. It elaborates on the types of activities that interrupt consultations in an upper-middle income primary care setting. Exploration of interventions to decrease this burden is suggested.

U.S. primary care physician perceptions on barriers to providing guideline-driven care for UTI and recurrent UTI: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTI) affect almost two-thirds of all women during their lives and many experience recurrent infections. There are evidence-based guidelines from multiple international societies for evaluation and treatment; however, recent claims-based analyses have demonstrated that adherence to these guidelines is poor. This study seeks to understand the barriers experienced by U.S. primary care providers (PCPs) to providing guideline-based care for UTI and recurrent UTI (rUTI). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of 18 PCPs, recruited from the greater Los Angeles area, examined real-world clinical management of UTI/rUTI episodes, decisions to refer to subspecialty care, and resources guiding counseling and management. Grounded theory methodology served to analyze interview transcripts and identify preliminary and major themes. RESULTS: Participants expressed the desire to obtain urine cultures for each cystitis episode, but felt pressured to make compromises by patient demands or barriers to care. PCPs had lower thresholds to empirical treatment if patients had a history of rUTIs, were elderly, or declined evaluation. Laboratory data was minimally utilized in clinical decision-making: urinalyses were infrequently considered when interpreting culture data. PCPs treated a broad set of urologic and non-urologic symptoms as UTI, even with negative cultures. PCPs did not feel comfortable initiating UTI prophylaxis, instead seeking specialist evaluation for anatomic causes. They were unaware of management guidelines, typically utilizing UpToDate® as their primary resource. Few evidence-based UTI prevention interventions were recommended by providers. CONCLUSIONS: Low availability of succinct and clear professional guidelines are substantial barriers to appropriate UTI/rUTI care. Poor useability of clinical guidance documents results in substantial confusion about the role of preventative measures and additional diagnostic testing. Difficulties in patient access to care providers lead to expectations for presumptive treatment. Future studies are needed to determine if improved educational materials for providers and/or management algorithms can improve guideline concordance of UTI management.

Large Language Model-Based Responses to Patients' In-Basket Messages.

Importance: Virtual patient-physician communications have increased since 2020 and negatively impacted primary care physician (PCP) well-being. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) drafts of patient messages could potentially reduce health care professional (HCP) workload and improve communication quality, but only if the drafts are considered useful. Objectives: To assess PCPs' perceptions of GenAI drafts and to examine linguistic characteristics associated with equity and perceived empathy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional quality improvement study tested the hypothesis that PCPs' ratings of GenAI drafts (created using the electronic health record [EHR] standard prompts) would be equivalent to HCP-generated responses on 3 dimensions. The study was conducted at NYU Langone Health using private patient-HCP communications at 3 internal medicine practices piloting GenAI. Exposures: Randomly assigned patient messages coupled with either an HCP message or the draft GenAI response. Main Outcomes and Measures: PCPs rated responses' information content quality (eg, relevance), using a Likert scale, communication quality (eg, verbosity), using a Likert scale, and whether they would use the draft or start anew (usable vs unusable). Branching logic further probed for empathy, personalization, and professionalism of responses. Computational linguistics methods assessed content differences in HCP vs GenAI responses, focusing on equity and empathy. Results: A total of 16 PCPs (8 [50.0%] female) reviewed 344 messages (175 GenAI drafted; 169 HCP drafted). Both GenAI and HCP responses were rated favorably. GenAI responses were rated higher for communication style than HCP responses (mean [SD], 3.70 [1.15] vs 3.38 [1.20]; P = .01, U = 12 568.5) but were similar to HCPs on information content (mean [SD], 3.53 [1.26] vs 3.41 [1.27]; P = .37; U = 13 981.0) and usable draft proportion (mean [SD], 0.69 [0.48] vs 0.65 [0.47], P = .49, t = -0.6842). Usable GenAI responses were considered more empathetic than usable HCP responses (32 of 86 [37.2%] vs 13 of 79 [16.5%]; difference, 125.5%), possibly attributable to more subjective (mean [SD], 0.54 [0.16] vs 0.31 [0.23]; P < .001; difference, 74.2%) and positive (mean [SD] polarity, 0.21 [0.14] vs 0.13 [0.25]; P = .02; difference, 61.5%) language; they were also numerically longer (mean [SD] word count, 90.5 [32.0] vs 65.4 [62.6]; difference, 38.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07) and more linguistically complex (mean [SD] score, 125.2 [47.8] vs 95.4 [58.8]; P = .002; difference, 31.2%). Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study of PCP perceptions of an EHR-integrated GenAI chatbot, GenAI was found to communicate information better and with more empathy than HCPs, highlighting its potential to enhance patient-HCP communication. However, GenAI drafts were less readable than HCPs', a significant concern for patients with low health or English literacy.

Management of chronic non-cancer pain by primary care physicians: A qualitative study.

Chronic non-cancer pain is a highly prevalent health issue with personal and societal consequences. Patients suffering from chronic non-cancer pain are mainly cared for by primary care physicians, but research shows that the latter perceive treating chronic pain as difficult. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to explore how primary care physicians in Switzerland manage patients with chronic non-cancer pain and what factors influence patient management. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews amongst primary care physicians in the German speaking part of Switzerland. A thematic analysis of the interviews allowed to identify four main themes: Investigation of chronic pain; patient-provider relationship; patient characteristics, and medical recommendations. These themes were closely interconnected and influenced each other. Physicians not only enquired about the origin of pain but also about the patients' beliefs and expectations towards it. They stressed the role of communication in fostering a good patient-physician relationship and to help patients cope with their pain. In addition to purely medical considerations, the psychological, social and economic situation of their patients and their possible impacts on the management of chronic non-cancer pain played a crucial role when recommending a treatment. This study highlighted the complexity of chronic pain management, which entails that primary care physicians need to figure out a unique strategy for each patient. By integrating patients' values and beliefs, as well as socioeconomic aspects, primary care physicians are in a position to take the lead in chronic non-cancer pain management. However, considering the burden of this disease, more continuous medical education on chronic pain is needed for primary care physicians, especially to better take into account the social determinants of pain.

Primary care providers' views of discussing COVID-19 vaccination with vaccine hesitant patients: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care providers' (PCPs) perspectives on discussing COVID-19 vaccination with their patients. METHODS: All PCPs from 11 primary care clinics at 3 health systems were invited to participate. Focus groups were conducted between December 2021-January 2022, and were recorded and transcribed. Participants were asked about their experience communicating about the COVID-19 vaccine. Themes and subthemes were inductively identified using thematic analysis. RESULTS: 40 PCPs participated. All PCPs viewed discussing COVID-19 vaccination as high priority. Strategies for promoting COVID-19 vaccination included influencing what people think and feel, building trust and leveraging their relationship with patients, and practical strategies such as on-site vaccination. Most strategies aimed at influencing what people think and feel and leveraging relationships were viewed as generally ineffective. On-site vaccine availability was identified as the most influential factor. PCPs expressed frustration by their interactions with vaccine hesitant patients, leading them to truncate their communication with these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite using a broad range of strategies, most PCPs were unable to change the strongly held beliefs among the most vaccine hesitant patients that were often informed by misinformation and mistrust. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Promising strategies for promoting vaccination include social/relational (expressing empathy) and practical (on-site COVID-19 vaccine availability).

Physicians' perspectives on COVID-19 vaccinations for children: a qualitative exploration in Ontario, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Parents' decisions to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 are complex and often informed by discussions with primary care physicians. However, little is known about physicians' perspectives on COVID-19 vaccinations for children or their experiences counselling parents in their decision-making. We explored physicians' experiences providing COVID-19 vaccination recommendations to parents and their reflections on the contextual factors that shaped these experiences. DESIGN: We conducted an interpretive qualitative study using in-depth interviews. We analyzed the data using reflexive thematic analysis and a socioecological framework. SETTING: This study involved primary care practices associated with The Applied Research Group for Kids (TARGet Kids!) primary care research network in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 10 primary care physicians, including family physicians, paediatricians and paediatric subspecialists. RESULTS: Participants discussed elements at the individual level (their identity, role, and knowledge), the interpersonal level (their relationships with families, responsiveness to parents' concerns, and efforts to build trust) and structural level (contextual factors related to the evolving COVID-19 climate, health system pandemic response, and constraints on care delivery) that influenced their experiences providing recommendations to parents. Our findings illustrated that physicians' interactions with families were shaped by a confluence of their own perspectives, their responses to parents' perspectives, and the evolving landscape of the broader pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the social and relational nature of vaccination decision-making and highlights the multiple influences on primary care physicians' experiences providing COVID-19 vaccination recommendations to parents. Our findings offer suggestions for future COVID-19 vaccination programmes for children. Delivery of new COVID-19 vaccinations for children may be well suited within primary care offices, where trusting relationships are established, but physicians need support in staying knowledgeable about emerging information, communicating available evidence to parents to inform their decision-making and dedicating time for vaccination counselling.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices survey towards pneumococcal infection and vaccination among primary health care physicians, Ukraine, 2021.

BACKGROUND: The Ukrainian Ministerial Order (UMO) recommends pneumococcal vaccine (PCV) in risk groups but not free-of-charge resulting in coverage <5% (crude estimation). In 2022, the vaccination calendar will include PCV for children <5years. Doctors' pneumococcal knowledge, attitudes and practices (КAP) are paramount to successful roll-out but unexplored. We surveyed doctors aiming to assess their KAP to address gaps and misconceptions and support PCV implementation. METHODS: In March 2021, we selected and surveyed primary care doctors using simple random sampling and structured self-administered online questionnaire. We measured attitudes (importance, effectiveness, safety) and practices using 5-point Likert-type questions. We defined pneumococcal disease (PD) knowledge as low/moderate (<80%) and high (≥80%), PCV and overall knowledge as low (≤50%) and moderate/high (51-100%) and PCV attitudes and practices as negative/neutral (1.0-3.4) and positive (3.5-5.0). We calculated prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) using Poisson regression. RESULTS: The response rate was 46% (286/628). Females represented 85% (243/285); the median age was 47 (interquartile range: 33-59, N = 281) years. Twenty-six percent (72/277) had high PD knowledge associated with age (>47 years: PR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.30-0.90) and child-related UMO awareness (PR = 1.78, 95%CI: 1.04-3.08); 65% (182/278) had moderate/high PCV knowledge associated with positive attitudes towards PCV effectiveness (PR = 2.08, 95%CI: 1.20-3.59). Overall knowledge was moderate/high in 69% (188/271); 83% (220/265) had positive PCV attitudes; 52% (135/258) had positive practices associated with female sex (PR = 2.11, 95%CI: 1.09-4.09), positive attitudes (PR = 3.40, 95%CI: 1.23-9.39) and perception of vaccine supply as medium/big barrier (PR = 1.66, 95%CI: 1.02-2.72). CONCLUSION: We observed moderate pneumococcal knowledge, especially in older doctors, positive PCV attitudes and neutral practices. Females and doctors with positive attitudes recommended PCV more. For successful PCV implementation, we recommend proper planning and prior educational activities targeting patients and primary care doctors, especially older males, to improve knowledge, introduce PCV and address concerns while ensuring uninterrupted vaccine supply.

Primary care physicians' perceptions of artificial intelligence systems in the care of adolescents' mental health.

BACKGROUND: Given that mental health problems in adolescence may have lifelong impacts, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in identifying and managing these issues is important. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may offer solutions to the current challenges involved in mental health care. We therefore explored PCPs' challenges in addressing adolescents' mental health, along with their attitudes towards using AI to assist them in their tasks. METHODS: We used purposeful sampling to recruit PCPs for a virtual Focus Group (FG). The virtual FG lasted 75 minutes and was moderated by two facilitators. A life transcription was produced by an online meeting software. Transcribed data was cleaned, followed by a priori and inductive coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We reached out to 35 potential participants via email. Seven agreed to participate, and ultimately four took part in the FG. PCPs perceived that AI systems have the potential to be cost-effective, credible, and useful in collecting large amounts of patients' data, and relatively credible. They envisioned AI assisting with tasks such as diagnoses and establishing treatment plans. However, they feared that reliance on AI might result in a loss of clinical competency. PCPs wanted AI systems to be user-friendly, and they were willing to assist in achieving this goal if it was within their scope of practice and they were compensated for their contribution. They stressed a need for regulatory bodies to deal with medicolegal and ethical aspects of AI and clear guidelines to reduce or eliminate the potential of patient harm. CONCLUSION: This study provides the groundwork for assessing PCPs' perceptions of AI systems' features and characteristics, potential applications, possible negative aspects, and requirements for using them. A future study of adolescents' perspectives on integrating AI into mental healthcare might contribute a fuller understanding of the potential of AI for this population.

Providers' and survivors' perspectives on the availability and accessibility of surgery in gastrointestinal cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is essential for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer treatment. Many patients lack access to surgical care that optimizes outcomes. Scarce availability and/or low accessibility of appropriate resources may be the reason for this, especially in economically disadvantaged areas. This study aimed to investigate providers' and survivors' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to the availability and accessibility of surgical care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews informed by surgical disparities and access-to-care conceptual frameworks with purposively selected GI cancer providers and survivors in Alabama and Mississippi were conducted. Survivors were within 3 years of diagnosis of stage I to III esophageal, pancreatic, or colorectal cancer. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic and content analysis techniques. Intercoder agreement was reached at 90 %. RESULTS: The 27 providers included surgeons (n = 11), medical oncologists (n = 2), radiation oncologists (n = 2), a primary care physician (n = 1), nurses (n = 8), and patient navigators (n = 3). This study included 36 survivors with ages ranging from 44 to 87 years. Of the 36 survivors, 21 (58.3 %) were male, and 11 (30.6 %) identified as Black. Responses were grouped into 3 broad categories: (i) transportation/geographic location, (ii) specialized care/testing, and (iii) patient-/provider-related factors. The barriers included lack and cost of transportation, reluctance to travel because of uneasiness with urban centers, low availability of specialized care, overburdened referral centers, provider-related referral biases, and low health literacy. Facilitators included availability of charitable aid, centralizing multidisciplinary care, and efficient appointment scheduling. CONCLUSION: In the Deep South, barriers and facilitators to the availability and accessibility of GI surgical cancer care were identified at the health system, provider, and patient levels, especially for rural residents. Our data suggest targets for improving the use of surgery in GI cancer care.

Access to primary health care: perspectives of primary care physicians and community stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Action on the social determinants of health is important to strengthen primary health care and promote access among underserved populations. We report on findings from stakeholder consultations undertaken at one of the Canadian sites of the Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) program, as part of the development of a best practice intervention to improve access to primary health care. The overarching objective of this qualitative study was to understand the processes, barriers, and facilitators to connect patients to health enabling community resources (HERs) to inform a patient navigation model situated in primary care. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were conducted with primary care physicians, and community health and social service providers to understand their experiences in supporting patients in reaching HERs. Current gaps in access to primary health care and the potential of patient navigation were also explored. We applied Levesque et al., (2013) access framework to code the data and four themes emerged: (1) Approachability and Ability to Perceive, (2) Acceptability and Ability to Seek, (3) Availability and Accommodation, and Ability to Reach, and (4) Appropriateness. RESULTS: Determinants of access included patient and provider awareness of HERs, the nature of the patient-provider relationship, funding of HERs, integration of primary and community care services, and continuity of information. Participants' perspectives about the potential scope and role of a patient navigator provided valuable insight for the development of the Access to Resources in the Community (ARC) navigation model and how it could be embedded in a primary care setting. CONCLUSION: Additional consultation with key stakeholders in the health region is needed to gain a broader understanding of the challenges in caring for primary care patients with social barriers and how to support them in accessing community-based primary health care to inform the design of the ARC intervention.

Understanding child development and care integrality: Primary Health Care doctors and nurses' view.

OBJECTIVE: To identify perceptions of primary care health professionals regarding the conceptual aspects of child development and propose strategies to address difficulties. METHODS: This descriptive-analytical study was conducted in a small municipality in the countryside of the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The primary health care in this region is comprised of Family Health Units and Basic Health Units. The sample included 52 participants, consisting of doctors and primary care nurses. A questionnaire with open and closed questions was utilized, covering knowledge and practices related to child development. For this study, the first question of the questionnaire, which asked for a descriptive response about participants' understanding of child development, was employed. The responses were transcribed, and content analysis using the thematic approach was conducted. RESULTS: Among the participants, 54% were nurses, and the average duration of working with the pediatric population was ten years. 80% reported never having undergone training in child development. The analysis of the responses revealed heterogeneity in the professionals' understanding of the conceptual dimension of child development. Additionally, there was an insufficient grasp of the theoretical and practical aspects and a scarcity of resources to support comprehensive care for children. A predominant biomedical model focusing on disease and biological aspects of child health was evident in defining the understanding of the subject. CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the necessity of implementing health education initiatives and service projects in primary care settings. It is crucial to strengthen a comprehensive perspective of child health within the biopsychosocial model of the health-disease process.

Identifying primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The growth of medical knowledge and patient care complexity calls for improved clinician access to evidence-based resources. This study aimed to explore the primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore. METHODS: A convenience sample of ten doctors and ten nurses was recruited. We conducted semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 20 participants, eight doctors and ten nurses worked at government-funded polyclinics and two doctors worked in private practice. Most clinicians sought clinical information daily at the point-of-care. The most searched-for information by clinicians in practice was less common conditions. Clinicians preferred evidence-based resources such as clinical practice guidelines and UpToDate®. Clinical practice guidelines were mostly used when they were updated or based on memory. Clinicians also commonly sought answers from their peers. Furthermore, clinicians frequently use smartphones to access the Google search engine and UpToDate® app. The barriers to accessing clinical information included the lack of time, internet surfing separation of work computers, limited search functions in the organisation's server, and limited access to medical literature databases. The facilitators of accessing clinical information included convenience, easy access, and trustworthiness of information sources. CONCLUSION: Most primary care clinicians in our study sought clinical information at the point-of-care daily and reported increasing use of smartphones for information-seeking. Future research focusing on interventions to improve access to credible clinical information for primary care clinicians at the point-of-care is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been reviewed by NHG Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB) (the central ethics committee) for ethics approval. NHG DSRB Reference Number: 2018/01355 (31/07/2019).

Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are rising worldwide. At the same time, a considerable proportion of care does not benefit or may even be harmful to patients. We aimed to explore attitudes towards low-value care and identify the most important barriers to the de-implementation of low-value care use in primary care in high-income countries. METHODS: Between May and June 2022, we email surveyed primary care physicians in six high-income countries (Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Sweden). Physician respondents were eligible if they had worked in primary care during the previous 24 months. The survey included four sections with categorized questions on (1) background information, (2) familiarity with Choosing Wisely recommendations, (3) attitudes towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) barriers to de-implementation, as well as a section with open-ended questions on interventions and possible facilitators for de-implementation. We used descriptive statistics to present the results. RESULTS: Of the 16,935 primary care physicians, 1,731 answered (response rate 10.2%), 1,505 had worked in primary care practice in the last 24 months and were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 53% had read Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of the respondents, 52% perceived overdiagnosis and 50% overtreatment as at least a problem to some extent in their own practice. Corresponding figures were 85% and 81% when they were asked regarding their country's healthcare. Respondents considered patient expectations (85% answered either moderate or major importance), patient's requests for treatments and tests (83%), fear of medical error (81%), workload/lack of time (81%), and fear of underdiagnosis or undertreatment (79%) as the most important barriers for de-implementation. Attitudes and perceptions of barriers differed significantly between countries. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of primary care physicians consider overtreatment and overdiagnosis as a problem in their country's healthcare but fewer (around 50%) in their own practice. Lack of time, fear of error, and patient pressures are common barriers to de-implementation in high-income countries and should be acknowledged when planning future healthcare. Due to the wide variety of barriers to de-implementation and differences in their importance in different contexts, understanding local barriers is crucial when planning de-implementation strategies.

Understanding primary care providers' attitudes towards preventive screenings to patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Preventive care is important for managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), yet primary care providers (PCPs) often face challenges in delivering such care due to discomfort and unfamiliarity with IBD-specific guidelines. This study aims to assess PCPs' attitudes towards, and practices in, providing preventive screenings for IBD patients, highlighting areas for improvement in guideline dissemination and education. METHODS: Using a web-based opt-in panel of PCPs (DocStyles survey, spring 2022), we assessed PCPs' comfort level with providing/recommending screenings and the reasons PCPs felt uncomfortable (n = 1,503). Being likely to provide/recommend screenings for depression/anxiety, skin cancer, osteoporosis, and cervical cancer were compared by PCPs' comfort level and frequency of seeing patients with IBD. We estimated adjusted odd ratios (AORs) of being likely to recommend screenings and selecting responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines by use of clinical practice methods. RESULTS: About 72% of PCPs reported being comfortable recommending screenings to patients with IBD. The top reason identified for not feeling comfortable was unfamiliarity with IBD-specific screening guidelines (55%). Being comfortable was significantly associated with being likely to provide/recommend depression/anxiety (AOR = 3.99) and skin cancer screenings (AOR = 3.19) compared to being uncomfortable or unsure. Percentages of responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines were lower than those aligned with general population guidelines for osteoporosis (21.7% vs. 27.8%) and cervical cancer screenings (34.9% vs. 43.9%), and responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines did not differ by comfort level for both screenings. Timely review of guidelines specific to immunosuppressed patients was associated with being likely to provide/recommend screenings and selecting responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a general comfort among PCPs in recommending preventive screenings for IBD patients, gaps in knowledge regarding IBD-specific screening guidelines persist. Enhancing awareness and understanding of these guidelines through targeted education and resource provision may bridge this gap.

Primary Care Physicians' Experiences With and Adaptations to Time Constraints.

Importance: The primary care workforce shortage is significant and persistent, with organizational and policy leaders urgently seeking interventions to enhance retention and recruitment. Time constraints are a valuable focus for action; however, designing effective interventions requires deeper understanding of how time constraints shape employees' experiences and outcomes of work. Objective: To examine how time constraints affect primary care physicians' work experiences and careers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between May 1, 2021, and September 31, 2022, US-based primary care physicians who trained in family or internal medicine were interviewed. Using qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews, this study examined how participants experience and adapt to time constraints during a typical clinic day, taking account of their professional and personal responsibilities. It also incorporates physicians' reflections on implications for their careers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and a measure of well-being (American Medical Association Mini-Z survey). Results: Interviews with 25 primary care physicians (14 [56%] female and 11 [44%] male; median [range] age, 43 [34-63] years) practicing in 11 US states were analyzed. Two physicians owned their own practice, whereas the rest worked as employees. The participants represented a wide range of years in practice (range, 1 to ≥21), with 11 participants (44%) in their first 5 years. Physicians described that the structure of their work hours did not match the work that was expected of them. This structural mismatch between time allocation and work expectations created a constant experience of time scarcity. Physicians described having to make tradeoffs between maintaining high-quality patient care and having their work overflow into their personal lives. These experiences led to feelings of guilt, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction. To attempt to sustain long-term careers in primary care, many sought ways to see fewer patients. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that organizational leaders must align schedules with work expectations for primary care physicians to mitigate physicians' withdrawal from work as a coping mechanism. Specific strategies are needed to achieve this realignment, including incorporating more slack into schedules and establishing realistic work expectations for physicians.

'Walking together': How relationships shape physicians' clinical reasoning.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical reasoning literature has increasingly considered context as an important influence on physicians' thinking. Physicians' relationships with patients, and their ongoing efforts to maintain these relationships, are important influences on how clinical reasoning is contextualised. The authors sought to understand how physicians' relationships with patients shaped their clinical reasoning. METHODS: Drawing from constructivist grounded theory, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians. Participants were asked to reflect on recent challenging clinical experiences, and probing questions were used to explore how participants attended to or leveraged relationships in conjunction with their clinical reasoning. Using constant comparison, three investigators coded transcripts, organising the data into codes and conceptual categories. The research team drew from these codes and categories to develop theory about the phenomenon of interest. RESULTS: The authors interviewed 15 primary care physicians with a range of experience in practice and identified patient agency as a central influence on participants' clinical reasoning. Participants drew from and managed relationships with patients while attending to patients' agency in three ways. First, participants described how contextualised illness constructions enabled them to individualise their approaches to diagnosis and management. Second, participants managed tensions between enacting their typical approaches to clinical problems and adapting their approaches to foster ongoing relationships with patients. Finally, participants attended to relationships with patients' caregivers, seeing these individuals' contributions as important influences on how their clinical reasoning could be enacted within patients' unique social contexts. CONCLUSION: Clinical reasoning is influenced in important ways by physicians' efforts to both draw from, and maintain, their relationships with patients and patients' caregivers. Such efforts create tensions between their professional standards of care and their orientations toward patient-centredness. These influences of relationships on physicians' clinical reasoning have important implications for training and clinical practice.

Role of motivation and well-being indicators in interventions to improve well-being at work among primary care physicians: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The well-being of primary care physicians (PCPs) has become an object of concern for governments due to staff shortages and high staff turnover. The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review of individualised interventions aimed at improving the well-being of PCPs, which allowed us to determine (1) the type of interventions being carried out; (2) the well-being indicators being used and the instruments used to assess them; (3) the theories proposed to support the interventions and the mechanisms of action (MoA) put forward to explain the results obtained and (4) the role that individual motivation plays in the interventions to improve well-being among PCPs. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Clinical trials on interventions aimed at improving the well-being of PCPs. INFORMATION SOURCES: a search of studies published between 2000 and 2022 was carried out in MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS). RESULTS: From the search, 250 articles were retrieved. The two authors each reviewed the articles independently, duplicate articles and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria were discarded. A total of 14 studies that met the criteria were included: 6 randomised clinical trials, 4 controlled clinical trials and 4 unique cohorts, with a before-and-after assessment of the intervention, involving a total of 655 individuals participating in the interventions. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The information evaluated is insufficient to accurately assess which outcomes are the best indicators of PCPs well-being or what role plays in the individual motivation in the results of the interventions. More studies need to be carried out on the subject to determine the MoA of the different interventions on the results and the motivation of the participating PCPs.