Relationship Between Primary Care Physician Capacity and Usual Source of Care.

BACKGROUND: The NASEM Primary Care Report and Primary Care scorecard highlighted the importance of primary care physician (PCP) capacity and having a usual source of care (USC). However, research has found that PCP capacity and USC do not always correlate. This exploratory study compares geographic patterns and the characteristics of counties with similar rates of PCP capacity but varying rates of USC. METHODS: Our county-level, cross-sectional approach includes estimates from the Robert Graham Center and data from the Robert Wood Johnson County Health Rankings (CHR). We utilized conditional mapping methods to first identify US counties with the highest rates of social deprivation (SDI). Next, counties were stratified based on primary care physician (PCP) capacity and usual source of care (USC) terciles, allowing us to identify 4 types of counties: (1) High-Low (high PCP capacity, low USC); (2) High-High (high PCP capacity, high USC); (3) Low-High (low PCP capacity, high USC); and (4) Low-Low (low PCP capacity, low USC). We use t test to explore differences in the characteristics of counties with similar rates of primary care capacity. RESULTS: The results show clear geographic patterns: High-High counties are located primarily in the northern and northeastern US; High-Low counties are located primarily in the southwestern and southern US. Low-High counties are concentrated in the Appalachian and Great Lakes regions; Low-Low counties are concentrated in the southeastern US and Texas. Descriptive results reveal that rates of racial and ethnic minorities, the uninsured, and social deprivation are highest in counties with low rates of USC for both high PCP and low PCP areas. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing PCP shortages and improving rates of USC are key strategies for increasing access to high-quality, primary care. Targeting strategies by geographic region will allow for tailored models to improve access to and continuity of primary care. For example, we found that many of the counties with the lowest rates of USC are found in non-Medicaid expansion states (Texas, Georgia, and Florida) with high rates of uninsured populations, suggesting that expanding Medicaid and improving access to health insurance are key strategies for increasing USC in these states.

Practice Facilitation to Address Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Unhealthy alcohol use (UAU) is the fourth most preventable cause of death in the US. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that primary care clinicians routinely screen all adults 18 years and older for UAU; however, this preventive service is poorly implemented. Objective: To determine if practice facilitation improved delivery of the recommended care for UAU compared to usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This practice-level cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted across diverse and representative primary care practices throughout Virginia. A total of 76 primary care practices enrolled between October 2019 and January 2023. Intervention: Practices received immediate (intervention) or 6-month delayed (control) practice facilitation, which included tailored educational sessions, workflow management, and tools for addressing UAU. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the increase in recommended screening for UAU, brief interventions, referral for counseling, and medication treatment. Data were collected via medical record review (structured and free text data) and transcripts of practice facilitator sessions and exits interviews. Results: Of the 76 primary care practices enrolled, 32 were randomized to intervention and 35 to control; 11 789 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [16.3] years; 61.1% women) were randomly selected for analysis, with patient demographics similar to Virginia at large. From baseline to 6 months after intervention, screening with a validated instrument increased from 2.1% (95% CI, 0.5%-8.4%) to 35.5% (95% CI, 11.5%-69.9%) in the intervention group compared to 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1%-1.8%) to 1.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.8%) in the control group (P < .001). Brief office-based interventions for the intervention group increased from 26.2% (95% CI, 14.2%-45.8%) to 62.6% (95% CI, 43.6%-78.3%) vs 45.5% (95% CI, 28.0%-64.1%) to 55.1% (95% CI, 36.5%-72.3%) in the control group (P = .008). Identification of UAU, referral for counseling, and medication treatment had similar changes for both groups. Qualitative analyses of transcripts revealed that few clinicians understood the preventive service prior to practice facilitation, but at the end most felt much more competent and confident with screening and brief intervention for UAU. Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized clinical trial demonstrated that practice facilitation can help primary care practices to better implement screening and counseling for UAU into their routine workflow. Effective primary care practice implementation interventions such as this can have a profound effect on the health of communities. Given the number of people that the participating practices care for, this intervention resulted in an additional 114 604 patients being screened annually for UAU who would not have been otherwise. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023.

Screening for Unhealthy Alcohol Use Among Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions in Primary Care.

Introduction: Unhealthy alcohol use increases the risk for and exacerbation of chronic health conditions. As such, screening, prevention, and management of unhealthy alcohol use is especially critical to improving health outcomes for patients with multiple chronic health conditions. It is unclear to what extent multiple chronic condition status is a barrier to screening for unhealthy alcohol use in the primary care setting. The authors hypothesized that patients with multiple chronic conditions would be at lower odds of being screened for unhealthy alcohol use than patients without multiple chronic conditions. Methods: The authors performed a secondary analysis of electronic health record data for patients from 67 primary care practices in Virginia (2020-2023). Using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' chronic disease framework, they classified patients by multiple chronic condition status: no multiple chronic conditions, physical multiple chronic conditions, mental health multiple chronic conditions, and physical and mental health multiple chronic conditions. They used multiple logistic regressions with an added practice-level random effect to analyze the relationship between multiple chronic condition status and the odds of receiving an alcohol-related assessment, of being screened for unhealthy alcohol use with a U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-recommended instrument, and of screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use within the past 2 years. Results: Within a final cohort of n=11,789, a total of 6,796 patients (58%) had multiple chronic conditions (29% physical multiple chronic conditions, 4% mental health multiple chronic conditions, and 25% physical and mental health multiple chronic conditions). In all, 69% of patients were screened for unhealthy alcohol use, whereas 16% were screened with a U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-recommended instrument, and 7% screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use. Patients with physical and mental health multiple chronic conditions had 0.9 times lower odds of receiving any screening for unhealthy alcohol use than those with no multiple chronic conditions (95% CI=0.8, 1.0; p=0.0240), whereas patients with only physical multiple chronic conditions or only mental health multiple chronic conditions had similar odds. There was no difference in the odds of being screened with a U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-recommended instrument on the basis of multiple chronic condition status. Patients with mental health multiple chronic conditions and physical and mental health multiple chronic conditions had 1.8 and 1.5 times greater odds of screening positive for unhealthy alcohol use, respectively (95% CI=1.3, 2.7; p=0.0014 and 95% CI=1.2, 1.8; p=0.0003). Conclusions: Although patients with chronic mental health conditions were more likely to screen positive for unhealthy alcohol use than patients without multiple chronic conditions, Virginia primary care patients with physical and mental health multiple chronic conditions were less likely to receive an alcohol-related assessment during the past 2 years. Given the overall modest rate of screening with a U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-recommended instrument, further efforts are needed to create the conditions for high-quality alcohol-related preventive service delivery in primary care, particularly for patients with high complexity and/or mental health conditions.

Family physicians provide maternity care in and around the maternity care shortage areas, particularly rural.

PURPOSE: This study examined demographic, practice, and area-level characteristics associated with family physicians' (FP) provision of maternity care. METHODS: Using the American Board of Family Medicine Certification examination application survey data, we investigated the relationship between FPs' maternity care service provision and (1) demographic (gender, years in practice, race/ethnicity), (2) practice characteristics (size, ownership, rurality), and (3) county-level factors (percentage of reproductive-age women, the number of obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNs) and certified nurse midwives (CNMs) per 100,000 reproductive-age women). We performed summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 59,903 FPs in the sample, 7.5% provided maternity care. FPs practicing in rural were 2.5 times more likely to provide maternity care than those practicing in urban areas. FPs in academic (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-5.1) and safety-net settings (OR 1.9, 1.7-2.1) had greater odds of providing maternity care. FPs in the bottom quintile with no or fewer OBGYNs and CNMs had a higher likelihood of maternity care provision (OR 2.1, 1.8-2.3) than those in the top quintile, with more OBGYNs and CNMs. CONCLUSIONS: FPs in high-needs areas, such as rural and safety net settings, and areas with fewer CNMs or OBGYNs are more likely to provide maternity care, demonstrating the importance of FPs in meeting the needs of women with limited maternity care access. Our study findings highlight the importance of considering the contributions of FPs to maternity care as the organizations prioritize resource allocation to areas of highest need.

Primary Care Access in Areas of the United States With Aging Populations.

The percentage of U.S. residents 65 years and older was 17% in 2020, and this number is expected to rise due to the aging of the baby boomer generation.1Although life expectancy fell between 2020 and 2021, the proportion of U.S. residents older than 65 years continues to increase.2This age group often has more medical comorbidities and prescription medications, increasing the demand for primary care access. Domestic migration (U.S. residents moving within the country) of this retirement-aged population further strains the primary care workforce in underserved areas.

Racial Inequities in Female Family Physicians Providing Women's Health Procedures.

Patient-physician race concordant dyads have been shown to improve patient outcomes; the race and ethnicity of family physicians providing women's health procedures has not been described. Using self-reported data, this analysis highlights the racial disparities in scope of practice; underrepresented in medicine (URiM) females are less likely to perform women's health procedures which may lead to disparities in care received by minority women.

Considering the Environmental Impact of Practice-Based Research.

INTRODUCTION: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) improve primary care by addressing issues that matter to clinicians. Building trust between researchers and care teams is essential to this process, which often requires visiting practices to cultivate relationships and perform research activities. However, in a recent study using practice facilitation to improve the delivery of a preventive service, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted us to convert all planned facilitation from an in-person to virtual format. This eliminated the need to commute by automobile to and from practices across the state, greatly reducing the carbon footprint of the study. METHODS: From practice facilitator field notes that detailed practice locations and number of sessions, we calculated the total number of driving miles averted by virtual facilitation. We then determined metric tons of carbon dioxide we avoided producing using the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator. During post-intervention interviews, we assessed practices' perspectives and experiences with the virtual format. RESULTS: Three practice facilitators provided an average of 3.4 sessions for 64 practices. Virtual facilitation averted 32,574.8 drive miles and prevented the release of 12.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide, an offset equivalent to growing 210 trees for 10 years. Practices reported that virtual facilitation fostered greater engagement and allowed more clinicians and staff to attend sessions. DISCUSSION: Climate change poses a significant threat to the health of people and communities. Given their commitment to improving population health, it may be time for PBRNs to routinely assess their environmental impact and minimize preventable environmental costs.

Osteopathic Medical Schools Produce an Increasing Proportion of Family Medicine Residents.

The Association of American Medical Colleges reported a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians in 2020 and projects shortages of 65,000 by 2025 and 104,900 by 2030.1 The shortage has been exacerbated by physician retirement due to the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The increasing deficit is partially because of the decline in medical students entering primary care specialties. Interest in family medicine has been flat for the past 10 years, and only 13% of U.S. allopathic and osteopathic graduates enter Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited family medicine programs.3 Most recent residency matches report that only 9% of allopathic medical students choose family medicine.4 There has been more interest in primary care in osteopathic schools, with 23% of these students expressing an interest in primary care.5.

Increased Organizational Stress in Primary Care: Understanding the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Medicaid Expansion, and Practice Ownership.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is the foundation of health care, resulting in longer lives and improved equity. Primary care was the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic public response and essential for access to care. Yet primary care faces substantial structural and systemic challenges. As part of a longitudinal analysis to track the capacity and health of primary care, we surveyed every primary care practice in Virginia in 2018 and again in 2022. METHODS: Surveys were emailed or mailed up to 6 times and nonresponders received a phone call. Questions assessed organizational characteristics, scope of care, capacity, and organizational stress in the prior year. From respondents, 39 clinicians, nurses, staff, administrators, and practice managers were interviewed. RESULTS: 526 out of 2296 primary care practices (23% response rate) completed the survey, with broad representation across geography, ownership, and payer mix. Compared with 2018, in 2022 there were increases in practices owned by health systems (25% vs 43%, P < .0001) and average percent of patients with Medicaid per practice (12% vs 22%, P < .0001). The percent of practices reporting any major stressor increased from 34% to 53% (P < .0001). The main increased stress was losing a clinician, with 13% of practices in 2018 versus 42% in 2022 reporting losing a clinician (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices are resilient and continue to serve their communities, including a broad scope of services and care for underserved people. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant stress. With an increase in clinicians leaving clinical practice, we anticipate worsening access to primary care.

Female Family Physicians May Earn $1.8 Million Less Than Male Peers Over a Lifetime.

The average salaries of female physicians are lower than those of their male peers. Previous studies demonstrate that female family physicians earn approximately 16% less than their male counterparts.1 However, multiple studies have demonstrated benefits of having a female physician, including quality of care and relationships.2,3 After controlling for multiple variables, the wage gap persists, making gender biases the most likely explanation.

Concordance of Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Clinicians and Patients: A Systematic Review.

Objective: Primary high risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) testing is recommended as first-line screening for cervical cancer. Testing involves either a clinician-collected or a self-collected cervicovaginal swab. This study examines concordance between methods of collection of primary HPV testing. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies on self-collected and clinician-collected primary HPV testing published before December 31, 2022. English-language studies for primary HPV testing of average-risk patients were included. Studies conducted in screening settings rather than colposcopy clinics, that used standard devices for HPV collection, and that directly compared methods of collection were included. Outcomes were concordance and kappa between paired samples, and rate of HPV detection in self-collected and clinician-collected samples. Results: A total of 2381 studies were screened, of which 228 were included for full-text evaluation. Thirty-six studies, including 23,328 individuals screened, met the inclusion criteria. The rate of HPV detection ranged from 4.7% to 63% for self-collection and from 3.7% to 62% for clinician-collection. The concordance ranged from 78.2% to 96.9%, and kappa had substantial agreement for 26 of the 36 studies and moderate agreement for 7 of the 36 studies. Conclusions: This study directly compares clinician-collected and self-collected primary HPV screening rates. Studies were conducted in methods which are widely reproducible in the primary care setting. Primary HPV self-collection is a reliable and accurate method for cervical cancer screening.

An Estimate of Severe Harms Due to Screening Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comprehensively assess the direct, severe harms of screening colonoscopy in the United States. Whereas other investigators have completed systematic reviews estimating the harms of all types of colonoscopy, this analysis focuses on screening colonoscopies that had adequate follow up to avoid undercounting delayed harms. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on screening colonoscopy harms published between January 1, 2002, and April 1, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of screening colonoscopy for average risk patients were included. Studies must have followed patients for adequate time post procedure, defined as 30 days after colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the number of severe bleeding events and gastrointestinal (GI) perforations within 30 days of screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 1951 studies were reviewed for inclusion; 94 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed in full, 6 studies, including a total of 467,139 colonoscopies, met our inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis of harms related to screening colonoscopies. The rate of severe bleeding ranged credibly from 16.4 to 36.18 per 10,000 colonoscopies; the rate of perforation ranged credibly from 7.62 to 8.50 per 10,000 colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to estimate direct harms from screening colonoscopy, including harms that occur up to 30 days after the procedure. The risk of harm subsequent to screening colonoscopy is higher than previously reported and should be discussed with patients when engaging in shared decision making.

Use of population health data to promote equitable recruitment for a primary care practice implementation trial addressing unhealthy alcohol use.

Background: Recruiting underrepresented people and communities in research is essential for generalizable findings. Ensuring representative participants can be particularly challenging for practice-level dissemination and implementation trials. Novel use of real-world data about practices and the communities they serve could promote more equitable and inclusive recruitment. Methods: We used a comprehensive primary care clinician and practice database, the Virginia All-Payers Claims Database, and the HealthLandscape Virginia mapping tool with community-level socio-ecological information to prospectively inform practice recruitment for a study to help primary care better screen and counsel for unhealthy alcohol use. Throughout recruitment, we measured how similar study practices were to primary care on average, mapped where practices' patients lived, and iteratively adapted our recruitment strategies. Results: In response to practice and community data, we adapted our recruitment strategy three times; first leveraging relationships with residency graduates, then a health system and professional organization approach, followed by a community-targeted approach, and a concluding approach using all three approaches. We enrolled 76 practices whose patients live in 97.3% (1844 of 1907) of Virginia's census tracts. Our overall patient sample had similar demographics to the state for race (21.7% vs 20.0% Black), ethnicity (9.5% vs 10.2% Hispanic), insurance status (6.4% vs 8.0% uninsured), and education (26.0% vs 32.5% high school graduate or less). Each practice recruitment approach uniquely included different communities and patients. Discussion: Data about primary care practices and the communities they serve can prospectively inform research recruitment of practices to yield more representative and inclusive patient cohorts for participation.

Relationships Matter: Primary Care Physicians and Usual Sources of Care.

There are benefits to having a primary care physician or a usual source of care. Adults with a primary care physician have higher rates of preventive care, have improved communication with their care team, and receive more attention to social needs.1-3 Yet, not all individuals have equitable access to a primary care physician. The overall percentage of U.S. patients who reported having a usual source of care declined from 84% in 2000 to 74% in 2019, with wide variations across states, patient race, and insurance status.