Post-COVID Conditions in US Primary Care: A PRIME Registry Comparison of Patients With COVID-19, Influenza-Like Illness, and Wellness Visits.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 is a condition that can lead to other chronic conditions. These conditions are frequently diagnosed in the primary care setting. We used a novel primary care registry to quantify the burden of post-COVID conditions among adult patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis across the United States. METHODS: We used the American Family Cohort, a national primary care registry, to identify study patients. After propensity score matching, we assessed the prevalence of 17 condition categories individually and cumulatively, comparing patients having COVID-19 in 2020-2021 with (1) historical control patients having influenza-like illness in 2018 and (2) contemporaneous control patients seen for wellness or preventive visits in 2020-2021. RESULTS: We identified 28,215 patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis and 235,953 historical control patients with influenza-like illness. The COVID-19 group had higher prevalences of breathing difficulties (4.2% vs 1.9%), type 2 diabetes (12.0% vs 10.2%), fatigue (3.9% vs 2.2%), and sleep disturbances (3.5% vs 2.4%). There were no differences, however, in the postdiagnosis monthly trend in cumulative morbidity between the COVID-19 patients (trend = 0.026; 95% CI, 0.025-0.027) and the patients with influenza-like illness (trend = 0.026; 95% CI, 0.023-0.027). Relative to contemporaneous wellness control patients, COVID-19 patients had higher prevalences of breathing difficulties and type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show a moderate burden of post-COVID conditions in primary care, including breathing difficulties, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. Based on clinical registry data, the prevalence of post-COVID conditions in primary care practices is lower than that reported in subspecialty and hospital settings.

The Disproportionate Impact of Primary Care Disruption and Telehealth Utilization During COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic not only exacerbated existing disparities in health care in general but likely worsened disparities in access to primary care. Our objective was to quantify the nationwide decrease in primary care visits and increase in telehealth utilization during the pandemic and explore whether certain groups of patients were disproportionately affected. METHODS: We used a geographically diverse primary care electronic health record data set to examine the following 3 outcomes: (1) change in total visit volume, (2) change in in-person visit volume, and (3) the telehealth conversion ratio defined as the number of pandemic telehealth visits divided by the total number of prepandemic visits. We assessed whether these outcomes were associated with patient characteristics including age, gender, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, rurality, and area-level social deprivation. RESULTS: Our primary sample included 1,652,871 patients from 408 practices. During the pandemic we observed decreases of 7% and 17% in total and in-person visit volume and a 10% telehealth conversion ratio. The greatest decreases in visit volume were observed among pediatric patients (-24%), Asian patients (-11%), and those with more comorbidities (-9%). Telehealth usage was greatest among Hispanic or Latino patients (17%) and those living in urban areas (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Decreases in primary care visit volume were partially offset by increasing telehealth use for all patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the magnitude of these changes varied significantly across all patient characteristics. These variations have implications not only for the long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also for planners seeking to ready the primary care delivery system for any future systematic disruptions.

Impact of response bias in three surveys on primary care providers' experiences with electronic health records.

OBJECTIVE: To identify impacts of different survey methodologies assessing primary care physicians' (PCPs') experiences with electronic health records (EHRs), we compared three surveys: the 2022 Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ) from the American Board of Family Medicine, the 2022 University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Physician Health IT Survey, and the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated differences between survey pairs using Rao-Scott corrected chi-square tests, which account for weighting. RESULTS: CCQ received 3991 responses from PCPs (100% response rate), UCSF received 1375 (3.6% response rate), and NEHRS received 858 (18.2% response rate). Substantial, statistically significant differences in demographics were detected across the surveys. CCQ respondents were younger and more likely to work in a health system; NEHRS respondents were more likely to work in private practice; and UCSF respondents disproportionately practiced in larger academic settings. Many EHR experience indicators were similar between CCQ and NEHRS, but CCQ respondents reported higher documentation burden. DISCUSSION: The UCSF approach is unlikely to supply reliable data. Significant demographic differences between CCQ and NEHRS raise response bias concerns, and while there were similarities in some reported EHR experiences, there were important, significant differences. CONCLUSION: Federal EHR policy monitoring and maintenance require reliable data. This test of existing and alternative sources suggest that diversified data sources are necessary to understand physicians' experiences with EHRs and interoperability. Comprehensive surveys administered by specialty boards have the potential to contribute to these efforts, since they are likely to be free of response bias.

Measuring Primary Care Spending in the US by State.

This case series identifies states' estimates of primary care spending and recommends steps policymakers can take toward standardizing these estimates.

Underlying Reasons for Primary Care Visits Where Chlamydia Testing Was Performed in the United States, 2019 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, most chlamydia cases are reported from non-sexually transmitted disease clinics, and there is limited information focusing on the reasons for chlamydia testing in private settings. These analyses describe clinical visits to primary care providers where chlamydia testing was performed to help discern between screening and diagnostic testing for chlamydia. METHODS: Using the largest primary care clinical registry in the United States, the PRIME registry, chlamydia tests were identified using Current Procedural Terminology procedure codes and categorized as diagnostic testing for sexually transmitted infection (STI)-related symptoms, screening for chlamydia, or "other," based on Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Evaluation and Management codes selected for visits. RESULTS: Of 120,013 clinical visits with chlamydia testing between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, 70.4% were women; 20.6% were with STI-related symptoms, 59.9% were for screening, and 19.5% for "other" reasons. Of those 120,013 clinical visits with chlamydia testing, the logit model showed that patients were significantly more likely to have STI-related symptoms if they were female than male, non-Hispanic Black than non-Hispanic White, aged 15 to 24 years than aged ≥45 years, and resided in the South than in the Northeast. CONCLUSION: It is important to know what proportion of chlamydial infections is identified through screening programs and to have this information stratified by demographics. The inclusion of laboratory results could further facilitate a better understanding of the impact of chlamydia screening programs on the identification and treatment of chlamydia in private office settings in the United States.

Primary Care Physicians' Satisfaction With Interoperable Health Information Technology.

Importance: Enabling widespread interoperability-the ability of health information technology systems to exchange information and to use that information without special effort-is a primary focus of public policy on health information technology. More information on clinicians' experience using that technology can serve as one measure of the impact of that policy. Objective: To assess primary care physician perspectives on the state of interoperability. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional survey of family medicine physicians in the US was conducted from December 12, 2021, to October 12, 2022. A sample of family medicine physicians who completed the Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ), a required part of the American Board of Family Medicine certification process, which has a 100% response rate, were invited to participate. Main Outcomes and Measures: Eighteen items on the CCQ assessed experience accessing and using various information from outside organizations, including medications, immunizations, and allergies. Results: A total of 2088 physicians (1053 women [50%]; age reported categorically as either ≥50 years or <50 years) completed the CCQ interoperability questions in 2022. Of these respondents, 35% practiced in hospital or health system-owned practices, while 27% practiced in independently owned practices. Eleven percent were very satisfied with their ability to electronically access all 10 types of information from outside organizations included on the questionnaire, and a mean of 70% were at least somewhat satisfied. A total of 23% of family medicine physicians reported information from outside organizations was very easy to use, and an additional 65% reported that information was somewhat easy to use. Only 8% reported that information from different electronic health record (EHR) developers' products was very easy to use compared with 38% who reported information from the same EHR developer's product was very easy to use. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study of family medicine physicians found modest and uneven improvement in physicians' experience with interoperability. These findings suggest that substantial heterogeneity in satisfaction by information type, source of information, EHR, practice type, ownership, and patient population necessitates diverse policy and strategies to improve interoperability.

Prevalence and Predictors of Burnout Among Resident Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Resident burnout may affect career choices and empathy. We examined predictors of burnout among family medicine residents. METHODS: We used data from the 2019-2021 American Board of Family Medicine Initial Certification Questionnaire, which is required of graduating residents. Burnout was a binary variable defined as reporting callousness or emotional exhaustion once a week or more. We evaluated associations using bivariate and multilevel multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: Among 11,570 residents, 36.4% (n=4,211) reported burnout. This prevalence did not significantly vary from 2019 to 2021 and was not significantly attributable to the residency program (ICC=0.07). Residents identifying as female reported higher rates of burnout (39.0% vs 33.4%, AOR=1.29 [95% CI 1.19-1.40]). Residents reporting Asian race (30.5%, AOR=0.78 [95% CI 0.70-0.86]) and Black race (32.3%, AOR=0.71 [95% CI 0.60-0.86]) reported lower odds of burnout than residents reporting White race (39.2%). We observed lower rates among international medical graduates (26.7% vs 40.3%, AOR=0.54 [95% CI 0.48-0.60]), those planning to provide outpatient continuity care (36.0% vs 38.7%, AOR=0.77 [95% CI 0.68-0.86]), and those at smaller programs (31.7% for <6 residents per class vs 36.3% for 6-10 per class vs 40.2% for >10 per class). Educational debt greater than $250,000 was associated with higher odds of burnout than no debt (AOR=1.29 [95% CI 1.15-1.45]). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of recent family medicine residents reported burnout. Odds of burnout varied significantly with resident and program characteristics.

COVID-19 Vaccine Strategy Left Small Primary Care Practices On The Sidelines.

We report on the experience of small primary care practices participating in a national clinical registry with COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination data. At the end of 2021, 11.2 percent of these practices' 3.9 million patients had records of COVID-19 vaccination; 43.1 percent of clinics had no record of patients' COVID-19 vaccinations, but 93.4 percent of clinics had provided or recorded other routine vaccinations.

Metastatic Melanoma: A Consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Metastatic melanoma, though less common than other skin cancers, remains one of the deadliest, particularly in late-stage disease. Our report aims to highlight the importance of early detection and treatment to reduce the morbidity, mortality, and significant disfigurement associated with advanced melanoma. The subject of this case is an 81-year-old female who presented to our emergency department as a trauma patient after being found lying down by a neighbor for an unknown amount of time. She was discovered to have a large fungating nasal mass which was subsequently diagnosed as highly invasive melanoma. A thorough workup revealed a metastatic cerebellar lesion, a large ulcerated basal cell carcinoma eroding her calvarium, and a hemorrhagic lesion within her internal capsule that left her with right-sided hemiparesis. During hospitalization, she underwent palliative resection of the primary nasal mass with flap reconstruction, radiation therapy for her cerebellar lesion, and daily physical therapy. Additional surgery was required for hematoma evacuation and pedicle dissection. Though lockdowns were an important part of the pandemic, they were not without their drawbacks, many of which are still being elucidated. Particularly, by utilizing telehealth services, our patient may have had earlier recognition of her melanoma and a better outcome. Regardless, enhancing patient education and maintaining access to care even through lockdowns poses a potential target for improving melanoma survivability while decreasing associated morbidity.

How Do Family Physicians Document Patients' Social Needs in Electronic Health Records?

Social needs are critical determinants of patient health, but their capture in clinical records began recently. A representative survey of family physicians showed that 61% of respondents document social needs using notes, with fewer using diagnosis codes or electronic forms. This preference for unstructured documentation may make it difficult to connect patients across organizations or for policymakers and planners to identify geographic variation in needs.

Measuring Trust in Primary Care.

Policy Points Trust in primary care clinicians is essential for effective patient care and is associated with better health outcomes, but it is rarely assessed, and existing measures have not been thoroughly evaluated. This scoping review reveals that research assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians largely stopped more than a decade ago but offers candidate measures for future testing, implementation, and policy applications. CONTEXT: Trust is a fundamental aspect of any human relationship, and medical care is no exception. An ongoing, trusting relationship between clinicians and patients has shown demonstrable value to primary care. However, there is currently no measure of trust in general use, and none endorsed for use by most value-based payment programs. This review searched the literature for any existing measures of patient trust in primary care clinicians and assessed their potential to be implemented as a patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: A keyword search on PubMed along with scanning references was conducted to find any trust measures in health care. Measures that did not address primary care clinicians were eliminated and the remaining measures were then assessed for their utility to primary care. RESULTS: This purposeful, scoping review found four tested measures for assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians that are candidates for general use. Of these four, the revised Trust in Physicians Scale and Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale are the most tested and viable options. CONCLUSION: Renewed national interest in trust in health care should focus on the capacity to measure it. This review informs the effort to test trust measures for use in research, practice improvement, and value-based payment. Measuring trust, how it relates to outcomes, and learning how it is produced or lost are key to assisting practices and health systems toward earning it.

Estimated Costs of Intervening in Health-Related Social Needs Detected in Primary Care.

Importance: Health-related social needs are increasingly being screened for in primary care practices, but it remains unclear how much additional financing is required to address those needs to improve health outcomes. Objective: To estimate the cost of implementing evidence-based interventions to address social needs identified in primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical microsimulation of patients seen in primary care practices, using data on social needs from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 through 2018 (N = 19 225) was conducted. Primary care practices were categorized as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas, non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas, and practices in lower-poverty areas. Data analysis was performed from March 3 to December 16, 2022. Intervention: Simulated evidence-based interventions of primary care-based screening and referral protocols, food assistance, housing programs, nonemergency medical transportation, and community-based care coordination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was per-person per-month cost of interventions. Intervention costs that have existing federally funded financing mechanisms (eg, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and costs without such an existing mechanism were tabulated. Results: Of the population included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 34.4 (25.9) years, and 54.3% were female. Among people with food and housing needs, most were program eligible for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment (eg, due to inadequate program capacity), with 78.0% of people with housing needs being program eligible vs 24.0% enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs being program eligible vs 70.2% enrolled. Among those with transportation insecurity and care coordination needs, eligibility criteria limited enrollment (26.3% of those in need being program eligible for transportation programs, and 5.7% of those in need being program eligible for care coordination programs). The cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these 4 domains averaged $60 (95% CI, $55-$65) per member per month (including approximately $5 for screening and referral management in clinics), of which $27 (95% CI, $24-$31) (45.8%) was federally funded. While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps (intervention costs not borne by existing federal funding mechanisms). Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical microsimulation study, food and housing interventions were limited by low enrollment among eligible people, whereas transportation and care coordination interventions were more limited by narrow eligibility criteria. Screening and referral management in primary care was a small expenditure relative to the cost of interventions to address social needs, and just under half of the costs of interventions were covered by existing federal funding mechanisms. These findings suggest that many resources are necessary to address social needs that fall largely outside of existing federal financing mechanisms.

The Neighborhood Atlas Area Deprivation Index And Recommendations For Area-Based Deprivation Measures.

Edward Hannan and colleagues found that a lack of standardization of input variables to the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) available from the Neighborhood Atlas overweights the index for median home value and thus potentially further disadvantages already disadvantaged communities. We recommend that a revised ADI be created that addresses the error, and we offer five steps to avoid future errors in the creation of area deprivation measures.

Interoperability among hospitals treating populations that have been marginalized.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether differences in hospital interoperability are related to the extent to which hospitals treat groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Data on 2393 non-federal acute care hospitals in the United States from the American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement fielded in 2021, the 2019 Medicare Cost Report, and the 2019 Social Deprivation Index. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified five proxy measures related to marginalization and assessed the relationship between those measures and the likelihood that hospitals engaged in all four domains of interoperable information exchange and participated in national interoperability networks in cross-sectional analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In unadjusted analysis, hospitals that treated patients from zip codes with high social deprivation were 33% less likely to engage in interoperable exchange (Relative Risk = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58-0.76) and 24% less likely to participate in a national network than all other hospitals (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66-0.87). Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) were 24 percent less likely to engage in interoperable exchange (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83) but not less likely to participate in a national network (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.06). No difference was detected for 2 measures (high Disproportionate Share Hospital percentage and Medicaid case mix) while 1 was associated with a greater likelihood to engage (high uncompensated care burden). The association between social deprivation and interoperable exchange persisted in an analysis examining metropolitan and rural areas separately and in adjusted analyses accounting for hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that treat patients from areas with high social deprivation were less likely to engage in interoperable exchange than other hospitals, but other measures were not associated with lower interoperability. The use of area deprivation data may be important to monitor and address hospital clinical data interoperability disparities to avoid related health care disparities.

Variation in Family Physicians' Experiences Across Different Electronic Health Record Platforms: a Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been connected to excessive workload and physician burnout. Little is known about variation in physician experience with different EHRs, however. OBJECTIVE: To analyze variation in reported usability and satisfaction across EHRs. DESIGN: Internet-based survey available between December 2021 and October 2022 integrated into American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) certification process. PARTICIPANTS: ABFM-certified family physicians who use an EHR with at least 50 total responding physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported experience of EHR usability and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed the responses of 3358 physicians who used one of nine EHRs. Epic, athenahealth, and Practice Fusion were rated significantly higher across six measures of usability. Overall, between 10 and 30% reported being very satisfied with their EHR, and another 32 to 40% report being somewhat satisfied. Physicians who use athenahealth or Epic were most likely to be very satisfied, while physicians using Allscripts, Cerner, or Greenway were the least likely to be very satisfied. EHR-specific factors were the greatest overall influence on variation in satisfaction: they explained 48% of variation in the probability of being very satisfied with Epic, 46% with eClinical Works, 14% with athenahealth, and 49% with Cerner. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful differences exist in physician-reported usability and overall satisfaction with EHRs, largely explained by EHR-specific factors. User-centric design and implementation, and robust ongoing evaluation are needed to reduce physician burden and ensure excellent experience with EHRs.

Foundational Collective Actions for Achieving Agile High-Quality Primary Care in the United States.

In 2021, the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care published its recommendations to expand the provision of high-quality primary care in the USA. These include paying for primary care teams to care for people, ensuring that high-quality primary care is available, training primary care teams where people live and work, and designing information technology that serves the patient, family, and care team. Many of these recommendations echo those of prior calls for action, including the Institute of Medicine's 1996 report. However, the 2021 report recognizes the importance of implementation in its final recommendation of ensuring that high-quality primary care is implemented in the USA. We consider the NASEM recommendations in terms of the complexity of the task of supporting interconnected implementation activities that occur in local contexts. With this vantage point, we identify foundational collective actions, including the creation of an accountable leadership entity, payment reform, and community networks. We then discuss the creation of a monitoring mechanism to assess and support sustained action.

The Value of Funding a Primary Care Extension Program in the United States.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of the Primary Care Extension Program to ensure access to high-quality primary care in the US.

Academic Medicine's Fourth Mission: Building on Community-Oriented Primary Care to Achieve Community-Engaged Health Care.

A 2021 article, "Now is our time to act: Why academic medicine must embrace community collaboration as its fourth mission," by Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) authors, including AAMC president and CEO Dr. David J. Skorton, offers 2 aims that are highly related: community collaboration and health equity. The AAMC's call to prioritize community collaboration and health equity as pillars of the academic medicine mission echo earlier work on community-oriented primary care (COPC) and an even more robust model that builds on COPC, community-engaged health care (CEHC). COPC is a tested, systematic approach to health care by which a health clinic or system collaborates with a community to reshape priorities and services based on assessed health needs and determinants of health. COPC affirms health inequities' socioeconomic and political roots, emphasizing health care as a relationship, not a transaction or commodity. Communities where COPC is implemented often see reductions in health inequities, especially those related to socioeconomic, structural, and environmental factors. COPC was the foundation on which community health centers were built, and early models had demonstrable effects on community health and engagement. Several academic health centers build on COPC to achieve CEHC. In CEHC, primary care remains critical, but more of the academic health center's functions are pulled into community engagement and trust building. Thus, the AAMC has described and embraced a care and training model for which there are good, longitudinal examples among medical schools and teaching hospitals. Spreading CEHC and aligning the Community Health Needs Assessment requirements of academic health centers with the fourth mission could go a long way to improving equity, building trust, and repairing the social contract for health care.