Referral Rates Vary Widely Between Family Medicine Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Referral rates and patterns to specialists by family physicians have a significant impact on numerous aspects of medical care, including the quality and cost of care provided. The aim of this study was to examine the referral rate and pattern of family physician practices associated with a large academic health center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of referrals for patients seen in the family medicine clinics associated with a large academic institution. Basic demographic information was collected. The primary outcome was the monthly referral rate, measured as the proportion of patient visits that resulted in a consult to a specialist outside of the referring family medicine clinic. Binomial and γ generalized linear mixed models were fit to determine the associations between high/medium/low referral rate clinics and patient demographics. RESULTS: The average monthly referral rate for all of the clinics was 20.3%, and the rate varied significantly between clinic groups. Patient gender, race, and being in a committed relationship were noted to be associated with lower referral rate. DISCUSSION: Referral rates among family physician practices differ widely and are associated with gender, race, and relationship status of patients. Referrals to several specific specialties are common among family physicians.

Barriers to Technology Use and Endocrinology Care for Underserved Communities With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Disparities in type 1 diabetes related to use of technologies like continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and utilization of diabetes care are pronounced based on socioeconomic status (SES), race, and ethnicity. However, systematic reports of perspectives from patients in vulnerable communities regarding barriers are limited. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: To better understand barriers, focus groups were conducted in Florida and California with adults ≥18 years old with type 1 diabetes with selection criteria including hospitalization for diabetic ketoacidosis, HbA1c >9%, and/or receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center. Sixteen focus groups were conducted in English or Spanish with 86 adults (mean age 42 ± 16.2 years). Transcript themes and pre-focus group demographic survey data were analyzed. In order of frequency, barriers to diabetes technology and endocrinology care included 1) provider level (negative provider encounters), 2) system level (financial coverage), and 3) individual level (preferences). RESULTS: Over 50% of participants had not seen an endocrinologist in the past year or were only seen once including during hospital visits. In Florida, there was less technology use overall (38% used CGMs in FL and 63% in CA; 43% used pumps in FL and 69% in CA) and significant differences in pump use by SES (P = 0.02 in FL; P = 0.08 in CA) and race/ethnicity (P = 0.01 in FL; P = 0.80 in CA). In California, there were significant differences in CGM use by race/ethnicity (P = 0.05 in CA; P = 0.56 in FL) and education level (P = 0.02 in CA; P = 0.90 in FL). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide novel insights into the experiences of vulnerable communities and demonstrate the need for multilevel interventions aimed at offsetting disparities in diabetes.

Patient Provider Continuity and Prostate Specific Antigen Testing: Impact of Continuity on Receipt of a Non-recommended Test.

Background: Continuity of care with a regular physician has been associated with treatment adherence but it is unclear if continuity of care may lead to inappropriate treatments. We assessed the relationship between the receipt of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, a non-recommended test, and having continuity with a single personal doctor. Methods: We analyzed the 2016 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Responses from men aged 40 and older with no symptoms or family history of prostate cancer were analyzed (unweighted n = 232,548, representing 36,919,766 individuals). Continuity with one doctor was analyzed in relation to discussions of advantages and disadvantages of PSA tests, provider recommendation to receive a test and receipt of a PSA test. Results: 39.5% of men received PSA screening during the time that the test was not recommended. Having a single personal doctor was associated with discussion of both advantages (53.3 vs. 29.7%, p < 0.001) and disadvantages (24.2 vs. 13.5%, p < 0.001) of PSA tests but also a recommendation to receive a PSA test (45.3 vs. 29.3%, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of receiving a PSA test was higher among those with a single personal doctor compared to those without (OR 2.31; 95% CI, 2.17-2.46). Conclusion: In a nationally representative sample during the time when PSA screening was not recommended by the US Preventive Services Taskforce, having a single personal doctor was associated with both recommendations for the test and receipt of the test. These findings emphasize the importance of the patient physician relationship and the need for evidence-based care.

Challenges and lessons learned from clinical pharmacogenetic implementation of multiple gene-drug pairs across ambulatory care settings.

PURPOSE: Incorporating a patient's genotype into the clinical decision-making process is one approach to precision medicine. The University of Florida (UF) Health Precision Medicine Program is a pharmacist-led multidisciplinary effort that has led the clinical implementation of six gene-drug(s) pairs to date. This study focuses on the challenges encountered and lessons learned with implementing pharmacogenetic testing for three of these: CYP2D6-opioids, CYP2D6/CYP2C19-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and CYP2C19-proton pump inhibitors within six pragmatic clinical trials at UF Health and partners. METHODS: We compared common measures collected within each of the pharmacogenetic implementations as well as solicited feedback from stakeholders to identify challenges, successes, and lessons learned. RESULTS: We identified several challenges related to trial design and implementation, and learned valuable lessons. Most notably, case discussions are effective for prescriber education, prescribers need clear concise guidance on genotype-based actions, having genotype results available at the time of the patient-prescriber encounter helps optimize the ability to act on them, children prefer noninvasive sample collection, and study participants are willing to answer patient-reported outcomes questionnaires if they are not overly burdensome, among others. CONCLUSION: The lessons learned from implementing three gene-drug pairs in ambulatory care settings will help shape future pharmacogenetic clinical trials and clinical implementations.

CYP2D6-guided opioid therapy improves pain control in CYP2D6 intermediate and poor metabolizers: a pragmatic clinical trial.

PURPOSE: CYP2D6 bioactivates codeine and tramadol, with intermediate and poor metabolizers (IMs and PMs) expected to have impaired analgesia. This pragmatic proof-of-concept trial tested the effects of CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing on pain control. METHODS: Participants with chronic pain (94% on an opioid) from seven clinics were enrolled into CYP2D6-guided (n = 235) or usual care (n = 135) arms using a cluster design. CYP2D6 phenotypes were assigned based on genotype and CYP2D6 inhibitor use, with recommendations for opioid prescribing made in the CYP2D6-guided arm. Pain was assessed at baseline and 3 months using PROMIS® measures. RESULTS: On stepwise multiple linear regression, the primary outcome of composite pain intensity (composite of current pain and worst and average pain in the past week) among IM/PMs initially prescribed tramadol/codeine (n = 45) had greater improvement in the CYP2D6-guided versus usual care arm (-1.01 ± 1.59 vs. -0.40 ± 1.20; adj P = 0.016); 24% of CYP2D6-guided versus 0% of usual care participants reported ≥30% (clinically meaningful) reduction in the composite outcome. In contrast, among normal metabolizers prescribed tramadol or codeine at baseline, there was no difference in the change in composite pain intensity at 3 months between CYP2D6-guided (-0.61 ± 1.39) and usual care (-0.54 ± 1.69) groups (adj P = 0.540). CONCLUSION: These data support the potential benefits of CYP2D6-guided pain management.