The Association Between Family Medicine Appointment Cancellations and Hospital Utilization in 2019 and 2020.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a disruption in the usual primary care services offered and received by patients. The objective of this study was to compare the impact of family medicine appointment cancellations on hospital utilization metrics both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic within a family medicine residency clinic. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of cohorts of patients with a family medicine clinic cancellation who presented to the emergency department during a similar time period before and during the pandemic (March-May of 2019 vs March-May 2020). The patient population studied has multiple chronic diagnoses and prescriptions. Hospital admission, hospital readmission, and length of stay for hospitalizations during these periods were compared. The impacts of appointment cancellations on the emergency department presentation with subsequent inpatient admission, readmission, and length of stay were examined using generalized estimating equation (GEE) logistic or Poisson regression models to account for the lack of independence between patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients were included in the final cohorts. Of these patients, 101 (5.7%) presented to the emergency department and/or hospital in both 2019 and 2020. An increased odds of readmission was associated with family medicine appointment cancellation regardless of year. The effects of appointment cancellations were not associated with admissions or length of stay between 2019 and 2020. CONCLUSION: Between the 2019 and 2020 cohorts, appointment cancellations were not associated with significant differences in likelihood of admission, readmission, or length of stay. A higher risk of readmission was associated with patients with a recent family medicine appointment cancellation.

Comparative effectiveness of mobile health smoking cessation approaches among underserved patients in primary care: Study protocol for the PROMOTE-UP trial.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease, disability, and premature death in the United States. Recent advances have led to two efficacious mobile health (mHealth) treatments for smoking cessation: iCanQuit, an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based behavioral treatment promoting cessation through accepting triggers and committing to values; and Motiv8, a contingency management intervention promoting smoking cessation with financial incentives via biochemically verified abstinence. This study will evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the Florida Quitline, iCanQuit alone, and iCanQuit+Motiv8 in a pragmatic trial among patients who smoke in underserved primary care settings. METHODS: The study will be an individually-randomized controlled trial with three arms (Florida Quitline, iCanQuit alone, iCanQuit+Motiv8 combined) conducted in multiple primary care practices affiliated with the OneFlorida+ Clinical Research Consortium. Adult patients who smoke will be randomized to one of the 3 study arms (n = 444/arm), stratified by healthcare setting (academic vs. community). The primary outcome will be 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence at 6 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes will be 12-month smoking abstinence, patient satisfaction with the interventions, and changes in patient quality of life and self-efficacy. The study will also assess how and for whom the interventions help sub-group patients in achieving smoking abstinence by measuring theory-derived factors that mediate smoking outcome-specific baseline moderators. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study will provide evidence for the comparative effectiveness of mHealth smoking cessation interventions in healthcare settings. Use of mHealth interventions can make smoking cessation resources more equitably accessible and have far-reaching impact on community and population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05415761, Registered 13 June 2022.

Does Community- or University-Based Residency Sponsorship Affect Graduate Perceived Preparation or Performance?

BACKGROUND: Residency training occurs in varied settings. Whether there are differences in the training received by graduates of community- or medical school-based programs has been the subject of debate. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the perceived preparation for practice, scope of practice, and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) board examination pass rates of family physicians in relation to the type of residency program (community, medical school, or partnership) in which they trained. METHODS: Predetermined survey responses were abstracted from the 2016 and 2017 National Family Medicine Graduate Survey of ABFM and linked to data about residency programs obtained from the websites of national organizations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and logistic regression to examine differences between survey results based on type of residency training: community, medical school, or partnership. RESULTS: Differences in the perception of preparation as well as current scope of practice were noted for the 3 residency types. The differences in perception were mainly noted in hospital-based skills, such as intubation and ventilator management, and in women's health and family planning services, with different program types increasing preparedness perception in different domains. CONCLUSIONS: In general, graduates of family medicine community-based, non-affiliated, and partnership programs perceived they were prepared for and were providing more of the services queried in the survey than graduates of medical school-based programs.

Impact of Inpatient Consults by a Family Medicine Teaching Service.

OBJECTIVES: Inpatient consult rates by family physicians significantly affect many aspects of medical care. Limited research has investigated the consultant rate by family medicine residents and their impact on length of stay (LOS) and direct cost. This study examines the inpatient consultant rate of family medicine residents. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective electronic chart review of consults associated with hospitalizations on a family medicine teaching service at a large academic medical center during a 12-month period. The primary outcome was the consultant rate. Multivariate regressions were used to predict outcomes of LOS and direct costs while controlling for patient severity with the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: For hospitalized adults on a family medicine teaching service, almost 1 in 2 receives some type of consult (47%), with more than half of those (52%) to physician specialists as opposed to ancillary services. The top physician consults were to cardiology, infectious disease, and gastroenterology. LOS as well as cost significantly increased with any type of consult. After controlling for severity, consults to physician specialists (as opposed to ancillary services) had the greatest impact on LOS and cost. CONCLUSIONS: Each consult placed for hospitalized adults on a family medicine teaching service resulted in an increase in LOS and direct cost, even after controlling for patient severity. Further analysis to ensure that appropriate referrals are being placed and that residents are receiving full-scope training is needed to ensure primary care graduates are prepared to care for a diverse and complex patient population.

Primary Care Tracks in Medical Schools.

INTRODUCTION: With the estimated future shortage of primary care physicians there is a need to recruit more medical students into family medicine. Longitudinal programs or primary care tracks in medical schools have been shown to successfully recruit students into primary care. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of primary care tracks in departments of family medicine. METHODS: Data were collected as part of the 2016 CERA Family Medicine Clerkship Director Survey. The survey included questions regarding the presence and description of available primary care tracks as well as the clerkship director's perception of impact. The survey was distributed via email to 125 US and 16 Canadian family medicine clerkship directors. RESULTS: The response rate was 86%. Thirty-five respondents (29%) reported offering a longitudinal primary care track. The majority of tracks select students on a competitive basis, are directed by family medicine educators, and include a wide variety of activities. Longitudinal experience in primary care ambulatory settings and primary care faculty mentorship were the most common activities. Almost 70% of clerkship directors believe there is a positive impact on students entering primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The current tracks are diverse in what they offer and could be tailored to the missions of individual medical schools. The majority of clerkship directors reported that they do have a positive impact on students entering primary care.