Primary Care Patients' and Staff's Perceptions of Self-Rooming as Alternative to Waiting Rooms.

PURPOSE: Most patients are escorted to exam rooms (escorted rooming) although patients directing themselves to their exam room (self-rooming) saves patient and staff time while increasing patient satisfaction. This study assesses patient and staff perceptions after pragmatic implementation of self-rooming. METHODS: In October-December 2020, we surveyed patients and staff in 25 primary care clinics after our institution expanded self-rooming from 4 specially built clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured surveys asked about rooming process used, rooming process preferred, and perceptions of self-rooming compared with escorted rooming. RESULTS: Most patients (n = 1,561) preferred self-rooming (86%), especially among patients aged <65 years and in family medicine clinics. Few patients felt less welcomed (10.6%), less cared about (6.8%), more isolated (15.6%), more lost/confused (7.6%), or more frustrated (3.2%) with self-rooming compared with escorted rooming. Early-adopter clinics that implemented self-rooming ≤2016 had even lower rates of patients feeling more isolated, lost/confused, or frustrated with self-rooming compared with escorted rooming.Over one-half of staff (n = 241; 180 clinical, 61 nonclinical) preferred self-rooming (59%) and thought most patients liked self-rooming (65.8%), especially among clinical staff and in early adopter clinics (≤2016). Few staff reported worse waiting times for patients (12.4%), medical assistants (MAs) (15.9%), and clinicians (16.4%) or worse crowding in waiting areas (1.7%) and hallways (10.1%). Unlike patient-reported confusion (7.6%), most staff thought self-rooming led to more patient confusion (63.8%), except in early-adopter clinics (44.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-rooming is a patient-centered innovation that is also acceptable to staff. We demonstrated that pragmatic implementation is feasible across primary care without expensive technology or specially designed buildings.

The Impact of a Primary Care Education Program Regarding Cancer Survivorship Care Plans: Results from an Engineering, Primary Care, and Oncology Collaborative for Survivorship Health.

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been recommended as tools to improve care coordination and outcomes for cancer survivors. SCPs are increasingly being provided to survivors and their primary care providers. However, most primary care providers remain unaware of SCPs, limiting their potential benefit. Best practices for educating primary care providers regarding SCP existence and content are needed. We developed an education program to inform primary care providers of the existence, content, and potential uses for SCPs. The education program consisted of a 15-min presentation highlighting SCP basics presented at mandatory primary care faculty meetings. An anonymous survey was electronically administered via email (n = 287 addresses) to evaluate experience with and basic knowledge of SCPs pre- and post-education. A total of 101 primary care advanced practice providers (APPs) and physicians (35% response rate) completed the baseline survey with only 23% reporting prior receipt of a SCP. Only 9% could identify the SCP location within the electronic health record (EHR). Following the education program, primary care physicians and APPs demonstrated a significant improvement in SCP knowledge, including improvement in their ability to locate one within the EHR (9 vs 59%, p < 0.0001). A brief educational program containing information about SCP existence, content, and location in the EHR increased primary care physician and APP knowledge in these areas, which are prerequisites for using SCP in clinical practice.

Cancer Survivorship Care Plan Utilization and Impact on Clinical Decision-Making at Point-of-Care Visits with Primary Care: Results from an Engineering, Primary Care, and Oncology Collaborative for Survivorship Health.

Every cancer survivor and his/her primary care provider should receive an individualized survivorship care plan (SCP) following curative treatment. Little is known regarding point-of-care utilization at primary care visits. We assessed SCP utilization in the clinical context of primary care visits. Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) who had seen survivors following provision of an SCP were identified. Eligible primary care physicians and APPs were sent an online survey, evaluating SCP utilization and influence on decision-making at the point-of-care, accompanied by copies of the survivor's SCP and the clinic note. Eighty-eight primary care physicians and APPs were surveyed November 2016, with 40 (45%) responding. Most respondents (60%) reported discussing cancer or related issues during the visit. Information needed included treatment (66%) and follow-up visits, and the cancer team was responsible for (58%) vs primary care (58%). Respondents acquired this information by asking the patient (79%), checking oncology notes (75%), the SCP (17%), or online resources (8%). Barriers to SCP use included being unaware of the SCP (73%), difficulty locating it (30%), and finding needed information faster via another mechanism (15%). Despite largely not using the SCP for the visit (90%), most respondents (61%) believed one would be quite or very helpful for future visits. Most primary care visits included discussion of cancer or cancer-related issues. SCPs may provide the information necessary to deliver optimal survivor care but efforts are needed to reduce barriers and design SCPs for primary care use.

Vasectomy Practice Patterns Among Family Medicine Physicians and Compliance With the American Urological Association 2012 Vasectomy Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To survey urologists and family medicine physicians (FMPs) within a single institution to determine current vasectomy practice patterns and determine compliance with 2012 American Urological Association (AUA) vasectomy guidelines. METHODS: In 2016, a single-institution survey was conducted to understand the vasectomy practice patterns among urologists and nonurologists. The survey questions and 3 clinical scenarios were designed based on the 2012 AUA vasectomy guidelines. Results of the survey were compiled between urologists and nonurologists and then compared with the guideline recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 23 FMPs and 6 urologists responded. Fewer prevasectomy counseling topics were discussed by FMPs compared with urologists. A variety of vasectomy techniques were used among FMPs. Vas deferens segments were more likely to be sent for histology by FMPs than urologists (65% vs 17%, P = .02). FMPs were more likely to send postvasectomy semen analyses earlier than urologists (P = .02) and more likely to send multiple postvasectomy semen analyses (P = .006) before forgoing alternative contraceptive methods. Regarding the clinical scenario questions, FMPs were more likely to answer discordantly from guideline recommendations compared with urologists. CONCLUSION: Significant vasectomy practice pattern heterogeneity still exists among nonurologists surveyed within our institution. The 2012 AUA vasectomy guidelines have yet to be broadly implemented within nonurology practices. Further studies are warranted to investigate national trends in nonurologist vasectomy practice patterns and determine how the guidelines can be better implemented in nonurologic practices.

Primary care team communication networks, team climate, quality of care, and medical costs for patients with diabetes: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care teams play an important role in providing the best quality of care to patients with diabetes. Little evidence is available on how team communication networks and team climate contribute to high quality diabetes care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary care team communication and team climate are associated with health outcomes, health care utilization, and associated costs for patients with diabetes. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of primary care team members collected information on frequency of communication with other care team members about patient care and on team climate. Patient outcomes (glycemic, cholesterol, and blood pressure control, urgent care visits, emergency department visits, hospital visit days, medical costs) in the past 12 months for team diabetes patient panels were extracted from the electronic health record. The data were analyzed using nested (clinic/team/patient) generalized linear mixed modeling. PARTICIPANTS: 155 health professionals at 6 U.S. primary care clinics participated from May through December 2013. RESULTS: Primary care teams with a greater number of daily face-to-face communication ties among team members were associated with 52% (rate ratio=0.48, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.94) fewer hospital days and US$1220 (95% CI: -US$2416, -US$24) lower health-care costs per team diabetes patient in the past 12 months. In contrast, for each additional registered nurse (RN) who reported frequent daily face-to-face communication about patient care with the primary care practitioner (PCP), team diabetes patients had less-controlled HbA1c (Odds ratio=0.83, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.99), increased hospital days (RR=1.57, 95% CI: 1.10, 2.03), and higher healthcare costs (ß=US$877, 95% CI: US$42, US$1713). Shared team vision, a measure of team climate, significantly mediated the relationship between team communication and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care teams which relied on frequent daily face-to-face communication among more team members, and had a single RN communicating patient care information to the PCP, had greater shared team vision, better patient outcomes, and lower medical costs for their diabetes patient panels.