Vaccines provided by family physicians.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to document current immunization practices by family physicians. METHODS: In 2008 the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) conducted a survey among a random sample of 2,000 of its members who reported spending 80% or more of their time in direct patient care. The survey consisted of questions regarding the demographics of the practice, vaccines that are provided at the physicians' clinical site, whether the practice refers patients elsewhere for vaccines, and participation in the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. RESULTS: The response rate was 38.5%, 31.8% after non-office-based respondents were deleted. A high proportion of respondents (80% or more) reported providing most routinely recommended child, adolescent, and adult vaccines at their practice sites. The exceptions were rotavirus vaccine for children and herpes zoster vaccine for adults., A significant proportion, however, reported referring elsewhere for some vaccines (44.1% for children and adolescent vaccines and 53.5% for adult vaccines), with the most frequent referral location being a public health department. A higher proportion of solo and 2-physician practices than larger practices reported referring patients. A lack of adequate payment was listed as the reason for referring patients elsewhere for vaccines by one-half of those who refer patients. One-half of responders do not participate in the VFC program. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of recommended vaccines by most family physicians remains an important service. Smaller practices have more difficulty offering a full array of vaccine products, and lack of adequate payment contributes to referring patients outside the medical home. The reasons behind the lack of participation in the VFC program deserve further study.

Sustainability of depression care improvements: success of a practice change improvement collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Long-term sustainment of improvements in care continues to challenge primary care practices. During the 2 years after of our Improving Depression Care collaborative, we examined how well practices were sustaining their depression care improvements. METHODS: Our study design used a qualitative interview follow-up of a modified learning collaborative intervention. We conducted telephone interviews with practice champions from 15 of the original 16 practices. Interviews were conducted during a 3-month period in 2008, and were recorded and professionally transcribed. Data on each of the depression care improvements and the change management strategy emphasized during the learning collaborative were summarized after review of the primary data and a consensus process to resolve differing interpretations. RESULTS: During the period from 15 months to 3 years since our project began, depression screening or case finding was sustained in 14 of 15 practices. Thirteen practices sustained use of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression monitoring, and one additional practice initiated it. Seven practices initiated self-management support and 2 of 3 practices sustained it. In contrast, tracking and case management proved difficult to sustain, with only 4 of 8 practices continuing this activity. Diffusion of use of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire to other clinicians in the practice was maintained in all but 3 practices and expanded in one practice. Six of the practices continued to use the change management strategy, including all 4 of the practices that sustained tracking. CONCLUSIONS: Practices demonstrated long-term sustained improvement in depression care with the exception of tracking and care management, which may be a more challenging innovation to sustain. We hypothesize that sustaining complex depression care innovations may require active management by the practice.