The Warmest of Handoffs: A Neighborhood Physician's Transfer of Care.

Transitioning care of a patient from an outgoing to an incoming physician provides a precious opportunity to transfer knowledge and trust. We explore this process from the perspectives of 2 practitioners, an incoming physician who recently completed training and a retiring physician leaving a practice of 40 years. The method we arrived at for this transfer provided the space for collaboration on what the essence of caring for a unique individual will entail. We discovered that a handoff of care is the intergenerational transfer of culture. It involves worrying and watching and relaxing into hopefulness. It is both witnessing and launching a life's work. It is reliving and inheriting and reinventing relationship.

A participatory model of the paradox of primary care.

PURPOSE: The paradox of primary care is the observation that primary care is associated with apparently low levels of evidence-based care for individual diseases, but systems based on primary care have healthier populations, use fewer resources, and have less health inequality. The purpose of this article is to explore, from a complex systems perspective, mechanisms that might account for the effects of primary care beyond disease-specific care. METHODS: In an 8-session, participatory group model-building process, patient, caregiver, and primary care clinician community stakeholders worked with academic investigators to develop and refine an agent-based computer simulation model to test hypotheses about mechanisms by which features of primary care could affect health and health equity. RESULTS: In the resulting model, patients are at risk for acute illness, acute life-changing illness, chronic illness, and mental illness. Patients have changeable health behaviors and care-seeking tendencies that relate to their living in advantaged or disadvantaged neighborhoods. There are 2 types of care available to patients: primary and specialty. Primary care in the model is less effective than specialty care in treating single diseases, but it has the ability to treat multiple diseases at once. Primary care also can provide disease prevention visits, help patients improve their health behaviors, refer to specialty care, and develop relationships with patients that cause them to lower their threshold for seeking care. In a model run with primary care features turned off, primary care patients have poorer health. In a model run with all primary care features turned on, their conjoint effect leads to better population health for patients who seek primary care, with the primary care effect being particularly pronounced for patients who are disadvantaged and patients with multiple chronic conditions. Primary care leads to more total health care visits that are due to more disease prevention visits, but there are reduced illness visits among people in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Supplemental appendices provide a working version of the model and worksheets that allow readers to run their own experiments that vary model parameters. CONCLUSION: This simulation model provides insights into possible mechanisms for the paradox of primary care and shows how participatory group model building can be used to evaluate hypotheses about the behavior of such complex systems as primary health care and population health.

Keys to successful diabetes self-management for uninsured patients: social support, observational learning, and turning points: a safety net providers' strategic alliance study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how medically uninsured patients who receive health care at federally qualified health centers and free clinics are able to successfully self-manage diabetes compared to patients who are less successful. METHODS: Two distinct groups of patients with diabetes for 6 months or longer were enrolled: (1) successful, defined as those with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7% or less or a recent improvement of at least 2% (n=17); and (2) unsuccessful, defined as patients with HbAlc of at least 9% (n=9) and without recent improvement. Patients were interviewed about enabling factors, motivators, resources, and barriers to diabetes self-management. Data from interviews, chart reviews, and clinician surveys were analyzed using qualitative methods and statistical techniques. RESULTS: African Americans comprised 57.7% of the sample and whites 38.5% (N=26). No significant differences were detected between successful and unsuccessful groups in age, race, education, or employment status. Clinicians rated unsuccessful patients as having more severe diabetes and significantly lower levels of control than successful patients. Compared to unsuccessful patients, successful patients more often reported having friends or family with diabetes, more frequently sought information about the disease, used evidence-based self-management strategies, held more accurate perceptions of their own diabetes control, and experienced "turning point" events that motivated increased efforts in disease management. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who successfully managed diabetes learned from diabetic family members and interpreted disease-related events as motivational turning points. It may be beneficial to incorporate social learning and motivational enhancement into diabetes interventions to increase patients' motivation for improved levels of self-management.

Opportunities for improved diabetes care among patients of safety net practices: a safety net providers' strategic alliance study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and opportunities for quality diabetes care in safety net practices. METHODS: In 3 federally qualified health centers and 1 free clinic, 19 primary care clinicians profiled patient and visit characteristics and quality of care measures for 181 consecutive visits by adult type 2 diabetic patients. Open-ended questions assessed patient and clinician perception of barriers to diabetes care and patient report of enabling factors. A multidisciplinary team identified themes from open-ended responses. Logistic regression analyses assessed the association of the identified barriers/enablers with 2 measures of quality care: glycosylated hemoglobin and prophylactic aspirin use. RESULTS: Ranked barriers noted by patients included adherence (40%), financial/insurance (23%), and psychosocial (13%) factors. Clinicians ranked systemic factors, including financial/ insurance (32%) and cultural/psychosocial (29%) factors, as important to adherence (29%) in determining quality diabetes care. Patients reported dietary and medical adherence (37%) and family/health care worker support (17%) as helpful factors. Among 175 patients with available data, glycosylated hemoglobin levels were associated with patient report of financial/insurance factors both as a barrier when visits and medications were unaffordable and as an opportunity when free or low-cost medications and services were provided. Patients' adherence with aspirin prophylaxis was strongly associated with African American race, prior prescription of aspirin and distribution of aspirin at the practice site (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were less likely than clinicians to identify systemic and contextual factors contributing to poor diabetes care. From the front line's perspective, enabling patient self-management and systemic support is a target for improving diabetes care in safety net practices.