Telemedicine Could Reduce the Role of Family Physicians to Case Managers.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread and continuing use of telemedicine in primary care. Despite telemedicine's benefits, it threatens to reduce the role of family physician to that of gatekeeper and case manager, nullifying decades of experience and medical intuition that is more difficult to develop and apply virtually. Additionally, many values of family medicine have eroded during this global process. The narrative presents 3 vignettes that illustrate different ways in which we contend with this complex issue. The challenges presented by telemedicine require us to re-examine our professional and personal values such as maintaining the centrality of the therapeutic relationship with patients. The greatest concern, however, relates to the future of the profession and the ability of new family doctors to overcome the challenges of telemedicine in an increasingly digital world.

The Shoeshine Stand and the Renaissance of Primary Care.

Over the past century, family physicians have moved from small independently owned practices, many of them solo, to being employed by large hospital systems, corporate entities, or health systems. Today, almost three-quarters of all physicians are employed and the highest percentage of employed physicians are family physicians.This essay contrasts the elements of independent practice with employed practice as part of what has been lost in the past half century, but what might be regained if physicians demanded more autonomy and control over their practices.

Challenges in Receiving Care for Long COVID: A Qualitative Interview Study Among Primary Care Patients About Expectations and Experiences.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID), primary care is the first point of interaction with the health care system. In principle, primary care is well situated to manage long COVID. Beyond expressions of disempowerment, however, the patient's perspective regarding the quality of long COVID care is lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the expectations and experiences of primary care patients seeking treatment for long COVID. METHODS: A phenomenological approach guided this analysis. Using purposive sampling, we conducted semistructured interviews with English-speaking, adult primary care patients describing symptoms of long COVID. We deidentified and transcribed the recorded interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: This article reports results from 19 interviews (53% female, mean age = 54 years). Patients expected their primary care practitioners (PCPs) to be knowledgeable about long COVID, attentive to their individual condition, and to engage in collaborative processes for treatment. Patients described 2 areas of experiences. First, interactions with clinicians were perceived as positive when clinicians were honest and validating, and negative when patients felt dismissed or discouraged. Second, patients described challenges navigating the fragmented US health care system when coordinating care, treatment and testing, and payment. CONCLUSION: Primary care patients' experiences seeking care for long COVID are incongruent with their expectations. Patients must overcome barriers at each level of the health care system and are frustrated by the constant challenges. PCPs and other health care professionals might increase congruence with expectations and experiences through listening, validating, and advocating for patients with long COVID.Annals Early Access article.

"It Can't Hurt!": Why Many Patients With Limited Life Expectancy Decide to Accept Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer screening (LCS) has less benefit and greater potential for iatrogenic harm among people with multiple comorbidities and limited life expectancy. Yet, such individuals are more likely to undergo screening than healthier LCS-eligible people. We sought to understand how patients with marginal LCS benefit conceptualize their health and make decisions regarding LCS. METHODS: We interviewed 40 people with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy, as determined by high Care Assessment Need scores, which predict 1-year risk of hospitalization or death. Patients were recruited from 6 Veterans Health Administration facilities after discussing LCS with their clinician. We conducted a thematic analysis using constant comparison to explore factors that influence LCS decision making. RESULTS: Patients commonly held positive beliefs about screening and perceived LCS to be noninvasive. When posed with hypothetical scenarios of limited benefit, patients emphasized the nonlongevity benefits of LCS (eg, peace of mind, planning for the future) and generally did not consider their health status or life expectancy when making decisions regarding LCS. Most patients were unaware of possible additional evaluations or treatment of screen-detected findings, but when probed further, many expressed concerns about the potential need for multiple evaluations, referrals, or invasive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in this study with multimorbidity and limited life expectancy were unaware of their greater risk of potential harm when accepting LCS. Given patient trust in clinician recommendations, it is important that clinicians engage patients with marginal LCS benefit in shared decision making, ensuring that their values of desiring more information about their health are weighed against potential harms from further evaluations.

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care: Turning a Duet Into a Trio.

Family physicians are at the front lines of mental health concerns and distress, yet often feel stymied in their attempts to fully support patients' biopsychosocial needs within the barriers of a fragmented health care system. This article describes a practice transformation designed to facilitate more empowered care experiences. We reflect on our interdisciplinary work as a family physician and a behavioral health consultant working closely together in a Primary Care Behavioral Health model within a university setting. We describe our collaborative approach to a composite character from clinical practice: a college student with symptoms of psychomotor depression who screened negative for mood and anxiety concerns. Akin to a musical ensemble, wherein the inclusion of each voice turns a solo into a symphony, we describe key details of interdisciplinary collaboration which promotes holistic care for patients and fulfilling biopsychosocial practice for us as colleagues.

Implementation of collaborative psychiatric care in a family medicine clinic: A quality assurance study.

In recent decades, numerous primary care clinics throughout the United States have implemented a collaborative care model of psychiatry in their practice. In this care model, patients with a psychiatric diagnosis meet with a team commonly composed of a primary care provider, behavioral health provider, and psychiatric consultants to develop a well-informed treatment plan. The St. Mary's Family Medicine Center in Grand Junction, Colorado implemented this care model in March 2020. Here, we evaluated its implementation and assessed its efficacy in producing favorable patient outcomes. We performed retrospective chart reviews and database queries in the clinic's electronic medical record system to gather relevant patient care information. We then analyzed this data through various statistical methods to assess the care model's effects on patient outcomes. Through this, we found evidence that this care model facilitates brief referral times with psychiatric specialists, and that treatment plans created here may contribute to a reduction in depressive and anxiety symptoms in a variety of patients.

Revitalizing Primary Care, Part 2: Hopes for the Future.

Part 1 of this essay argued that the root causes of primary care's problems lie in (1) the low percent of national health expenditures dedicated to primary care and (2) overly large patient panels that clinicians without a team are unable to manage, leading to widespread burnout and poor patient access. Part 2 explores policies and practice changes that could solve or mitigate these primary care problems.Initiatives attempting to improve primary care are discussed. Diffuse multi-component initiatives-patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs), accountable care organizations (ACOs), and Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+)-have had limited success in addressing primary care's core problems. More focused initiatives-care management, open access, and telehealth-offer more promise.To truly revitalize primary care, 2 fundamental changes are needed: (1) a substantially greater percent of health expenditures dedicated to primary care, and (2) the building of powerful teams that add capacity to care for large panels while reducing burnout.Part 2 of the essay reviews 3 approaches to increasing primary care spending: state-level legislation, eliminating Medicare's disparity between primary care and procedural specialty reimbursement, and efforts by health systems. The final section of Part 2 addresses the building of powerful core and interprofessional teams.

Revitalizing Primary Care, Part 1: Root Causes of Primary Care's Problems.

This 2-part essay offers a discussion of the health of primary care in the United States. Part 1 argues that the root causes of primary care's problems are (1) the low percent of national health expenditures dedicated to primary care (primary care spending) and (2) overly large patient panels that clinicians without a team are unable to manage, leading to widespread burnout and poor patient access.Information used in this essay comes from my personal clinical and policy experience bolstered by summaries of evidence. The analysis leans heavily on my visits to dozens of practices and interviews with hundreds of clinicians, practice leaders, and practice staff.In 2016, the United States spent approximately 5.4% of total health expenditures on primary care, compared with an average among 22 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries of 7.8%. With average US primary care panel size around 2,000, it would take a clinician without an effective team 17 hours per day to provide good care to that panel. Low primary care spending and excessive panel sizes are related because most medical students avoid careers featuring underfunded practices with unsustainable work-life balance.Over the past 20 years, many initiatives-explored in Part 2 of this essay-have attempted to address these problems. Part 2 argues that to revitalize primary care, 2 fundamental changes are needed: (1) increased spending dedicated to primary care and (2) creating powerful teams that add capacity to care for large panels.

Bearing Witness to Grief.

Minutes after starting my family medicine rotation, my first patient crumpled before my eyes. She shared a story of anguish and worry, overwhelmed with the grief of her partner's unexpected death and consequential housing instability. As a medical student, I both underestimated and was underprepared for the pain of facing patients experiencing life-changing loss. It is one thing to read about structural trauma and deeply embedded inequalities; it is another to look into the eyes of the patients whose families are, in part, shaped by them. In this essay, I grapple with a myriad of emotions on my first day of family medicine-and contemplate the courage required to show up, wholeheartedly, for our patients.

Standardization vs Customization: Finding the Right Balance.

There is an inherent tension between standardization and customization of care delivery processes. The challenge for health care systems is to achieve the right balance. At its best, standardized work can create efficiencies that generate the additional time needed for personalized care. Similarly, at its best, customization allows the people within a system to accommodate the needs, preferences, and circumstances of the unique individuals and local communities they serve. We provide examples and offer principles to decide when standardization offers the most successful path and when customization may be preferred. We believe that, in sum, the balance has shifted too far toward standardization and that a rebalancing toward customization will benefit patients, clinicians, and the health care system.

Clinical Features for the Diagnosis of Pediatric Urinary Tract Infections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Accurate diagnosis of urinary tract infection in children is essential because children left untreated can experience permanent renal injury. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of clinical features of pediatric urinary tract infection. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies in ambulatory care. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases from inception to January 27, 2020 for studies reporting 2 × 2 diagnostic accuracy data for clinical features compared with urine culture in children aged <18 years. For each clinical feature, we calculated likelihood ratios and posttest probabilities of urinary tract infection. To estimate summary parameters, we conducted a bivariate random effects meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies (N = 78,427 patients) of moderate to high quality were included, providing information on 58 clinical features and 6 prediction rules. Only circumcision (negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08-0.72; n = 8), stridor (LR- 0.20; 95% CI, 0.05-0.81; n = 1), and diaper rash (LR- 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; n = 1) were useful for ruling out urinary tract infection. Body temperature or fever duration showed limited diagnostic value (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73; n = 16). The Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection in Young Children score, Gorelick Scale score, and UTIcalc (https://uticalc.pitt.edu) might be useful to identify children eligible for urine sampling. CONCLUSIONS: Few clinical signs and symptoms are useful for diagnosing or ruling out urinary tract infection in children. Clinical prediction rules might be more accurate; however, they should be validated externally. Physicians should not restrict urine sampling to children with unexplained fever or other features suggestive of urinary tract infection.

Access, Equity, and Neutral Space: Telehealth Beyond the Pandemic.

As I begin my 4th year of medical school amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telehealth has allowed me to connect with many patients who previously struggled to access consistent primary care. In this essay, I describe 2 of my most formative experiences with telehealth: participating in my medical school's new "tele-hotspotting" elective, and providing virtual gender-affirming care through our student-run free clinic. These experiences demonstrate not only telehealth's utility during a viral pandemic, but also its potential as a powerful tool for expanding access to care and promoting health equity over the coming years. With this said, telehealth is not without limitations. Patients and clinicians alike have expressed concerns regarding the challenge of performing a physical exam and maintaining emotional connection across physical distance. A sustained expansion of telehealth is further challenged by inconsistent availability of broadband Internet, as well as a lack of standardized reimbursement procedures for telehealth visits. Strategies are available to help meet these challenges while maximizing health equity.

Use of Chronic Care Management Among Primary Care Clinicians.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicade Services (CMS) initiated chronic care management (CCM) codes to reimburse clinicians for coordination activities, but little is known about uptake over time. We find that primary care clinicians drove increasing use over 4 years-a trend that may reflect either new coordination activities or new reimbursements for existing activities. That 5% of chronic care management was denied by Medicare underscores the need for future work evaluating facilitators and barriers to use. Such insight is especially vital given the large number of eligible beneficiaries that have not received chronic care management to date, as well as the limited number of clinicians who currently deliver these services.

What is My Value as a Doctor?

A weekly habit of viewing my performance data led me to question the value of my doctoring. I tried to answer this quandary in my head for months, but it was a patient encounter that revealed what I had been searching for. As a doctor I am bound to the care of another, especially when disease, disability, or injury create any space between a patient and their personhood. I stand in the breach.To offset my data habit, I have adopted a practice that reviews my patient care and interior movements at the end of the day. The daily exercise has uncovered a pattern in which my anger, despair, or isolation are invariably are tied to those times when I have failed to stand in the breach with a patient. More importantly, the practice illuminates my finest hours, when I have entered into that chasm with an unstated and binding promise to my patient that they will not be abandoned.

Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) is the largest test of primary care payment and delivery reform. This program aims to strengthen primary care via enhanced and alternative payment, data feedback, learning, and health information technology support for practice transformation for more than 3,000 practices. We analyzed participation rates and how CPC+ practices differ from other primary care practices in CPC+ regions. METHODS: We assembled a unique data set describing all US primary care practices and compared primary care practices in CPC+ regions, CPC+ applicants, and CPC+ participants. Among CPC+ participants, we compared across 2 model tracks. RESULTS: Of the primary care practices in CPC+ regions, 22% applied for CPC+ and 15% participated. Practices that applied to CPC+ were diverse, but they were generally larger, more sophisticated electronic health record users, more likely to be owned by a hospital or health system, more likely to have experience with transformation efforts, and more likely to be in urban areas than practices that did not apply. Applicants also generally served slightly healthier and more advantaged Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Differences between practices that applied but did not join CPC+ and CPC+ participants were smaller yet systematic. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in CPC+ are diverse but not representative of all primary care practices, underscoring the need to further engage practices that are small, independent, in rural areas, and lack experience with practice and payment transformation models, as well as the need to extrapolate evaluation results carefully.

Case Management in Primary Care for Frequent Users of Health Care Services: A Realist Synthesis.

PURPOSE: Case management (CM) is a promising intervention for frequent users of health care services. Our research question was how and under what circumstances does CM in primary care work to improve outcomes among frequent users with chronic conditions? METHODS: We conducted a realist synthesis, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996 to September 2017) for articles meeting the following criteria: (1) population: adult frequent users with chronic disease, (2) intervention: CM in a primary care setting with a postintervention evaluation, and (3) primary outcomes: integration of services, health care system use, cost, and patient outcome measures. Academic and gray literature were evaluated for relevance and robustness. Independent reviewers extracted data to identify context, mechanism, and outcome (CMO) configurations. Analysis of CMO configurations allowed for the modification of an initial program theory toward a refined program theory. RESULTS: Of the 9,295 records retrieved, 21 peer-reviewed articles and an additional 89 documents were retained. We evaluated 19 CM interventions and identified 11 CMO configurations. The development of a trusting relationship fostering patient and clinician engagement in the CM intervention was recurrent in many CMO configurations. CONCLUSION: Our refined program theory proposes that in the context of easy access to an experienced and trusted case manager who provides comprehensive care while maintaining positive interactions with patients, the development of this relationship fosters the engagement of both individuals and yields positive outcomes when the following mechanisms are triggered: patients and clinicians feel supported, respected, accepted, engaged, and committed; and patients feel less anxious, more secure, and empowered to self-manage.

Physical Distancing With Social Connectedness.

In light of concerns over the potential detrimental effects of declining care continuity, and the need for connection between patients and health care providers, our multidisciplinary group considered the possible ways that relationships might be developed in different kinds of health care encounters.We were surprised to discover many avenues to invest in relationships, even in non-continuity consultations, and how meaningful human connections might be developed even in telehealth visits. Opportunities range from the quality of attention or the structure of the time during the visit, to supporting relationship development in how care is organized at the local or system level and in the use of digital encounters. These ways of investing in relationships can exhibit different manifestations and emphases during different kinds of visits, but most are available during all kinds of encounters.Recognizing and supporting the many ways of investing in relationships has great potential to create a positive sea change in a health care system that currently feels fragmented and depersonalized to both patients and health care clinicians.The current COVID-19 pandemic is full of opportunity to use remote communication to develop healing human relationships. What we need in a pandemic is not social distancing, but physical distancing with social connectedness.

Sharing My Diagnosis: How Much is Too Much?

I am a primary care physician diagnosed with breast cancer in 2016. After my diagnosis, I began to wonder, is it ever appropriate to disclose my situation, my diagnosis, any details about my cancer journey to my patients? On the one hand, physicians go to great lengths to protect privacy; on the other hand, patients appreciate the ability to share and connect, including knowing that their doctor has been through something similar. In this essay, I explore the nuances of over-sharing versus making a personal connection and how the two elements of this dual role might ultimately benefit each other.