Specialist and Generalist Care for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

The incidence of diabetes mellitus (both type 1 and type 2) is growing to epidemic proportions, with an expected combined worldwide prevalence of 220 million by the year 2010. A subsequent increase in the incidence of diabetes complications is likely to follow if present trends continue, placing an increased burden on already troubled healthcare systems. While there are many identified biologic mechanisms for the development of diabetes complications, there has been little exploration of healthcare provider issues and their contribution to these outcomes. One area of research with few data is the influence of diabetes specialty care on outcomes in type 1 diabetic patients. Evidence demonstrates that both process delivery and outcomes are better in individuals with typel diabetes who are cared for by diabetes specialists compared with generalists. For example, those receiving care from diabetes specialists were more likely to receive diabetes education, to be treated with intensive insulin therapy (>2 injections/day), and to receive an eye examination compared with those receiving generalist care. Additionally, lower rates of proliferative retinopathy were observed in those receiving specialist care. Recent evidence also demonstrates that there are lower incidences of neuropathy, overt nephropathy, and coronary artery disease in those patients who spend a higher proportion of the duration of their diabetes in specialist care. Based on these observations, it is recommended that attempts be made to replicate the favorable characteristics of specialty care in the primary care setting. Healthcare systems should ensure the availability of access to diabetes specialists, as well as ancillary healthcare professionals including diabetes educators, with increased emphasis placed on coordinated care.     

The Visiting Specialist Model of Rural Health Care Delivery: A Survey in Massachusetts

CONTEXT: Hospitals in rural communities may seek to increase specialty care access by establishing clinics staffed by visiting specialists. PURPOSE: To examine the visiting specialist care delivery model in Massachusetts, including reasons specialists develop secondary rural practices and distances they travel, as well as their degree of satisfaction and intention to continue the visiting arrangement. METHODS: Visiting specialists at 11 rural hospitals were asked to complete a mailed survey. FINDINGS: Visiting specialists were almost evenly split between the medical (54%) and surgical (46%) specialties, with ophthalmology, nephrology, and obstetrics/gynecology the most common specialties reported. A higher proportion of visiting specialists than specialists statewide were male (P = .001). Supplementing their patient base and income were the most important reasons visiting specialists reported for having initiated an ancillary clinic. There was a significant negative correlation between a hospital's number of staffed beds and the total number of visiting specialists it hosted (r =-0.573, P = .032); study hospitals ranged in bed size from 15 to 129. CONCLUSIONS: The goal of matching supply of health care services with demand has been elusive. Visiting specialist clinics may represent an element of a market structure that expands access to needed services in rural areas. They should be included in any enumeration of physician availability.     

Area-level determinants of specialty care utilization in France: a multilevel analysis

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects of the density of specialists and of the area-level percentage of highly educated individuals on the odds of consulting a specialist, and examined whether these variables could explain the observed urban/rural contrast in utilization of specialty care. STUDY DESIGN: The study sample, representative of the French population aged 18-75 years in 1999, comprised 12,435 individuals. METHODS: Multilevel logistic models allowed us to investigate predictors of the odds of consulting a specialist occasionally, regularly and frequently over the previous 12 months. RESULTS: We observed a modest but significant clustering within areas of the utilization of specialty care, with higher levels of clustering for behaviours representing heavy consumption of care. After adjustment for individual factors, the odds of consulting a specialist were higher in larger cities compared with rural areas, but most of this effect was attributable to other area-level variables. These area-level effects were different in magnitude and nature among males and females. Among males, the odds of consulting a specialist increased with the area-level density of specialists. Among females, such an effect was not significant, but the odds of consulting a specialist increased with the area-level percentage of highly educated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation is required to better understand the processes operating at the area level that were shown to affect healthcare utilization in a different way for males and females. Policies may be needed to address problems of geographical access to specialty care, as well as situations of overuse of specialty care without regular recourse to primary care.     

A Primary Care Intervention for Depression

To assess a guideline-based intervention's impact on depression care provided in rural vs. urban primary care settings, 12 community primary care practices (four rural, eight urban) were randomized to enhanced (i.e., intervention) and usual care study conditions. The study enrolled 479 depressed patients, with 432 (90.2 percent) completing telephone follow-up at six months. Multilevel analytic models revealed that rural enhanced care patients had 2.70 times the odds (P = 0.02) of rural usual care patients of taking a three-month course of antidepressant medication at recommended dosages in the six months following baseline; urban enhanced care patients had 2.43 times the odds compared with their urban usual care counterparts (P = 0.007). Rural enhanced care patients had 3.00 times the odds of rural usual care patients of making eight or more visits to a mental health specialist for counseling in the six months following baseline (P = 0.03). Comparisons of patients in enhanced care practices showed that rural enhanced care patients had 2.00 times the odds (P = 0.12) of urban enhanced care patients of making at least one visit to a mental health specialist for counseling in the six months following baseline and had comparable odds to urban enhanced care patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, P = 0.77) of making eight or more visits to such specialists during that interval. The study's intervention improved the care received by both rural and urban depressed primary care patients. Moreover, the intervention's effect appears to have been greater in rural settings, particularly in terms of increasing depressed rural patients' use of mental health specialists for counseling.     

Physician Perceptions of Practice Environment and Professional Satisfaction in California: From Urban to Rural

CONTEXT: Few studies have systematically examined the experience of rural practice from the physician's perspective or included physicians from an array of specialties, particularly non-primary care. PURPOSE: To better understand differences between rural and urban physicians in perceptions of their practice environment. METHODS: In 2001-2002, self-administered questionnaires were sent to a probability sample of primary care and specialist physicians identified from the American Medical Association's Physician masterfile in California. Logistic regression was performed to model the effect practice location had on key variables, controlling for physician demographics, specialty, and the insurance profile of the physician's patients. FINDINGS: Completed questionnaires were obtained from 1,365 of 2,240 eligible urban physicians (61%), and 398 of 632 rural physicians (63%). Among primary care physicians, those in rural areas defined as nonadjacent or small non-metropolitan counties were the least likely to report pressures to see more patients, limit referrals, and limit treatment options. In contrast, among specialists, those in rural areas within metropolitan areas (or in large adjacent non-metropolitan counties) were more likely than urban specialists to report practice pressures. Although rural physicians in both primary care and specialist fields were more likely than urban physicians to report difficulty attracting new physicians to their communities, they perceived their overall practice climate to be better. Physicians in the nonadjacent-or-small non-metropolitan category were the most satisfied, but specialists in the nonadjacent-or-small non-metropolitan category were the least satisfied. CONCLUSION: Physicians in rural California appear to have maintained a greater sense of clinical autonomy and higher professional satisfaction compared with their urban counterparts.     

Scattering of primary care: Doctor switching and utilization of health care by children on fee-for-service medicaid

Objective To determine whether children on fee-for-service Medicaid who switch primary care doctors use less health care and are less up to date with preventive care visits than children who do not switch primary care doctors. Design Retrospective cohort study using Medicaid claims data. Setting 51,027 children enrolled on Medicaid in Monroe County, New York. Patients 14,187 children enrolled continuously on fee-for-service Medicaid between January 1992 and December 1994. Main Outcome Measures Utilization of primary care, emergency department (ED) services, and specialty care and proportion up to date with preventive care visits according to American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines. Results During the 2-year study period, 22% of children switched primary care doctors. Compared with children who did not switch primary care doctors, those who switched had more primary care visits (4.7 vs. 3.2 visits/year,P<.01), age-adjusted preventive care visits (1.2 vs. 1.0 visits/year), ED visits (0.72 vs. 0.47 visits/year,P<.01), and specialist visits (0.99 vs. 0.31,P<.01). On multivariate analysis, doctor switching was associated with increased odds of being up to date with preventive care visits (odds ratio [OR]=1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 2.1). However, on multivariate analysis stratified by age, the association was significant only for older children (ages 11 to 14). Altogether, 68% of all children and 44% of infants less than 1 year old made the recommended number of preventive care visits during the study period. Conclusions All groups of children received less preventive care than recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Children who switched primary care doctors had higher utilization of health care, including primary care, ED, and specialty care. Contrary to expectations, they were more likely to be up to date with preventive care visits. The heavy utilization of health services by doctor switchers indicates that this subgroup of children on Medicaid may not be at risk for poor access to health care, but additional research is needed to determine whether the quality of care is related to doctor switching. Presented in part at the Pediatric Academic Societies 1996 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, May 8, 1996. This work was supported in part by a Frank Disney Scholarship through the Strong Children's Research Center, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, and by National Research Service Award 1F32 HS00089-01 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.     

Unlocking specialists' attitudes toward primary care gatekeepers.

OBJECTIVES: Many managed care plans rely on primary care physicians to act as gatekeepers, which may increase tension between these physicians and specialists. We surveyed specialist physicians in California to determine whether their attitudes toward primary care gatekeepers differed depending on how the specialists were paid and the settings in which they practiced. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional survey using a mailed questionnaire. The predictors of specialist attitudes toward gatekeepers were measured using chi-square, the t test, and regression analyses. POPULATION: A probability sample of 1492 physicians in urban counties in California in the specialties of cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, general surgery, neurology, ophthalmology, and orthopedics was used. OUTCOMES: We used questions about specialists' attitudes toward primary care physicians in the gatekeeper role. A summary score of attitudes was developed. RESULTS: A total of 979 physicians completed the survey (66%). Attitudes toward primary care physicians were mixed. Relative to nonsalaried physicians, those who were salaried had a somewhat more favorable attitude toward gatekeepers (P = .13), as did physicians with a greater percentage of practice income derived from capitation (P =.002). CONCLUSIONS: Specialists' attitudes toward the coordinating role of primary care physicians are influenced by the practice setting in which the specialists work and by financial interests that may be threatened by referral restrictions. Policies that promote alternatives to fee for service and shift specialty practice toward more organized group settings may generate a common sense of purpose among primary care physicians and specialists.     

Peer Reviewed: Lost Opportunities for Smoking Cessation Among Adults With Diabetes in Florida (2007) and Maryland (2006)

Introduction

Diabetes organizations recommend that people with diabetes should not smoke because of increased risk of diabetes complications. We describe smoking rates and health care service use among adults with diabetes in Florida and Maryland and identify the role of dentists in offering smoking cessation advice and services.

Methods

We analyzed data from 3 state telephone surveys: the 2007 Florida Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (n = 39,549), the 2007 Florida Tobacco Callback Survey (n = 3,560), and the 2006 Maryland Adult Tobacco Survey (n = 21,799).

Results

Findings indicated that 15.7% of adults with diabetes in Florida and 11.6% of adults with diabetes in Maryland currently smoke. Current smoking among people with diabetes was associated with age, education, income, and race/ethnicity. Almost all respondents with diabetes who were current smokers in Florida (92.9%) and Maryland (97.7%) had visited a doctor or health care professional in the past year, and less than half had visited a dentist (40.7% and 44.8%, respectively). Both in Florida and Maryland, approximately two-thirds of adults with diabetes who were smokers and had visited a dentist in the past year had not received advice to quit (63.8% and 63.9%, respectively). In contrast, most adults with diabetes who were smokers and had visited a doctor or health care professional had received advice to quit smoking (95.3% and 84.9%, respectively).

Conclusion

Dentists are in a unique position to identify and demonstrate the oral effects of smoking in patients with diabetes. These data support continued smoking cessation training and education of oral health professionals.     

Diabetes Care and Outcomes: Disparities Across Rural America

We examined differences in receipt of diabetes care and selected outcomes between rural and urban persons living with diabetes, using nationally representative data from the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). “Rural” was defined as living in a non-metropolitan county. Diabetes care variables were physician visit, HbA1c testing, foot examination, and dilated eye examination. Outcome variables were presence of foot sores and diabetic retinopathy. Analysis was limited to persons 18 and older self-reporting a diagnosis of diabetes (n = 29,501). A lower proportion of rural than urban persons with diabetes reported a dilated eye examination (69.1 vs. 72.4%; P = 0.005) or a foot examination in the past year (70.6 vs. 73.7%; P = 0.016). Conversely, a greater proportion of rural than urban persons reported diabetic retinopathy (25.8 vs. 22.0%; P = 0.007) and having a foot sore taking more than four weeks to heal (13.2 vs. 11.2%; P = 0.036). Rural residence was not associated with receipt of services after individual characteristics were taken into account in adjusted analysis, but remained associated with an increased risk for retinopathy (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.02–1.42). Participation in Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) was positively associated with all measures of diabetes care included in the study. Availability of specialty services and travel considerations could explain some of these differences.     

Who Will Take Care of Us? Exploring Differences in Respondents’ Satisfaction with Primary Care vs Specialty Care Physicians

ObjectiveOur study explored perceived patient satisfaction with either primary care or specialist physicians to identify factors accounting for the differences.Study DesignThe data were collected from an Internet-based survey, DrScore.com, for measuring patient satisfaction with physicians. Participants found their doctors through the DrScore search engine and rated their physicians with anonymity. A total satisfaction score was the sum of scores based on 9 physician rating items and then was scaled to the range of 0-100. Logistic regressions were used to analyze associations between patient satisfaction (score ≥70) and various factors.ResultsThe mean satisfaction score was 79.4 for primary care (n = 11,558) and 75.5 for specialty care (n = 11,068) (P > .05). Nearly 50% of primary care patients waited for 0-2 days to get an appointment, while more than 50% of specialty care patients waited for more than 6 days. As waiting days became longer than 2 weeks, patient ratings of specialty care were lower than those of primary care. Patients (≥45 years) were 24% less likely to be satisfied with primary care (P < .01) but 40% more likely with specialty care (P < .01) than patients (<25 years).ConclusionsAlthough differences in overall patient satisfaction with primary and specialty care were not observed, more specialists obtained extremely low satisfaction scores than primary care providers did. Age and factors related to waiting time for the visit or time spent with a doctor were associated with patient satisfaction with physicians.     

Dropping the baton: specialty referrals in the United States

Context: In the United States, more than a third of patients are referred to a specialist each year, and specialist visits constitute more than half of outpatient visits. Despite the frequency of referrals and the importance of the specialty‐referral process, the process itself has been a long‐standing source of frustration among both primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. These frustrations, along with a desire to lower costs, have led to numerous strategies to improve the specialty‐referral process, such as using gatekeepers and referral guidelines. Methods: This article reviews the literature on the specialty‐referral process in order to better understand what is known about current problems with the referral process and what solutions have been proposed. The article first provides a conceptual framework and then reviews prior literature on the referral decision, care coordination including information transfer, and access to specialty care. Findings: PCPs vary in their threshold for referring a patient, which results in both the underuse and the overuse of specialists. Many referrals do not include a transfer of information, either to or from the specialist; and when they do, it often contains insufficient data for medical decision making. Care across the primary‐specialty interface is poorly integrated; PCPs often do not know whether a patient actually went to the specialist, or what the specialist recommended. PCPs and specialists also frequently disagree on the specialist's role during the referral episode (e.g., single consultation or continuing co‐management). Conclusions: There are breakdowns and inefficiencies in all components of the specialty‐referral process. Despite many promising mechanisms to improve the referral process, rigorous evaluations of these improvements are needed.     

Influences on screening for chronic diabetes complications in type 1 diabetes.

Screening for the long-term complications of diabetes is a critical component of diabetes management; however, evidence demonstrates that screening rates in diabetes populations are suboptimal. Our objective was to determine the use and predictors of optimal screening behavior, defined as receiving a fasting lipid test, dilated eye exam, spot urine test, foot examination, blood pressure reading, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the previous year in a representative cohort of subjects with type 1 diabetes. Data are from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study, a prospective cohort study of subjects with childhood onset type 1 diabetes. Data from 325 participants who responded to a survey during 1999-2001 were included in analyses. Reported screening rates were as follows: 87.9% had at least one HbA1c measurement in the past year, 63% had a foot exam, 73.3% had a spot urine test, 81.9% had a dilated eye exam, 93.5% had a blood pressure reading and 68.7% received a fasting lipid profile. Within this group, 37.7% of subjects reported undergoing all five tests (optimal screening). Independent correlates of optimal screening were receiving care from a specialist provider (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.1) and blood glucose monitoring at least weekly (OR = 2.6; 95% CI: 1.1-6.2). These findings indicate that a large proportion of persons with type 1 diabetes are not being screened at the optimal level. Our data indicate that efforts to rectify this should focus on men and those who do not monitor blood glucose, and should involve primary care practitioners.     

Are family medicine centres achieving their target in Turkey: Impact on health care utilization of mothers and infants

The family medicine (FM) system was introduced as the main source of primary care in Turkey as a component of the Health Transformation Program reforms. During a gradual implementation process, provinces switched to the FM system at different points in time between 2005 and 2010. In this paper, we use a micro‐level data set to test whether the health care utilization of mothers during pregnancy, childbirth and the postnatal period is affected by the program. Using a difference‐in‐differences method for estimation, we find that the program is only effective for pregnant women who lived in provinces with a limited availability of specialist doctors. As a result of the FM program, women are likely to have their first prenatal consultancy earlier and their probability of seeing a doctor during their prenatal visit and receiving an ultrasound and blood and urine sample checks increases if they live in a province with a low number of specialists per 10,000 people. We find that the impact of the FM program decreases as the rate of specialists in a province increases, which negates any positive effect of the program on health care use.     

Confronting Disparities in Diabetes Care: The Clinical Effectiveness of Redesigning Care Management for Minority Patients in Rural Primary Care Practices

CONTEXT: Diabetes mellitus and its complications disproportionately affect minority citizens in rural communities, many of whom have limited access to comprehensive diabetes management services. PURPOSE: To explore the efficacy of combining care management and interdisciplinary group visits for rural African American patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: In the intervention practice, an advanced practice nurse visited the practice weekly for 12 months and facilitated diabetes education, patient flow, and management. Patients participated in a 4-session group visit education/support program led by a nurse, a physician, a pharmacist, and a nutritionist. The control patients in a separate practice received usual care. FINDINGS: Median hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was not significantly different at baseline in the intervention and control groups but was significantly different at the end of the 12-month follow-up period (P < .05). In the intervention group, median HbA1c at baseline was 8.2 +/- 2.6%, and median HbA1c at an average follow-up of 11.3 months was 7.1 +/- 2.3%, (P < .0001). In the control group, median HbA1c increased from 8.3 +/- 2.0% to 8.6 +/- 2.4% (P < .05) over the same time period. In the intervention group, 61% of patients had a reduction in HbA1c, and the percentage of patients with a HbA1c of less than 7% improved from 32% to 45% (P < 05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a redesigned care management model that combines nurse-led case management with structured group education visits can be successfully incorporated into rural primary care practices and can significantly improve glycemic control.     

Diabetes mellitus.

1. Diabetes mellitus is diagnosed by finding a random plasma glucose > 11 mmol/L, or a fasting plasma glucose > 8 mmol/L. The prevalence in the general population is between 1-2% rising to approximately 4-9% in the age group 65+ (Williams, 1985; Croxson et al., 1991). It is more prevalent in people from the Indian subcontinent and in Afro-Caribbeans. 2. Approximately 75% of patients can be treated without recourse to insulin. The development of non-fasting ketonuria and/or significant weight loss suggests the onset of insulin dependence. These patients should be referred for specialist advice rapidly. 3. Chronic, uncontrolled hyperglycaemia greatly increases the risk of developing diabetic eye, nerve and kidney complications. 4. Treatment and follow-up aim: to abolish symptoms, to prevent and/or treat diabetic complications, to promote self-care and self-monitoring by patients, to avoid iatrogenic problems from overtreatment, to promote optimum nutrition for these patients. 5. Advice and assessment from the following specialists need to be built into the treatment plan: dietitian, competent fundoscopist (eg optometrist, general practitioner, hospital specialist depending upon local circumstances), chiropodist, diabetes education nurse and diabetes nurse specialist. 6. All patients need appropriate education about: the nature of diabetes mellitus, the importance of good control and the early detection of complications, a healthy lifestyle, the consequences of diabetes for driving and insurance. 7. All patients with diabetes should be reviewed clinically at least once a year. Diet, understanding of diabetes, self-monitoring, metabolic control and complications should be assessed. More frequent clinical review is required in poorly controlled patients, or those with significant complications, or intercurrent illness.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Family Medicine Spokane Rural Training Track: 24 years of rural-based graduate medical education

Twenty percent of the US population lives in rural communities, but only about 9% of the nation's physicians practice in those communities. There is little doubt that the more highly specialized physicians are, the less likely they are to practice or settle in rural areas. There is clearly a population threshold below which it is not feasible for specialist (in contrast to generalist) physicians to pursue the specialty in which they have trained. Much of rural America falls below that threshold. This leaves large geographic areas of America to the primary care physician. The proportional supply of family physicians to specialists increases as urbanization decreases. Family physicians are the largest single source of physicians in rural areas. Family medicine residency programs based in rural locations provide a critical mechanism for addressing rural primary care needs. Graduates from rural residency programs are three times more likely to practice in rural areas than urban residency program graduates. There are two primary goals of training residents in rural areas: producing more physicians who will practice in rural areas and producing physicians who are better prepared for the personal and professional demands of rural practice. Rural Training Tracks, where the first year of residency is completed in an urban setting and the second and third years at a rural site (1-2 model), initially proposed by Family Medicine Spokane in 1985, have been highly successful in placing and maintaining more than 70% of their graduates in rural communities. Similar and modifications of the "Spokane RTT model" have been established around the country. Now, more than 24 years of educational experience has been accumulated and can be applied to further development of these successful family medicine residency programs.     

西部农村婴幼儿常见病就诊现状及影响因素分析

目的 了解我国西部农村地区婴幼儿就诊现状以及有关影响因素.方法 采用横断面调查设计与多阶段随机抽样的方法抽取有3岁以下儿童的家庭户,共计14 112户,用自制调查问卷进行入户调查.结果 患感冒儿童中86.6％的儿童去医疗单位就诊,患腹泻儿童中有76.9％的儿童去医疗单位就诊;就诊单位以乡、村两级医疗机构为主,其中在村卫生室就诊的比例接近50％;就诊率在不同年龄、性别、民族和家庭经济状况之间表现出一定的差异性;对于未就诊的原因,超过80％的母亲报告是因为自感病情轻,而报告因费用问题未就诊的比例不足3％.结论 3岁以下儿童患病后对医疗服务的利用水平较高,其就诊行为受经济状况等外在因素的影响相对较小,就诊与否更多地取决于看护人对疾病本身的严重程度的判断.     

Specialist physicians providing primary care services in Colorado

BACKGROUND: There is general consensus that the size of the US physician workforce now exceeds the health care needs of the American public. There is a greater proportion of specialists than primary care physicians, a specialty mix different from that of most other developed countries. METHODS: The Colorado Board of Medical Examiners sent a one-page questionnaire to all physicians licensed to practice in the state. It contained the question: "How many hours in the last week did you provide primary care services, defined as either preventive care, routine physical exams, or treatment of common ailments?" The responses of physicians who reported non-primary-care medical specialties were analyzed with respect to their personal and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Just under half (46.5%) of the 2745 specialist respondents reported having provided primary care services. As a group, however, 27.9% of specialist physicians' direct patient care time was devoted to primary care activities. The amount of primary care services being provided was greater among those not board-certified in their specialties, osteopathic physicians, and specialists spending less time in direct patient care. CONCLUSION: Additional evaluation is needed with a more comprehensive definition of primary care than used in this article, which includes important but difficult-to-measure elements, such as the integration of services, a sustained partnership with patients, and practice in the context of family and community. To the extent possible, this definition should not rely on physician self-definition of which examinations are routine and which ailments are common. However, the contribution of specialists should be considered in future primary care needs assessments, and specialists who experience low demand for their particular specialties may be especially inclined to provide primary care services.     

Montana Primary Care Providers’ Access to and Satisfaction With Pediatric Specialists When Caring for Children With Special Health Care Needs

Purpose: Primary care providers (PCPs) of children with special health care needs (CSHCN) in rural areas face challenges in accessing specialty care to support a patient‐centered medical home. This study assessed the practice characteristics and attitudes regarding pediatric specialty care among Montana PCPs of CSHCN. Methods: We surveyed 433 Montana PCPs identified through a statewide registry. Demographic and practice information was collected, including the proportion of time spent on CSHCN care coordination. A 5‐point Likert scale was used to calculate mean need scores for each pediatric specialty, access to these specialties, and barriers to care. Results were analyzed separately for pediatricians and family physicians, as well as rural and urban providers, using λ2, t tests, and Mann‐Whitney tests. Results: Of the PCPs surveyed, 386 had a valid address and were currently practicing in Montana, 112 (29%) responded, and 91 provided care to CSHCN (averaged 29% of time spent in CSHCN care coordination). Child psychiatry (4.1) and developmental/behavioral pediatrics (3.7) were identified as the most needed specialties, yet they scored lowest in access to care (2.2 and 2.6, respectively). The most important rated specialist characteristics were quality (4.1), availability (3.5), and communication skills (2.8). Among the top barriers to care, lack of appropriate specialists was identified by 82% of PCPs. Conclusions: Specialty care delivery for CSHCN in rural areas such as Montana should focus on matching availability with the identified need for specialty services, and ensuring that systems of communication between PCPs and specialists support the care coordination function of PCPs.     

Diabetes management quality improvement in a family practice residency program.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a devastating chronic disease. Although optimal diabetes control reduces chronic complications, actual provision of diabetes care frequently falls short of accepted guidelines. We wanted to determine whether locally developed diabetes care initiatives can result in improvements in the provision of diabetes care. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis using Medicare claims and chart abstraction data to ascertain diabetes care indicator utilization rates at the Northeast Iowa Family Practice Clinic (NEIFPC), which serves as the training site for the Northeast Iowa Family Practice Residency Program. Diabetic patients receiving care at the NEIFPC during 1996, 1997, and 1998 were included. Diabetes care rates are compared with those of other Iowa practices. Diabetes initiatives included chart audits, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurement reminder cards, educational symposia, an endocrinology outreach clinic, resident elective rotations, diabetes flow sheet utilization, pharmacist interface, and nursing foot-examination preparations. The primary outcome was the utilization rate of accepted diabetes care indicators. RESULTS: Diabetic patients at NEIFPC had greater utilization of diabetes care indicators than did patients of Iowa collaborators in 1997 and 1998. NEIFPC patients had HbA1c levels measured more frequently in 1997 and 1998 (84% and 88%, respectively) than did patients of Iowa collaborators (49% and 41%, respectively) (P < .001). The mean 1997 and 1998 HbA1c levels of 7.32% and 7.25%, respectively, are impressive compared with that of Iowa collaborators (8.83% and 8.36%) (P < .001) and other published data (8.5%-10%). The percentage of NEIFPC patients with good glycemic control (HbA1c < 8%) was 75%, compared with the reported 50% of all US patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that multimodal diabetes care quality improvement initiatives, applied longitudinally, can result in significant improvements in the provision and documentation of diabetes care.