Following depression in primary care: do family practice physicians ask about depression at different rates than internal medicine physicians?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the chronically or recurrently depressed patients of family practice and internal medicine physicians differed in the proportion reporting that their primary care physician asked them about depression symptoms. DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study of chronically or recurrently depressed survey respondents who identified a family practice or internal medicine physician as their primary care provider. SETTING: A large not-for-profit group-model health maintenance organization in the northwestern United States, with a population representative of its service area. PATIENTS: Health maintenance organization members (n= 1161) with ongoing or recurring depression or dysthymia who responded to a 1993 survey and who identified either a family practice or internal medicine physician as their primary care provider. Main Outcome Measure: Patients' self-report of their primary care physician asking them: (1) whether they had been feeling sad, blue, or depressed; (2) to fill out a questionnaire about their mood or feelings; and (3) whether they had been thinking about death or suicide. RESULTS: Chronically or recurrently depressed patients of family practice physicians were more likely to report that their physician asked them about depressive symptoms than were patients of internal medicine physicians (34.0% vs 27.3%) (P=.02). This finding persisted in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Family practice physicians may be more attentive to depressive disorders than internal medicine physicians.     

Factors influencing patients' choice of primary medical doctors

This study investigated factors that influence adult patients' choice of primary care physicians and aimed to determine whether patients know the difference between internal medicine and family medicine. One thousand patients who had seen their primary care physician in either the family medicine or internal medicine department at Mayo Clinic in 2001 were sent a questionnaire to determine 1) the factors that influenced their choice of physician and 2) their knowledge of the characteristics of both specialties. Forty-six percent of the patients responded. Patients most often cited the doctor's "Approach to patient care" and "Interpersonal skills/communication" as affecting their choice of physician. Results also showed patient knowledge of the difference between family medicine and internal medicine was poor. The authors conclude that patients must be educated about the differences in the training of and care provided by different types of primary care physicians.     

Practice preferences of primary medical care and traditional internal medicine house officers

In an academic medical centre between 1980 and 1985, the attitudes, preferences and career goals of house officers in a primary medical care residency training programme were assessed at entry and at the end of each house officer year. Primary care trainees who went on to practise in a general medicine setting were compared to primary care trainees who subsequently received subspecialty training and also to traditional internal medicine trainees. House officers in the primary care programme generally maintained attitudes and preferences central to the practice of primary care, and scored significantly higher than traditional track house officers on attitudes and preferences compatible with the practice of medicine in a primary care setting. However, primary care house officers who later went into subspecialty training received scores similar to those of traditional track house officers on practice preferences relating to specialty care. There were no significant differences between primary care and traditional track house officers on standard measures of knowledge and clinical skill.     

Hospital discharge data used as feedback in planning research and education for primary care

Are research and training programs in pediatrics, internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) comprehensive enough to give trainees proficiency in primary care? Controversy exists about which subject areas should be added to the training schema to make them more applicable in primary care. One approach to this controversy is to use the most frequent of serious patient problems that are outside these disciplines as feedback into the process of selecting areas for more comprehensive training. In this study, patients'' serious problems were defined as those requiring hospitalization. Diagnoses from the National Hospital Discharge Survey were grouped into categories of morbidity by age and sex. The most frequent categories outside the three disciplines were identified. For pediatrics these problems were trauma, mental disorders, and unintended pregnancy; for internal medicine, trauma, mental and gynecologic disorders, and unintended pregnancy; for OB-GYN, trauma and mental, cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and arthritic disorders. Since primary care is largely ambulatory care, the next step in the resolution of the controversy would be to define the competency level needed for the prevention, early recognition, and early management of these disorders in the ambulatory care setting. Once defined, competency levels can be examined among trainees in the three specialties, and areas where competency is found inadequate can be emphasized. Although hospitalization data are not the only logical criteria for choosing areas for emphasis, these feedback data offer a method of integrating patients'' most frequent severe problems into the selection process.     

Physician perspectives on routine pregnancy intention screening and counseling in primary care

ObjectivesTo assess factors associated with routine pregnancy intention screening by primary care physicians and their support for such an initiative.Study designWe conducted a cross-sectional survey study of 443 primary care physicians in New York State. We performed multivariable logistic regression analyses of physician support for routine pregnancy intention screening and implementation of screening in the last year. Predictors included in the models were physician age, sex, specialty, clinic setting, and, for the outcome of support for screening, experience with screening in the last year.ResultsIn this convenience sample, the vast majority of respondents from all specialties (88%) felt pregnancy intention screening should be routinely included in primary care, with 48% reporting that they routinely perform such screening. The preferred wording for this question was one which assessed reproductive health service needs. In multivariable analyses, internal medicine physicians were less likely than family medicine physicians to have provided routine pregnancy intention screening (aOR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.09, 0.25). Only 8% of the sample reported they required more training to implement pregnancy intention screening, but more reported needing training prior to contraceptive provision (17%), contraceptive counseling (16%), and preconception care (15%). More internal medicine and other types of doctors cited a need for this additional training than family medicine physicians.ConclusionsMost responding primary care physicians supported routine integration of pregnancy intention screening. Incorporating additional training, especially for internal medicine physicians, in contraception and preconception care counseling is key to ensuring success.Implications statementResponding primary care physicians supported routine inclusion of reproductive health needs assessment in primary care. Primary care may become increasingly important for ensuring access to a full range of reproductive health services. Providing necessary training, especially for internal medicine physicians, is needed prior to routine inclusion.     

Intra-rater reliability and feasibility of the HexCom advanced disease complexity assessment model

AimTo study the intra-rater reliability and feasibility of the HexCom complexity assessment model by analyzing internal consistency, intra-rater reliability and response time.DesignTest–retest study with a selection of 11 clinical situations that cover the full scope of situations assessed by the HexCom model and which are responded to individually.LocationHome care, primary care, hospital and sociosanitary care. Two specialized palliative home care teams (PADES).ParticipantsA total of 20 professionals comprising 10 experts in palliative home care (PADES) and 10 professionals from general palliative care (primary care, hospital and sociosanitary care). These professionals came from the fields of family medicine (5), internal medicine (2), geriatrics (2), nursing (9), psychology (1) and social work (1).Main measurementsCronbach's alpha, weighted kappa, response time.ResultsCronbach's alpha of 0.91 for HexCom-Red and 0.87 for HexCom-Clin. Intra-rater reliability ranging from good to very good for HexCom-Red (kappa: 0.78–1) and from moderate to very good for HexCom-Clin (kappa: 0.58–0.91). Average response time of 0:57 for HexCom-Red and 3:80 min for HexComClin.ConclusionsHexCom-Red and HexCom-Clin are reliable tools and feasible for use by all professionals involved in both general and specialized palliative care at different levels.     

Comparison of dermatologic diagnoses by primary care practitioners and dermatologists. A review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Cost-containment efforts in the United States have led to a greater emphasis on health care delivery by primary care physicians as opposed to specialists, who are assumed to be more costly. With this approach, it is incumbent on the primary care physician to be able to accurately diagnose and treat common maladies, including skin disease. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether differences in performance were detectable between groups of physicians when presented with color slides or high-quality transparencies. DESIGN: We performed a critical review of published studies. RESULTS: Overall, dermatologists (93% correct) performed better than nondermatologists (52% correct) (P < .001). No difference was appreciable between dermatology residents (91% correct) and practicing dermatologists (96% correct) or between internal medicine residents (45% correct) and family practice residents (48% correct). In addition, family medicine attending physicians (70% correct) performed better than internal medicine attending physicians (52% correct) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians should receive more training in the diagnosis of skin disease.     

Results of the 2006 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine

The results of the 2006 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect a currently stable level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2005 Match, 26 more positions (with the same number of US seniors) were filled in family medicine residency programs through the NRMP in 2006, at the same time as four more (five fewer US seniors) in primary care internal medicine, one fewer in pediatrics-primary care (12 more US seniors), and four more (19 more US seniors) in internal medicine-pediatric programs. Many different forces, including student perspectives of the demands, rewards, and prestige of the specialty; the turbulence and uncertainty of the health care environment; lifestyle issues; and the impact of faculty role models continue to influence medical student career choices. Two more positions (nine more US seniors) were filled in categorical internal medicine. Two fewer positions (11 fewer US seniors) were filled in categorical pediatrics programs. The 2006 NRMP results suggest that interest in family medicine and primary care careers continues to be stable. With the needs of the nation calling for the roles and services of family physicians, family medicine matched too few graduates through the 2006 NRMP to meet the nation's needs for primary care physicians.     

Results of the 2007 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine

The results of the 2007 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect a currently stable level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2006 Match, five fewer positions (with 25 fewer US seniors) were filled in family medicine residency programs through the NRMP in 2007, at the same time as 20 fewer (two more US seniors) in primary care internal medicine, the same number of pediatrics-primary care (four fewer US seniors), and one more (19 fewer US seniors) in internal medicine-pediatrics programs. Multiple forces, including student perspectives of the demands, rewards, and prestige of the specialty; the turbulence and uncertainty of the health care environment; lifestyle issues; and the impact of faculty role models continue to influence medical student career choices. Eighty-four more positions (12 more US seniors) were filled in categorical internal medicine. Fifty-four more positions (22 more US seniors) were filled in categorical pediatrics programs. The 2007 NRMP results suggest that interest in family medicine and primary care careers continues to decline. With the needs of the nation calling for the roles and services of family physicians, family medicine matched too few graduates through the 2007 NRMP to meet the nation's needs for primary care physicians.     

Family physician consultation/referral patterns

Family physicians, regardless of training, board certification, or practice setting, more commonly consult or refer to internal medicine subspecialists than to general internists. The primary reason is need for a consultant with technical (procedural) skill. In the case of pediatric referrals, family physicians more commonly refer to general pediatricians than to pediatric subspecialists. Physicians who use pediatric subspecialists more when both are available, however, do so because of the need for a consultant with technical skill. Large numbers of internal medicine and pediatric residents are choosing subspecialties, thereby increasing availability of these subspecialties. At the same time, there is a documented need for an increased number of primary care physicians. Family physicians, general internists, and general pediatricians all need to be trained; however, because the breadth of training of the family physician prepares this practitioner to provide comprehensive primary care in a broad variety of settings, there should be an emphasis on training this specialist.     

Results of the 2011 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine

The results of the 2011 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect another small but promising increased level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2010 Match, family medicine residency programs filled 172 more positions (with 133 more US seniors) through the NRMP in 2011. In other primary care fields, 26 more primary care internal medicine positions filled (10 more US seniors), one more position in pediatrics-primary care (two fewer US seniors), and seven more positions in internal medicine-pediatrics programs (10 more US seniors). The 2011 NRMP results suggest a small increase in choosing primary care careers for the second year in a row; however, students continue to show an overall preference for subspecialty careers. Multiple forces continue to influence medical student career choices. Despite matching the highest number of US seniors into family medicine residencies since 2002, the production of family physicians remains insufficient to meet the current and anticipated need to support the nation's primary care infrastructure.     

A Mixed-Methods Study of Patient–Provider E-Mail Content in a Safety-Net Setting

To explore the content of patient–provider e-mails in a safety-net primary care clinic, we conducted a content analysis using inductive and deductive coding of e-mail exchanges (n = 31) collected from January through November 2013. Participants were English-speaking adult patients with a chronic condition (or their caregivers) cared for at a single publicly funded general internal medicine clinic and their primary care providers (attending general internist physicians, clinical fellows, internal medicine residents, and nurse practitioners). All e-mails were nonurgent. Patients included a medical update in 19% of all e-mails. Patients requested action in 77% of e-mails, and the most common requests overall were for action regarding medications or treatment (29%). Requests for information were less common (45% of e-mails). Patient requests (n = 56) were resolved in 84% of e-mail exchanges, resulting in 63 actions. These results show that patients in safety-net clinics are capable of safely and effectively using electronic messaging for between-visit communication with providers. Safety-net systems should implement electronic communications tools as soon as possible to increase health care access and enhance patients' involvement in their care.     

Gatekeeping in primary care: a comparison of internal medicine and family practice

Five hundred twenty new patients were randomly and prospectively assigned to receive their care in the Internal Medicine Clinic or Family Practice Clinic of a large university hospital. The patients were followed by residents in training under the supervision of board-certified internists or family physicians. After a mean length of care of slightly over two years, the charts were reviewed for frequency of visits to primary care providers (internal medicine or family practice), Emergency Room, Acute Care Clinic, and all clinics other than the two primary care clinics. The records were also reviewed for laboratory tests ordered. Frequency of visits to the clinic of primary care, Emergency Room, Acute Care Clinic, and broken appointments were all significantly higher for patients randomized to the Internal Medicine Clinic. In addition, the median total annual cost of laboratory tests for patients followed by internal medicine physicians was significantly higher, largely because of higher laboratory charges generated by the specialist consultants. Over the study period, internal medicine patients had a significantly higher number of visits to all nonprimary care clinics and specifically to the dermatology, obstetrics and gynecology, and general surgery consultant clinics. It can be concluded that in this clinical environment, the practice styles of internal medicine and family practice are different.     

Downsizing the physician workforce.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the need for downsizing the physician workforce in a changing health care environment. METHODS: First assuming that 1993 physician-to-population ratios would be maintained, the authors derived downsizing estimates by determining the annual growth in the supply of specialists necessary to maintain these ratios (sum of losses from death and retirement plus increase necessary to parallel population growth) and compared them with an estimate of the number of new physicians being produced (average annual number of board certificates issued between 1990 and 1994). Then, assuming that workforce needs would change in a system increasingly dominated by managed care, the authors estimated specialty-specific downsizing needs for a managed care dominated environment using data from several sources. RESULTS: To maintain the 1993 199.6 active physicians per 100,000 population ratio, 14,644 new physicians would be needed each year. Given that an average of 20,655 physicians were certified each year between 1990 and 1994, at least 6011 fewer new physicians were needed annually to maintain 1993 levels. To maintain the 132.2 ratio of active non-primary care physicians per 100,000 population, the system needed to produce 9698 non-primary care physicians per year, because an average of 14,527 new non-primary care physicians entered the workforce between 1990 and 1994, downsizing by 4829, or 33%, was needed. To maintain the 66.8 active primary care physicians per 100,000 population ratio, 4946 new primary care physicians were needed per year, since primary care averaged 6128 new certifications per year, a downsizing of 1182, or 20% was indicated. Only family practice, neurosurgery, otolaryngology, and urology did not require downsizing. Seventeen medical and hospital-based specialties, including 7 of 10 internal medicine subspecialties, needed downsizing by at least 40%. Less downsizing in general was needed in the surgical specialties and in psychiatry. A managed care dominated-system would call for greater downsizing in most of the non-primary care specialties. CONCLUSION: These data support the need for downsizing the nation''s physician supply, especially in the internal medicine subspecialties and hospital support specialties and to a lesser extent among surgeons and primary care physicians.     

Why pregnancy care should be an essential part of family medicine training

Some family medicine educators are arguing to eliminate pregnancy care as a required component of family medicine training since the majority of family physicians no longer perform deliveries, and many programs are having increasing difficulties in meeting this training requirement. The primary benefit of pregnancy care training is not to produce family physicians who all perform deliveries but to produce family physicians who are competent to provide comprehensive primary care to women and girls, including routine and preventive reproductive care. The training in pregnancy care helps to differentiate family medicine residencies from other primary care training programs by facilitating competency in a wide range of reproductive health care for nonpregnant women and for the primary nonreproductive health care of pregnant and postpartum women. Residencies offering pregnancy care services also enhance their ability to train residents in child care. Family medicine should continue to strive to improve this aspect of residency training instead of abandoning it.     

Primary care physician perspectives on providing adult vaccines

Recently, several new vaccines have been recommended for adults. Little is known regarding the immunization purchase and stocking practices of adult primary care physicians. To determine the proportion of family practice and internal medicine physicians who routinely stock specific adult vaccines and their rationale for those decisions, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2009 of a national random sample of 993 family physicians (FPs) and 997 general internists (IMs) in the US. Of the 1109 respondents, 886 reported that they provide primary care to adults aged 19-64 years and 96% of these physicians stock at least one vaccine recommended for adults. Of those, 2% plan to stop and 12% plan to increase vaccine purchases; the rest plan to maintain status quo. Of the respondents, 27% (31% FPs vs 20% IMs) stocked all adult vaccines. We conclude that many primary care physicians who provide care to adults do not stock all recommended immunizations. Efforts to improve adult immunization rates must address this fundamental issue.     

Revisiting Prostate Cancer Screening Practices Among Vermont Primary Care Physicians

The objective of this study was to assess the prostate cancer screening practices of Vermont primary care physicians and compare them with a prior study in 2001. An electronic survey was created and emailed to all currently practicing primary care physicians in Vermont. Data was stratified by practice length, practice location, university affiliation, and internal medicine versus family practice. Surveys were received from 123 (27.2%) primary care physicians. 27.7% of physicians in practice?<10 years recommended prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, compared with 55.9% of those practicing ≥10 years (p?=?0.006). Of those who modified their recommendations in the past 5 years, 96.1% reported that the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 statement influenced them. Respondents who continued to use PSA testing were less likely to stop screening after age 80 compared with those surveyed in 2001 (51% in 2014 vs. 74% in 2001; p?<0.001). Primary care physicians in practice for 10 or more years were more likely to recommend PSA-based screening than those in practice for less time. The USPSTF statement discouraging PSA-based screening for prostate cancer has had significant penetrance among Vermont primary care physicians.     

Results of the 2008 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine

The results of the 2008 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect a currently stable level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2007 Match, 91 more positions (with 65 more US seniors) were filled in family medicine residency programs through the NRMP in 2008, at the same time as 10 fewer (one fewer US senior) in primary care internal medicine, eight fewer positions were filled in pediatrics-primary care (10 fewer US seniors), and 19 fewer (27 fewer US seniors) in internal medicine-pediatrics programs. Multiple forces, including student perspectives of the demands, rewards, and prestige of the specialty, the turbulence and uncertainty of the health care environment, lifestyle issues, and the impact of faculty role models, continue to influence medical student career choices. Thirty-one more positions (20 fewer US seniors) were filled in categorical internal medicine. Thirty more positions (84 fewer US seniors) were filled in categorical pediatrics programs. The 2008 NRMP results suggest that while interest in family medicine experienced a slight increase in the number of students choosing the specialty, interest in other primary care careers continues to decline. With the needs of the nation calling for the roles and services of family physicians, family medicine still matched too few graduates through the 2008 NRMP to meet the nation's needs for primary care physicians.     

Applying the chronic care model to homeless veterans: effect of a population approach to primary care on utilization and clinical outcomes

Objectives. We compared a population-tailored approach to primary care for homeless veterans with a usual care approach.Methods. We conducted a retrospective prolective cohort study of homeless veterans enrolled in a population-tailored primary care clinic matched to a historical sample in general internal medicine clinics. Overall, 177 patients were enrolled: 79 in the Homeless-Oriented Primary Care Clinic and 98 in general internal medicine primary care.Results. Homeless-oriented primary care–enrolled patients had greater improvements in hypertension, diabetes, and lipid control, and primary care use was higher during the first 6 months (5.96 visits per person vs 1.63 for general internal medicine) but stabilized to comparable rates during the second 6 months (2.01 vs 1.31, respectively). Emergency department (ED) use was also higher (2.59 vs 1.89 visits), although with 40% lower odds for nonacute ED visits than for the general internal medicine group (95% confidence interval = 0.2, 0.8). Excluding substance abuse and mental health admissions, hospitalizations were reduced among the homeless veterans between the 2 periods (28.6% vs 10.8%; P < .01) compared with the general internal medicine group (48.2% vs 44.4%; P = .6; difference of differences, P < .01).Conclusions. Tailoring primary care to homeless veterans can decrease unnecessary ED use and medical admissions and improve chronic disease management.Homeless persons get sick more often, utilize acute medical services at substantially higher rates, and experience 1.5 to 3.5 times higher rates of mortality than do their age-matched nonhomeless counterparts.^1–6 Homeless persons also underutilize primary care services, often seek care in EDs,^2,7 and commonly require acute care hospitalization.³ These utilization patterns are even more pronounced among homeless veterans. In a national sample of homeless persons, Kushel et al. found that although 62.8% of participants had 1 or more ambulatory visits and 26.8% were enrolled in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system, only 5.6% of care occurred in VA-based clinics.¹ Almost one quarter of the sample did not receive care when needed, and veterans were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized as were nonveteran homeless persons.¹Studies to date have typically focused on the emergency department (ED) or hospital as the site for intervention. Redelmeier et al., in a randomized controlled trial, showed a reduction in ED use when care was coupled with a social work intervention.⁸ Okin et al. achieved similar results applying case management to high-frequency ED users.⁹ O''Toole et al. showed a reduction in ED use for homeless persons with substance use disorders who enrolled in a day hospital program after an acute medical hospitalization.¹⁰ Sadowski et al. demonstrated a reduction in ED use and in subsequent hospitalizations when case management and housing support followed an acute care hospital admission.¹¹ Much attention has also been placed on improving access to primary and preventive health services, with federally funded Health Care for the Homeless clinics serving as the model.^12–15 However, few controlled studies have evaluated whether this population-based approach to care optimizes outcomes for homeless persons.The Homeless-Oriented Primary Care Clinic at the Providence VA Medical Center adapted the integrated care approach of the Health Care for the Homeless program to an urban hospital-based setting in the VA health system. The current retrospective cohort study compares health services utilization and chronic disease outcomes among Homeless-Oriented Primary Care patients with those of a matched sample of homeless veterans seen in a typical VA general internal medicine clinic. Our intent was to determine whether a population-tailored approach to how primary care is organized and delivered to homeless veterans is associated with better health care and utilization outcomes.