Are Physicians’ Recommendations For Colorectal Cancer Screening Guideline-Consistent?

BACKGROUND  

Many older adults in the U.S. do not receive appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although primary care physicians’ recommendations to their patients are central to the screening process, little information is available about their recommendations in relation to guidelines for the menu of CRC screening modalities, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema (DCBE). The objective of this study was to explore potentially modifiable physician and practice factors associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the menu of CRC screening modalities.     

The Impact of Physicians’ Health Beliefs on Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices

Primary-care physicians have significant influence on whether or not their patients participate in colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). This study explored the association of physicians personal health beliefs, medical history, and personal participation in CRCS with their practice patterns regarding CRCS. Perceived personal risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) was associated with compliance with American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines for CRCS for their patients (P = 0.03). For physicians at low risk for CRC, their perception of the seriousness of CRC was significantly associated with compliance (P = 0.047). For physicians at, at least, average risk for CRC, personal participation in CRCS did not predict whether they recommend CRCS to their patients. Efforts to improve physicians understanding about their own susceptibility to CRC and the seriousness of CRC may improve their compliance with making recommendations for CRCS to their patients and may improve their participation in CRCS.     

Differences Between Primary Care Physicians’ and Oncologists’ Knowledge,Attitudes and Practices Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors

Background  

The growing number of cancer survivors combined with a looming shortage of oncology specialists will require greater coordination of post-treatment care responsibilities between oncologists and primary care physicians (PCPs). However, data are limited regarding these physicians’ views of cancer survivors’ care.     

Use of Hospitalists and Office-Based Primary Care Physicians’ Productivity

BACKGROUND

Growth in the care of hospitalized patients by hospitalists has the potential to increase the productivity of office-based primary care physicians (PCPs) by allowing them to focus on outpatient practice.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to examine the association between utilization of hospitalists and the productivity of office-based PCPs.

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS

The cross-sectional study was conducted using the 2008 Health Tracking Physician Survey Restricted Use File linked to the Area Resource File. We analyzed a total of 1,158 office-based PCPs representing a weighted total of 97,355 physicians.

MAIN MEASURES

Utilization of hospitalists was defined as the percentage of a PCP’s hospitalized patients treated by a hospitalist. The measures of PCPs’ productivity were: (1) number of hospital visits per week, (2) number of office and outpatient clinic visits per week, and (3) direct patient care time per visit.

KEY RESULTS

We found that the use of hospitalists was significantly associated with a decreased number of hospital visits. The use of hospitalists was also associated with an increased number of office visits, but this was only significant for high users. Physicians who used hospitalists for more than three-quarters of their hospitalized patients had an extra 8.8 office visits per week on average (p = 0.05), which was equivalent to a 10 % increase in productivity over the predicted mean of 87 visits for physicians who did not use hospitalists. We did not find any significant differences in direct patient care time per visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that the increase in productivity for the one-third of PCPs who use hospitalists extensively may not be sufficient to offset the current loss of PCP workforce. However, our findings provide cautious optimism that if more PCPs effectively and efficiently used hospitalists, this could help mitigate a PCP shortage and improve access to primary care services.KEY WORDS: hospitalists, primary care physician shortage, productivity     

Primary Care Physicians’ Attitudes Regarding Race-Based Therapies

Background  

There is little to no information on whether race should be considered in the exam room by those who care for and treat patients. How primary care physicians understand the relationship between genes, race and drugs has the potential to influence both individual care and racial and ethnic health disparities.     

Practice Constraints,Behavioral Problems,and Dementia Care: Primary Care Physicians’ Perspectives

Objectives To examine how practice constraints contribute to barriers in the health care of persons with dementia and their families, particularly with respect to behavioral aspects of care. Design Cross-sectional qualitative interview study of primary care physicians. Setting Physicians’ offices. Participants Forty primary care physicians in Northern California. Measurements Open-ended interviews lasted 30–60 minutes and were structured by an interview guide covering clinician background and practice setting, clinical care of a particular patient, and general approach to managing patients with AD or dementia. Interviews were transcribed and themes reflecting constraints of practice were identified through a systematic coding process. Results Recurring themes (i.e., those present in ≥25% of physician interviews) included insufficient time, difficulty in accessing and communicating with specialists, low reimbursement, poor connections with community social service agencies, and lack of interdisciplinary teams. Physician narratives suggest that these constraints may lead to delayed detection of behavior problems, “reactive” as opposed to proactive management of dementia, and increased reliance on pharmacological rather than psychosocial approaches. Conclusion Physicians often feel challenged in caring for dementia patients, particularly those who are more behaviorally complex, because of time and reimbursement constraints as well as other perceived barriers. Our results suggest that more effective educational interventions (for families and physicians) and broader structural changes are needed to better meet the needs of the elderly with dementia and their families now and in the future. Without these changes, dementia care is likely to continue to fall short.     

Primary Care Physicians’ Decisions About Discharging Patients from Their Practices

Objective There are few data available about factors which influence physicians’ decisions to discharge patients from their practices. To study general internists’ and family medicine physicians’ attitudes and experiences in discharging patients from their practices. Design A cross-sectional mailed survey was used. Participants One thousand general internists and family medicine physicians participated in this study. Measurements and Main Results We studied the likelihood physicians would discharge 12 hypothetical patients from their practices, and whether they had actually discharged such patients. The effect of demographic data on the number of scenarios in which patients were likely to be discharged, and the number of patients actually discharged were analyzed via ANOVA and multiple logistic regression analysis. Of 977 surveys received by subjects, 526 (54%) were completed and returned. A majority of respondents were willing to discharge patients in 5 of 12 hypothetical scenarios. Eighty-five percent had actually discharged at least one patient from their practices. Most respondents (71%) had discharged 10 or fewer patients, but 14% had discharged 11 to 200 patients. Respondents who were in private practice (p < 0.000001) were more likely to discharge both hypothetical and actual patients from their practices. Older physicians (≥48 years old) were more likely to discharge actual patients from their practices (p = 0.005) as were physicians practicing in rural settings (p = 0.003). Conclusions Most physicians in our sample were willing to discharge actual and hypothetical patients from their practices. This tendency may have significant implications for the initiation of pay-for-performance programs. Physicians should be educated about the importance of the patient–physician relationship and their fiduciary obligations to the patient.     

A Spiritual Problem? Primary Care Physicians’ and Psychiatrists’ Interpretations of Medically Unexplained Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Patients commonly present to their physicians with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), and there is no consensus about how physicians should interpret or treat such symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how variations in physicians’ interpretations of MUS are associated with physicians’ religious characteristics and with physician specialty (primary care vs. psychiatry).

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A national survey of a stratified random sample of 1,504 primary care physicians and 512 psychiatrists in 2009–2010.

MAIN MEASURES

The extent to which physicians believe MUS reflect a root problem that is spiritual in nature or result from conditions that scientific research will eventually explain, and whether such patients would benefit from attention to their relationships, attention to their spiritual life, taking medications, and/or treatment by physicians.

KEY RESULTS

Response rate was 63 % (1,208/1,909). More religious/spiritual physicians were more likely to believe that MUS reflect a spiritual problem (55 % for high vs. 24 % for low spirituality; OR?=?2.8, 1.7–4.5) and that these patients would benefit from paying attention to their spiritual life (79 % for high vs. 55 % for low spirituality; OR?=?3.1, 1.8–5.3). Psychiatrists were more likely to believe that scientific research will one day explain MUS (66 % vs. 52 %; OR?=?1.9, 1.4–2.5) and that these symptoms will improve with treatment by a physician (54 % vs. 35 %; OR?=?2.4, 1.8–3.3). They were less likely to believe that MUS reflect a spiritual problem (23 % vs. 38 %; OR?=?0.5, 0.4–0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians’ interpretations of MUS vary widely, depending in part on physicians’ religious characteristics and specialty. One in three physicians believes that patients with MUS have root problems that are spiritual in nature. Physicians who are more religious or spiritual are more likely to think of MUS as stemming from spiritual concerns. Psychiatrists are more optimistic that these patients will get better with treatment by physicians.     

Setting a Fair Performance Standard for Physicians’ Quality of Patient Care

Background  

Assessing physicians’ clinical performance using statistically sound, evidence-based measures is challenging. Little research has focused on methodological approaches to setting performance standards to which physicians are being held accountable.     

Factors Influencing Physicians’ Screening Behavior for Liver Cancer Among High-risk Patients

BACKGROUND Little is known about physicians’ screening patterns for liver cancer despite its rising incidence. OBJECTIVE Describe physician factors associated with liver cancer screening. DESIGN Mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS Physicians practicing in family practice, internal medicine, gastroenterology, or nephrology in 3 northern California counties in 2004. MEASUREMENTS Sociodemographic and practice measures, liver cancer knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported screening behaviors. RESULTS The response rate was 61.8% (N = 459). Gastroenterologists (100%) were more likely than Internists (88.4%), family practitioners (84.2%), or nephrologists (75.0%) to screen for liver cancer in high-risk patients (p = 0.016). In multivariate analysis, screeners were more likely than nonscreeners to think that screening for liver cancer reduced mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, CI 1.09–2.34) and that not screening was a malpractice risk (OR 1.88, CI 1.29–2.75). Screeners were more likely than nonscreeners to order any screening test if it was a quality of care measure (OR 4.39, CI 1.79–10.81). CONCLUSIONS Despite debate about screening efficacy, many physicians screen for liver cancer. Their screening behavior is influenced by malpractice and quality control concerns. More research is needed to develop better screening tests for liver cancer, to evaluate their effectiveness, and to understand how physicians behave when there is insufficient evidence.     

Primary Care Clinicians’ Recognition and Management of Depression: A Model of Depression Care in Real-World Primary Care Practice

BACKGROUND

Depression is prevalent in primary care (PC) practices and poses a considerable public health burden in the United States. Despite nearly four decades of efforts to improve depression care quality in PC practices, a gap remains between desired treatment outcomes and the reality of how depression care is delivered.

OBJECTIVE

This article presents a real-world PC practice model of depression care, elucidating the processes and their influencing conditions.

DESIGN

Grounded theory methodology was used for the data collection and analysis to develop a depression care model. Data were collected from 70 individual interviews (60 to 70 min each), three focus group interviews (n?=?24, 2 h each), two surveys per clinician, and investigators’ field notes on practice environments. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. Surveys and field notes complemented interview data.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy primary care clinicians from 52 PC offices in the Midwest: 28 general internists, 28 family physicians, and 14 nurse practitioners.

KEY RESULTS

A depression care model was developed that illustrates how real-world conditions infuse complexity into each step of the depression care process. Depression care in PC settings is mediated through clinicians’ interactions with patients, practice, and the local community. A clinician’s interactional familiarity (“familiarity capital”) was a powerful facilitator for depression care. For the recognition of depression, three previously reported processes and three conditions were confirmed. For the management of depression, 13 processes and 11 conditions were identified. Empowering the patient was a parallel process to the management of depression.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinician’s ability to develop and utilize interactional relationships and resources needed to recognize and treat a person with depression is key to depression care in primary care settings. The interactional context of depression care makes empowering the patient central to depression care delivery.     

Does Patient Health and Hysterectomy Status Influence Cervical Cancer Screening in Older Women?

Background  Decisions to screen older patients for cancer are complicated by the fact that aging populations are heterogeneous with respect to life expectancy. Objective  To examine national trends in the association between cervical cancer screening and age, health and hysterectomy status. Design and participants  Cross-sectional data from the 1993, 1998, 2000, and 2005 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) were used to examine trends in screening for women age 35–64 and 65+ years of age. We investigated whether health is associated with Pap testing among older women using the 2005 NHIS (N = 3,073). We excluded women with a history of cervical cancer or who had their last Pap because of a problem. Measurements  The dependent variable was having a Pap test within the past 3 years. Independent variables included three measures of respondent health (the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), general health status and having a chronic disability), hysterectomy status and sociodemographic factors. Main results  NHIS data showed a consistent pattern of lower Pap use among older women (65+) compared to younger women regardless of hysterectomy status. Screening also was lower among older women who reported being in fair/poor health, having a chronic disability, or a higher CCI score (4+). Multivariate models showed that over 50% of older women reporting poor health status or a chronic disability and 47% with a hysterectomy still had a recent Pap. Conclusions  Though age, health and hysterectomy status appear to influence Pap test use, current national data suggest that there still may be overutilization and inappropriate screening of older women.     

Comorbidity Profile of Dementia Patients in Primary Care: Are They Sicker?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the medical comorbidity of older patients with and without dementia in primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Wishard Health Services, which includes a university-affiliated, urban public hospital and seven community-based primary care practice centers in Indianapolis. PARTICIPANTS: Three thousand thirteen patients aged 65 and older attending seven primary care centers in Indianapolis, Indiana. MEASUREMENTS: An expert panel diagnosed dementia using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, criteria. Comorbidity was assessed using 10 physician-diagnosed chronic comorbid conditions and the Chronic Disease Score (CDS). RESULTS: Patients with dementia attending primary care have on average 2.4 chronic conditions and receive 5.1 medications. Approximately 50% of dementia patients in this setting are exposed to at least one anticholinergic medication, and 20% are prescribed at least one psychotropic medication. After adjusting for patients' age, race, and sex, patients with and without dementia have a similar level of comorbidity (mean number of chronic medical conditions, 2.4 vs 2.3, P=.66; average CDS, 5.8 vs 6.2, P=.83). CONCLUSION: Multiple medical comorbid conditions are common in older adults with and without dementia in primary care. Despite their cholinergic deficit, a substantial proportion of patients with dementia are exposed to anticholinergic medications. Models of care that incorporate this medical complexity are needed to improve the treatment of dementia in primary care.     

Truth Telling and Treatment Strategies in End-of-Life Care in Physician-Led Accountable Care Organizations: Discrepancies Between Patients’ Preferences and Physicians’ Perceptions

Providing patient-centered care from preventive medicine to end-of-life care in order to improve care quality and reduce medical cost is important for accountable care. Physicians in the accountable care organizations (ACOs) are suitable for participating in supportive end-of-life care especially when facing issues in truth telling and treatment strategy. This study aimed to investigate patients’ attitudes toward truth telling and treatment preferences in end-of-life care and compare patients’ attitudes with their ACOs physicians’ perceptions.This nationwide study applied snowball sampling to survey physicians in physician-led ACOs and their contracted patients by questionnaire from August 2010 to July 2011 in Taiwan. The main outcome measures were beliefs about palliative care, attitudes toward truth telling, and treatment preferences.The data of 314 patients (effective response rate = 88.7%) and 177 physicians (88.5%) were analyzed. Regarding truth telling about disease prognosis, 94.3% of patients preferred to be fully informed, whereas only 80% of their physicians had that perception (P < 0.001). Significant differences were also found in attitudes toward truth telling even when encountering terminal disease status (98.1% vs 85.3%). Regarding treatment preferences in terminal illness, nearly 90% of patients preferred supportive care, but only 15.8% of physicians reported that their patients had this preference (P < 0.001).Significant discrepancies exist between patients’ preferences and physicians’ perceptions toward truth telling and treatment strategies in end-of-life care. It is important to enhance physician–patient communication about end-of-life care preferences in order to achieve the goal of ACOs. Continuing education on communication about end-of-life care during physicians’ professional development would be helpful in the reform strategies of establishing accountable care around the world.     

Trends and Quality of Care in Outpatient Visits to Generalist and Specialist Physicians Delivering Primary Care in the United States, 1997–2010

BACKGROUND

Although many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study and time trend analysis.

DATA

Nationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997–2010.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality.

KEY RESULTS

Among 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p?=?0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient’s PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p?<?0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p?<?0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p?<?0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.     

The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician–Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician–patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care.

DESIGN

This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study.

INTERVENTION

Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment.

MAIN MEASURES

Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test.

KEY RESULTS

The physician–patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician–patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed.KEY WORDS: colorectal cancer screening, health literacy, randomized trial, physician communication of preventive care