Can health care teams improve primary care practice?

In health care settings, individuals from different disciplines come together to care for patients. Although these groups of health care personnel are generally called teams, they need to earn true team status by demonstrating teamwork. Developing health care teams requires attention to 2 central questions: who is on the team and how do team members work together? This article chiefly focuses on the second question. Cohesive health care teams have 5 key characteristics: clear goals with measurable outcomes, clinical and administrative systems, division of labor, training of all team members, and effective communication. Two organizations are described that demonstrate these components: a private primary care practice in Bangor, Me, and Kaiser Permanente's Georgia region primary care sites. Research on patient care teams suggests that teams with greater cohesiveness are associated with better clinical outcome measures and higher patient satisfaction. In addition, medical settings in which physicians and nonphysician professionals work together as teams can demonstrate improved patient outcomes. A number of barriers to team formation exist, chiefly related to the challenges of human relationships and personalities. Taking small steps toward team development may improve the work environment in primary care practices.     

Can accurate immunization rates be determined in a primary care clinic?

Based on the data that we collected in our clinic, we were unable to determine the immunization rates of our patients accurately. Despite multiple telephone calls to families and health departments and an exhaustive chart review, 87 of the 261 families studied could not be contacted, thereby making an analysis of immunization data impossible. Another technique of tracking immunizations, such as a statewide or national registry, is needed to obtain accurate immunization data.     

Are recommendations about routine antenatal care in Australia consistent and evidence-based?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the variability and evidence base of recommendations in Australian protocols and national policies about six aspects of routine antenatal care. DESIGN: Comparison of recommendations from local protocols, national guidelines and research about number of visits, screening for gestational diabetes (GDM), syphilis, hepatitis C (HCV), and HIV, and advice on smoking cessation. SETTING: Australian public hospitals with more than 200 births/year, some smaller hospitals in each State and Territory, and all Divisions of General Practice were contacted in 1999 and 2000. We reviewed 107 protocols, which included 80% of those requested from hospitals and 92% of those requested from Divisions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency and consistency of recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations about syphilis testing were notable in demonstrating consistency between local protocols, national policies and research evidence. Most protocols recommended screening for GDM, despite lack of good evidence of its effectiveness in improving outcomes. Specific approaches to screening for GDM varied widely. Coverage and specific recommendations about testing for HIV and HCV were also highly variable. Smoking-cessation information and advice was rarely included, despite good evidence of the effectiveness of interventions in improving outcomes. No national policies about the number of routine visits and smoking cessation could be identified. There were inconsistent national policies for both HIV and GDM screening. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal care recommended in protocols used in Australia varies, and is not always consistent with national policies or research evidence. Producing and disseminating systematic reviews of research evidence and national guidelines might reduce this variability and improve the quality of Australian antenatal care.     

Barriers to using clinical decision support in ambulatory care: Do clinics in health systems fare better?

ObjectiveWe quantify the use of clinical decision support (CDS) and the specific barriers reported by ambulatory clinics and examine whether CDS utilization and barriers differed based on clinics’ affiliation with health systems, providing a benchmark for future empirical research and policies related to this topic.Materials and MethodsDespite much discussion at the theoretic level, the existing literature provides little empirical understanding of barriers to using CDS in ambulatory care. We analyze data from 821 clinics in 117 medical groups, based on in Minnesota Community Measurement’s annual Health Information Technology Survey (2014-2016). We examine clinics’ use of 7 CDS tools, along with 7 barriers in 3 areas (resource, user acceptance, and technology). Employing linear probability models, we examine factors associated with CDS barriers.ResultsClinics in health systems used more CDS tools than did clinics not in systems (24 percentage points higher in automated reminders), but they also reported more barriers related to resources and user acceptance (26 percentage points higher in barriers to implementation and 33 points higher in disruptive alarms). Barriers related to workflow redesign increased in clinics affiliated with health systems (33 points higher). Rural clinics were more likely to report barriers to training.ConclusionsCDS barriers related to resources and user acceptance remained substantial. Health systems, while being effective in promoting CDS tools, may need to provide further assistance to their affiliated ambulatory clinics to overcome barriers, especially the requirement to redesign workflow. Rural clinics may need more resources for training.     

Examining clinical decision support integrity: is clinician self-reported data entry accurate?

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of clinician-entered data in imaging clinical decision support (CDS). We used CDS-guided CT angiography (CTA) for pulmonary embolus (PE) in the emergency department as a case example because it required clinician entry of d-dimer results which could be unambiguously compared with actual laboratory values. Of 1296 patients with CTA orders for suspected PE during 2011, 1175 (90.7%) had accurate d-dimer values entered. In 55 orders (4.2%), incorrectly entered data shielded clinicians from intrusive computer alerts, resulting in potential CTA overuse. Remaining data entry errors did not affect user workflow. We found no missed PEs in our cohort. The majority of data entered by clinicians into imaging CDS are accurate. A small proportion may be intentionally erroneous to avoid intrusive computer alerts. Quality improvement methods, including academic detailing and improved integration between electronic medical record and CDS to minimize redundant data entry, may be necessary to optimize adoption of evidence presented through CDS.     

Can we do better in end-of-life care? The mixed management model and palliative care.

The increasing duration of life from disease diagnosis to death in cancer and chronic non-malignant illnesses argues for a revised approach to end-of-life care that incorporates the principles of palliative care from an earlier stage (ie, a stage at which curative and/or life-prolonging treatments are still being provided). The provision of active treatment and comfort measures/death preparation in parallel has been called the "mixed management model" of end-of life care.     

How do primary care physicians in Singapore keep healthy?

INTRODUCTION

Not much is known regarding how primary care physicians (PCPs) in Singapore keep themselves healthy and mitigate ill health. This study aims to determine the health-seeking behaviour of local PCPs and to identify the predictors of local PCPs attaining the recommended level of exercise.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional questionnaire survey, which included questions on the demographic characteristics, practice profiles and health-seeking behaviour of PCPs. The sampling frame was the 1,400 listed members of the College of Family Physicians Singapore. The anonymised survey was executed in two phases: a postal survey, followed by a web-based survey on the College of Family Physicians Singapore website. The two data sets were collated; the categorical variables, summarised; and the differences between subgroups (based on exercise engagement), compared using Fisher’s exact test. The effect of each risk factor on exercise duration was quantified using odds ratio (OR) estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of exercise engagement.

RESULTS

A total of 631 PCPs participated in the survey – 26% were ≤ 34 years old, 58% were male, 21% were single, 34% were singleton practitioners, and 56% were private practitioners. The percentage of PCPs who exercised ≥ 2.5 hours weekly was 29%, while 28% exercised < 0.5 hours weekly. Of the PCPs surveyed, 1% currently smoke, 0.8% drink more than 14 units of alcohol weekly, 60% undertook health screening, 65% had blood investigations done, and 64% had taken preventive measures such as getting influenza vaccination.

CONCLUSION

While local PCPs generally did not have undesirable habits such as smoking and alcohol abuse, they could further increase their exercise intensity and undertake more preventive measures such as getting vaccinated against various diseases.     

Community participation in health care decision making: is it feasible?

Health care reform strategies proposed by provincial governments include decentralized funding and increased public participation in decision making. These proposals do not give details as to the public participation process, and a number of questions have been raised by the experience of some communities. Which citizens should form the decision-making group? What information do they need? What kinds of decisions should they make? What level of participation should they have? The results of a survey by Abelson and associates (see pages 403 to 412 of this issue) challenge the assumption that "communities" are willing to participate in health-care and social-service decision making. Willingness varied according to the composition of the groups polled, and participants' support for traditional decision makers increased after the complexities of the decision-making process were discussed. However, whereas their study measured willingness to participate at one point in time only, experience gained from Ontario's Better Beginnings, Better Futures project indicates that, given sufficient time, "ordinary" citizens are willing and can acquire the skills needed to decide how resources should be allocated for social services.     

Is the quality of data in an electronic medical record sufficient for assessing the quality of primary care?

Objective

Quality indicators for the treatment of type 2 diabetes are often retrieved from a chronic disease registry (CDR). This study investigates the quality of recording in a general practitioner''s (GP) electronic medical record (EMR) compared to a simple, web-based CDR.

Methods

The GPs entered data directly in the CDR and in their own EMR during the study period (2011). We extracted data from 58 general practices (8235 patients) with type 2 diabetes and compared the occurrence and value of seven process indicators and 12 outcome indicators in both systems. The CDR, specifically designed for monitoring type 2 diabetes and reporting to health insurers, was used as the reference standard. For process indicators we examined the presence or absence of recordings on the patient level in both systems, for outcome indicators we examined the number of compliant or non-compliant values of recordings present in both systems. The diagnostic OR (DOR) was calculated for all indicators.

Results

We found less concordance for process indicators than for outcome indicators. HbA1c testing was the process indicator with the highest DOR. Blood pressure measurement, urine albumin test, BMI recorded and eye assessment showed low DOR. For outcome indicators, the highest DOR was creatinine clearance <30 mL/min or mL/min/1.73 m² and the lowest DOR was systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg.

Conclusions

Clinical items are not always adequately recorded in an EMR for retrieving indicators, but there is good concordance for the values of these items. If the quality of recording improves, indicators can be reported from the EMR, which will reduce the workload of GPs and enable GPs to maintain a good patient overview.     

Diagnosing skin cancer in primary care: how do mainstream general practitioners compare with primary care skin cancer clinic doctors?

OBJECTIVE: To measure and compare the casemix and diagnostic accuracy of excised or biopsied skin lesions managed by mainstream general practitioners and doctors within primary care skin cancer clinics. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective comparative study of 104 GPs and 50 skin cancer clinic doctors in south-eastern Queensland, involving 28 755 patient encounters. The study was conducted in 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of each type of skin lesion; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the clinical diagnosis against histology; number needed to excise or biopsy (NNE) for a diagnosis of skin cancer. RESULTS: GPs excised or biopsied 3175 skin lesions (mean 2.5/week) including 743 basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) (23.4%), 704 squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) (22.2%) and 49 melanomas (1.5%). Skin cancer clinic doctors excised or biopsied 7941 skin lesions (mean 34/week), including 2701 BCCs (34.0%), 1274 SCCs (16.0%) and 103 melanomas (1.3%). Overall, sensitivity for diagnosing any skin cancer was similar for skin cancer clinic doctors (0.94) and GPs (0.91), although higher for skin cancer clinic doctors for BCC (0.89 v 0.79; P < 0.01) and melanoma (0.60 v 0.29; P < 0.01). The overall NNE was similar for skin cancer clinic doctors (1.9; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.1%) and GPs (2.1; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). This did not change after adjusting for years of clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: GPs and skin cancer clinic doctors in Queensland treat large numbers of skin cancers and diagnose these with overall high sensitivity. The two groups diagnosed skin cancer with similar accuracy.     

Breast clinic referrals: can mastalgia be managed in primary care?

Background

Centralisation of breast cancer services in Ireland has resulted in a significant increase in the number of patients attending symptomatic breast units (SBU). A considerable proportion of patients referred to SBU present with non-suspicious symptoms and fall into a “low-risk” category for breast cancer. It has been proposed that consideration be given to a primary care-delivered service for these patients.

Aim

To evaluate SBU attendances and correlate with diagnosis to identify a cohort of patients who may be suitable for management in the primary care setting.

Methods

Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database on patients attending SBU at two tertiary referral centres (Beaumont Hospital and University College Hospital Galway) from January 2011 to 2012. Reasons for attendance, outcome of triple-assessment and incidence of malignancy were analysed.

Results

14,325 patients underwent triple assessment at the SBU in this time period. 5,841 patients were referred with mastalgia, of whom 3,331 (57 %) reported mastalgia as the only symptom. The incidence of breast cancer in patients presenting with mastalgia alone was 1.2 %. All patients diagnosed with breast cancer in this cohort were over 35 years of age.

Conclusion

The incidence of breast cancer in patients referred to SBU with mastalgia as an isolated symptom is extremely low. Patients under 35 years of age, with mastalgia as an isolated symptom do not require breast imaging and have a sufficiently low risk of breast cancer that they may be suitable for management in the primary care setting.