Meghan M JaKa, Rebecca C Rossom, Soo Borson, Patrick J O'Connor, Laura J Zibley, Thomas L von Sternberg, A Lauren Crain, Heidi L Ekstrom, Bethany Crouse, Ann M Werner, Leah R Hanson
{"title":"Confidence in diagnosing and managing care for cognitive impairment in primary care: a survey comparing barriers by primary care clinician type.","authors":"Meghan M JaKa, Rebecca C Rossom, Soo Borson, Patrick J O'Connor, Laura J Zibley, Thomas L von Sternberg, A Lauren Crain, Heidi L Ekstrom, Bethany Crouse, Ann M Werner, Leah R Hanson","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmae043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As cognitive impairment (CI) prevalence rises and primary care screening becomes commonplace, it is critical to understand how to support clinicians. We describe clinician-reported barriers to diagnosing and managing care for patients with CI in a health system with standardized screening. We also explore whether barriers differ by clinician type-physician or advanced-practice clinician (APC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Theory-informed surveys were administered to primary care clinicians in a large integrated health system. The survey assessed barriers, confidence in diagnosing CI and managing CI care, beliefs about the consequences of diagnosing CI, and usability of the electronic health record (EHR) to diagnose and manage CI care; it also included open-ended response items. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to describe perceived barriers. Differences by clinician type were compared using chi-square.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 408 eligible clinicians, 249 started the survey and 247 completed the primary outcomes (61% response rate). Many said they were only a little or not at all confident in diagnosing (70%) and managing care for (60%) CI, with specific gaps in confidence in distinguishing types of dementia and having CI-related conversations with patients or family/care partners. APCs reported lower confidence than physicians. Other barriers were lack of time, low usability of EHR, and lack of family/care partner availability. These did not differ by clinician type. Open-ended responses suggest clinicians would like more support for CI care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low levels of confidence among other barriers suggest an urgent need to develop and implement effective multifaceted strategies to improve CI care.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11461164/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmae043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: As cognitive impairment (CI) prevalence rises and primary care screening becomes commonplace, it is critical to understand how to support clinicians. We describe clinician-reported barriers to diagnosing and managing care for patients with CI in a health system with standardized screening. We also explore whether barriers differ by clinician type-physician or advanced-practice clinician (APC).
Methods: Theory-informed surveys were administered to primary care clinicians in a large integrated health system. The survey assessed barriers, confidence in diagnosing CI and managing CI care, beliefs about the consequences of diagnosing CI, and usability of the electronic health record (EHR) to diagnose and manage CI care; it also included open-ended response items. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to describe perceived barriers. Differences by clinician type were compared using chi-square.
Results: Of the 408 eligible clinicians, 249 started the survey and 247 completed the primary outcomes (61% response rate). Many said they were only a little or not at all confident in diagnosing (70%) and managing care for (60%) CI, with specific gaps in confidence in distinguishing types of dementia and having CI-related conversations with patients or family/care partners. APCs reported lower confidence than physicians. Other barriers were lack of time, low usability of EHR, and lack of family/care partner availability. These did not differ by clinician type. Open-ended responses suggest clinicians would like more support for CI care.
Conclusion: Low levels of confidence among other barriers suggest an urgent need to develop and implement effective multifaceted strategies to improve CI care.
背景:随着认知障碍(CI)患病率的上升和初级保健筛查的普及,了解如何为临床医生提供支持至关重要。我们描述了临床医生报告的在标准化筛查的医疗系统中诊断和管理 CI 患者的障碍。我们还探讨了不同临床医生类型(医生或高级临床医生 (APC))的障碍是否有所不同:方法:我们对一家大型综合医疗系统的初级保健临床医生进行了理论依据调查。调查内容包括障碍、诊断 CI 和管理 CI 护理的信心、对诊断 CI 后果的看法以及电子健康记录 (EHR) 在诊断和管理 CI 护理方面的可用性;调查还包括开放式回答项目。描述性统计和内容分析用于描述感知障碍。采用卡方检验比较了不同类型临床医生的差异:在 408 名符合条件的临床医生中,有 249 人开始了调查,247 人完成了主要结果(回复率为 61%)。许多人表示,他们对 CI 的诊断(70%)和护理管理(60%)只有一点信心或完全没有信心,在区分痴呆类型以及与患者或家属/护理伙伴进行 CI 相关对话方面存在具体的信心差距。全科医生的信心低于医生。其他障碍包括缺乏时间、电子病历的可用性低以及缺乏家属/护理伙伴。这些障碍在临床医生类型上没有差异。开放式回答表明,临床医生希望在 CI 护理方面获得更多支持:除其他障碍外,信心不足也表明迫切需要制定和实施有效的多方面策略来改善 CI 护理。