Family practice最新文献

Medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is the management of opioid use disorder (OUD) on an outpatient basis with buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone (or methadone, which is limited to federally certified opioid treatment programs). Primary care practices are well poised to provide comprehensive care for patients with OUD, including provision of MOUD. The aim of this study was to assess provider and staff OUD attitudes and role perceptions before and after implementation of a MOUD clinical service line. A survey was distributed to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of patients with OUD and provision of MOUD among providers and staff in an academic family medicine clinic. Surveys were distributed in December 2020 (73% response rate), prior to a substance use disorder educational training and MOUD service line implementation, which provided patients with OUD both primary care services and management with buprenorphine/naloxone. A follow-up survey was distributed in February 2022 (69% response rate).Training and implementation of the MOUD service line demonstrated improvements in the domains of motivation (+0.63), attitudes (+0.32), satisfaction (+0.38), role support (+0.48), role adequacy (+0.39), and safety (+0.79) among surveyed participants. The change in satisfaction and safety domains was statistically significant (P < .05). There was no change in the role legitimacy domain.Implementation of a primary care-based MOUD service line positively affected provider and staff motivation, attitudes, satisfaction, sense of safety, role support, and adequacy when working with patients with OUD. This highlights the benefits of MOUD-specific clinical support to optimize care delivery within primary care.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pressure on hospitals increased tremendously. To alleviate this pressure, a remote patient monitoring system called the COVID Box was developed and implemented in primary care. The aim was to assess whether the COVID Box in primary care could reduce emergency department (ED) referrals due to a COVID-19 infection. A matched cohort study was performed between December 2020 and June 2021. Patients with a COVID-19 infection in need of intensive monitoring based on the clinical judgement of their own general practitioner received the COVID Box in primary care combining home monitoring of vital parameters with daily video consultations. The control group was retrospectively matched by propensity score matching. We conducted a subgroup analysis in higher-risk patients with oxygen saturation measurements, considering oxygen saturation as a critical parameter for assessing the risk of a complicated infection. We included 205 patients, of whom 41 patients were monitored with the COVID Box (mean age 70 and 53.7% male) and 164 in the control group (mean age 71.5 and 53% male). No difference was found in ED referrals between the intervention and control groups in our primary analysis. In the subgroup analysis, we found a nonsignificant trend that remote monitoring could reduce the ED referrals. While the overall study found comparable ED referrals between groups, the subgroup analysis suggested a promising prospect in reducing ED referrals due to remote monitoring of higher-risk patients with acute respiratory disease in primary care.

Background: A national policy in Norway demanding certificates for medical absences in upper secondary school was implemented in 2016, leading to an increase in general practitioner (GP) visits in this age group.

Objectives: To assess the policy's effect on the use of primary and specialist healthcare.

Methods: A cohort study following all Norwegian youth aged 14-21 in the years 2010-2019 using a difference-in-differences approach comparing exposed cohorts expected to attend upper secondary school after the policy change in 2016 with previous unexposed cohorts. Data were collected from national registries.

Results: The absence policy led to the increased number of contacts with GPs for exposed cohorts during all exposed years, with estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) in the range from 1.14 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.11-1.18) to 1.25 (95% CI 1.21-1.30). Consultations for respiratory tract infections increased during exposed years. However, there was no conclusive policy-related difference in mental health consultations with GPs. In specialist healthcare we did not find conclusive evidence of an effect of absence policy on the risk of any contact per school year, but there was a slightly increased risk of contacts with ear-nose-throat specialist services.

Conclusions: We found an increase in general practice contacts attributable to the school absence policy. Apart from a possible increase in ear-nose-throat contacts, increased GP attention did not increase specialized healthcare.

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.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a persistent skin disorder that is characterized by painful lesions or pus-filled lumps, mostly occurring in areas where the skin flexes. It is a disfiguring condition that significantly reduces the quality of life of those affected. Developing new, effective treatments for HS is crucial, but it is important that it be recognized and diagnosed early, especially in primary care settings.

Objectives: To assess the epidemiology and clinical correlates of HS in a primary care setting. The study utilized the Italian Health Search Database (HSD). A case-control design was adopted to investigate the clinical correlates of HS. Cases were classified as either "definite" or "probable" using an operational algorithm. Up to 10 controls were matched to each case based on factors such as calendar period, age, sex, and duration of follow-up.

Results: Cumulative prevalence of HS increased from 0.06% in 2002 to 0.46% in 2021. When only "definite" cases were considered, the prevalence was almost 10 times lower (0%-0.02%). Several clinical correlates were found to be positively associated with HS, including obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, autoimmune/inflammatory diseases, and depression.

Conclusions: This study found that correct diagnoses of HS were made, as demonstrated by the expected relationship with clinical correlates. These associations were consistent when probable cases were included in the analysis. This evidence could serve as a foundation for proposing a decision support system for general practitioners to help identify HS in individuals with certain coexisting conditions.

Objective: To describe how patients choose between primary care institutions (PCIs) and non-PCIs using rational choice theory from the perspective of survival rationality, economic rationality, and social rationality.

Methods: Multi-stage stratified sampling and convenience sampling were applied to select 1723 patients to conduct the questionnaire survey. Chi-square test and binary logistic regression were performed to analyze the factors associated with patients' choice of PCIs.

Results: In total 55.83% of 1723 patients would attend a PCIs for healthcare. The results of the univariate analysis revealed that patients who are female (58.46%, P = .015), suffering from chronic diseases (56.26%, P = .047), inpatients (67.58%, P < .001), Beijing (59.62%, P = .002), partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system (62.30%, P < .001), and not understanding of the medical alliance policy (58.04%, P = .031) had significantly higher probability of choosing PCIs. Logistic regression analysis showed that females were more unwilling to attend PCIs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.822, 95%CI: 0.676-0.999). Following survival rationality, patients without chronic diseases were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.834, 95%CI: 1.029-3.268), and inpatients were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.581, 95%CI: 0.437-0.774). From an economic rationality perspective, patients from the Fujian province were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.424, 95%CI: 1.081-1.876). From a social rationality perspective, patients who partial understanding of the family doctor contracting system were more unlikely to attend PCIs (OR = 0.701, 95%CI: 0.551-0.892), and patients who partial and complete understanding of the medical alliance policy were more likely to attend PCIs (OR = 1.340, 95%CI: 1.064-1.687; OR = 1.485, 95%CI: 1.086-2.030).

Conclusions: Survival, economic, and social rationality are involved in patients' choice to attend PCIs. Compared to survival rationality and social rationality, economic rationality showed a lower association with patients' choice to attend PCIs. Medical institutions are recommended to adopt a "patient health-centered" approach when providing medical services and further optimize the family doctor contracting system and construction of medical alliances.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is the most frequent cardiovascular pathology in primary care. Echocardiography is the gold standard for diagnosis, follow-up, and prognosis of HF. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is of growing interest in daily practice.

Aim: This study aimed to systematically review the literature to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment of unselected patients in primary care by non-expert physicians with cardiac POCUS (cPOCUS).

Methods: We searched in Medline, Embase, and Pubmed up to January 2024 for interventional and non-interventional studies assessing LVEF with cPOCUS in unselected patients with suspected or diagnosed HF in hospital or outpatient settings, performed by non-expert physicians.

Results: Forty-two studies were included, involving 6598 patients, of whom 60.2% were outpatients. LVEF was assessed by 351 non-expert physicians after an initial ultrasound training course. The LVEF was mainly assessed by visual estimation (90.2%). The most frequent views were parasternal long/short axis, and apical 4-chamber. The median time of cPOCUS was 8 minutes. A strong agreement was found (κ = 0.72 [0.63; 0.83]) compared to experts when using different types of ultrasound devices (hand-held and standard), and agreement was excellent (κ = 0.84 [0.71; 0.89]) with the same device. Training course combined a median of 4.5 hours for theory and 25 cPOCUS for practice.

Conclusion: The use of cPOCUS by non-expert physicians after a short training course appears to be an accurate complementary tool for LVEF assessment in daily practice. Its diffusion in primary care could optimize patient management, without replacing specialist assessment.

Background: Undetected vulnerability in pregnancy contributes to inequality in maternal and perinatal health and is associated with negative birth outcomes and adverse child outcomes. Nationwide reports indicate important barriers to assessing vulnerability among Danish general practitioners.

Objective: To explore general practitioners perceived barriers to vulnerability assessment in pregnant women and whether the barriers are associated with practice organization of antenatal care, general practitioner, and practice characteristics.

Methods: The questionnaire was sent to all Danish general practitioners (N = 3,465). Descriptive statistics described the barriers to assessing vulnerability in pregnant women. Analytical statistics with ordered logistic regression models were used to describe the association between selected barriers to vulnerability assessment and antenatal care organization, and general practitioner and practice characteristics.

Results: 760 general practitioners (22%) answered. Barriers to vulnerability assessment were related to lacking routines for addressing vulnerability, lacking attention to and record-keeping on vulnerability indicators, an insufficient overview of vulnerable pregnant women, and perceived insufficient remuneration for antenatal care consultations. Not prioritizing extra time when caring for vulnerable pregnant women was associated with experiencing more barriers. Always prioritizing continuity of care was associated with experiencing fewer barriers. General practitioners of either young age, male gender, or who did not prioritize extra time to care for vulnerable pregnant women experienced more barriers.

Conclusion: Barriers to vulnerability assessment among pregnant women do exist in general practice and are associated with organizational characteristics such as lacking prioritization of extra time and continuity in antenatal care consultations. Also, general practitioner characteristics like male gender and relatively young age are associated with barriers to vulnerability assessment.