Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine最新文献

Background: Practice facilitation supports practice change in clinical settings. Despite its widespread use little is known about how facilitators enable change.

Objective: This study identifies which implementation strategies practice facilitators used and the frequency of their use in a study to improve the quality of cardiovascular care in primary care.

Design: Cross-sectional analysis of data collected by practice facilitators in the Healthy Hearts Northwest (H2N) study.

Participants: Notes collected by facilitators in the H2N study.

Approach: We coded these field notes for a purposeful sample of 44 practices to identify Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) strategies used with each practice and calculated the proportion of practices where each implementation strategy was coded at least once. Strategies were categorized as foundational (used in 80% to 100% of practices), moderately used (20%-<80% of practices), rarely used (1-[Formula: see text]% of practices), or absent (0%).

Key results: We identified 26 strategies used by facilitators. Five strategies were foundational: Develop and/or implement tools for quality monitoring, Assess barriers that may impede implementation, Assess for readiness or progress, Develop and support teams, and Conduct educational meetings.

Conclusions: Commonly used strategies can help guide development of the core components of practice facilitation strategies.

Purpose: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are designed to help primary care clinicians (PCCs) implement evidence-based guidelines for chronic disease care. CDS tools may also be helpful for opioid use disorder (OUD), but only if PCCs use them in their regular workflow. This study's purpose was to understand PCC and clinic leader perceptions of barriers to using an OUD-CDS tool in primary care.

Methods: PCCs and leaders (n = 13) from clinics in an integrated health system in which an OUD-CDS tool was implemented participated in semistructured qualitative interviews. Questions aimed to understand whether the CDS tool design, implementation, context, and content were barriers or facilitators to using the OUD-CDS in primary care. Recruitment stopped when thematic saturation was reached. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to generate overall themes.

Results: Five themes emerged: (1) PCCs prefer to minimize conversations about OUD risk and treatment; (2) PCCs are enthusiastic about a CDS tool that addresses a topic of interest but lack interest in treating OUD; (3) contextual barriers in primary care limit PCCs' ability to use CDS to manage OUD; (4) CDS needs to be simple and visible, save time, and add value to care; and (5) CDS has value in identifying and screening patients and facilitating referrals.

Conclusions: This study identified several factors that impact use of an OUD-CDS tool in primary care, including PCC interest in treating OUD, contextual barriers, and CDS design. These results may help others interested in implementing CDS for OUD in primary care.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is certainly going to have a large, potentially huge, impact on the practice of family medicine. The specialty is fortunate to have leading experts in the field to guide us along the way. One such team of forward thinkers provides insights into where AI can take the specialty. Another article reports on how well AI performed on the American Board of Family Medicine In-Training Examination. In addition to AI, we have 3 articles that investigate the intersection of social needs and the practice of medicine. Four clinical review articles cover nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, headache treatments, single maintenance and reliever therapy for asthma, and the use of cannabis in the setting of chronic pain. The clinical research articles cover point-of-care hemoglobin A1c testing, continuous glucose monitoring, and screening for HIV. Another group of articles examines the profession of family medicine, covering topics ranging from how women family physicians negotiate their first jobs to the words we use to define primary care.

Single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) is an asthma treatment approach that utilizes combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists for maintenance and quick relief therapy. Despite the evidence for its benefits in asthma treatment and its adoption into American and international asthma guidelines and recommendations, SMART remains a practice of some debate. This article reviews the available evidence for SMART and offers guidance for its integration into comprehensive asthma management. Overall, short-acting β-agonist-only asthma therapy regimens should be avoided, regardless of condition severity (SOR A Recommendation). Family medicine clinicians should start SMART for patients requiring either GINA Step 3 or 4 therapy, especially if they have signs of poor adherence (SOR B Recommendation). Finally, use budesonide-formoterol over other inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-agonist combinations when implementing SMART (SOR B Recommendation).

The rising obesity epidemic is a phenomenon that has gained increasing attention from health providers and health policy makers. This led to recognition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (MASLD). The standard for its assessment has been histologic, which is neither practical nor acceptable by patients. Subsequently, a number of noninvasive assessment methods have been developed. However, despite ease of implementation, their confounding variables do hinder their accuracy. Nonetheless, the development of the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and incorporation of other biological parameters has minimized but not eliminated the need for liver biopsy. Imaging methods are useful in evaluation, estimation, and following the progression of steatosis and fibrosis with particular attention to controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) and MRI-Proton Density Fat Fraction (MRI-PDFF). The choices for the family physician are broad and rely on tests' availability, cost, and patient acceptance. Great efforts have been undertaken to produce more robust and novel noninvasive markers that indicate fibrinogenesis directly in an implementable and cost-effective way.

Family medicine physicians often see headache as the chief complaint when meeting patients within their practice. The goal is to try different treatment modalities without having to send the patient to a specialist. Headaches affect different individuals during their lifetime. Before any treatment begins, it is best that one rules out possible causes of the headache, for example, drug interactions or structural cerebrum conditions. Nonpharmacological treatment is recommended first before attempting a stepwise approach to cost-effective pharmacological treatment options. Pharmacological treatment options should include preventive and on-demand options. A family physician has all the resources to assist patients with different types of headaches.

Purpose: Providing medication abortion in the primary care setting is a promising way to increase access to abortion, a threatened service in many States. This study aimed to characterize primary care clinicians' interest in prescribing medication abortion, what barriers they face in adding this service, and what support they need.

Methods: Data were collected from 162 practicing primary care clinicians in Minnesota using an online survey with closed- and open-ended response options. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, group comparison analyses, and content analysis for the open-ended questions.

Results: Participants represented a diverse range of ages, years in practice, credentials, genders, and urban/rural practice settings, and held mixed knowledge and attitudes around medication abortion. All demographic groups surveyed expressed interest in prescribing medication abortion, with the strongest interest represented among younger respondents, women, and those practicing in urban settings. Clinicians who provide prenatal care or who already work with these medications in other contexts were more likely to want to add medication abortion to their practices. The most common barrier to providing medication abortion was a lack of knowledge about organizational policies and about the medications themselves. To empower clinicians to provide medication abortion, respondents voiced needing their health systems to build clear processes and wanting supportive networks of other clinicians for collaboration.

Conclusions: Given the interest of primary care clinicians in providing medication abortion, health systems have a valuable opportunity to increase access.

Introduction: High-quality primary care can reduce avoidable emergency department visits and emergency hospitalizations. The availability of electronic medical record (EMR) data and capacities for data storage and processing have created opportunities for predictive analytics. This systematic review examines studies which predict emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and mortality using EMR data from primary care.

Methods: Six databases (Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, EBM Reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Scopus, CINAHL) were searched to identify primary peer-reviewed studies in English from inception to February 5, 2020. The search was initially conducted on January 18, 2019, and updated on February 5, 2020.

Results: A total of 9456 citations were double-reviewed, and 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. The predictive ability measured by C-statistics (ROC) of the best performing models from each study ranged from 0.57 to 0.95. Less than half of the included studies used artificial intelligence methods and only 7 (23%) were externally validated. Age, medical diagnoses, sex, medication use, and prior health service use were the most common predictor variables. Few studies discussed or examined the clinical utility of models.

Conclusions: This review helps address critical gaps in the literature regarding the potential of primary care EMR data. Despite further work required to address bias and improve the quality and reporting of prediction models, the use of primary care EMR data for predictive analytics holds promise.

Two decades into the era of Electronic Health Records (EHRs), the promise of streamlining clinical care, reducing burden, and improving patient outcomes has yet to be realized. A cross-sectional family physician census conducted by the American Board of Family Medicine in 2022 and 2023 included self-reported physician EHR satisfaction. Of the nearly 10,000 responding family physicians, only one-in-four (26.2%) report being very satisfied and one-in-three (33.8%) were not satisfied. These low levels of satisfaction point to the need for greater transparency in the marketplace and pressure to increase user-centric EHR design.