Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine最新文献

We propose a paper that provides education on commonly used long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) to improve primary care based mental health interventions in patients with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorders. With the expanding interface of primary care and psychiatry across all healthcare settings, it has become increasingly important for primary care clinicians to have a broader understanding of common psychiatric treatments, including LAIs. Long-acting injectable antipsychotics have been shown to be helpful in significantly improving treatment adherence, preventing disease progression, improving treatment response, decreasing readmission rates, and reducing social impairment. We discuss evidence-based indications and guidelines for use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics. We provide an overview of the treatment of SMI with LAIs, mainly focusing on the most commonly used long-acting injectable antipsychotics, advantages and disadvantages of each, along with outlining important clinical pearls for ease of practical application. Equipped with increased familiarity and understanding of these essential therapies, primary care clinicians can better facilitate early engagement with psychiatric care, promote more widespread use, and thus significantly improve the wellbeing and quality of life of patients with severe mental illness.

Family physicians are fielding questions about cannabis --particularly for the use of cannabis for treatment of pain. Like about every substance ingested to treat medical conditions, cannabis has risks and benefits. But regarding evidence-based practice and practice-based recommendations for patients about cannabis use, the cart is in front of the horse. Cannabis use is still illegal at a federal level and a Schedule 1 drug, but most states have challenged federal law by decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis for a variety of uses. Research is difficult due to this federal status as a Schedule 1 drug since federal funding is not readily available to support research. As a result, physicians have little to no guidance about the clinical usefulness of the product. This article explores what we know and what we are learning about cannabis, and the authors provide clinical guidance for patient care based on this evidence.

Purpose: Sexual misconduct by physicians is a consequential violation of patient trust. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and patterns of sexual misconduct by physicians certified by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM).

Methods: We described a cohort of current or formerly ABFM certified physicians ("Diplomates") disciplined for sexual misconduct in 2016 to 2022.

Results: Ninety-four physicians, representing only 0.1% of ABFM Diplomates, were identified as having received disciplinary action(s) for reported sexual misconduct. These constituted 8.9% of the 1122 cases that resulted in a physician losing board certification or eligibility for any cause in 2016 to 2022. Ninety-three of the 94 physicians identified as male, with an average age of 56 (range 22 to 88 years). Eighty-nine percent of victims were female, and 90% were patients of the physician. Unwanted sexual behavior/assault occurred in more than half of the cases, whereas one third described an ongoing sexual relationship between patient and physician. Nearly 1 in 5 cases also included controlled substance prescribing. Seven cases involved minors. Noncontact ("grooming") behaviors were described in 34 cases, 28 of which included subsequent physical sexual behavior. A clinical setting was the site of misconduct in 84% of cases.

Conclusions: Reports of sexual misconduct among board-certified family physicians are infrequent. However, any sexual misconduct by physicians is harmful to patients and the profession. The specialty should work to enhance education and change professional culture to mitigate this important problem.

Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes is associated with improved clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial patient health outcomes and is part of the American Diabetes Association's Standards of Medical Care. CGM prescription often takes place in endocrinology practices, yet 50% of adults with type 1 diabetes and 90% of all people with type 2 diabetes receive their diabetes care in primary care settings. This study examined primary care clinicians' perceptions of barriers and resources needed to support CGM use in primary care.

Methods: This qualitative study used semistructured interviews with primary care clinicians to understand barriers to CGM and resources needed to prescribe. Participants were recruited through practice-based research networks. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to summarize themes from interview findings.

Results: We conducted interviews with 55 primary care clinicians across 21 states. Participants described CGM benefits for patients with varying levels of diabetes self-management and engagement. Major barriers to prescribing included lack of insurance coverage for CGM costs to patients, and time constraints. Participants identified resources needed to foster CGM prescribing, for example, clinician education, support staff, and EHR compatibility.

Conclusion: Primary care clinicians face several challenges to prescribing CGM, but they are interested in learning more to help them offer it to their patients. This study reinforces the ongoing need for improved clinician education on CGM technology and continued expansion of insurance coverage for people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Background: Higher trust in healthcare providers has been linked to better health outcomes and satisfaction. Lower trust has been associated with healthcare-based discrimination.

Objective: Examine associations between experiences of healthcare discrimination and patients' and caregivers of pediatric patients' trust in providers, and identify factors associated with high trust, including prior experience of healthcare-based social screening.

Methods: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional study using logistic regression modeling. Sample consisted of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients from 11 US primary care/emergency department sites.

Results: Of 1,012 participants, low/medium trust was reported by 26% identifying as non-Hispanic Black, 23% Hispanic, 18% non-Hispanic multiple/other race, and 13% non-Hispanic White (P = .001). Experience of any healthcare-based discrimination was reported by 32% identifying as non-Hispanic Black, 23% Hispanic, 39% non-Hispanic multiple/other race, and 26% non-Hispanic White (P = .012). Participants reporting low/medium trust had a mean discrimination score of 1.65/7 versus 0.57/7 for participants reporting high trust (P < .001). In our adjusted model, higher discrimination scores were associated with lower trust in providers (aOR 0.74, 95%CI = 0.64, 0.85). A significant interaction indicated that prior healthcare-based social screening was associated with reduced impact of discrimination on trust: as discrimination score increased, odds of high trust were greater among participants who had been screened (aOR = 1.28, 95%CI = 1.03, 1.58).

Conclusions: Patients and caregivers reporting more healthcare-based discrimination were less likely to report high provider trust. Interventions to strengthen trust need structural antiracist components. Increased rapport with patients may be a potential by-product of social screening. Further research is needed on screening and trust.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to revolutionize family medicine, offering a transformative approach to achieving the Quintuple Aim. This article examines the imperative for family medicine to adapt to the rapidly evolving field of AI, with an emphasis on its integration in clinical practice. AI's recent advancements have the potential to significantly transform health care. We argue for the proactive engagement of family medicine in directing AI technologies toward enhancing the "Quintuple Aim."The article highlights potential benefits of AI, such as improved patient outcomes through enhanced diagnostic tools, clinician well-being through reduced administrative burdens, and the promotion of health equity by analyzing diverse data sets. However, we also acknowledge the risks associated with AI, including the potential for automation to diverge from patient-centered care and exacerbate health care disparities. Our recommendations stress the need for family medicine education to incorporate AI literacy, the development of a collaborative for AI integration, and the establishment of guidelines and standards through interdisciplinary cooperation. We conclude that although AI poses challenges, its responsible and ethical implementation can revolutionize family medicine, optimizing patient care and enhancing the role of clinicians in a technology-driven future.

Without compromising accuracy, point of care testing (POCT) provides immediate results at the time of in person patient consultation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate time until therapeutic intervention with POCT HbA1c versus venipuncture, where venipuncture was considered standard of care.The primary outcome was time (hours) to implementation of a therapeutic intervention based on POCT HbA1c result, as compared with most recent venipuncture HbA1c before the study and its associated therapeutic intervention. A total of 94 POCT HbA1c tests were included in the primary analysis.For the POCT HbA1c, the mean time to therapeutic intervention was 1.6 ± 3.14 hours. For the previous venipuncture HbA1c, the mean time to therapeutic intervention was 1376.66 ± 3356.6 hours (P < .001). Overall, this trial showed that POCT HbA1c results in a significantly faster time to therapeutic intervention than venipuncture in a primary care clinic that serves a rural population.

Background: Discharge communication between hospitalists and primary care clinicians is essential to improve care coordination, minimize adverse events, and decrease unplanned health services use. Health-related social needs are key drivers of health, and hospitalists and primary care clinicians value communicating social needs at discharge.

Objective: To 1) characterize the current state of discharge communications between an academic medical center hospital and primary care clinicians at associated clinics; 2) seek feedback about the potential usefulness of discharge readiness information to primary care clinicians.

Design: Exploratory, convergent mixed methods.

Participants: Primary care clinicians from Family Medicine and General Internal Medicine of an academic medical center in the US Intermountain West.

Approach: Literature-informed REDCap survey. Semistructured interview guide developed with key informants, grounded in current literature. Survey data were descriptively summarized; interview data were deductively and inductively coded, organized by topics.

Results: Two key topics emerged: 1) discharge communication, with interrelated topics of transitional care management and follow-up appointment challenges, and recommendations for improving discharge communication; and 2) usefulness of the discharge readiness information, included interrelated topics related to lack of shared understanding about roles and responsibilities across settings and ethical concerns related to identifying problems that may not have solutions.

Conclusions: While reiterating perennial discharge communication and transitional care management challenges, this study reveals new evidence about how these issues are interrelated with assessing and responding to patients' lack of readiness for discharge and unmet social needs during care transitions. Primary care clinicians had mixed views on the usefulness of discharge readiness information. We offer recommendations for improving discharge communication and transitional care management (TCM) processes, which may be applicable in other care settings.

Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended starting at age 45, but there has been little research on strategies to promote screening among patients younger than 50. This study assessed the effect of a multicomponent intervention on screening completion in this age group.

Methods: The intervention consisted of outreach to patients aged 45 to 49 (n = 3,873) via mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (sent to 46%), text (84%), e-mail (53%), and the extension to this age group of an existing standing order protocol allowing primary care nurses and medical assistants to order FIT at primary care clinics in an urban safety-net system. We used segmented linear regression to assess changes in CRC screening completion trends. Patients aged 51 to 55 were included as a comparison group (n = 3,943). Data were extracted from the EHR.

Results: The percentage of patients aged 45 to 49 who were up-to-date with CRC screening (colonoscopy in 10 years or FIT in last year) increased an average of 0.4% (95% CI 0.3, 0.6)) every 30 days before intervention rollout and 2.8% (95% CI 2.5, 3.1) after (slope difference 2.3% [95% CI 2.0, 2.7]). This difference persisted after accounting for small changes in the outcome observed in the comparison group (slope difference 1.7% [95% CI 1.2, 2.2]).

Conclusions: These results suggest that the intervention increased CRC screening completion among patients 45 to 49. Health care systems seeking to improve CRC screening participation among patients aged 45 to 49 should consider implementing similar interventions.