Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine最新文献

The 2021 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care outlined an implementation framework with recommendations for federal, state, and local policy makers, health systems, educational institutions, the interprofessional workforce, and others across the health care ecosystem to ensure that high-quality primary care is available for everyone in the United States. Based on 1 of the report's recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services, in collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, launched the Initiative to Strengthen Primary Health Care in 2021 to coordinate and prioritize primary care activities across the federal government. Formation of this federal coordinating body is a critical step for improving primary care in the US, but it is equally important to enable external primary care policy experts, researchers, and working clinicians to provide input on urgent primary care needs and priorities as primary care policy evolves. The newly launched NASEM Standing Committee on Primary Care will provide a venue for input that is independent, objective, and evidence-based to inform policy, spark progress and innovation, and confront challenging issues facing primary care today and in the future.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a stress test that revealed critical weaknesses in the foundation of the US health care delivery system, which left unresolved will ultimately lead to catastrophic population health consequences. Primary care and public health are the most fragile and important parts of that foundation. Collapse of either of these disciplines would lead to cascading failures harming the health of individuals and the health security of the nation. Primary care and public health are inextricably entwined as the cornerstones of health security and population health, and there is an urgent need to adequately fund both.As policy makers debate the importance of enhanced funding for either primary care or public health it would be good to consider the ways in which these disciplines are critical to securing the health of the nation as well as the ways in which they complement one another. Funding for both opens the door for greater integration that could build on the nascent synergies resulting in even stronger, more efficient and more sustainable foundation for the overall health care delivery system. Every day and in every corner of the world primary care and public health are already relying on each other in many ways. However, this relationship most often functions without formal acknowledgment. To better understand this intimate relationship, it is useful to first describe the core components of each.

Background: Certain health-related risk factors require legal interventions. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) are collaborations between clinics and lawyers that address these health-harming legal needs (HHLNs) and have been shown to improve health and reduce utilization.

Objective: The objective of this study is to explore the impact, barriers, and facilitators of MLP implementation in primary care clinics.

Methods: A qualitative design using a semistructured interview assessed the perceived impact, barriers, and facilitators of an MLP, among clinicians, clinic and MLP staff, and clinic patients. Open AI software (otter.ai) was used to transcribe interviews, and NVivo was used to code the data. Braun & Clarke's framework was used to identify themes and subthemes.

Results: Sixteen (n = 16) participants were included in this study. Most respondents were women (81%) and white (56%). Four respondents were clinic staff, and 4 were MLP staff while 8 were clinic patients. Several primary themes emerged including: Patients experienced legal issues that were pernicious, pervasive, and complex; through trusting relationships, the MLP was able to improve health and resolve legal issues, for some; mistrust, communication gaps, and inconsistent staffing limited the impact of the MLP; and, the MLP identified coordination and communication strategies to enhance trust and amplify its impact.

Conclusion: HHLNs can have a significant, negative impact on the physical and mental health of patients. Respondents perceived that MLPs improved health and resolved these needs, for some. Despite perceived successes, integration between the clinical and legal organizations was elusive.

Background: Nested within a growing body of evidence of a gender pay gap in medicine are more alarming recent findings from family medicine: a gender pay gap of 16% can be detected at a very early career stage. This article explores qualitative evidence of women's experiences negotiating for their first job out of residency to ascertain women's engagement with and approach to the negotiation process.

Methods: We recruited family physicians who graduated residency in 2019 and responded to the American Board of Family Medicine 2022 graduate survey. We developed a semistructured interview guide following a modified life history approach to uncover women's experiences through the transitory stages from residency to workforce. A qualitative researcher used Zoom to interview 19 geographically and racially diverse early career women physicians. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using NVivo software following an Inductive Content Analysis approach.

Results: Three main themes emerged from the data. First, salary was found to be nonnegotiable, exemplified by participants' inability to change initial salary offers. Second, the role of peer support throughout residency and early career was crucial to uncovering and rectifying salary inequity. Third, a pay expectation gap was identified among women from minority and low-income households.

Conclusion: To rectify the gender pay gap in medicine, a systems-level approach is required. This can be achieved through various levels of interventions: societally expanding the use of and removing the stigma around parental leave, recognizing the importance of contributions not currently valued by productivity-based payment models, examining assumptions about leadership; and institutionally moving away from fee-for-service systems, encouraging flexible schedules, increasing salary transparency, and improving advancement transparency.

Background: Screening rates for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) remain low despite guidelines by both the CDC and USPSTF recommending that all adolescents and adults be screened at least once. The aim of this quality improvement study was to increase HIV screening among eligible patients.

Methods: This quality improvement study assessed the impact of interventions to increase HIV screening in an outpatient population at a large urban safety-net hospital. Outcomes were compared from the preintervention (December 2020 to November 2021) to postintervention years (December 2021 to November 2022). Stepwise electronic alerts to prompt HIV screening paired with provider financial incentives were implemented. The proportion of eligible individuals screened for HIV were compared after intervention implementation.

Results: Average monthly HIV screening increased from 506 ± 97 to 2484 ± 663 between the pre- and postintervention periods, correlating to a 5.1-fold increase in screening (7.8% to 39.8%, P < .01). Increases were seen across all ages, and those aged 55 to 64 and 65+ had the highest relative increase in screening at 7.5 and 9.3-fold, respectively (P < .01). Screening rates increased for Hispanics (7.9% preintervention vs 43.6% postintervention, P < .01). In the pre- and postintervention periods, 41 patients with new HIV diagnoses were identified (13 preintervention and 28 postintervention) and 85.4% were linked to care within 30 days.

Conclusions: Stepwise interventions targeted at primary care clinicians are an effective way to increase HIV screening rates, particularly in older demographics. Earlier HIV diagnosis coupled with linkage to care is an important strategy in ending the HIV epidemic.

Objective: In this study, we sought to comprehensively evaluate GPT-4 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer)'s performance on the 2022 American Board of Family Medicine's (ABFM) In-Training Examination (ITE), compared with its predecessor, GPT-3.5, and the national family residents' performance on the same examination.

Methods: We utilized both quantitative and qualitative analyses. First, a quantitative analysis was employed to evaluate the model's performance metrics using zero-shot prompt (where only examination questions were provided without any additional information). After this, qualitative analysis was executed to understand the nature of the model's responses, the depth of its medical knowledge, and its ability to comprehend contextual or new information through chain-of-thoughts prompts (interactive conversation) with the model.

Results: This study demonstrated that GPT-4 made significant improvement in accuracy compared with GPT-3.5 over a 4-month interval between their respective release dates. The correct percentage with zero-shot prompt increased from 56% to 84%, which translates to a scaled score growth from 280 to 690, a 410-point increase. Most notably, further chain-of-thought investigation revealed GPT-4's ability to integrate new information and make self-correction when needed.

Conclusions: In this study, GPT-4 has demonstrated notably high accuracy, as well as rapid reading and learning capabilities. These results are consistent with previous research indicating GPT-4's significant potential to assist in clinical decision making. Furthermore, the study highlights the essential role of physicians' critical thinking and lifelong learning skills, particularly evident through the analysis of GPT-4's incorrect responses. This emphasizes the indispensable human element in effectively implementing and using AI technologies in medical settings.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic social distancing requirements encouraged patients to avoid public spaces including in-office health care visits. Ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) represent conditions that can be managed with quality primary care and when access is limited, these conditions can lead to avoidable emergency department (ED) visits.

Methods: Using national data on ED visits from 2019 to 2021 in the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey, we examined the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on ACSC ED visits among older adults (aged ≥65).

Results: The proportion of ED visits among older adults that were for ACSCs increased between 2019 (17.4%) and 2021 (18.5%). The trend in both rural (26.4%-28.6%) and urban areas (15.4%-16.8%) shows a significant jump from 2019 to 2021 (P < .001).

Conclusions: This rise in ACSC ED use is consistent with a delay in normal primary care during the pandemic.

Background: The 2022 Centers for Disease Control's "Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Pain in United States" called for attention and action toward reducing disparities in untreated and undertreated pain among Black and Latino patients. There is growing evidence for controlled substance safety committees (CSSC) to change prescribing culture, but few have been examined through the lens of health equity. We examined the impact of a primary care CSSC on opioid prescribing, including by patients' race and sex.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Our primary outcome was a change in prescribed morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at baseline (2017) and follow-up (2021). We compared the differences in MME by race and sex. We also examined potential intersectional disparities. We used paired t test to compare changes in mean MME's and logistic regression to determine associations between patient characteristics and MME changes.

Results: Our cohort included 93 patients. The mean opioid dose decreased from nearly 200 MME to 136.1 MME, P < .0001. Thirty percent of patients had their dose reduced to under 90 MME by follow-up. The reduction rates by race or sex alone were not statistically significant. There was evidence of intersectional disparities at baseline. Black women were prescribed 88.5 fewer MME's at baseline compared with their White men counterparts, P = .04.

Discussion: Our findings add to the previously documented success of CSSCs in reducing opioid doses for chronic nonmalignant pain to safer levels. We highlight an opportunity for primary care based CSSCs to lead the efforts to identify and address chronic pain management inequities.