Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine最新文献

Introduction: Understanding how physicians' practice patterns change over a career is important for workforce and medical education planning. This study examined trends in self-reported practice activity among early- and later-career stage family physicians (FPs).

Methods: Data on early career FPs came from the American Board of Family Medicine's National Graduate Survey (NGS) and on later career FPs from its Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ). Both cohorts could complete the Practice Demographic Survey (PDS) 3 years later. Longitudinal cohorts were from 2016 to 2019 and 2017 to 2020, respectively. All surveys included identical items on scope of practice, practice type, organization, and location. We characterized physicians as outpatient continuity only, outpatient and inpatient care (mixed practice), and no outpatient continuity (for example, hospitalist). We conducted repeated cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of practice type.

Results: Our sample included 8,492 NGS and 30,491 CCQ FPs. In both groups, the vast majority provided outpatient continuity of care (77% to 81%). Approximately 25% of NGS had a mixed practice compared with approximately 16% of the CCQ group. The percent of FPs who had a mixed practice declined in both groups (34.21% to 27.10% and 23.88% to 19.33%). In both groups, physicians with higher odds of leaving mixed practice were in metropolitan counties or changed practice types.

Conclusion: Although early-career FPs more frequently reported providing both inpatient and outpatient care and serving as hospitalists compared with later-career FPs, both groups had a decline in frequency of providing mixed practice. This change after only 3 years in practice has significant implications for patient care and medical education.

Introduction: Multimorbidity rates are both increasing in prevalence across age ranges, and also increasing in diagnostic importance within and outside the family medicine clinic. Here we aim to describe the course of multimorbidity across the lifespan.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study across 211,953 patients from a large northeastern health care system. Past medical histories were collected in the form of ICD-10 diagnostic codes. Rates of multimorbidity were calculated from comorbid diagnoses defined from the ICD10 codes identified in the past medical histories.

Results: We identify 4 main age groups of diagnosis and multimorbidity. Ages 0 to 10 contain diagnoses which are infectious or respiratory, whereas ages 10 to 40 are related to mental health. From ages 40 to 70 there is an emergence of alcohol use disorders and cardiometabolic disorders. And ages 70 to 90 are predominantly long-term sequelae of the most common cardiometabolic disorders. The mortality of the whole population over the study period was 5.7%, whereas the multimorbidity with the highest mortality across the study period was Circulatory Disorders-Circulatory Disorders at 23.1%.

Conclusion: The results from this study provide a comparison for the presence of multimorbidity within age cohorts longitudinally across the population. These patterns of comorbidity can assist in the allocation to practice resources that will best support the common conditions that patients need assistance with, especially as the patients transition between pediatric, adult, and geriatric care. Future work examining and comparing multimorbidity indices is warranted.

Background: Optimal care for persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) requires primary and specialty care continuity, access to multiple providers, social risk assessment, and self-management support. The COVID-19 pandemic abruptly changed primary care delivery to increase reliance on telehealth and virtual care. We report on the experiences of individuals with MCC and their family caregivers on managing their health and receiving health care during the initial pandemic.

Methods: Semistructured qualitative interviews with 30 patients (19 English speaking, 11 Spanish speaking) plus 9 accompanying care partners, who had 2+ primary care encounters between March 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020, 2+ chronic conditions, and 1 or more self-reported social risks. Questions focused on access to and experiences with care, roles for care partners, and self-management during the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Results: Participants experienced substantial changes in care delivery. The most commonly reported changes were a shift to more virtual relative to in-person care and shifting roles for care partners. Changes fostered new perspectives on self-management and an appreciation of personal resilience and self-reliance. Virtual care was an acceptable complement to in-person care, though not a substitute for periodic in-person visits. It was more acceptable for English speakers and with a usual provider.

Conclusion: New models of care delivery that recognize patient and family resilience and resourcefulness, emphasize provider continuity, and combine virtual and in-person care may support self-management for individuals with MCC and social needs.

Background: Time to meet privately with a health care provider can support optimal adolescent health, but numerous barriers exist to implementing this practice routinely.

Methods: We examined parent reports on their children aged 12 to 17 from a nationally generalizable sample to quantify the presence of time alone with health care providers at the state and national level, as well as socio-contextual correlates using logistic regression analysis.

Results: We estimated that only 1 in 2 adolescents had a confidential discussion at their last medical visit. Certain child, family, and health care factors were associated with lower likelihood for having had confidential discussions. Specifically, adolescents who were Asian; did not have mental, emotional, or behavioral problems; were uninsured; or lived in households with parents who were immigrants, less educated, or did not speak English had significantly lower odds for having had time alone compared with referent groups.

Discussion: Clinical and structural efforts to rectify these gaps may assist a broader share of youth in benefiting from private health care discussions with providers.

Purpose: Food insecurity (FI) is a hidden epidemic associated with worsening health outcomes affecting 33.8 million people in the US in 2021. Although studies demonstrate the importance of health care clinician assessment of a patient's food insecurity, little is known about whether Family Medicine clinicians (FMC) discuss FI with patients and what barriers influence their ability to communicate about FI. This study evaluated FM clinicians' food insecurity screening practices to evaluate screening disparities and identify barriers that influence the decision to communicate about FI.

Methods: Data were gathered and analyzed as part of the 2022 Council of Academic Family Medicine's Educational Research Alliance survey of Family Medicine general membership.

Results: The majority of respondents reported (66.9%) that their practice has a screening system for food insecurity, and most practices used a verbal screen with staff other than the clinician (41%) at specific visits (63.8%). Clinicians reported "rarely or never asking about FI" 40% of the time and only asking "always or frequently" 6.7% of the time. Inadequate time during appointments (44.5%) and other medical issues taking priority (29.4%) were identified as the most common barriers. The lack of resources available in the community was a significant barrier for clinicians who worked in rural areas.

Conclusions: This survey provides insight into food insecurity screening disparities and identifies obstacles to FMC screening, such as time constraints, lack of resources, and knowledge of available resources. Understanding current communication practices could create opportunities for interventions to identify food insecurity and impact "Food as Medicine."

Background: Medical scribes have been utilized to reduce electronic health record (EHR) associated documentation burden. Although evidence suggests benefits to scribes, no large-scale studies have quantitatively evaluated scribe impact on physician documentation across clinical settings. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of scribes on physician EHR documentation behaviors and performance.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used EHR audit log data from a large academic health system to evaluate clinical documentation for all ambulatory encounters between January 2014 and December 2019 to evaluate the effect of scribes on physician documentation behaviors. Scribe services were provided on a first-come, first-served basis on physician request. Based on a physician's scribe use, encounters were grouped into 3 categories: never using a scribe, prescribe (before scribe use), or using a scribe. Outcomes included chart closure time, the proportion of delinquent charts, and charts closed after-hours.

Results: Three hundred ninety-five physicians (23% scribe users) across 29 medical subspecialties, encompassing 1,132,487 encounters, were included in the analysis. At baseline, scribe users had higher chart closure time, delinquent charts, and after-hours documentation than physicians who never used scribes. Among scribe users, the difference in outcome measures postscribe compared with baseline varied, and using a scribe rarely resulted in outcome measures approaching a range similar to the performance levels of nonusing physicians. In addition, there was variability in outcome measures across medical specialties and within similar subspecialties.

Conclusion: Although scribes may improve documentation efficiency among some physicians, not all will improve EHR-related documentation practices. Different strategies may help to optimize documentation behaviors of physician-scribe dyads and maximize outcomes of scribe implementation.

This issue highlights changes in medical care delivery since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and features research to advance the delivery of primary care. Several articles report on the effectiveness of telehealth, including its use for hospital follow-up, medication abortion, management of diabetes, and as a potential tool for reducing health disparities. Other articles detail innovations in clinical practice, from the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to a validated simple risk score that can support outpatient triage decisions for patients with COVID-19. Notably one article reports the impact of a voluntary program using scribes in a large health system on physician documentation behaviors and performance. One article addresses the wage gap between early-career female and male family physicians. Several articles report on inappropriate testing for common health problems; are you following recommendations for ordering Pulmonary Function Tests, mt-sDNA for colon cancer screening, and HIV testing?

Introduction: Providing abortion in primary care expands access and alleviates delays. The 2020 COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) led to the expansion of telehealth, including medication abortion (MAB). This study evaluates the accessibility of novel telehealth MAB (teleMAB) initiated during the PHE, with the lifting of mifepristone restrictions, compared with traditional in-clinic MAB offered before the PHE at a Massachusetts safety-net primary care organization.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective electronic medical record review of 267 MABs. We describe sociodemographic, care access, and complete abortion characteristics and compare differences between teleMAB and in-clinic MABs using Chi-squared test, fisher's exact test, independent t test, and Wilcoxon rank sum. We conducted logistic regression to examine differences in time to care (6 days or less vs 7 days or more).

Results: 184 MABs were eligible for analysis (137 in-clinic, 47 teleMAB). Patients were not significantly more likely to receive teleMAB versus in-clinic MAB based on race, ethnicity, language, or payment. Completed abortion did not significantly differ between groups (P = .187). Patients received care more quickly when accessing teleMAB compared with usual in-clinic MAB (median 3 days, range 0 to 20 vs median 6 days, range 0 to 32; P < . 001). TeleMAB patients had 2.29 times the odds of having their abortion appointment within 6 days compared with in-clinic (95% CI: 1.13, 4.86).

Conclusion: TeleMAB in primary care is as effective, timelier, and potentially more accessible than in-clinic MAB when in-person mifepristone regulations were enforced. TeleMAB is feasible and can promote patient-centered and timely access to abortion care.

Introduction: We previously developed a simple risk score with 3 items (age, patient report of dyspnea, and any relevant comorbidity), and in this report validate it in a prospective sample of patients, stratified by vaccination status.

Methods: Data were abstracted from a structured electronic health record of primary care and urgent care 8 patients with COVID-19 in the Lehigh Valley Health Network from 11/21/2021 and 10/31/2022 9 (Omicron variant). Our previously derived risk score was calculated for each of 19,456 patients, 10 and the likelihood of hospitalization was determined. Area under the ROC curve was calculated.

Results: We were able to place 13,239 patients (68%) in a low-risk group with only a 0.16% risk of 13 hospitalization. The moderate risk group with 5622 patients had a 2.2% risk of hospitalization 14 and might benefit from close outpatient follow-up, whereas the high-risk group with only 574 15 patients (2.9% of all patients) had an 8.9% risk of hospitalization and may require further 16 evaluation. Area under the curve was 0.844.

Discussion: We prospectively validated a simple risk score for primary and urgent care patients with COVID1919 that can support outpatient triage decisions around COVID-19.