Perceived Barriers to Weight Management in Primary Care—Perspectives of Patients and Providers

BACKGROUND: Despite the consequences of overweight and obesity, effective weight management is not occurring in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To identify beliefs about obesity that act as barriers to weight management in primary care by surveying both patients and providers and comparing their responses. DESIGN: Anonymous, cross-sectional, self-administered survey of patients and providers of a Veteran’s Administration Primary Care Clinic, distributed at the clinic site. SUBJECTS: Forty-eight Internal Medicine providers and 488 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Beliefs, attitudes, and experiences with weight management as well as demographic characteristics were collected through a questionnaire. RESULTS: Providers and patients differed significantly on many beliefs about weight. Providers were more likely than patients to perceive that patients lack self-control to stay on a diet and that fattening food in society and lack of time for exercise were prime factors in weight gain. They also expressed more interest in helping patients with weight management than patients desiring this. Patients were more likely to state that weight problems should be managed on one’s own, talking to a provider is not helpful, providers blame them for their weight problem, and that appointments contain sufficient time for weight discussion. CONCLUSION: Providers and patients emphasize different barriers to weight management. Providers need to be aware of the beliefs that their patients hold to improve weight management discussions and interventions in primary care

Does Screening for Pain Correspond to High Quality Care for Veterans?

Routine numeric screening for pain is widely recommended, but its association with overall quality of pain care is unclear. To assess adherence to measures of pain management quality and identify associated patient and provider factors. A cross-sectional visit-based study. One hundred and forty adult VA outpatient primary care clinic patients reporting a numeric rating scale (NRS) of moderate to severe pain (four or more on a zero to ten scale). Seventy-seven providers completed a baseline survey regarding general pain management attitudes and a post-visit survey regarding management of 112 participating patients. We used chart review to determine adherence to four validated process quality indicators (QIs) including noting pain presence, pain character, and pain control, and intensifying pharmacological intervention. The average NRS was 6.7. Seventy-three percent of charts noted the presence of pain, 13.9% the character, 23.6% the degree of control, and 15.3% increased pain medication prescription. Charts were more likely to include documentation of pain presence if providers agreed that “patients want me to ask about pain” and “pain can have negative consequences on patient’s functioning”. Charts were more likely to document character of pain if providers agreed that “patients are able to rate their pain”. Patients with musculoskeletal pain were less likely to have chart documentation of character of pain. Despite routine pain screening in VA, providers seldom documented elements considered important to evaluation and treatment of pain. Improving pain care may require attention to all aspects of pain management, not just screening

Implementing collaborative care for depression treatment in primary care: A cluster randomized evaluation of a quality improvement practice redesign

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses show collaborative care models (CCMs) with nurse care management are effective for improving primary care for depression. This study aimed to develop CCM approaches that could be sustained and spread within Veterans Affairs (VA). Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) uses QI approaches within a research/clinical partnership to redesign care. The study used EBQI methods for CCM redesign, tested the effectiveness of the locally adapted model as implemented, and assessed the contextual factors shaping intervention effectiveness. METHODS: The study intervention is EBQI as applied to CCM implementation. The study uses a cluster randomized design as a formative evaluation tool to test and improve the effectiveness of the redesign process, with seven intervention and three non-intervention VA primary care practices in five different states. The primary study outcome is patient antidepressant use. The context evaluation is descriptive and uses subgroup analysis. The primary context evaluation measure is naturalistic primary care clinician (PCC) predilection to adopt CCM. For the randomized evaluation, trained telephone research interviewers enrolled consecutive primary care patients with major depression in the evaluation, referred enrolled patients in intervention practices to the implemented CCM, and re-surveyed at seven months. RESULTS: Interviewers enrolled 288 CCM site and 258 non-CCM site patients. Enrolled intervention site patients were more likely to receive appropriate antidepressant care (66% versus 43%, p = 0.01), but showed no significant difference in symptom improvement compared to usual care. In terms of context, only 40% of enrolled patients received complete care management per protocol. PCC predilection to adopt CCM had substantial effects on patient participation, with patients belonging to early adopter clinicians completing adequate care manager follow-up significantly more often than patients of clinicians with low predilection to adopt CCM (74% versus 48%%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Depression CCM designed and implemented by primary care practices using EBQI improved antidepressant initiation. Combining QI methods with a randomized evaluation proved challenging, but enabled new insights into the process of translating research-based CCM into practice. Future research on the effects of PCC attitudes and skills on CCM results, as well as on enhancing the link between improved antidepressant use and symptom outcomes, is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0010582

Heart Failure, the Hidden Problem of Pain

Although dyspnea and fatigue are hallmark symptoms of heart failure (HF), the burden of pain may be underrecognized. This study assessed pain in HF and identified contributing factors. As part of a multicenter study, 96 veterans with HF (96% male, 67+/-11 years) completed measures of symptoms, pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), functional status (Functional Morbidity Index), and psychological state (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2). Single items from the BPI interference and the quality of life-end of life measured social and spiritual well-being. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained by chart audit. Correlation and linear regression models evaluated physical, emotional, social, and spiritual factors associated with pain. Fifty-three (55.2%) HF patients reported pain, with a majority (36 [37.5%]) rating their pain as moderate to severe (pain>or=4/10). The presence of pain was reported more frequently than dyspnea (67 [71.3%] vs. 58 [61.7%]). Age (P=0.02), psychological (depression: P=0.002; anxiety: P=0.001), social (P<0.001), spiritual (P=0.010), and physical (health status: P=0.001; symptom frequency: P=0.000; functional status: P=0.002) well-being were correlated with pain severity. In the resulting model, 38% of the variance in pain severity was explained (P<0.001); interference with relations (P<0.001) and symptom number (P=0.007) contributed to pain severity. The association of physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains with pain suggests that multidisciplinary interventions are needed to address the complex nature of pain in HF

A comparative study of pain in heart failure and non-heart failure veterans.

BackgroundProgress has been made in addressing pain in specific diseases such as cancer, but less attention has focused on understanding pain in nonmalignant states, including heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsFrom March 2006 to June 2007, 672 veterans were surveyed and scores for the Brief Pain Inventory, pain distress, clinically significant pain levels (moderate to severe pain), and pain locations were compared using univariate and multivariate models. Fifteen percent of the final sample had HF (95/634). In our study, the HF patients were older (P < .000), reported lower levels of general health (P = .018), had more co-morbidities (P < .000), were more likely to have a history of cancer (P = .035), and suffered more chest pain and fewer headaches (P = .026, P = .03, respectively) than their non-HF cohorts. When controlling for age, co-morbidity and cancer disorders, HF and non-HF patients did not differ in pain severity, interference, distress or locations. Of the patients currently experiencing pain, 67.3% of HF patients and 68.4% of non-HF patients rated their pain as moderate or severe (pain >or=4 on a 0 to 10 scale).ConclusionsAlthough HF has not been identified as a painful condition, this study suggests the burden of pain is significant for both HF and non-HF ambulatory care patients

A comparative study of pain in heart failure and non-heart failure veterans.

BackgroundProgress has been made in addressing pain in specific diseases such as cancer, but less attention has focused on understanding pain in nonmalignant states, including heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsFrom March 2006 to June 2007, 672 veterans were surveyed and scores for the Brief Pain Inventory, pain distress, clinically significant pain levels (moderate to severe pain), and pain locations were compared using univariate and multivariate models. Fifteen percent of the final sample had HF (95/634). In our study, the HF patients were older (P < .000), reported lower levels of general health (P = .018), had more co-morbidities (P < .000), were more likely to have a history of cancer (P = .035), and suffered more chest pain and fewer headaches (P = .026, P = .03, respectively) than their non-HF cohorts. When controlling for age, co-morbidity and cancer disorders, HF and non-HF patients did not differ in pain severity, interference, distress or locations. Of the patients currently experiencing pain, 67.3% of HF patients and 68.4% of non-HF patients rated their pain as moderate or severe (pain >or=4 on a 0 to 10 scale).ConclusionsAlthough HF has not been identified as a painful condition, this study suggests the burden of pain is significant for both HF and non-HF ambulatory care patients