Electronic Health Record Functionality Needed to Better Support Primary Care

Electronic health records (EHRs) must support primary care clinicians and patients, yet many clinicians remain dissatisfied with their system. This manuscript presents a consensus statement about gaps in current EHR functionality and needed enhancements to support primary care. The Institute of Medicine primary care attributes were used to define needs and Meaningful Use (MU) objectives to define EHR functionality. Current objectives remain disease- rather than whole-person focused, ignoring factors like personal risks, behaviors, family structure, and occupational and environmental influences. Primary care needs EHRs to move beyond documentation to interpreting and tracking information over time as well as patient partnering activities, support for team based care, population management tools that deliver care, and reduced documentation burden. While Stage 3 MU’s focus on outcomes is laudable, enhanced functionality is still needed including EHR modifications, expanded use of patient portals, seamless integration with external applications, and advancement of national infrastructure and policies

Screening and diagnosing depression in women visiting GPs' drop in clinic in Primary Health Care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Only half of all depressions are diagnosed in Primary Health Care (PHC). Depression can remain undetected for a long time and entail high costs for care and low quality of life for the individuals. Drop in clinic is a common form of organizing health care; however the visits are short and focus on solving the most urgent problems. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and severity of depression among women visiting the GPs' drop in clinic and to identify possible clues for depression among women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The two-stage screening method with "high risk feedback" was used. Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI) was used to screen 155 women visiting two GPs' drop in clinic. Women who screened positive (BDI score ≥10) were invited by the GP to a repeat visit. Major depression (MDD) was diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria and the severity was assessed with Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Women with BDI score <10 constituted a control group. Demographic characteristics were obtained by questionnaire. Chart notations were examined with regard to symptoms mentioned at the index visit and were categorized as somatic or mental.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The two-stage method worked well with a low rate of withdrawals in the second step, when the GP invited the women to a repeat visit. The prevalence of depression was 22.4% (95% CI 15.6–29.2). The severity was mild in 43%, moderate in 53% and severe in 3%. The depressed women mentioned mental symptoms significantly more often (69%) than the controls (15%) and were to a higher extent sick-listed for a longer period than 14 days. Nearly one third of the depressed women did not mention mental symptoms. The majority of the women who screened as false positive for depression had crisis reactions and needed further care from health professionals in PHC. Referrals to a psychiatrist were few and revealed often psychiatric co-morbidity.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The prevalence of previously undiagnosed depression among women visiting GPs' drop in clinic was high. Clues for depression were identified in the depressed women's symptom presentation; they often mention mental symptoms when they visit the GP for somatic reasons e.g. respiratory infections. We suggest that GPs do selective screening for depression when women mention mental symptoms and offer to schedule a repeat visit for follow-up rather than just recommending that the patient return if the mental symptoms do not disappear.</p

Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Few data exist from a primary care setting whether male patients are treated differently than female patients. We examined whether there are gender differences in general physicians' (GPs) initial assessment and subsequent management of patients with chest pain, and how these differences can be explained</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a prospective study with 1212 consecutive chest pain patients. The study was conducted in 74 primary care offices in Germany from October 2005 to July 2006. After a follow up period of 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment (delayed type-reference standard). We adjusted gender differences of six process indicators for different models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs tended to assume that CHD is the cause of chest pain more often in male patients and referred more men for an exercise test (women 4.1%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02) and to the hospital (women 2.9%, men 6.6%, p < 0.01). These differences remained when adjusting for age and cardiac risk factors but ceased to exist after adjusting for the typicality of chest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While observed gender differences can not be explained by differences in age, CHD prevalence, and underlying risk factors, the less typical symptom presentation in women might be an underlying factor. However this does not seem to result in suboptimal management in women but rather in overuse of services for men. We consider our conclusions rather hypothesis generating and larger studies will be necessary to prove our proposed model.</p

Development and Initial Validation of the PEG, a Three-item Scale Assessing Pain Intensity and Interference

Inadequate pain assessment is a barrier to appropriate pain management, but single-item “pain screening” provides limited information about chronic pain. Multidimensional pain measures such as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are widely used in pain specialty and research settings, but are impractical for primary care. A brief and straightforward multidimensional pain measure could potentially improve initial assessment and follow-up of chronic pain in primary care. To develop an ultra-brief pain measure derived from the BPI. Development of a shortened three-item pain measure and initial assessment of its reliability, validity, and responsiveness. We used data from 1) a longitudinal study of 500 primary care patients with chronic pain and 2) a cross-sectional study of 646 veterans recruited from ambulatory care. Selected items assess average pain intensity (P), interference with enjoyment of life (E), and interference with general activity (G). Reliability of the three-item scale (PEG) was α = 0.73 and 0.89 in the two study samples. Overall, construct validity of the PEG was good for various pain-specific measures (r = 0.60–0.89 in Study 1 and r = 0.77–0.95 in Study 2), and comparable to that of the BPI. The PEG was sensitive to change and differentiated between patients with and without pain improvement at 6 months. We provide strong initial evidence for reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the PEG among primary care and other ambulatory clinic patients. The PEG may be a practical and useful tool to improve assessment and monitoring of chronic pain in primary care

The Economics of Integrated Depression Care: The University of Michigan Study

A goal of the Robert Wood Johnson Depression and Primary Care Initiative at the University of Michigan is to create and implement the clinical care and financial systems necessary to enable links between primary care and mental health specialty depression care. This paper describes the economic issues related to resources required, the mechanisms to distribute those resources, and the support that must be garnered from stakeholders. By systematic measurement and application, we assess the cost, price and selected consequences of these efforts. The study illustrates the need for both centralized and distributed capacity and support for innovative models of care.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44096/1/10488_2005_Article_4231.pd

Gender differences in presentation and diagnosis of chest pain in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Research related to gender differences in regard to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) has been mainly conducted in hospital but not in primary care settings. We aimed to analyse gender differences in aetiology and clinical characteristics of chest pain and to provide gender related symptoms and signs associated with CHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out CHD in women and men.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women showed more psychogenic disorders (women 11,2%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02), men suffered more from CHD (women 13.0%, men 17.2%, p = 0.04), trauma (women 1.8%, men 5.1%, p < 0.001) and pneumonia/pleurisy (women 1.3%, men 3.0%, p = 0.04) Men showed significantly more often chest pain localised on the right side of the chest (women 9.1%, men 25.0%, p = 0.01). For both genders known clinical vascular disease, pain worse with exercise and age were associated positively with CHD. In women pain duration above one hour was associated positively with CHD, while shorter pain durations showed an association with CHD in men. In women negative associations were found for stinging pain and in men for pain depending on inspiration and localised muscle tension.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We found gender differences in regard to aetiology, selected clinical characteristics and association of symptoms and signs with CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in a primary care setting. Further research is necessary to elucidate whether these differences would support recommendations for different diagnostic approaches for CHD according to a patient's gender.</p

Chest wall syndrome among primary care patients: a cohort study

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of chest pain differs strongly between outpatient and emergency settings. In general practice, the most frequent cause is the chest wall pain. However, there is a lack of information about the characteristics of this syndrome. The aims of the study are to describe the clinical aspects of chest wall syndrome (CWS). METHODS: Prospective, observational, cohort study of patients attending 58 private practices over a five-week period from March to May 2001 with undifferentiated chest pain. During a one-year follow-up, questionnaires including detailed history and physical exam, were filled out at initial consultation, 3 and 12 months. The outcomes were: clinical characteristics associated with the CWS diagnosis and clinical evolution of the syndrome. RESULTS: Among 24 620 consultations, we observed 672 cases of chest pain and 300 (44.6%) patients had a diagnosis of chest wall syndrome. It affected all ages with a sex ratio of 1:1. History and sensibility to palpation were the keys for diagnosis. Pain was generally moderate, well localised, continuous or intermittent over a number of hours to days or weeks, and amplified by position or movement. The pain however, may be acute. Eighty-eight patients were affected at several painful sites, and 210 patients at a single site, most frequently in the midline or a left-sided site. Pain was a cause of anxiety and cardiac concern, especially when acute. CWS coexisted with coronary disease in 19 and neoplasm in 6. Outcome at one year was favourable even though CWS recurred in half of patients. CONCLUSION: CWS is common and benign, but leads to anxiety and recurred frequently. Because the majority of chest wall pain is left-sided, the possibility of coexistence with coronary disease needs careful consideration

General Practitioners' opinions on their practice in mental health and their collaboration with mental health professionals

BACKGROUND: Common mental health problems are mainly treated in primary care settings and collaboration with mental health services is needed. Prior to re-organisation of the mental health care offer in a geographical area, a study was organized: 1) to evaluate GPs' opinions on their day-to-day practice with Patients with Mental Health Problems (PMHP) and on relationships with Mental Health Professionals (MHPro); 2) to identify factors associated with perceived need for collaboration with MHPro and with actual collaboration. METHODS: All GPs in the South Yvelines area in France (n = 492) were informed of the implementation of a local mental health program. GPs interested in taking part (n = 180) were invited to complete a satisfaction questionnaire on their practice in the field of Mental Health and to include prospectively all PMHP consultants over an 8-day period (n = 1519). For each PMHP, data was collected on demographic and clinical profile, and on needs (met v. unmet) for collaboration with MHPro. RESULTS: A majority of GPs rated PMHP as requiring more care (83.4%), more time (92.3%), more frequent consultations (64.0%) and as being more difficult to refer (87.7%) than other patients. A minority of GPs had a satisfactory relationship with private psychiatrists (49.5%), public psychiatrists (35%) and social workers (27.8%). 53.9% had a less satisfactory relationship with MHPro than with other physicians. Needs for collaboration with a MHPro were more often felt in caring for PMHP who were young, not in employment, with mental health problems lasting for more than one year, with a history of psychiatric hospitalization, and showing reluctance to talk of psychological problems and to consult a MHPro. Needs for collaboration were more often met among PMHP with past psychiatric consultation or hospitalization and when the patient was not reluctant to consult a MHPro. Where needs were not met, GP would opt for the classic procedure of mental health referral for only 31.3% of their PMHP. CONCLUSION: GPs need targeted collaboration with MHPro to support their management of PMHP, whom they are willing to care for without systematic referral to specialists as the major therapeutic option

Observational studies of depression in primary care: what do we know?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We undertook a systematic review of observational studies of depression in primary care to determine 1) the nature and scope of the published studies 2) the methodological quality of the studies; 3) the identified recovery and risk factors for persistent depression and 3) the treatment and health service use patterns among patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO using combinations of topic and keywords, and Medical Subject Headings in MEDLINE, Headings in CINAHL and descriptors in PsycINFO. Searches were limited to adult populations and articles published in English during 1985–2006.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>40 articles from 17 observational cohort studies were identified, most were undertaken in the US or Europe. Studies varied widely in aims and methods making it difficult to meaningfully compare the results. Methodological limitations were common including: selection bias of patients and physicians; small sample sizes (range 35–108 patients at baseline and 20–59 patients at follow-up); and short follow-up times limiting the extent to which these studies can be used to inform our understanding of recovery and relapse among primary care patients with depression. Risk factors for the persistence of depression identified in this review were: severity and chronicity of the depressive episode, the presence of suicidal thoughts, antidepressant use, poorer self-reported quality of life, lower self-reported social support, experiencing key life events, lower education level and unemployment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the growing interest in depression being managed as a chronic illness, this review identified only 17 observational studies of depression in primary care, most of which have included small sample sizes and been relatively short-term. Future research should be large enough to investigate risk factors for chronicity and relapse, and should be conducted over a longer time frame.</p

Promotoras as Mental Health Practitioners in Primary Care: A Multi-Method Study of an Intervention to Address Contextual Sources of Depression

We assessed the role of promotoras—briefly trained community health workers—in depression care at community health centers. The intervention focused on four contextual sources of depression in underserved, low-income communities: underemployment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, and violence. A multi-method design included quantitative and ethnographic techniques to study predictors of depression and the intervention’s impact. After a structured training program, primary care practitioners (PCPs) and promotoras collaboratively followed a clinical algorithm in which PCPs prescribed medications and/or arranged consultations by mental health professionals and promotoras addressed the contextual sources of depression. Based on an intake interview with 464 randomly recruited patients, 120 patients with depression were randomized to enhanced care plus the promotora contextual intervention, or to enhanced care alone. All four contextual problems emerged as strong predictors of depression (chi square, p < .05); logistic regression revealed housing and food insecurity as the most important predictors (odds ratios both 2.40, p < .05). Unexpected challenges arose in the intervention’s implementation, involving infrastructure at the health centers, boundaries of the promotoras’ roles, and “turf” issues with medical assistants. In the quantitative assessment, the intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvements in depression (odds ratio 4.33, confidence interval overlapping 1). Ethnographic research demonstrated a predominantly positive response to the intervention among stakeholders, including patients, promotoras, PCPs, non-professional staff workers, administrators, and community advisory board members. Due to continuing unmet mental health needs, we favor further assessment of innovative roles for community health workers