Physician Practice Patterns and Variation in the Delivery of Preventive Services

BACKGROUND: Strategies to improve preventive services delivery (PSD) have yielded modest effects. A multidimensional approach that examines distinctive configurations of physician attributes, practice processes, and contextual factors may be informative in understanding delivery of this important form of care. OBJECTIVE: We identified naturally occurring configurations of physician practice characteristics (PPCs) and assessed their association with PSD, including variation within configurations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-eight family physicians in 84 community practices and 4,046 outpatient visits. MEASUREMENTS: Physician knowledge, attitudes, use of tools and staff, and practice patterns were assessed by ethnographic and survey methods. PSD was assessed using direct observation of the visit and medical record review. Cluster analysis identified unique configurations of PPCs. A priori hypotheses of the configurations likely to perform the best on PSD were tested using a multilevel random effects model. RESULTS: Six distinct PPC configurations were identified. Although PSD significantly differed across configurations, mean differences between configurations with the lowest and highest PSD were small (i.e., 3.4, 7.7, and 10.8 points for health behavior counseling, screening, and immunizations, respectively, on a 100-point scale). Hypotheses were not confirmed. Considerable variation of PSD rates within configurations was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Similar rates of PSD can be attained through diverse physician practice configurations. Significant within-configuration variation may reflect dynamic interactions between PPCs as well as between these characteristics and the contexts in which physicians function. Striving for a single ideal configuration may be less valuable for improving PSD than understanding and leveraging existing characteristics within primary care practices

How primary care can contribute to good mental health in adults.

The need for support for good mental health is enormous. General support for good mental health is needed for 100% of the population, and at all stages of life, from early childhood to end of life. Focused support is needed for the 17.6% of adults who have a mental disorder at any time, including those who also have a mental health problem amongst the 30% who report having a long-term condition of some kind. All sectors of society and all parts of the NHS need to play their part. Primary care cannot do this on its own. This paper describes how primary care practitioners can help stimulate such a grand alliance for health, by operating at four different levels - as individual practitioners, as organisations, as geographic clusters of organisations and as policy-makers

Measures for assessing practice change in medical practitioners

BACKGROUND: There are increasing numbers of randomised trials and systematic reviews examining the efficacy of interventions designed to bring about a change in clinical practice. The findings of this research are being used to guide strategies to increase the uptake of evidence into clinical practice. Knowledge of the outcomes measured by these trials is vital not only for the interpretation and application of the work done to date, but also to inform future research in this expanding area of endeavour and to assist in collation of results in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS: The objective of this review was to identify methods used to measure change in the clinical practices of health professionals following an intervention aimed at increasing the uptake of evidence into practice. All published trials included in a recent, comprehensive Health Technology Assessment of interventions to implement clinical practice guidelines and change clinical practice (n = 228) formed the sample for this study. Using a standardised data extraction form, one reviewer (SH), extracted the relevant information from the methods and/or results sections of the trials. RESULTS: Measures of a change of health practitioner behaviour were the most common, with 88.8% of trials using these as outcome measures. Measures that assessed change at a patient level, either actual measures of change or surrogate measures of change, were used in 28.8% and 36.7% of studies (respectively). Health practitioners' knowledge and attitudes were assessed in 22.8% of the studies and changes at an organisational level were assessed in 17.6%. CONCLUSION: Most trials of interventions aimed at changing clinical practice measured the effect of the intervention at the level of the practitioner, i.e. did the practitioner change what they do, or has their knowledge of and/or attitude toward that practice changed? Less than one-third of the trials measured, whether or not any change in practice, resulted in a change in the ultimate end-point of patient health status

Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour?

Background: Accurate measures of health professionals' clinical practice are critically important to guide health policy decisions, as well as for professional self-evaluation and for research-based investigation of clinical practice and process of care. It is often not feasible or ethical to measure behaviour through direct observation, and rigorous behavioural measures are difficult and costly to use. The aim of this review was to identify the current evidence relating to the relationships between proxy measures and direct measures of clinical behaviour. In particular, the accuracy of medical record review, clinician self-reported and patient-reported behaviour was assessed relative to directly observed behaviour. Methods: We searched: PsycINFO; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; science/social science citation index; Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med); ISI conference proceedings; and Index to Theses. Inclusion criteria: empirical, quantitative studies; and examining clinical behaviours. An independent, direct measure of behaviour (by standardised patient, other trained observer or by video/audio recording) was considered the 'gold standard' for comparison. Proxy measures of behaviour included: retrospective self-report; patient-report; or chart-review. All titles, abstracts, and full text articles retrieved by electronic searching were screened for inclusion and abstracted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer where necessary. Results: Fifteen reports originating from 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The method of direct measurement was by standardised patient in six reports, trained observer in three reports, and audio/video recording in six reports. Multiple proxy measures of behaviour were compared in five of 15 reports. Only four of 15 reports used appropriate statistical methods to compare measures. Some direct measures failed to meet our validity criteria. The accuracy of patient report and chart review as proxy measures varied considerably across a wide range of clinical actions. The evidence for clinician self-report was inconclusive. Conclusion: Valid measures of clinical behaviour are of fundamental importance to accurately identify gaps in care delivery, improve quality of care, and ultimately to improve patient care. However, the evidence base for three commonly used proxy measures of clinicians' behaviour is very limited. Further research is needed to better establish the methods of development, application, and analysis for a range of both direct and proxy measures of behaviour

Chaperone use during intimate examinations in primary care: postal survey of family physicians

BACKGROUND: Physicians have long been advised to have a third party present during certain parts of a physical examination; however, little is known about the frequency of chaperone use for those specific intimate examinations regularly performed in primary care. We aimed to determine the frequency of chaperone use among family physicians across a variety of intimate physical examinations for both male and female patients, and also to identify the factors associated with chaperone use. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to a randomly selected sample of 500 Ontario members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Participants were asked about their use of chaperones when performing a variety of intimate examinations, namely female pelvic, breast, and rectal exams and male genital and rectal exams. RESULTS: 276 of 500 were returned (56%), of which 257 were useable. Chaperones were more commonly used with female patients than with males (t = 9.09 [df = 249], p < 0.001), with the female pelvic exam being the most likely of the five exams to be attended by a chaperone (53%). As well, male physicians were more likely to use chaperones for examination of female patients than were female physicians for the examination of male patients. Logistic regression analyses identified two independent factors – sex of physician and availability of a nurse – that were significantly associated with chaperone use. For female pelvic exam, male physicians were significantly more likely to report using a chaperone (adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 40.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.91–97.52). Likewise, having a nurse available also significantly increased the likelihood of a chaperone being used (adjusted OR 6.92, 95% CI 2.74–17.46). This pattern of results was consistent across the other four exams. Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported using nurses as chaperones, 15% cited the use of other office staff, and 10% relied on the presence of a family member. CONCLUSION: Clinical practice concerning the use of chaperones during intimate exams continues to be discordant with the recommendations of medical associations and medico-legal societies. Chaperones are used by only a minority of Ontario family physicians. Chaperone use is higher for examinations of female patients than of male patients and is highest for female pelvic exams. The availability of a nurse in the clinic to act as a chaperone is associated with more frequent use of chaperones

Absorbing and transferring risk: assessing the impact of a statewide high-risk-pregnancy telemedical program on VLBW maternal transports

BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown that resources have an impact on birth outcomes. In this paper we ask how combinations of telemedical and hospital-level resources impact transports of mothers expecting very low birth weight (VLBW) babies in Arkansas. METHODS: Using de-identified birth certificate data from the Arkansas Department of Health, data were gathered on transports of women carrying VLBW babies for two six-month periods: a period just before the start of ANGELS (12/02-05/03), a telemedical outreach program for high-risk pregnancies, and a period after the program had been running for six months (12/03-05/04). For each maternal transport, the following information was recorded: maternal race-ethnicity, maternal age, and the birth weight of the infant. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the predictors (telemedicine, hospital level, maternal characteristics) and the probability of a transport. RESULTS: Having a telemedical site available increases the probability of a mother carrying a VLBW baby being transported to a level III facility either before or during birth. Having at least a level II nursery also increases the chance of a maternal transport. Where both level II nurseries and telemedical access are available, the odds of VLBW maternal transports are only modestly increased in comparison to the case where neither is present. At the individual level, Hispanic mothers were less likely to be transported than other mothers, and teenaged mothers were more likely to be transported than those 18 and over. A mother's being Black or being over 35 did not have an impact on the odds of being transported to a level III facility. CONCLUSION: Combinations of resources have an impact on physician decisions regarding VLBW transports and are interpretable in terms of the capacity to diagnose and absorb risk. We suggest a collegial review of transport patterns and birth outcomes from areas with different levels of resources as a vehicle for moving the entire system of care forward over time. With such an evidence-based review in place, the collegial relations among level III specialists and obstetricians from around the state can, over time, develop workable protocols for when and how level III facilities should be involved

Mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice: A prospective observational study

Contains fulltext : 69425.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The validity and usefulness of incident reporting and other methods for identifying adverse events remains unclear. This study aimed to compare five methods in general practice. METHODS: In a prospective observational study, with five general practitioners, five methods were applied and compared. The five methods were physician reported adverse events, pharmacist reported adverse events, patients' experiences of adverse events, assessment of a random sample of medical records, and assessment of all deceased patients. RESULTS: A total of 68 events were identified using these methods. The patient survey accounted for the highest number of events and the pharmacist reports for the lowest number. No overlap between the methods was detected. The patient survey accounted for the highest number of events and the pharmacist reports for the lowest number. CONCLUSION: A mix of methods is needed to identify adverse events in general practice

A group randomized trial of a complexity-based organizational intervention to improve risk factors for diabetes complications in primary care settings: study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most patients with type 2 diabetes have suboptimal control of their glucose, blood pressure (BP), and lipids – three risk factors for diabetes complications. Although the chronic care model (CCM) provides a roadmap for improving these outcomes, developing theoretically sound implementation strategies that will work across diverse primary care settings has been challenging. One explanation for this difficulty may be that most strategies do not account for the complex adaptive system (CAS) characteristics of the primary care setting. A CAS is comprised of individuals who can learn, interconnect, self-organize, and interact with their environment in a way that demonstrates non-linear dynamic behavior. One implementation strategy that may be used to leverage these properties is practice facilitation (PF). PF creates time for learning and reflection by members of the team in each clinic, improves their communication, and promotes an individualized approach to implement a strategy to improve patient outcomes.</p> <p>Specific objectives</p> <p>The specific objectives of this protocol are to: evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of PF to improve risk factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes across a variety of primary care settings; assess the implementation of the CCM in response to the intervention; examine the relationship between communication within the practice team and the implementation of the CCM; and determine the cost of the intervention both from the perspective of the organization conducting the PF intervention and from the perspective of the primary care practice.</p> <p>Intervention</p> <p>The study will be a group randomized trial conducted in 40 primary care clinics. Data will be collected on all clinics, with 60 patients in each clinic, using a multi-method assessment process at baseline, 12, and 24 months. The intervention, PF, will consist of a series of practice improvement team meetings led by trained facilitators over 12 months. Primary hypotheses will be tested with 12-month outcome data. Sustainability of the intervention will be tested using 24 month data. Insights gained will be included in a delayed intervention conducted in control practices and evaluated in a pre-post design.</p> <p>Primary and secondary outcomes</p> <p>To test hypotheses, the unit of randomization will be the clinic. The unit of analysis will be the repeated measure of each risk factor for each patient, nested within the clinic. The repeated measure of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c will be the primary outcome, with BP and Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol as secondary outcomes. To study change in risk factor level, a hierarchical or random effect model will be used to account for the nesting of repeated measurement of risk factor within patients and patients within clinics.</p> <p>This protocol follows the CONSORT guidelines and is registered per ICMJE guidelines:</p> <p>Clinical Trial Registration Number</p> <p>NCT00482768</p