Professional Dissonance and Burnout in Primary Care

In 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board of Directors formed the Task Force on Mental Health and charged it with developing strategies to improve the quality of child and adolescent mental health* services in primary care. The task force acknowledged early in its deliberations that enhancing the mental health care that pediatricians and other primary care clinicians† provide to children and adolescents will require systemic interventions at the national, state, and community levels to improve the financing of mental health care and access to mental health specialty resources. Systemic strategies toward achieving these improvements are the subject of other publications of the task force: “ Strategies for System Change in Children's Mental Health: A Chapter Action Kit ” (chapter action kit),1 “Improving Mental Health Services in Primary Care: Reducing Administrative and Financial Barriers to Access and Collaboration,”2 and “Enhancing Pediatric Mental Health Care: Strategies for Preparing a Community.”3 The task force also recognized that enhanced mental health practice will require competencies not currently achieved by many primary care clinicians; in the policy statement “The Future of Pediatrics: Mental Health Competencies for Pediatric Primary Care,”4 the task force collaborated with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health to outline these competencies and propose strategies for achieving them. This report offers strategies for preparing the primary care practice itself for provision of enhanced mental health care services. The task force proposes incrementally applying chronic care principles to the care of children with mental health and substance abuse problems as primary care clinicians apply them to the care of children with chronic medical conditions such as asthma. Most primary care clinicians will find that significant gaps exist between their current practice and the proposed ideal. The task force offers guidance in … Address correspondence to Jane Meschan Foy, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27157. E-mail: jmfoy{at}wfubmc.edu

Registered nurses in primary care: A value proposition

The principal goals of health care reform are to improve quality, increase access, and contain costs. In this issue, Pham and colleagues calculated that a typical primary care clinician must coordi...

85 Background: While evidence-based guidelines for survivorship care exist, implementation in oncology and primary care practices has fallen short. There is little evidence of the barriers preventing successful implementation in rural primary care and oncology practices. We sought to assess knowledge gaps and barriers to successful implementation of evidence-based survivorship care guidelines in rural Kansas practices. Methods: Midwest Cancer Alliance, outreach arm of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, and Kansas Patients and Providers Engaged in Prevention Research, completed interviews in rural primary care and oncology practices. Results: Primary Care (n=7) and Oncology Practices (n=4): Interviews with primary care physicians, medical oncologists, advanced practice providers, nurses, tumor registrar, outreach coordinator, and office management & staff. Conclusions: Rural primary care and oncology practices experienced barriers to delivering survivorship care including: educational gaps, communication of history, treatment, and recommendations, EHR integration, and lack of resources. Next steps focus on a unified approach to state-wide survivorship education of patients, primary care and oncology practices. [Table: see text]

Physician Assistants als Zukunftsmodell in der hausärztlichen Versorgung – Erfahrungen, Bedarfe, Potenziale und Hürden

Increasingly, primary care practices include nurse practitioners (NPs) in their staffing mix to contain costs and expand primary care. To achieve these aims in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs), national policy endorsed involvement of NPs as primary care (PC) providers. To evaluate the degree to which VAMCs incorporated NPs into PC practices between 1996 and 1999, and to identify the internal and external practice environment features associated with NP use. We surveyed 131 PC directors of all VAMCs in 1996 and 1999 to ascertain the staffing and characteristics of the PC practice and parent organization (e.g., academic affiliation, level of physician staffing, use of managed care arrangements), and drew on previously published studies and HRSA State Health Workforce Profiles to characterize each practice's regional health care environment (e.g., geographic region, state NP practice laws, state managed care penetration). Using multivariate linear regression, we evaluate the contribution of these environmental and organizational factors on the number of NPs/10,000 PC patients in 1999, controlling for the rate of NP use in 1996. From 1996-1999, NP use increased from 75 percent to 90 percent in VA PC practices. The mean number of NPs per practice increased by about 60 percent (2.0 versus 3.2; p<.001), while the rate of NPs/10,000 PC patients trended upward (2.2 versus 2.7; p=.09). Staffing of other primary care clinicians (e.g., physicians and physician assistants per practice) remained stable, while the NP-per-physician rate increased (0.2 versus 0.4; p<.001). After multivariate adjustment, greater reliance on managed-care-oriented provider education programs (p=.02), the presence of NP training programs (p=.05), and more specialty-trained physicians/10,000 PC patients (p=.09) were associated with greater NP involvement in primary care. Staffing models in VA PC practices have, in fact, changed, with NPs having a greater presence. However, we found substantial practice-based variations in their use, suggesting that more research is needed to better understand how they have been integrated into practice and what impact their involvement has had on the VA's ability to achieve its restructuring goals.

Despite prior focus on high-impact inpatient cases, there are increasing data and awareness that malpractice in the outpatient setting, particularly in primary care, is a leading contributor to malpractice risk and claims. To study patterns of primary care malpractice types, causes, and outcomes as part of a Massachusetts ambulatory malpractice risk and safety improvement project. Retrospective review of pooled closed claims data of 2 malpractice carriers covering most Massachusetts physicians during a 5-year period (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009). Data were harmonized between the 2 insurers using a standardized taxonomy. Primary care practices in Massachusetts. All malpractice claims that involved primary care practices insured by the 2 largest insurers in the state were screened. A total of 551 claims from primary care practices were identified for the analysis. Numbers and types of claims, including whether claims involved primary care physicians or practices; classification of alleged malpractice (eg, misdiagnosis or medication error); patient diagnosis; breakdown in care process; and claim outcome (dismissed, settled, verdict for plaintiff, or verdict for defendant). During a 5-year period there were 7224 malpractice claims of which 551 (7.7%) were from primary care practices. Allegations were related to diagnosis in 397 (72.1%), medications in 68 (12.3%), other medical treatment in 41 (7.4%), communication in 15 (2.7%), patient rights in 11 (2.0%), and patient safety or security in 8 (1.5%). Leading diagnoses were cancer (n = 190), heart diseases (n = 43), blood vessel diseases (n = 27), infections (n = 22), and stroke (n = 16). Primary care cases were significantly more likely to be settled (35.2% vs 20.5%) or result in a verdict for the plaintiff (1.6% vs 0.9%) compared with non-general medical malpractice claims (P < .001). In Massachusetts, most primary care claims filed are related to alleged misdiagnosis. Compared with malpractice allegations in other settings, primary care ambulatory claims appear to be more difficult to defend, with more cases settled or resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff.

Purpose: Primary care (PC) career choice has been declining among U.S. medical graduates and residents since the 1990s. 1,2 By 2034, an estimated shortage of 17,800–48,000 PC physicians is expected. 2 Some medical schools have developed programs to increase students’ interest in PC specialties and practice in underserved areas. 3,4 To our knowledge, the durability of early PC-specialty preference for long-term PC practice has not been reported. Method: The Association of American Medical Colleges provided linked, deidentified data for a national cohort of 48,533 U.S. MD-granting medical school matriculants from 1998–1999 through 2000–2001. Data from the Student Records System (sex, race/ethnicity, and graduation year), Matriculating Student Questionnaire (MSQ; specialty board certification plans and attitudinal variables: importance of prestige and social responsibility in choosing a medical career), Graduation Questionnaire (GQ; total debt, plans to practice in underserved areas, and student ratings [excellent vs not excellent] of PC and non-PC clerkship experiences), and American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile practice data through May 2020 were used. The outcome was office-based practice in a specialty from the AMA Physician Masterfile, categorized as follows: (1) general-PC (i.e., internal medicine, pediatrics, family practice, general practice, internal medicine/pediatrics, or internal medicine/family practice as primary specialty, with another general-PC or unspecified secondary specialty), (2) PC-subspecialty (i.e., general-PC primary and PC-subspecialty secondary specialty, or PC-subspecialty as primary specialty), and (3) non-PC specialties (i.e., non-PC primary specialty). Multivariable logistic regression models identified variables independently associated with general-PC vs each of PC-subspecialty and non-PC-specialty practice. Results: Of 46,698 graduates in 2002–2013, 30,435 (65.2%) had complete data for analysis (7,700 [25.3%] general-PC physicians, 5,327 [17.5%] PC subspecialists, and 17,408 [57.2%] non-PC specialists). Female (vs male) students, and students with plans to practice in underserved areas (vs no plans) were more likely to report general-PC (vs PC-subspecialty) practice. Underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities in medicine (URiM), Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian/PI) students (each vs White), and students planning to pursue non-PC specialties or no board certification (each vs PC board certification plans) on the MSQ were each less likely to report general-PC (vs PC-subspecialty) practice. In the second model, female students and students reporting plans to practice in underserved areas (vs no plans), endorsing higher importance of social responsibility, or rating only PC clerkships excellent (vs rating both PC and non-PC clerkships excellent) were each more likely to report general-PC (vs non-PC-specialty) practice. URiM, Asian/PI students, students planning to pursue non-PC or no board certification, and students endorsing higher importance of prestige were each less likely to report general-PC (vs non-PC-specialty) practice. Discussion: Several factors were associated with future PC practice. The greater likelihood of women and lower likelihood of URiM graduating students to choose PC specialties on the GQ has been reported. 1 We extend this work, finding lower likelihood of URiM and A/PI physicians to be in general-PC practice. Importantly, early preference for PC specialties was positively associated with general-PC practice in both models. This may reassure medical schools considering early specialty preferences for admissions or entry into early, PC-pathway programs. Although clerkship experiences might influence students to change specialty interests, 5 to our knowledge, associations between clerkship experiences and PC practice have not been examined. We observed that students reporting excellent PC-clerkship experiences were more likely to report general-PC (vs non-PC) practice. Greater importance of social responsibility in choosing medicine also was positively associated with general-PC (vs non-PC) practice. Significance: Medical school experiences that are amenable to intervention were associated with greater odds of general-PC practice. Admitting students with early interest in PC specialties or who highly value social responsibility, fostering students’ plans to practice in underserved areas, 3,4 and improving PC-clerkship experiences may help mitigate the PC-physician shortage. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Hershel Alexander, PhD, Marie Caulfield, PhD (retired), David Matthew, PhD, and Lindsay Roskovensky, at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), for their efforts to obtain and prepare the deidentified datasets from various sources and their assistance with data coding; the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Office for Research Strategy for permission to use Step 1 licensing examination data; Kristy Vanderplow at MMS, Inc., for provision of the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile data; and Maria Pérez, MA, at Washington University School of Medicine, for data management and preparation of the data for analysis.

Expanded roles of registered nurses in primary care delivery of the future

Obesity is of epidemic proportion in the USA but most people with obesity do not receive treatment. To explore the experience of providing obesity management among primary care clinicians and their team members involved with weight loss in primary care practices. The study's focus was on examining the use of the Medicare payment code for intensive behavioral therapy for obesity (IBT), but other obesity management services and payment mechanisms were also studied. We conducted 85 interviews of clinicians (physician, advanced practice clinicians, registered dietitian, or other) practicing in primary care practices. Interviews gathered information about treatment approach to obesity, barriers, and facilitators to providing obesity care including the handling of billing and reimbursement (especially use of the IBT code), personal beliefs about the appropriateness of primary care providing weight loss services, and recommendations for improving weight management in primary care practice. The analysis was conducted using a grounded theory hermeneutic editing approach and the constant comparative method. Seventy-five interviews were included in this analysis. We identified three primary themes: (1) clinicians and staff involved in obesity management in primary care believe that addressing obesity is an essential part of primary care services, (2) because providing obesity care can be challenging, many practices opt out of treatment, and (3) despite the challenges, many clinicians and others find treating obesity feasible, satisfying, and worthwhile. Treating obesity in primary care settings poses several challenges but can also be very satisfying and rewarding. To improve the ability of clinicians and practice members to treat obesity, important changes in payment, education, and work processes are necessary.

Physician assistants (PAs) have made major contributions to the primary care workforce. Since the mid-1990s, however, the percentage of PAs working in primary care has declined. The purpose of this study was to identify demographic characteristics associated with PAs who practice in primary care. We obtained data from the 2009 American Academy of Physician Assistants' Annual Census Survey and used univariate analyses, logistic regression analyses, and χ(2) trend tests to assess differences in demographics (eg, age, sex, race) between primary care and non-primary care PAs. Survey respondents had graduated from PA school between 1965 and 2008. Of 72,433 PAs surveyed, 19,608 participated (27% of all PAs eligible to practice). Incomplete questionnaires were eliminated resulting in a final sample of 18,048. One-third of PAs reported working in primary care. Female, Hispanic, and older PAs were more likely to work in primary care practice. Trend tests showed a decline in the percentage of PAs working in primary care in the sample overall (average 0.3% decrease per year; P <.0001). In the cohort of 2004-2008 graduates, however, the percentage of primary care PAs increased slightly by an average of 0.9% per year (P = .02). Nonetheless, the low response rate of the census limits the ability to generalize these findings to the total population of PAs. Demographics associated with an increased likelihood of primary care practice among PAs appear to be similar to those of medical students who choose primary care. Knowledge of these characteristics may help efforts to increase the number of primary care PAs.

ABSTRACTPatients in primary care (PC) are often counselled on diet, and assessment of current food intake is a necessary prerequisite for individualized nutrition care. This sequential mixed-methods study explored current diet assessment (DA) practices in team-based PC in Ontario, Canada, with interdisciplinary focus groups (FGs) followed by a web-based survey. Eleven FGs (n = 50) discussed key patient groups and health conditions requiring DA, as well as facilitators and barriers to accurate DA. Interpretative analysis revealed three themes: DA as a common activity that differed by health profession, communication of DA results within the team, and nutrition care as a collaborative team activity. A total of 191 providers from 73 Family Health Teams completed the web-based survey, and confirmed that many providers are frequently doing DA and that methods vary by discipline. Most providers conducted DAs every day or almost every day. As expected, dietitians used more formal and detailed methods to assess diet than other disciplines, who were more likely to ask a few pointed questions. These baseline data provide information on the range of current DA practices in team-based PC that can inform development of new, more accurate approaches that may improve counselling effectiveness.

Primary care is the provision of integrated, accessible healthcare services by clinicians who are accountable for addressing a large majority of personal healthcare needs, developing a sustained relationship with patients, and practicing in the context of family and community. 1 A frontline, broad based and holistic approach makes primary care essential for the success and sustainability of any healthcare system. In most circumstances, Family Physicians, Internists, Pediatricians and Obstetricians form the core Primary Care Practitioners. Family Physicians form the main component of the primary care team. Scandinavian countries have better health indicators in Europe because of strong emphasis given to primary care. South India has better health indicators compared to rest of India, again because of the presence of primary care orientation to health care delivery. Similarly, Sri Lanka has better health indicators in the region because of their strong emphasis on primary care. There is enough evidence to suggest relationship, better health indicators and primary care orientation of health care delivery.2 Ten industrialized countries were compared on the basis of the extent of primary health service, twelve health indicators and population satisfaction with overall costs of the systems. A general concordance was found among these three characteristics, highlighting the importance of primary healthcare, health indicators and the costs of health care.3 In today’s, day and age with rising cost of health care, a primary care orientation of health care is the way forward. The role of primary care in ensuring success of health care delivery is critical for several reasons. The frontline position allows Primary Care Practitioners to offer preventive care and health maintenance initiatives to their patients and diagnose diseases in early stages where they can be successfully handled with minimum and cost effective interventions. The community based location of Primary Care Practitioners offer them a unique position to provide care to patients in their context and environment. Patients are known to their practitioners, allowing a better understanding of their symptoms. The trusting relationship exists between a Primary Care Practitioner and patients, allowing better sharing of information and with confidence. The Primary Care Practitioner knows their patient’s health seeking behaviour, allowing them to determine appropriate approach for their symptoms evaluation. They also know their patient’s family which allows better understanding of home dynamics and its impact on health. The role of family in the health care of individual patient can be exploited to get better health outcomes. The community based location of Primary Care Practitioners allow them to be the main focus for patient care and referrals. The ‘gate keeper’4 position of Primary Care Practitioner in selecting patients for hospital care referral curtails health care costs. Primary Care Practitioners are trained in effective communication skills, which allow them to better communicate and understand their patient’s problems. Practice of effective communication skills is known to improve patient’s satisfaction with the clinician.5 These skills allow Primary Care Practitioner to form the focus for effective communications between patient and the health care team, supporting other members of the team in delivery of this challenging task. Primary Care Practitioners practice holistic medicine, allowing them to effectively handle multiple patient problems at the same time. The bio-psycho-sociospiritual model of medical practice allow them to tackle patient complaints at multiple levels. This provides value to them in the health care delivery by providing cost effective care in a convenient manner and leads to enhanced patient’s satisfaction.

Exploring the Generalist-Subspecialist Interface in Internal Medicine

To determine whether veterinarians in primary care practices (PCPs) and board-certified clinicians (BCCs) approach treatment of dogs with immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia (IMHA) similarly, and whether practitioners with more experience treat similarly to those with less experience. We hypothesised those in PCPs would show more variation in their approach to similar cases than BCCs. A cross-sectional study was conducted by distributing a questionnaire to BCCs and veterinarians in PCPs. The questionnaire included direct questions and a number of clinical scenarios intended to capture approaches to common treatment problems. Questionnaire responses were received from 241 veterinarians, including 216 in PCPs and 25 BCCs. Veterinarians in both settings used similar tests for diagnosis of IMHA, but BCCs performed more tests to exclude underlying causes of 'associative' disease. All veterinarians reported use of similar initial dosages of glucocorticoids (median 2 mg/kg per day in both groups, p = 0.92) but those used by more experienced practitioners were higher than those with less experience. Most veterinarians made allowances for the weight of dogs, using lower prednisolone dosages in a clinical scenario involving a 40 kg dog compared to a 9 kg dog (p = 0.025 for PCP, p = 0.002 for BCC). BCCs reported greater use of combinations of immunosuppressive drugs (p<0.0001) and of antithrombotic drugs (p<0.0001); use of antithrombotic drugs was also less common among more experienced practitioners compared to less experienced. Approaches to treatment of dogs with IMHA differ between BCCs and those in PCP. These differences may affect design and implementation of future research studies and clinical guidelines.