Primary Care Physician Perspectives Research Articles

A primary care physician's ideal transitions of care—where's the evidence?

Reducing hospital readmissions is a national healthcare priority. Most of the interventions to reduce hospital readmission have been concentrated in the inpatient setting. However, there is increasing attention placed on the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in improving the transition from hospital to home. In this article, a primary care physician's perspective of how inpatient and outpatient providers can partner to create the ideal care transition is described. Seven steps that occur during the hospitalization are highlighted: communicate with the PCP on admission, involve the PCP early regarding discharge planning, notify the PCP on hospital discharge, complete the discharge summary at time of discharge, schedule follow-up appointments by discharge, ensure prescriptions are available at the patient's pharmacy, and educate the patient about self-management. Another 7 are described as the role of the PCP and clinic staff: call the patient within 72 hours of discharge, ensure follow-up appointments with the PCP, coordinate care, repeat above until medically stable, create access for patients with new symptoms, track readmission rates, and track and review frequently admitted patients. Insights are offered on how the changing financial landscape can help support elements of this idealized transition-of-care program.

Strategies for reducing potentially avoidable hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions.

Hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are seen as potentially avoidable with optimal primary care. Little is known, however, about how primary care physicians rate these hospitalizations and whether and how they could be avoided. This study explores the complex causality of such hospitalizations from the perspective of primary care physicians. We conducted semistructured interviews with 12 primary care physicians from 10 primary care clinics in Germany regarding 104 hospitalizations of 81 patients with ACSCs at high risk of rehospitalization. Participating physicians rated 43 (41%) of the 104 hospitalizations to be potentially avoidable. During the interviews the cause of hospitalization fell into 5 principal categories: system related (eg, unavailability of ambulatory services), physician related (eg, suboptimal monitoring), medical (eg, medication side effects), patient related (eg, delayed help-seeking), and social (eg, lack of social support). Subcategories frequently associated with physicians' rating of hospitalizations for ACSCs as potentially avoidable were after-hours absence of the treating physician, failure to use ambulatory services, suboptimal monitoring, patients' fearfulness, cultural background and insufficient language skills of patients, medication errors, medication nonadherence, and overprotective caregivers. Comorbidities and medical emergencies were frequent causes attributed to ACSC-based hospitalizations that were rated as being unavoidable. Primary care physicians rated a significant proportion of hospitalizations for ACSCs to be potentially avoidable. Strategies to avoid these hospitalizations may target after-hours care, optimal use of ambulatory services, intensified monitoring of high-risk patients, and initiatives to improve patients' willingness and ability to seek timely help, as well as patients' medication adherence.

Correction: Defining Patient Complexity From the Primary Care Physician's Perspective

Correction: Defining Patient Complexity From the Primary Care Physician's Perspective

What is the role of family in promoting faecal occult blood test screening? Exploring physician, average-risk individual, and family perceptions

Background: Although the number of Canadians being screened for colon cancer is rising, only 40% of Canadians aged 50 years or older reported they had engaged in faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening as recommended. The notion of ‘partnerships’ that is inclusive of physicians, individuals at average-risk for colorectal cancer, and influential family members is receiving more attention in primary health care literature and policy on promoting health maintenance behaviours. To the best of our knowledge there are no studies that have taken a tripartite approach in describing perspectives of these three key stakeholders on the role of family in promoting adherence to FOBT. The aim of this study was to address the gap in understanding the perspectives of primary care physicians, individuals at average-risk for colorectal cancer, and family on family role in promoting adherence to FOBT screening. Method: We employed a qualitative design and conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 physicians, 27 patients at average-risk for colorectal cancer, and 19 family members or friends from urban and rural Manitoba, Canada between October 2008 and March 2010. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using content analysis and constant comparative techniques. Results: While physicians described a clear role for family in managing chronic disease or dealing with acute or serious illness, they identified barriers in working with family to promote FOBT screening: lack of time, privacy and confidentiality concerns, and family dynamics. Conversely, patients and family described instrumental, emotional, informational, and appraisal roles that family play in promoting FOBT outside medical encounters. Conclusion: Adherence to colorectal cancer screening is based on supportive ‘patient–physician’ dialogue that is separate from assistive ‘patient–family member’ relations. Further research is required to explore social support mechanisms involving family members outside medical encounters that hold promise in boosting self-efficacy, overcoming barriers, and gaining positive reinforcement for individuals at average-risk when making the decision to engage in FOBT.

Comparando las perspectivas de los médicos de atención primaria de Canarias y Alberta. ¿Es más bonito el jardín del vecino que el mío?

ObjectiveTo examine the advantages and disadvantages of two different Health Care Systems from the perspective of Primary Care (PC) physicians. DesignQualitative research based on the analysis of documents written as diaries for the study. SettingPrimary Care in the Canary Islands (Spain) and Alberta (Canada) Context and participantsIntentional sample to identify different profiles of physicians. MethodParticipants were asked to write a document describing their work activities, including the impact of the organisational system and on their personal life. Two representatives of the health care system were asked to write a detailed description about how PC is organised in their country. Nine diaries were collected (5 from the Canary Islands and 4 from Alberta). Ritchie & Spencer framework was used for the analysis. ResultsIn Alberta, physicians have access to more complementary tests; they can offer hospital care; they have to sort out administrative work; they can choose were to work; and can specialise in different types of health care services. In the Canary Islands physicians can have paid holidays and the administrative issues do not depend on them, patients have a physician assigned and seem to have more institutional support. ConclusionsThe results of this study allow us to constructively analyse the role of PC physicians, assess the advantages and re-think the disadvantages related to how we work in order to learn from other health care systems.

Defining Patient Complexity From the Primary Care Physician's Perspective

Patients with complex health needs are increasingly the focus of health system redesign. To characterize complex patients, as defined by their primary care physicians (PCPs), and to compare this definition with other commonly used algorithms. Cohort study. 1 hospital-based practice, 4 community health centers, and 7 private practices in a primary care network in the United States. 40 physicians who reviewed a random sample of 120 of their own patients. After excluding patients for whom they were not directly responsible, PCPs indicated which of their patients they considered complex. These patients were characterized, independent predictors of complexity were identified, and PCP-defined complexity was compared with 3 comorbidity-based methods (Charlson score, Higashi score, and a proprietary Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services algorithm). Physicians identified 1126 of their 4302 eligible patients (26.2%) as complex and assigned a mean of 2.2 domains of complexity per patient (median, 2.0 [interquartile range, 1 to 3]). Mental health and substance use were identified as major issues in younger complex patients, whereas medical decision making and care coordination predominated in older patients (P<0.001 for trends by decade). Major independent predictors of PCP-defined complexity (P<0.001) included age (probability of complexity increased from 14.8% to 19.8% with age increasing from 55 to 65 years), poorly controlled diabetes (from 12.7% to 47.6% if hemoglobin A1c level≥9%), use of antipsychotics (from 12.7% to 31.8%), alcohol-related diagnoses (from 12.9% to 27.4%), and inadequate insurance (from 12.5% to 19.2%). Classification agreement for complex patients ranged from 26.2% to 56.0% when PCP assignment was compared with each of the other methods. Results may not be generalizable to other primary care settings. Primary care physicians identified approximately one quarter of their patients as complex. Medical, social, and behavioral factors all contributed to PCP-defined complexity. Physician-defined complexity had only modest agreement with 3 comorbidity-based algorithms. Partners Community Healthcare, Inc.

Influenza Vaccine Delivery Delays from the Perspective of Primary Care Physicians

The effects of delayed influenza vaccine delivery on primary practices are currently unknown. To describe, among primary care physicians nationally regarding the 2006-2007 influenza season: (1) how physicians defined influenza vaccine delay; (2) the extent of reported vaccine delays; and (3) the perceived effects of vaccine delays. Between March and June 2007, a total of 1268 primary care physicians nationally were surveyed. Survey response was 74% (n=940). The majority of physicians (79%) defined "influenza vaccine delay" as not receiving vaccine by November 1. Fifty-three percent reported a vaccine delay. Providers reported the following as effects of delays: reduced satisfaction of patients or parents in the practice (72%); decreased percentage in their practice who received the vaccination (65%); disruption of scheduling influenza clinics (55%); increased referral of patients elsewhere for vaccination (55%); and negative financial impact caused by unused vaccine (46%). Those who reported experiencing delays more often reported not meeting demand for vaccine (adjusted risk ratio [ARR]=1.83, 95% CI=1.64, 2.07); that grocery stores, retail outlets, or pharmacies had vaccine before their practices did (ARR=1.82, 95% CI=1.53, 2.26); not receiving all vaccine that was ordered (ARR=1.19, 95% CI=1.06, 1.36); and having leftover vaccine (ARR=1.17, 95% CI=1.04, 1.32). During the 2006-2007 influenza season, a non-shortage season, the majority of respondents reported experiencing an influenza vaccine delivery delay. Experiencing a delay was thought to decrease vaccination use, increase referrals elsewhere, and have a negative financial impact on practices. Delayed delivery of influenza vaccine is disruptive for primary care practices, and it consequently may affect vaccination coverage.

Barriers and facilitators to breast and colorectal cancer screening of older adults in primary care: A systematic review

While the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening for breast and colorectal cancer, older persons remain largely under-screened. It is paramount to determine the barriers and facilitators to breast and colorectal cancer screening of older adults, from the perspectives of patients and primary care physicians (PCPs). A systematic review was conducted, searching eight databases (Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, SocINDEX, Sociofile/Sociological Abstract) for articles published or in press between 2000 and August 2008. Selection of quantitative studies completed with PCPs or older adults and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators was created based on the studies reviewed. Based on this taxonomy, the number of studies identified for each barrier and facilitator was summarized. Most of the studies in the 42 selected articles were conducted in North America and Europe using cross-sectional designs and questionnaires. Based on our taxonomy, barriers and facilitators to cancer screening were classified in terms of the physician, the patient and the health care system. The main barriers were the PCP's lack of belief in the usefulness of cancer screening for older adults, the patients' embarrassment, discomfort or fear of the test and the lack of health care coverage for screening tests. This review suggests that interventions targeting the physician, the patient and the health care system are required to optimize breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care.

Primary care physician perspectives on providing adult vaccines

Recently, several new vaccines have been recommended for adults. Little is known regarding the immunization purchase and stocking practices of adult primary care physicians. To determine the proportion of family practice and internal medicine physicians who routinely stock specific adult vaccines and their rationale for those decisions, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2009 of a national random sample of 993 family physicians (FPs) and 997 general internists (IMs) in the US. Of the 1109 respondents, 886 reported that they provide primary care to adults aged 19–64 years and 96% of these physicians stock at least one vaccine recommended for adults. Of those, 2% plan to stop and 12% plan to increase vaccine purchases; the rest plan to maintain status quo. Of the respondents, 27% (31% FPs vs 20% IMs) stocked all adult vaccines. We conclude that many primary care physicians who provide care to adults do not stock all recommended immunizations. Efforts to improve adult immunization rates must address this fundamental issue.

Inside the Physician's Black Bag: Critical Ingredients of Brief Alcohol Interventions

ABSTRACT Brief primary care interventions structured around patient workbooks have been shown to be effective in modifying hazardous drinking behavior. However, the critical ingredients of such interventions are not well understood, possibly contributing to their underutilization. Seventeen campus-based clinicians trained in a brief, workbook-based alcohol intervention participated in a qualitative study to identify the most promising clinician-patient interaction components within this shared approach, utilizing a focus group with the clinicians and ranking of the 24 workbook ingredients. Based on the clinicians’ collective experience, consensus emerged around the perceived strength of 5 main components: (1) providing a summary of the patient's drinking level, (2) discussing drinking likes and dislikes, (3) discussing life goals, (4) encouraging a risk-reduction agreement, and (5) asking patients to track their drinking (on cards provided for this purpose). This is the first paper to examine primary care physician perspectives on potentially critical components of effective brief alcohol intervention.

Factors influencing primary care physicians to prescribe antibiotics in Delhi India

it is necessary to understand physician's prescribing behaviour in order to develop interventions that will effectively improve the use of antibiotics. to explore the factors that influence primary care physicians to prescribe antibiotics and to investigate possible interventions. focus group discussions (FGDs) were used to explore the perspectives of primary care physicians in the public and private sectors from five municipal wards (residential localities) of Delhi from where data on antibiotic use and resistance were collected. FGDs (n = 3 with 36 prescribers) were analysed through grounded theory. three broad themes identified were as follows: behavioural characteristics of doctors and patients; laxity in regulation of prescribing and dispensing antibiotics and intervention strategies to decrease misuse of, and resistance to, antibiotics. Important factors identified for antibiotic prescriptions by doctors were diagnostic uncertainty, perceived demand and expectation from the patients, practice sustainability and financial considerations, influence from medical representatives and inadequate knowledge. For public sector doctors, besides the above, overstocked and near-expiry drugs and lack of time were the factors that promoted antibiotic overuse. Doctors also identified certain patient behaviour characteristics and laxity in regulation for prescribing and dispensing of antibiotics as aggravating the problem of antibiotic misuse. Interventions like Continuing Medical Educations for doctors, awareness raising of patients, shared decision making and stricter rules and regulations were suggested to promote rational use of antibiotics in the community. exploration of doctors' antibiotic use practices and possible interventions will be helpful in carrying out interventions to promote appropriate use of antibiotics in the community.

The primary care physician role in cancer genetics: a qualitative study of patient experience

Increased availability of genetic testing is changing the primary care role in cancer genetics. The perspective of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding their role in support of genetic testing has been explored, but little is known about the expectations of patients or the PCP role once genetic test results are received. Two sets of open-ended semi-structured interviews were completed with patients (N=25) in a cancer genetic programme in Ontario, Canada, within 4 months of receiving genetic test results and 1 year later; written reports of test results were collected. Patients expected PCPs to play a role in referral for genetic testing; they hoped that PCPs would have sufficient knowledge to appreciate familial risk and supportive attitudes towards genetic testing. Patients had more difficulty in identifying a PCP role following receipt of genetic test results; cancer patients in particular emphasized this as a role for cancer specialists. Still, some patients anticipated an ongoing PCP role comprising risk-appropriate surveillance or reassurance, especially as specialist care diminished. These expectations were complicated by occasional confusion regarding the ongoing care appropriate to genetic test results. The potential PCP role in cancer genetics is quite broad. Patients expect PCPs to play a role in risk identification and genetics referral. In addition, some patients anticipated an ongoing role for their PCPs after receiving genetic test results. Sustained efforts will be needed to support PCPs in this expansive role if best use is to be made of investments in cancer genetic services.

The WHO World Mental Health Surveys: Global Perspectives on the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders

The WHO World Mental Health Surveys: Global Perspectives on the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Reimbursement for Childhood Immunizations

The purpose of this research was to explore physicians' attitudes and behaviors related to vaccine financing issues within their practice. Amid the increasing number of vaccine doses recommended for children and adolescents, anecdotal reports suggest that physicians are facing increasing financial pressures from vaccine purchase and administration and may stop providing vaccines altogether to privately insured children. Whether these sentiments are widely held among immunization providers is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey from July to September 2007 of a random sample of 1280 US pediatricians and family physicians engaged in direct patient care. Main outcome measures included delay in the purchase of specific vaccines for financial reasons; reported decrease in profit margin from immunizations; and practice consideration of whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured children. The response rate was 70% for pediatricians and 60% for family physicians. Approximately half of the respondents reported that their practice had delayed the purchase of specific vaccines for financial reasons (49%) and experienced decreased profit margin from immunizations (53%) in the previous 3 years. Twenty-one percent of respondents strongly disagreed that "reimbursement for vaccine purchase is adequate," and 17% strongly disagreed that "reimbursement for vaccine administration is adequate." Eleven percent of respondents said their practice had seriously considered whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured children in the previous year. Physicians who provide vaccines to children and adolescents report dissatisfaction with reimbursement levels and increasing financial strain from immunizations. Although large-scale withdrawal of immunization providers does not seem to be imminent, efforts to address root causes of financial pressures should be undertaken.

Integrating Social Workers into Primary Care: Physician and Nurse Perceptions of Roles, Benefits, and Challenges

The primary aim of this article is to identify, from the perspective of primary care physicians and nurses, the challenges encountered in provision of health care to older adults and to identify potential roles, challenges, and benefits of integrating social workers into primary care teams. As more older adults live longer with multiple chronic conditions, primary care has been confronted with complex psychosocial problems that interact with medical problems pointing to a potential role for a social worker. From a policy perspective, the lack of strong evidence documenting the benefits that will accrue to patients and providers is a key barrier preventing the wider use of social workers in primary care. This article presents findings from three focus groups with primary care physicians and nurses to examine the perspectives of these key providers about the benefits and challenges of integrating social workers into the primary care team.

Transition from specialist to primary diabetes care: A qualitative study of perspectives of primary care physicians

BackgroundThe growing prevalence of diabetes and heightened awareness of the benefits of early and intensive disease management have increased service demands and expectations not only of primary care physicians but also of diabetes specialists. While research has addressed issues related to referral into specialist care, much less has been published about the transition from diabetes specialists back to primary care. Understanding the concerns of family physicians related to discharge of diabetes care from specialist centers can support the development of strategies that facilitate this transition and result in broader access to limited specialist services. This study was undertaken to explore primary care physician (PCP) perspectives and concerns related to reassuming responsibility for diabetes care after referral to a specialized diabetes center.MethodsQualitative data were collected through three focus groups. Sessions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Data were coded and sorted with themes identified using a constant comparison method. The study was undertaken through the regional academic referral center for adult diabetes care in Ottawa, Canada. Participants included 22 primary care physicians representing a variety of referral frequencies, practice types and settings.ResultsParticipants described facilitators and barriers to successful transition of diabetes care at the provider, patient and systems level. Major facilitators included clear communication of a detailed, structured plan of care, ongoing access to specialist services for advice or re-referral, continuing education and mentoring for PCPs. Identified provider barriers were gaps in PCP knowledge and confidence related to diabetes treatment, excessive workload and competing time demands. Systems deterrents included reimbursement policies for health professionals and inadequate funding for diabetes medications and supplies. At the PCP-patient interface, insufficient patient confidence or trust in PCP's ability to manage diabetes, poor motivation and "non-compliance" emerged as potential patient barriers to transition. Incongruence between PCP attitudes and expectations related to diabetes self-management and those of patients who had attended a multidisciplinary specialist center was also observed.ConclusionThis study underlines the breadth of PCP concerns related to transition of diabetes care and the importance of this topic to them. While tools that promote timely information flow and care planning are cornerstones to successful transition, and may be sufficient for some practitioners, appropriately resourced decision support and education strategies should also be available to enhance PCP capacity and readiness to resume diabetes care after referral to a specialist center. Characteristics of the patient-care provider relationship that impact discharge were identified and are worthy of further research.

The ethics of sex selection: a comparison of the attitudes and experiences of primary care physicians and physician providers of clinical sex selection services

To compare the perspectives of primary care physicians (PCPs) and physician sex-selection technology providers (SSTPs) about the ethics of sex selection. Qualitative interview study. Academic, private, and HMO-based infertility and general medical practices. Forty PCPs and 15 SSTPs. Semistructured interviews. Comparisons of bioethical attitudes towards sex selection. Primary care physicians and SSTPs had distinctly different perceptions of the ethical concepts of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence as applied to sex selection. Sex-selection technology providers argued that sex selection was an expression of reproductive rights, was initiated and pursued by women, and was a sign of female empowerment that allowed couples to make well-informed family planning decisions, prevented unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and minimized the abuse of wives and/or neglect of children. In contrast, PCPs challenged the concept of "family balancing" and questioned whether women could truly express free choice under family and community pressure. In addition, PCPs voiced the concerns that sex selection technologies led to invasive medical interventions in the absence of therapeutic indications, contributed to gender stereotypes that could result in neglect of children of the lesser-desired sex, and were not a solution to domestic violence. Primary care physicians and SSTPs had markedly different ethical perspectives on the provision of sex selection services that were informed by their professional and personal attitudes and experiences.

Primary Care and Psychiatry: The Dawning of a New Year

With this issue we celebrate the start of The Primary Care Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry's 11th year! The articles published in this issue reflect the challenges facing primary care clinicians aspiring to truly integrate care of mind and body. Demyttenaere and colleagues provide insight into primary care physician and patient perspectives on treatment outcomes, highlighting the fact that although improvement in nonspecific pain is an important contributor to overall outcome for patients, it is often underappreciated by their physicians. An understanding of the frequency of illness, the characteristics of patients affected, and the expected evolution of their disease processes is critical to the work of primary care. It is the basis for our rapid recognition of illness and our ability to provide patients and families with not only a diagnosis but also a prognosis. Our Rounds in the General Hospital presentation addresses a related issue—the relationship of visual hallucinations with mental disorders and how they can be treated. The integration of mental and physical care by primary care physicians also requires an understanding of the effects of psychiatric conditions and their treatments on medical conditions. Two articles in this issue address this area: Melanie L. Zupancic, M.D., reviews our understanding of the relationship between acute psychological stress and acute coronary syndromes, and Chen et al. investigate the influence of increased prolactin levels on symptoms experienced by olanzapine-treated schizophrenia patients. The role of the clinician interacting with patients and families, and the clinician's own environment and human connections, is also of interest. These topics are addressed by our regular features of the Psychotherapy Casebook and Diary From the Front Lines. These thought-provoking and highly entertaining columns help all of us reflect on how we become intertwined in our patients’ lives, often with major therapeutic effect for both our patients and ourselves. Over the past 10 years, the Companion has grown to have a readership that is global. The immediate free access to full content through the journal's Web site supports this wide readership. The Companion also has become a medium through which the universal nature of the human condition as related to psychiatric care at the primary care level is evident. This is reflected in the international scope of the articles we publish, which have relevance that crosses all borders. Our letters to the editor also add rich insight into patient experience. As the Companion moves into its second decade of publication, we will continue to bring to our readership important new insights and clinical guidance to the care of patients at the interface of primary care and psychiatry. This year, we will add a focus on care of the elderly as well as continue our current content. We also will reorganize our book review section. Deep thanks go out to you our readers and especially to those who have given the Companion the opportunity to review and publish their work. Over the years, we have greatly benefited from the leadership of an Editorial Board that collectively provides expertise in all areas of interest to the Companion. We also have benefited from and extend our appreciation to a dedicated and outstanding group of reviewers. They volunteer considerable time and broad expertise. Their critiques lead to substantial improvement in the science and relevance of the articles we publish.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Reimbursement for Childhood Immunizations

The purpose of this research was to explore physicians' attitudes and behaviors related to vaccine financing issues within their practice. Amid the increasing number of vaccine doses recommended for children and adolescents, anecdotal reports suggest that physicians are facing increasing financial pressures from vaccine purchase and administration and may stop providing vaccines altogether to privately insured children. Whether these sentiments are widely held among immunization providers is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey from July to September 2007 of a random sample of 1280 US pediatricians and family physicians engaged in direct patient care. Main outcome measures included delay in the purchase of specific vaccines for financial reasons; reported decrease in profit margin from immunizations; and practice consideration of whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured children. The response rate was 70% for pediatricians and 60% for family physicians. Approximately half of the respondents reported that their practice had delayed the purchase of specific vaccines for financial reasons (49%) and experienced decreased profit margin from immunizations (53%) in the previous 3 years. Twenty-one percent of respondents strongly disagreed that "reimbursement for vaccine purchase is adequate," and 17% strongly disagreed that "reimbursement for vaccine administration is adequate." Eleven percent of respondents said their practice had seriously considered whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured children in the previous year. Physicians who provide vaccines to children and adolescents report dissatisfaction with reimbursement levels and increasing financial strain from immunizations. Although large-scale withdrawal of immunization providers does not seem to be imminent, efforts to address root causes of financial pressures should be undertaken.

Role of Age and Health in Treatment Recommendations for Older Adults With Breast Cancer: The Perspective of Oncologists and Primary Care Providers

To determine the impact of age and health status on adjuvant treatment recommendations for older patients with breast cancer from the perspective of medical oncologists and primary care physicians with geriatric expertise. One hundred fifty-one oncologists and 158 primary care physicians with geriatric expertise participated in an online survey. The survey described hypothetical patients of varying ages (70, 75, 80, and 85 years) and health status (good, average, and poor) who had node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)/neu-negative; and hormone receptor-negative, HER-2/neu-positive breast cancers. The effects of patient age and health status on the survey participants' adjuvant treatment recommendations were examined using generalized estimation equation methods. The majority of both oncologists and primary care physicians recommended some form of adjuvant therapy for patients of all ages (70, 75, 80, and 85 years) and health status. Both oncologists and primary care providers were less likely to recommend adjuvant treatment as a patient's age increased or health status declined (P < .0001). There were no significant differences in treatment recommendations among primary care physicians and oncologists for patients with hormone receptor-negative, HER-2/neu-positive tumors (P = .54). However, primary care providers were more likely than oncologists to recommend no adjuvant treatment for patients age 75 years or older with hormone receptor-positive, HER-2/neu-negative tumors (P < .01). Age and health status influence oncologists' and primary care providers' adjuvant treatment recommendations. Evidence-based guidelines for breast cancer treatment in older adults taking into account age and health status are needed.