Involvement Of Primary Care Providers Research Articles

Reframing conceptualizations of primary care involvement in opioid use disorder treatment

BackgroundOpioid-related harms and opioid use disorder (OUD) are health priorities requiring urgent policy responses. There have been many calls for improved OUD care in primary care, as well as increasing involvement of primary care providers in countries like Canada and Australia, which have been experiencing high rates of opioid-related harms.MethodsUsing Starfield’s 4Cs conceptualization of primary care functions, we examined how and why primary care systems may be suited towards, or pose challenges to providing OUD care, and identified health system opportunities to address these challenges. We conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with 16 key informants with experience in opioid use policy in Canada and Australia.ResultsPrimary care was identified to be an ideal setting for OUD care delivery due to its potential as the first point of contact in the health system; the opportunity to offer other health services to people with OUD; and the ability to coordinate care with other health providers (e.g. specialists, social workers) and thus also provide care continuity. However, challenges include a lack of resources and support for chronic disease management more broadly in primary care, and the prevailing model of OUD treatment, where addictions care is not seen as part of comprehensive primary care. Additionally, the highly regulated OUD policy landscape is also a barrier, manifesting as a ‘regulatory cascade’ in which restrictive oversight of OUD treatment passes from regulators to health providers to patients, normalizing the overly restrictive nature and inaccessibility of OUD care.ConclusionsWhile primary care is an essential arena for providing OUD care, existing sociocultural, political, health professional, and health system factors have led to the current model of care that limits primary care involvement. Addressing this may involve structurally embedding OUD care into primary care and strengthening primary care in general.

Role of primary care in opioid prescribing for older head and neck cancer survivors.

Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time. Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I-III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment-free follow-up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty. Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1-year follow-up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%-55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP. PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population.

A Proposal for the Comprehensive Care of Men on Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Recommendations From the Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer 360 Working Group.

To promote comprehensive care of patients throughout the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) prescribing process, the Prostate Cancer 360 (PC360) Working Group developed monitoring and management recommendations intended to mitigate or prevent ADT-associated adverse events. The PC360 Working Group included 14 interdisciplinary experts with a dedicated clinical interest in prostate cancer and ADT management. The working group defined challenges associated with ADT adverse event management and then collaboratively developed comprehensive care recommendations intended to be practical for ADT prescribers. The PC360 Working Group developed both overarching recommendations for ADT adverse event management and specific recommendations across 5 domains (cardiometabolic, bone, sexual, psychological, and lifestyle). The working group recommends an interdisciplinary, team-based approach wherein the ADT prescriber retains an oversight role for ADT management while empowering patients and their primary and specialty care providers to manage risk factors. The PC360 recommendations also emphasize the importance of proactive patient education that involves partners or other support providers. Recommended monitoring and assessment tools, risk factor management, and patient counseling points are also included for the 5 identified domains, with an emphasis on lifestyle and behavioral interventions that can improve quality of life and reduce the risk for ADT-associated complications. Comprehensive care of patients receiving ADT requires early and ongoing coordinated management of a variety of health domains, including cardiometabolic, bone, sexual, psychological health. Patient education and primary care provider involvement should begin prior to ADT initiation and continue throughout treatment to improve patient and partner quality of life.

The role of primary care in opioid prescribing for head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors.

480 Background: Older HNC survivors often experience post-treatment pain, and they have concerningly high rates of unsafe opioid prescribing (e.g., high doses, concurrent benzodiazepines). Interventions to improve opioid safety should target providers who prescribe opioids to HNC survivors. We hypothesized that oncologists were responsible for most opioid prescribing to HNC survivors, but that involvement of primary care providers (PCPs) as prescribers increased over time after treatment. Methods: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry and Medicare claims data, we identified adults age >65 diagnosed 2014-2017 with stage I-III HNC with ≥6 months treatment-free follow-up prior to censoring at further treatment, new cancer, hospice, death, or end 2019. Starting 1 month after treatment completion, all opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology (medical, radiation, surgical), surgery, primary care (internal medicine, family practice, geriatrics), pain, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized at the fill and patient levels for each year of follow-up. Results: Among 5494 HNC survivors with median 2.1 years of treatment-free follow-up, 3092 (56%) had ≥1 opioid fill. At the fill level, almost half of all opioids (47%) were dispensed in the first year after treatment completion, with fewer fills each subsequent year. Contrary to our hypothesis, only 9% of all fills were prescribed by oncologists. Half of all fills were prescribed by PCPs; 14% were prescribed by pain specialists and 9% by surgeons. At the patient level, on average, each survivor had 34% of their opioid fills prescribed by primary care providers, followed by 24% by surgeons and 10% by oncologists. The proportion of survivors’ fills prescribed by PCPs remained high (36%-42% of each survivor’s fills) across all years, while proportion of each survivor’s fills prescribed by oncologists declined from 14% to 2% over years of follow-up. (See Table). Conclusions: PCPs prescribe a greater proportion of HNC survivors’ opioids than oncologists and surgeons combined. While oncologists’ and surgeons’ role as opioid prescribers declines over time, primary care involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout survivorship, suggesting that PCPs manage cancer-related pain, non-cancer pain is prevalent after HNC, or both. Interventions to address unsafe opioid use among HNC survivors should target the primary care setting, as is typical for opioid-reduction efforts in the non-cancer population.[Table: see text]

Barriers Associated with Cardiovascular Disease and the Impact of Primary Care Leading to Necessary Emergency Department Visits in The Central Valley

Purpose: The research identified barriers associated with cardiovascular disease and the impact of primary care leading to emergency department (ED) visits in the Central Valley. Methods: A semi-structured 16-question interview was conducted at St. Agnes Medical Center in order to gain a fuller understanding of the involvement of primary care providers and their interactions in educating individuals about CVD. Results: 54 of the total 63 participants report having access to primary care however, some patients expressed they never had access to a cardiologist. Many of the participants (41 of 63) were confident that their care providers were greatly knowledgeable. A total of 46 of the 63 participants felt adequately cared for, while eight of the participants felt that the care, they received was not adequate by reporting that the care was bad or inadequate. Participants expressed that there were some challenges in receiving accessibility of care and many faced socioeconomic challenges. Conclusion: There have been many studies focusing on readmission rates with the expansion of ACA. However, none specifically evaluates a region within a state that has multiple socio-economic challenges and the use of primary care visits in relation to cardiovascular disease emergency department visits. There are many socioeconomic factors that, when not favorable, can lead to inadequate care towards the patient. Therefore, strategies to improve the care provided to diagnosed patients should be informed and guided by the influence that these socio-economic factors have with regard to the healthcare experience.

Primary care provider perspectives on the role of community pharmacy in colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion.MethodsWe used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™.ResultsWe completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic.ConclusionIf the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Breast cancer survivorship care: a narrative review of challenges and future directions.

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer among women worldwide. With a growing number of BC survivors (BCSs), the number of survivors who require highquality survivorship care is increasing. Various recommendations have been proposed for survivorship care plans (SCPs). However, globally, limited progress has been made to implement these recommendations consistently in cancer care centers. This review explores the gaps and challenges that exist in BC survivorship care (BCSC) and proposes future directions for improving survivorship care for patients and the healthcare system. Current literature on BCSC was searched using PubMed and Google Scholar. The search strategy utilized a combination of keywords related to BCSC, gaps in survivorship care, and health promotion. Retrievable and English articles from January 2000 to March 2024 were included in the review. Despite the large number of guidelines and recommendations on best BCSC practices, only a small number of these have been translated into clinical practices that help streamline patient care. There are many gaps to the provision of high-quality survivorship care, all of which negatively affect patient outcomes. Some of these gaps include but are not limited to: the limited role of primary care providers (PCPs), lack of coordination of care, lack of evidence-based research, insufficient data on health promotion, and challenges implementing comprehensive care. These findings indicate the need for a holistic and personalized approach to BCSC. The importance of implementing a multi-disciplinary and coordinated approach to survivorship care has been emphasized. This includes further involvement of PCPs, through increased training for PCPs in survivorship care. Despite available models of survivorship care, further research is needed to determine optimal BCSC that improves patient outcomes while decreasing the strain on the healthcare system. Additionally, technology can play a beneficial role in survivorship care, especially through telehealth and artificial intelligence (AI). Nonetheless, further research is needed on BCSC.

Primary care providers’ comfort in caring for cancer survivors: Implications for risk‐stratified care

Personalized, risk-stratified care aims to "right size" the involvement of primary care providers (PCPs), oncology and specialized practitioners in caring for cancer survivors. Our survey found limited comfort among PCPs in cancer surveillance and management of treatment-related effects. In hypothetical case scenarios, PCPs reported least comfort in caring for a survivor of childhood cancer, followed by young adult-onset cancer, and greater comfort in caring for a survivor of adult-onset breast cancer. While education and training of PCPs is essential, risk-stratification strategies need to identify patients who may transition to primary care and those who may require ongoing survivorship-focused follow-up.

Perspectives of acute, post-acute, physician and community support providers on community collaborative efforts to improve transitions of care

BackgroundTransitional care (TC) involves multiple organizations as patients transition from hospitals. Collaboration to reduce readmissions has been encouraged by government initiatives. As part of Project ACHIEVE, a comparative TC study, we sought provider perspectives on TC improvement efforts. MethodsWe aimed to identify perceived problems that drove improvement efforts, influences on interventions implemented, facilitators or barriers to desired outcomes, and sustainability. Investigators interviewed 63 representatives from collaborative improvement efforts across 13 states in 2015. Directed content analysis was performed, with inductive coding as insights emerged. Data was also analyzed for differences in participant perceptions, such as the organization represented, geographic characteristics, and source of funding for interventions. ResultsParticipants in semi-structured interviews included physicians, nurses, care navigators, and administrators from hospitals, nursing facilities, community-based organizations, and medical practices. Participants reported that changing reimbursement practices and readmissions penalties drove TC efforts, and common problems they sought to address included insufficient inter-provider communication, medication management, and challenges related to chronic condition management. Solutions implemented were often adapted according to community and setting characteristics and population factors. Findings also suggest differences in the types of interventions implemented according to funding sources, which also impacted the ability to sustain these interventions. ConclusionsCross-site collaboration, communication, and partnership among stakeholders is essential to effective transitional care. Collaboration led to shared understanding among stakeholders of health care and support services available in the community. Coalition-based work also facilitated trust among partners which led to expansion and sustainment of TC efforts. Unmet social needs of patients are a barrier. ImplicationsOpportunities exist for increased and improved collaboration among clinical providers with community-based and social services organizations. Increased involvement of primary care providers in such collaborations would improve communication with both the patient and involved providers. Communities with external funding were more likely to implement evidence-based interventions, while those relying on institutional support addressed identified problems with more targeted interventions.

Cancer specialist perspectives on implementing an online communication system with primary care providers.

Context: The Canadian Team to Improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum (CanIMPACT) is a group of researchers, primary care providers (PCPs), cancer specialists, patients and caregivers working to improve cancer care coordination between PCPs and cancer specialists. Previous research by CanIMPACT and others has identified problems related to communication, coordination, and continuity of care. Objective: Describe findings from qualitative interviews with cancer specialists on implementation of an online communication system with PCPs. Study Design: Hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation study that included a qualitative research component and a pragmatic RCT. Setting: Ottawa Hospital Cancer Program and primary care practices in the Champlain region. Population Studied: Cancer specialists (nurses, medical and radiation oncologists, program administrators). Interviews conducted with 12 cancer specialists. Intervention: Cancer-specific adaptation of Champlain BASE™ eConsult, an online communication system for PCPs and cancer specialists called "eOncoNote". For patients receiving treatment for prostate or breast cancer, cancer specialists had an opportunity to participate in eOncoNote discussion with PCP for 4-6 months; for breast and colorectal cancer survivors, the eOncoNote discussion lasted for 1 year post discharge to the patient's PCP. Results: Cancer specialists described limited PCP involvement in cancer care while patients received active treatment, with one-way communication and notes being "sent into a vacuum". There was more communication with PCPs regarding patients with metastatic disease, comorbid conditions, after patients have completed treatment, or during palliative care. Patients and caregivers play a critical role in coordinating cancer care, helping to facilitate coordination. Lack of access to the same electronic medical record (EMR) among healthcare providers poses a barrier to cancer care coordination. eOncoNote had the potential to be useful tool but it was not used extensively. Conclusions: Accessing eOncoNote as a separate system was challenging to incorporate into the workflow, and cancer specialists highlighted the need for integration with their EMR. eOncoNote did not affect information sharing with PCPs, as there was limited uptake within primary care.

Demographic and Health Profiles of People Living With Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury in the United States During 2015-2019: Findings from the Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Database

ObjectiveTo estimate the population profile of people living with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) to help evaluate health care needs of this aging population. DesignCross-sectional study. SettingSCI Model Systems (SCIMS) centers in the United States. ParticipantsIndividuals (N=20,437) who: (1) incurred a TSCI between 1972 and 2019, (2) were initially treated at one of the SCIMS centers, and (3) were alive during the period from 2015 to 2019. InterventionsNot applicable. Main Outcome MeasuresDemographics, injury characteristics, health conditions, and social participation, as compared with previous estimates in 2008 and general population statistics in 2017. ResultsPeople living with TSCI during the period from 2015-2019 (mean years since injury, 18y; 79.4% male, and 62.5% White) were older (51.6 vs 45.0y) and had a higher percentage of C1-C4 (21.9% vs 17.0%) and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale D injuries (31.5% vs 26.0%) compared with the 2008 TSCI population profile. Although the proportion of people with a bachelor's degree or higher was similar between the TSCI and general US populations (30.7% vs 32.0%), the employment rate was lower in the TSCI population (24.0% vs 59.5%). People are affected by various medical problems over time post TSCI. The prevalence of pain and urinary tract infection remained high over postinjury years, at 86.1% and 52.6%, respectively. Rehospitalization and depression were most common during the first year (34.9% and 22.3%, respectively), and pressure injury was more common among those 20 years or more postinjury (>30.0%). Health conditions declined with advanced age, including self-perceived health, diabetes, and institutional residence. People who survived TSCI for years, however, had relatively good degrees of independence and social participation. ConclusionStudy findings highlight the need for greater involvement of primary care providers and geriatricians in the continuity of care for SCI to promote healthy aging. Improvement in employment should also be the target in promoting social participation and quality of life.

Impact of primary care providers (PCPs) on care receipt and satisfaction in adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology patients.

e13512 Background: While there has been ongoing work to define the role of primary care providers (PCPs) in adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivorship models, little has been done to understand the role of PCPs earlier in the care continuum. As PCP-shared models of care have been theorized to help address morbidity related to the physical and psychosocial effects of cancer and its treatment, there is a need to better understand the impact of PCPs on AYAs. Given this, we sought to study the influence of PCPs in the care of AYAs with cancer, comparing care receipt and satisfaction during treatment versus in survivorship. Methods: Electronic health record query identified adult AYA cancer patients 19-39 years with at least two visits at the University of Wisconsin from 3/30/2019-3/29/2020. Identified patients were sent an electronic survey to assess care team members and impact on care. Responses were categorized based on patient-reported presence of a PCP as part of their cancer care team. For the data analysis, all patients who did not self-identify as long-term survivors, defined as 5+ years since diagnosis, were defined as active patients. Given survey answers were not mandated for all questions, the denominator was unique for each question. Results: We found a minority of AYAs responding to our survey considered a PCP as part of their cancer care team (71/173, 41%). PCP presence led to improved satisfaction in all AYAs with addressing the impact of diagnosis/treatment on peer interactions and independence, with 67% (45/67) AYAs with a PCP very or some satisfied versus 55% (53/97) without a PCP. PCPs also decreased the likelihood that supportive care services weren’t received by patients due to a lack of knowledge of the services, seen in 64% (56/88) AYAs without a PCP versus 52% (32/62) with a PCP. As seen in table, there were several findings suggesting that PCP involvement in AYA care was more critical to active patients than long-term survivors, including supportive care service receipt and satisfaction with such services. Conclusions: Overall, we found PCP involvement on cancer care teams was important for AYAs defined as both active patients and long-term survivors. Despite this, less than half of all patients identified PCPs as part of their care team. Our data suggest PCP-shared models of cancer care may improve care utilization and satisfaction in AYAs and support efforts to incorporate PCPs as meaningful members of the care team throughout all phases of care. Survey responses based on PCP inclusion as cancer care team member and patient treatment status.[Table: see text]

The Role of Primary Care in the Initiation of Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in Statewide Public and Private Insurance.

To determine if individuals newly diagnosed with opioid use disorder (OUD) who saw a primary care provider (PCP) before or on the date of diagnosis had higher rates of medication treatment for OUD (MOUD). Observational study using logistic regression with claims data from Medicaid and a large private insurer in North Carolina from January 2014 to July 2017. Between 2014 and 2017, the prevalence of diagnosed OUD increased by 47% among Medicaid enrollees and by 76% among the privately insured. Over the same time period, the percent of people with an OUD who received MOUD fell among both groups, while PCP involvement in treatment increased. Of Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine, the percent receiving buprenorphine from a PCP increased from 32% in 2014 to 39% in 2017. Approximately 82% of people newly diagnosed with OUD had a PCP visit in the 12 months before diagnosis in Medicaid and private insurance. Those with a prior PCP visit were not more likely to receive MOUD. Seeing a PCP at diagnosis was associated with a higher probability of receiving MOUD than seeing an emergency provider but a lower probability than seeing a behavioral health specialist or other provider type. People newly diagnosed with OUD had high rates of contact with PCPs before diagnosis, supporting the importance of PCPs in diagnosing OUD and connecting people to MOUD. Policies and programs to increase access to MOUD and improve PCPs' ability to connect people to evidence-based treatment are needed.

Universal suicide risk screening: Views of rural adults on acceptability and implementation in primary care

ObjectiveThis study gathered data from rural adult primary care patients regarding the acceptability of universal suicide risk screening and preferred methods of implementation. MethodPatients from a rural primary care clinic in southern West Virginia participating in a pilot test of a suicide risk screening program were administered a Screening Opinions Survey and resulting data were evaluated using descriptive and content analyses. ResultsThe majority of participants (96%) believed that primary care providers (PCPs) should screen patients for suicide and noted multiple benefits to screening. Most participants described the experience of screening in primary care as positive or neutral and preferred a personalized screening process where the provider asked questions directly. Demographic analyses indicated that males and older adults were less likely to report being previously screened for suicide and that older adults were less likely to support the practice of screening. ConclusionsResults provide support for the acceptability of universal suicide risk screening programs to patients in rural primary care and suggest that PCP involvement in the screening process may encourage patient participation. Additional training for PCPs and psychoeducational interventions for older adults may help to address demographic influences on screening practices and engagement.

Patients sous anticancéreux oraux et parcours coordonné : CHIMORAL, retour des acteurs de soins

Oral anticancer drugs have raised the question of how to follow-up these patients and how to coordinate this follow-up. The CHIMORAL study evaluated the involvement of primary care providers and a coordination by territorial health networks. Training/information tools were provided, as well as weekly nursing follow-up at home. The operational feasibility of this model was assessed through a qualitative/quantitative analysis of territorial health network intervention and feedback from primary care providers. One hundred and fifty four patients received coordinated care, with nursing follow-up for 89% of them (average 6.3 weeks). One in three nurses, one in five pharmacists and one in ten doctors used the tools provided, 41% of which were used for training and 16% for the management of an adverse event. The main reasons for using the networks concerned adverse effects (34%) and came mainly from nurses (45%) and patients and their relatives (47%). Patients felt safe, with more responsive management. This intervention has strengthened the networks' links with primary care providers. The use of the community-based care system for adverse events was more frequent, with improved detection and patient awareness, with no observed impact on compliance. A proposed evolution is to maintain an in-home assessment for all patients and to define a frequency and duration of follow-up according to the patient's profile.

Colocation Does Not Equal Integration: Identifying and Measuring Best Practices in Primary Care Integration of Children's Oral Health Services in Health Centers

ObjectiveImproving oral health of low-income and uninsured young children remains challenging because of reluctance of general dentists to care for very young children or participate in Medicaid, limited involvement of primary care providers in children's oral health, and lack of parental awareness of the importance of early oral health care. These barriers can be addressed in health centers (HCs) that are the premier sources of primary care for low-income and uninsured populations and a significant Medicaid provider. Many HCs provide dental services on-site, but literature indicates that medical and dental services often remain siloed with limited interaction among providers in addressing the oral health needs of young patients including risk assessment, education, and caries prevention. Accordingly, we developed a conceptual framework and measuring tool for medical dental integration and sought to examine utility of this tool in a purposive sample of HCs. MethodWe developed a conceptual framework for integrated oral health delivery and designed a survey to measure this integration. We surveyed 12 HCs in Los Angeles County participating in a project to improve oral health-care capacity for young children after 2 years of implementation. We included measures of risk assessment, preventive interventions, communication and collaborative practice, and buy-in organized in structure and process domains. Two individuals independently scored the responses, and a third reviewed and finalized. We standardized final scores to range from 0 to 100. ResultsOverall integration scores ranged from 31% to 73% (mean = 64%). Process scores were higher than structure scores for nearly all HCs. Processes contributing to higher scores included referrals with warm hand-offs, leadership support for medical-dental integration, and involvement in dental quality improvement projects. Structure factors contributing to higher scores included the presence of medical oral health champions, linked electronic health records, and referral protocols. ConclusionWe found that high levels of integration could be achieved despite structure and process limitations and sustainable integration depends on leadership and provider commitment and embedding of best practices in daily operations. Further research can illustrate the reliability of our tool and the impact of integration on access.

Primary Care Provider Involvement in Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Care.

While prior research has examined how primary care providers (PCPs) can care for breast and colon cancer survivors, little is known about their role in thyroid cancer survivorship. To understand PCP involvement and confidence in thyroid cancer survivorship care. We surveyed PCPs identified by thyroid cancer patients from the Georgia and LA SEER registries (n = 162, response rate 56%). PCPs reported their involvement in long-term surveillance and confidence in handling survivorship care (role of random thyroglobulin levels and neck ultrasound, and when to end long-term surveillance and refer back to the specialist). We examined: 1) PCP-reported factors associated with involvement using multivariable analyses; and 2) bivariate associations between involvement and confidence in handling survivorship care. PCP involvement (involved vs not involved) and confidence (high vs low). Many PCPs (76%) reported being involved in long-term surveillance. Involvement was greater among PCPs who noted clinical guidelines as the most influential source in guiding treatment (OR 4.29; 95% CI, 1.56-11.82). PCPs reporting high confidence in handling survivorship varied by aspects of care: refer patient to specialist (39%), role of neck ultrasound (36%) and random thyroglobulin levels (27%), and end long-term surveillance (14%). PCPs reporting involvement were more likely to report high confidence in discussing the role of random thyroglobulin levels (33.3% vs 7.9% not involved; P < 0.01). While PCPs reported being involved in long-term surveillance, gaps remain in their confidence in handling survivorship care. Thyroid cancer survivorship guidelines that delineate PCP roles present one opportunity to increase confidence about their participation.

Primary care provider involvement in thyroid cancer survivorship care.

e14028 Background: While prior research has examined how primary care providers (PCPs) can help care for breast and colon cancer survivors, little is known about the role of PCPs in thyroid cancer survivorship. We surveyed PCPs to understand their involvement and confidence in providing several aspects of thyroid cancer survivorship care. Methods: Thyroid cancer patients (N = 2632) diagnosed in 2014-2015 and identified from the Georgia and LA SEER registries, were surveyed, and identified their PCPs, who then were also surveyed (N = 162, 56% response rate). PCPs were asked to report their: 1) involvement in thyroid cancer long-term surveillance (not involved: never/rarely vs. involved: sometimes/often/almost always involved); and 2) confidence in handling four aspects of thyroid cancer survivorship care (low: not at all/a little/somewhat vs. high: quite/very confident). We examined PCP factors (individual, practice, attitudes and beliefs) associated with PCP involvement in long-term surveillance using multivariable logistic regression. We then examined associations between PCP involvement in long-term surveillance and PCP confidence in handling the four aspects of thyroid cancer survivorship care using Chi-squared tests. Results: The majority of PCPs (76%) reported involvement in long-term surveillance. Adjusted odds of PCPs reporting involvement was greater among PCPs who somewhat/strongly believed that PCPs have the skills necessary to provide survivorship care (OR 4.33; 95% CI 1.38-15.37), and PCPs who noted clinical guidelines as being the most influential in guiding treatment (OR 4.48; 95% CI 1.67-13.07). PCP reports of high confidence in handling the four aspects of survivorship care were consistently less than 50%: when to refer patient to specialist (40%), role of neck ultrasound (36%), role of random thyroglobulin levels (27%), and when to end long-term surveillance (14%). PCPs who reported involvement in long-term surveillance were more likely to report high confidence in discussing the role of random thyroglobulin levels (33.3% vs. 7.9% for those not involved, p &lt; 0.01) but not the other aspects of survivorship care. Conclusions: Though many PCPs reported they were involved in thyroid cancer long-term surveillance, gaps remain in their confidence in handling several aspects of thyroid cancer survivorship care. Guidelines were noted as important in influencing management; therefore, developing guidelines that specifically delineate PCP roles in thyroid cancer survivorship may present one opportunity to increase PCPs’ confidence about their participation.

Primary Care Providers in California and Florida Report Low Confidence in Providing Type 1 Diabetes Care.

People with type 1 diabetes may receive a significant portion of their care from primary care providers (PCPs). To understand the involvement of PCPs in delivering type 1 diabetes care, we performed surveys in California and Florida, two of the most populous and diverse states in the United States. PCPs fill insulin prescriptions but report low confidence in providing type 1 diabetes care and difficulty accessing specialty referrals to endocrinologists.

Epilepsy knowledge, attitudes, and practices among primary healthcare providers in an Indian district

IntroductionScaling up the involvement of primary care providers in epilepsy management in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires an understanding of their epilepsy knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP). AimThe aim of the study was to document levels of knowledge about, attitudes towards, and practices regarding epilepsy among different ranks of primary healthcare providers in a North-Western Indian district. MethodsThe survey included government medical officers (MOs), auxiliary nurse midwives (ANMs), and accredited social health activists (ASHAs). They were administered a specially designed KAP questionnaire. Responses were analyzed according to rank. ResultsThe survey showed that nearly 10% of ANMs and almost a fifth of ASHAs had never heard about epilepsy. A quarter of MOs and over two-thirds of ANMs and ASHAs had never provided care to someone with epilepsy. There were significant differences in the levels of knowledge between the three groups of workers. ConclusionsClosing the huge gaps in KAP by educating primary care and community health workers about epilepsy should be a priority before engaging them in the epilepsy care delivery.