Sample Of Primary Care Providers Research Articles

Construct Validity Testing of the Provider Co-Management Index to Measure Shared Care in Provider Dyads.

Co-management encompasses the dyadic process between two healthcare providers. The Provider Co-Management Index (PCMI) was initially developed as a 20-item instrument across three theory-informed subscales. This study aimed to establish construct validity of the PCMI with a sample of primary care providers through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants randomly selected from the IQVIA database across New York State. Mail surveys were used to acquire a minimum of 300 responses for split sample factor analyses. The first subsample (derivation sample) was used to explore factorial structure by conducting an exploratory factor analysis. A second (validation) sample was used to confirm the emerged factorial structure using confirmatory factor analysis. We performed iterative analysis and calculated good fit indices to determine the best-fit model. There were 333 responses included in the analysis. Cronbach's alpha was high for a three-item per dimension scale within a one-factor model. The instrument was named PCMI-9 to indicate the shorter version length. This study established the construct validity of an instrument that scales the co-management of patients by two providers. The final instrument includes nine items on a single factor using a 4-point, Likert-type scale. Additional research is needed to establish discriminant validity.

Implementation Facilitators and Barriers for Primary Care Providers Prescribing Daily Oral PrEP to Adolescents in the United States.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are critical in prescribing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to adolescents at risk of HIV. More research is needed to identify facilitators and barriers PCPs encounter in prescribing PrEP to eligible adolescents post-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. This online cross-sectional survey examined the PrEP implementation facilitators and barriers among a national sample of PCPs in the United States. PCPs (n = 502) specializing in family medicine or pediatrics were recruited from a Qualtrics panel from July 15 to August 9, 2022. We analyzed the collected data using content analysis and applied the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to codebook creation and data analysis. We conducted a Fisher's exact chi-square test of independence to compare facilitator and barrier prevalence differences between participants who had and had not prescribed PrEP to an adolescent patient. Results demonstrate that (1) distributing prescriber-focused educational materials, (2) involving parents, (3) changing liability laws, (4) enhancing adolescent PrEP uptake and adherence, (5) changing clinical resources, and (6) using mass/social media to change community norms might be strategies that influence PCPs prescribing PrEP to eligible adolescent patients. Results from this study could facilitate the planning of hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials designed to determine the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of implementation strategies in improving the practices of PCPs prescribing PrEP to at-risk adolescents.

Primary care provider attitudes about and tendency to use non-recommended surveillance tests after curative breast cancer treatment.

Little is known about the factors contributing to the receipt of non-recommended surveillance testing among early-stage breast cancer survivors. We assessed primary care providers (PCP) attitudes about and tendency to order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors post-adjuvant chemotherapy. A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by early-stage breast cancer survivors were surveyed (N = 518, 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how likely they would be to order bone scans, imaging and/or tumor marker testing using a clinical vignette of an early-stage asymptomatic patient where these tests are non-recommended. A composite tendency to order score was created and categorized by tertiles (low, moderate, high). PCP-reported factors associated with high and moderate tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) were estimated using multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. In this sample, 26% reported a high tendency to order non-recommended surveillance tests during survivorship for early-stage breast cancer survivors. PCPs who identified as family practice physicians and PCPs reporting more confidence in ordering surveillance testing were more likely to report a high tendency to order non-recommended testing (vs. low) ((aOR family practice 2.09, CI 1.2, 3.8; aOR more confidence 1.9, CI 1.1, 3.3). In this population-based sample of PCPs caring for breast cancer survivors, over a quarter of PCPs reported they would order non-recommended surveillance testing for asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer survivors. Efforts to better support PCPs and disseminate information about appropriate surveillance for cancer survivors are warranted.

Development and implementation of a continuing medical education program on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for primary care practitioners in Europe.

Primary care has a crucial role to play in the prevention, early detection, referral, and risk factor management of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH). In 2021, a team of European collaborators developed a continuing medical education (CME) program on NAFLD/NASH that consolidates evidence and clinical best practices tailored to the primary care setting. This article reports on the methodology used to design and develop the CME and the results of a feasibility study. An expert advisory group representing both European specialists and general practitioners supported the design of the CME to be implemented in three European settings (Greece, Spain, and Netherlands). The CME features four training modules and problem-based learning using clinical case studies. The CME was tested regarding feasibility and acceptability among a sample of primary care providers (PCPs) in Greece (n = 28) with measurements occurring before, immediately after, and 1 month following the training. Outcome measures included satisfaction with the CME, changes in PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, confidence, and self-reported clinical practices related to NAFLD/NASH. The CME is available as an open-access e-learning course on the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology education platform in English, Greek, Spanish, and Dutch. The feasibility study documented high levels of satisfaction, with 96% of PCPs reporting they were extremely or very satisfied with the overall training. Statistically significant increases in PCPs' confidence in NAFLD/NASH-related clinical practices were documented between the pre- and post-assessments. At the follow-up, 62% of GPs reported that the CME had changed their clinical practices related to NAFLD/NASH to a great extent. This CME intervention developed by experts and tailored to PCPs in European settings may serve as an asset for increasing knowledge, confidence, and practice behaviors related to NAFLD/NASH.

Barriers to BRCA, HRD, and HRRm testing despite increased utilization: U.S. physician survey results.

380 Background: Despite increasing use of breast cancer (BRCA) gene and homologous recombination deficiency/ homologous recombination repair gene mutation(s) (HRD/HRRm) testing, barriers to uniform adoption of these tests to inform patient management remain. The purpose of this study was to identify potential barriers to BRCA, HRD, and HRRm testing from the physician’s perspective. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was sent to a US representative sample of primary care providers, medical oncologists, urologists, and surgeons, including both users and non-users of the tests. Physician demographics, practice characteristics, barriers (reimbursement, knowledge, logistical), and strategies to alleviate barriers were collected. Descriptive analysis was conducted via SASv9.4. Results: Three hundred physicians participated in this survey (49.7 years of age and 17.9 years in clinical practice on average). Most respondents (94.3%) reported at least 1 barrier to test use (BRCA 94.0%, HRD 91.3%, HRRm 90.3%). The most common barrier was the challenge in obtaining prior authorizations (BRCA 74.0%, HRD 80.0%, HRRm 83.5%). Other commonly reported barriers included test not being covered by insurance (BRCA 64.8%, HRD 61.8%, HRRm 67.6%), insurance policies restricting certain genomic tests to a particular lab/test provider (BRCA 64.0%, HRD 66.5%, HRRm 67.4%), and unclear/inconsistent payer policies for test coverage (BRCA 63.6%, HRD 63.6%, HRRm 66.7%). Physicians were more likely to report barriers to HRD/HRRm testing compared to BRCA testing. More reimbursement-related barriers were reported by primary care providers vs. other physicians. Physician/patient education, collaboration with specialists, standardization in test guidelines, and improvement in test interpretation were reported as key strategies to improving further test adoption in patient management. Conclusions: The results highlight that physicians have concerns about reimbursement-related, knowledge-related, and logistical barriers that may impact clinical optimization. Addressing these barriers to improve oncology care is of utmost importance.[Table: see text]

Developing the Patient Falls Risk Report: A Mixed-Methods Study on Sharing Falls-Related Clinical Information from Home Care with Primary Care Providers.

If interRAI home care information were shared with primary care providers, care provision and integration could be enhanced. The objective of this study was to co-develop an interRAI-based clinical information sharing tool (i.e., the Patient Falls Risk Report) with a sample of primary care providers. This mixed-methods study employed semi-structured interviews to inform the development of the Patient Falls Risk Report and online surveys based on the System Usability Scale instrument to test its usability. Most of the interview sample (n = 9) believed that the report could support patient care by sharing relevant and actionable falls-related information. However, criticisms were identified, including insufficient detail, clarity, and support for shared care planning. After incorporating suggestions for improvement, the survey sample (n = 27) determined that the report had excellent usability with an overall usability score of 83.4 (95% CI = 78.7-88.2). By prioritizing the needs of end-users, sustainable interRAI interventions can be developed to support primary care.

Patient and provider experiences with virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods study

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted the rapid uptake of Virtual Care (VC). Positive patient outcomes with VC are previously reported but little is known about the experiences of patients and providers using VC during the pandemic. We aimed to describe patient and primary care provider experiences, satisfaction, perceptions, and attitudes to VC during the COVID-19 pandemic that might explain adoption of VC across the continuum of care and inform sustained uptake. We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed methods study using online surveys and virtual interviews with a convenience sample of primary care providers and patients in a Canadian province (July – December 2020). Eligible participants included patients and primary care providers using VC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey responses and interviews were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. Overall satisfaction was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Eighty-five patients and 94 primary care providers responded to the surveys. Patients reported higher overall satisfaction with VC than primary care providers (median [interquartile range]: 4.4 [4.0-4.7] and 3.7 [3.4-3.9] p < 0.001). Ten patients and 11 primary care providers were interviewed. Both groups strongly appreciated VC’s increased access and convenience, identified the lack of compensation as a pre-pandemic barrier to providing VC, and reported willingness to continue VC post-COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for patients and primary care providers to rapidly adopt VC with high satisfaction. Patients and primary care providers viewed VC positively due to its convenience and accessibility; both intend to continue using VC post-pandemic.

Barriers to routine checkups use among Saudis from the perspective of primary care providers: A qualitative study.

Objectives:To explore the perspectives of primary care providers (PCPs) on the low use of and barriers to routine checkups among Saudi adults.Methods:A qualitative phenomenological study design was used. Interviews were carried out between (December 2020 and February 2021) with 19 PCPs working at 5 primary healthcare centers (PHCs) operated by the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Descriptive statistics were performed to characterize participants, and a directed content analysis was carried out to examine major themes.Results:Primary care providers identified a number of barriers that contributed to a low uptake of routine checkup among Saudis. These barriers to routine checkups were classified into 3 main themes: patient-related barriers, provider-related barriers, and healthcare system-related barriers. Lack of knowledge of patients, crowdedness at PHCs, and busy staff at PHCs were the most frequently mentioned barriers that hamper the use of routine checkups.Conclusion:This study presented new insight into the low use of routine checkups by obtaining the perspective of PCPs. Although results point to potential targets for interventions to increase routine checkups, additional research is recommended with a representative sample of PCPs randomly selected from the healthcare system to inform future policy and decision making related to improving use of routine care available through the Saudi Healthcare System.

S0149 Clostridioides difficile Infection Trends in a Health System During COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile Infection (CDI) is a common nosocomial infection with significant disease burden. From 2011 to 2017, a decline in nosocomial spread with stable community spread of CDI was observed. With the current coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, many healthcare systems noted dramatic shifts in hospital census along with changes in infection control. We conducted a retrospective single-center study to determine whether changes in hospital census and infection control during Covid-19 affected rates of CDI. METHODS: Monthly inpatient admissions and outpatient visits from 11/1/2019 through 5/31/2020 were obtained from University of Virginia health analytics database. We included all patients who had Clostridioides difficile PCR, noting the PCR result and the setting from which it was obtained. Rates of CDI during preCovid-19 (11/1/2019–2/31/2020) and postCovid-19 (3/1–5/31/2020) periods were compared. A sample of primary care providers (PCPs) were surveyed regarding empiric CDI prescribing habits to determine if empiric treatment was offered in lieu of testing during COVID-19. RESULTS: Our institution had a decline in hospital census in the postCovid-19 period (Tables 1 and 2). In the inpatient setting, the number of positive CDI tests decreased postCovid-19 (mean = 10) compared to preCovid-19 (mean = 19) (P = 0.007) (Figure 1). The proportion of positive CDI tests over monthly admissions decreased in the postCovid-19 period (P = 0.04). After controlling for age and gender, logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of testing positive for CDI decreased postCovid-19 (OR = 0.62, CI = 0.39–0.98). In the outpatient setting, the number of positive CDI tests per month was unchanged preCovid-19 (mean = 8.25) compared to postCovid-19 (mean = 7.67) (P = 0.83). A physician survey (n = 13) showed that 1 out of 13 PCPs empirically prescribed antibiotics for CDI during Covid-19. CONCLUSION: There was a significant decrease in number and proportion of inpatient CDI during Covid-19 while outpatient CDI rates remained stable. The majority of surveyed PCPs did not prescribe empiric treatment for CDI. Reasons for inpatient CDI downtrend may include decrease in elective procedures/admissions that pose risk for CDI or heightened awareness of infection control best-practices due to Covid-19. Further research is necessary to evaluate CDI trends as hospital census fluctuates and to assess outcomes of Covid19 infection control policy changes on CDI and other healthcare infections.Table 1.: Inpatient Summary DataTable 2.: Outpatient Summary DataFigure 1.: CDI Testing Results by Month.

PCP Opinions of Universal Suicide Risk Screening in Rural Primary Care: Current Challenges and Strategies for Successful Implementation.

Universal suicide risk screening has the potential to address the disproportionately high rates of suicide in the rural United States, as 83% of people who have died by suicide have visited a health care provider in the year prior to their deaths, and rural patients are more likely to visit medical professionals than behavioral health professionals for mental health concerns. This study describes the opinions of primary care providers (PCPs) practicing in a primarily rural state regarding universal suicide risk screening, barriers to implementation, and strategies to increase the feasibility of screening in their practices. In-depth, individual semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with a sample of PCPs practicing in West Virginia (N = 15). Applied thematic analysis of the data was completed by a team of 3 coders using a consensus-coding methodology. The majority of PCPs supported the practice of screening, but they identified multiple barriers, including a lack of access to mental health and crisis support services, concerns about clinic flow and follow-up with suicidal patients, cultural beliefs specific to rural Appalachia, and provider discomfort with screening. Strategies suggested to address these barriers included the use of technology for screening, a multidisciplinary team approach, streamlined methods for screening and risk assessment, co-located behavioral health, and additional trainings for PCPs on the topic of suicide. Future research should examine the efficacy of universal suicide risk screening programs in rural adult primary care that utilize these strategies in diverse samples with longitudinal data.

Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): A cluster randomized trial of a computerized clinical decision support tool

BackgroundClinical decision support (CDS) tools designed to digest, filter, organize, and present health data are becoming essential in providing clinical and cost-effective care. Many are not rigorously evaluated for benefit before implementation. We assessed whether computerized CDS for primary care providers would improve atrial fibrillation (AF) management and outcomes as compared to usual care. MethodsOverall, 203 primary care providers were recruited, randomized, and then cluster stratified by location (urban, rural) to usual care (n = 99) or CDS (n = 104). Providers recruited 1,145 adult patients with AF to participate. The intervention was access to an evidenced-based, point-of-care computerized CDS designed to support guideline-based AF management. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of unplanned cardiovascular hospitalizations and AF-related emergency department visits; the primary safety outcome was major bleeding, both over 1 year. Patients were the units of intention-to-treat analysis. ResultsNo significant effects on the primary efficacy (130 control, 118 CDS, hazard ratio: 0.98 [95% CI 0.71-1.37], P = .926) or safety (n = 7 usual care, n = 8 CDS, 1.3% total, P = .939) outcomes were observed at 12-months. ConclusionsIMPACT-AF rigorously assessed a CDS tool in a highly representative sample of primary care providers and their patients; however, no impact on outcomes was observed. Considering the proliferating use of CDS applications, this study highlights the need for efficacy assessments prior to adoption and clinical implementation.

De-implementing Inhaled Corticosteroids to Improve Care and Safety in COPD Treatment: Primary Care Providers' Perspectives.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is among the most common medical diagnoses among Veterans. More than 50% of Veterans diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COPD are prescribed inhaled corticosteroids despite recommendations for use restricted to patients with frequent exacerbations. We explored primary care providers' experiences prescribing inhaled corticosteroids among patients with mild-to-moderate COPD as part of a quality improvement initiative. We used a sequential mixed-methods evaluation approach to understand factors influencing primary care providers' inhaled corticosteroid prescribing for patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. Participants were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews and structured surveys. We used a purposive sample of primary care providers from 13 primary care clinics affiliated with two urban Veteran Health Administration healthcare systems. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. Qualitative findings informed a subsequent survey. Surveys were administered through REDCap and analyzed descriptively. Key qualitative and quantitative findings were compared. Participants reported they were unaware of current evidence and recommendations for prescribing inhaled corticosteroids; for example, 46% of providers reported they were unaware of risks of pneumonia. Providers reported they are generally unable to keep up with the current literature due to the broad scope of primary care practice. We also found primary care providers may be reluctant to change inherited prescriptions, even if they thought inhaled corticosteroid therapy might not be appropriate. Inhaled corticosteroid prescribing in this patient population is partly due to primary care providers' lack of knowledge about the potential harms and availability of alternative therapies. Our findings suggest that efforts to expand access by increasing the number of prescribing providers a patient potentially sees could make it more difficult to de-implement harmful prescriptions. Our findings also corroborate prior findings that awareness of current evidence-based guidelines is likely an important part of medical overuse.

HIV-Related Training and Correlates of Knowledge, HIV Screening and Prescribing of nPEP and PrEP Among Primary Care Providers in Southeast United States, 2017.

The Southeast accounted for most HIV diagnoses (52%) in the United States in 2015. Primary care providers (PCPs) play a vital role in HIV prevention for at-risk persons and treatment of persons living with HIV. We studied HIV-related training, knowledge, and clinical practices among PCPs in the Southeast to address knowledge gaps to inform HIV prevention strategies. Between April and August 2017, we conducted an on-line survey of a representative sample of PCPs in six Southeast jurisdictions with high rates of HIV diagnoses (Atlanta; Baltimore; Baton Rouge; District of Columbia; Miami; New Orleans). We defined HIV-related training as self-reported completion of any certified HIV/STD course or continuing education in past 24months (prior to survey completion). We assessed associations between training and HIV testing practices, familiarity with nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and ever prescribing nPEP or PrEP. There were 820 participants after fielding 4595 surveys (29.6% adjusted response rate). In weighted analyses, 36.3% reported HIV-related training. Using adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) and confidence intervals (CI), we found that PCPs with HIV-related training (compared to those with no training) were more likely to be familiar with nPEP (aPR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.05, 1.67) and PrEP (aPR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.19, 2.38); and to have ever prescribed PrEP to patients (aPR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.10, 2.78). Increased HIV-related trainings among PCPs in high HIV prevalence Southeast jurisdictions may be warranted. Strengthening nPEP and PrEP familiarity among PCPs in Southeast may advance national HIV prevention goals.

Primary care provider-reported involvement in breast cancer treatment decisions.

Treatment decisions for patients with early-stage breast cancer often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, the extent to which primary care providers (PCPs) are involved in initial treatment decisions remains unknown. A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed patients with early-stage breast cancer from the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were surveyed (n=517; a 61% response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy options with patients; how comfortable they were with these discussions; whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in decision making; and what their confidence was in their ability to help (on 5-item Likert-type scales). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify PCP-reported attitudes associated with more PCP participation in each treatment decision. In this sample, 34% of PCPs reported that they discussed surgery, 23% discussed radiation, and 22% discussed chemotherapy options with their patients. Of those who reported more involvement in surgical decisions, 22% reported that they were not comfortable having a discussion, and 17% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making. PCPs who positively appraised their ability to participate were more likely to participate in all 3 decisions (odds ratio [OR] for surgery, 6.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-8.68; OR for radiation, 8.37; 95% CI, 5.16-13.58; OR for chemotherapy, 6.56; 95% CI, 4.23-10.17). A third of PCPs reported participating in breast cancer treatment decisions, yet gaps in their knowledge about decision making and in their confidence in their ability to help exist. Efforts to increase PCPs' knowledge about breast cancer treatment options may be warranted.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.

Addressing Patients' Veteran Status: Primary Care Providers' Knowledge, Comfort, and Educational Needs.

The military population is frequently overlooked in civilian primary care due to an assumption that they are treated at the Veterans Health Administration (VA). However, less than 50% of eligible veterans receive VA treatment. Primary care providers (PCPs) may need support in addressing veterans' needs. This regional pilot study explored the current state of practice among primary care providers as it pertains to assessing patients' veteran status and their knowledge of and comfort with treating common conditions in this population. An electronic survey was administered to PCPs (N=102) in Western New York. Survey questions asked about assessing military status, understanding of military-related health problems, and thoughts on the priority of addressing these issues in practice. Data were analyzed using descriptive summary statistics. The majority (56%; n=54) of respondents indicated they never or rarely ask their patients about military service, and only 19% (n=18) said they often or always ask. Seventy-one percent (n=68) of providers agreed or strongly agreed it was important to know if their patient was a veteran. Participants indicated limited knowledge about military stressors, resources available for military populations, and common medical conditions impacting veterans. Our pilot results demonstrate that in a regional sample of primary care providers, providers rarely ask patients about their military history; however, they feel it is important information for patient care. While further study is needed, it may be necessary to provide education, specifically pertaining to military culture and health-related sequelae, to address barriers that may be limiting PCPs' provision of care for this population.

Primary care provider-reported participation in breast cancer treatment decision making.

78 Background: Surgical treatment decisions for early-stage breast cancer patients are complex and often involve discussions with multiple oncology providers. However, with the increasing adoption of team-based cancer care models, it remains unknown to what extent primary care providers (PCPs) are participating in breast cancer treatment decisions and whether they feel they have enough knowledge to participate in these decisions effectively. Methods: A stratified random sample of PCPs identified by newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer patients who participated in iCanCare Study (Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries) were surveyed about their experiences caring for cancer patients (N = 519, 58% current response rate). PCPs were asked how frequently they discussed which surgery a patient should have, how comfortable they were with these discussions, whether they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision making and their confidence in their ability to help with treatment decision making (5-item likert-type scales). The individual items were then categorized as somewhat/often/always vs. never/rarely for analyses. Results: In this preliminary sample, 62% of PCPs were not comfortable having a discussion about surgery options with a patient newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 41% did not feel that they had the necessary knowledge to participate in treatment decision-making, and 34% were not confident in the ability to help with treatment decision-making. One third (32%) of PCPs reported discussing surgical treatment options with their newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, but 22% of these PCPs also reported that they were not comfortable having these discussions and 16% reported they did not have necessary knowledge to participate in decision-making. Conclusions: A minority of PCPs participate in breast cancer treatment decision-making and there are notable gaps in their self-reported knowledge about decision-making and confidence in their ability to help with these decisions. Efforts to increase PCP knowledge about the specifics of cancer treatments may be warranted, but further research is needed to assess the impact of PCP participation on treatment decision-making outcomes.

Addressing the Social Needs of Hypertensive Patients: The Role of Patient-Provider Communication as a Predictor of Medication Adherence.

Poor medication adherence is a pervasive problem in patients with hypertension. Despite research documenting an association between patient-provider communication and medication adherence, there are no empirical data on how the informational and relational aspects of communication affect patient's actual medication-taking behaviors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of patient-provider communication on medication adherence among a sample of primary care providers and their black and white hypertensive patients. Cohort study included 92 hypertensive patients and 27 providers in 3 safety-net primary care practices in New York City. Patient-provider encounters were audiotaped at baseline and coded using the Medical Interaction Process System. Medication adherence data were collected continuously during the 3-month study with an electronic monitoring device. The majority of patients were black, 58% women, and most were seeing the same provider for at least 1 year. Approximately half of providers were white (56%), 67% women, and have been in practice for an average of 5.8 years. Fifty-eight percent of patients exhibited poor adherence to prescribed antihypertensive medications. Three categories of patient-provider communication predicted poor medication adherence: lower patient centeredness (odds ratio: 3.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-9.12), less discussion about patients' sociodemographic circumstances (living situation, relationship with partner; odds ratio: 6.03; 95% confidence interval: 2.15-17), and about their antihypertensive medications (odds ratio: 6.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.83-23.0). The effect of having less discussion about patients' sociodemographic circumstances on medication adherence was heightened in black patients (odds ratio: 8.01; 95% confidence interval: 2.80-22.9). The odds of poor medication adherence are greater when patient-provider interactions are low in patient centeredness and do not address patients' sociodemographic circumstances or their medication regimen.

Using the Virtual Patient to Improve the Primary Care of Traumatized Refugees

Background: Refugees who have experienced traumatic life experiences have entered into the United States’ primary health care system. Primary care providers (PCPs) have limited training in their di ...

Changes in Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Pain in Washington State

To conduct a survey of primary care physicians and advanced registered nurse practitioners (ARNPs) in Washington State (WA) focused on changes in practice patterns and use of support tools in the prescription of opioids for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). A convenience sample of primary care providers in WA was obtained from diverse geographic regions and health care organizations. The web-based anonymous survey was conducted in March-August 2011. Among 856 provider respondents, 623 reported treating patients with CNCP and served as the analysis sample. Most providers (72%) reported concern about opioid overdose, addiction, dependence, or diversion. Only 25% indicated concern about regulatory scrutiny. Only a small proportion of providers overall (3.3%) reported that they had stopped prescribing opioids for CNCP, but twice as many ARNPs (5.8%) as physicians (MDs and osteopaths) (2.1%) reported this. A greater proportion of physicians (70.9%) than ARNPs (40.1%) reported familiarity with the Washington State opioid dosing guidelines. Physicians in a large health plan with substantial infrastructure support reported less concern about opioids compared with providers in other settings. Of providers in Spokane (the largest city in Eastern Washington), 45% reported very low capacity to access pain specialty consultation. The vast majority of providers reported a need to access more efficient, innovative means of support and education related to treating patients with CNCP, such as telemedicine consultation. Overall, prescribing providers in WA reported ongoing concerns regarding opioid use for CNCP, but those affiliated with a health care organization with opioid prescribing guidelines and access to pain consultation were less likely to report being concerned about opioid-related problems or to have discontinued prescribing opioids.