Dataset Information

"Patient Lost to Follow-up": Opportunities and Challenges in Delivering Primary Care in Academic Medical Centers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Academic health centers (AHCs) face unique challenges in providing continuity to a medically and socially complex patient population. Little is known about what drives patient loss in these settings.

Objective

Determine physician- and patient-based factors associated with patient loss in AHCs.

Design

Retrospective cohort study, embedded qualitative analysis.

Setting

Academic health center.

Participants

All visits from 7/1/2014 to 6/30/2019; 89 physicians (51%) participated in a qualitative analysis.

Measures

Physician-based factors (gender, years of service, hours of practice per week, trainee status, and departure during the study period) and patient-based factors (age, gender, race, limited English proficiency, public health insurance, chronic illness burden, and severe psychiatric illness burden) and their association with patient loss to follow-up, defined as a lapse in provider visit greater than 3 years.

Results

We identified 402,415 visits for 41,876 distinct patients. A total of 9332 (22.3%) patients were lost to follow-up. Patient factors associated with loss to follow-up included patient age < 40 (HR 3.12 (2.94-3.33)), identification as non-white (HR 1.07 (1.10-1.13)), limited English proficiency (HR 1.18 (1.04-1.33)), and use of public insurance (HR 1.12 (1.04-1.21)). Provider factors associated with patient loss included trainee status (HR 3.74 (2.43-5.75)) and having recently departed from the practice (HR 1.98, 1.66-2.35). Structured interviews with clinical providers revealed unfavorable relationships with providers and staff (35%), inconvenience accessing primary care (23%), unreliable health insurance (18%), difficulty accessing one's primary care provider (14%), and patient/provider transitions (10%) as reasons for patient loss.

Conclusions

Younger patient age, markers of social vulnerability, and physician transiency are associated with patient loss at AHCs, providing targets to improve continuity of care within these settings.

SUBMITTER: Amat M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9411305 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Patient Lost to Follow-up": Opportunities and Challenges in Delivering Primary Care in Academic Medical Centers.

Amat Maelys M Duralde Erin E Masutani Rebecca R Glassman Rebecca R Shen Changyu C Graham Kelly L KL

Journal of general internal medicine 20220128 11

<h4>Background</h4>Academic health centers (AHCs) face unique challenges in providing continuity to a medically and socially complex patient population. Little is known about what drives patient loss in these settings.<h4>Objective</h4>Determine physician- and patient-based factors associated with patient loss in AHCs.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort study, embedded qualitative analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Academic health center.<h4>Participants</h4>All visits from 7/1/2014 to 6/30/2019; 89 physi ...[more]

PMID: 35091918

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of event notification service (ENS) alerts on health care delivery processes and outcomes for older adults.Materials and methodsWe deployed ENS alerts in 2 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers using regional health information exchange (HIE) networks from March 2016 to December 2019. Alerts targeted VA-based primary care teams when older patients (aged 65+ years) were hospitalized or attended emergency departments (ED) outside the VA system. We employed a concurrent cohort study to compare postdischarge outcomes between patients whose providers received ENS alerts and those that did not (usual care). Outcome measures included: timely follow-up postdischarge (actual phone call within 7 days or an in-person primary care visit within 30 days) and all-cause inpatient or ED readmission within 30 days. Generalized linear mixed models, accounting for clustering by primary care team, were used to compare outcomes between groups.ResultsCompared to usual care, veterans whose primary care team received notification of non-VA acute care encounters were 4 times more likely to have phone contact within 7 days (AOR = 4.10, P < .001) and 2 times more likely to have an in-person visit within 30 days (AOR = 1.98, P = .007). There were no significant differences between groups in hospital or ED utilization within 30 days of index discharge (P = .057).DiscussionENS was associated with increased timely follow-up following non-VA acute care events, but there was no associated change in 30-day readmission rates. Optimization of ENS processes may be required to scale use and impact across health systems.ConclusionGiven the importance of ENS to the VA and other health systems, this study provides guidance for future research on ENS for improving care coordination and population outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02689076. "Regional Data Exchange to Improve Care for Veterans After Non-VA Hospitalization." Registered February 23, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundAmbulatory access to academic medical centers (AMCs) for patients insured with Medi-Cal (i.e., Medicaid in California) is understudied, particularly among the 85% of beneficiaries enrolled in managed care plans. As more AMCs develop partnerships with these plans, data on patient experiences of access to care and quality are needed to guide patient-centered improvements in care delivery.MethodsThe authors conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with Medi-Cal-insured patients with initial visits at a large, urban AMC during 2022. Participant recruitment was informed by a database of ambulatory Medi-Cal encounters. The interview guide covered Medi-Cal enrollment, scheduling, and visit experience. Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded, then organized into themes across four domains: access, affordability, patient-provider interactions, and continuity.ResultsTwenty participant interviews were completed (55% female, 85% English speaking, 80% self-identified minority or "other" race, and 30% Hispanic or Latino) with primary and/or specialty care visits. Within the access domain, participants reported delays with Medi-Cal enrollment and access to specialist care or testing, though appointment scheduling was reported to be easy. Affordability concerns included out-of-pocket medical and parking costs, and missed income when patients or families skipped work to facilitate care coordination. Participants considered clear, bilateral communication with providers fundamental to positive patient-provider interactions. Some participants perceived discrimination by providers based on their insurance status. Participants valued continuity, but experienced frustration arising from frequent and unexpected health plan changes that disrupted care with their established AMC providers.ConclusionsThe missions of AMCs typically focus on clinical care, education, research, and equity. However, reports from Medi-Cal insured patients receiving care at AMCs highlight their stress and confusion related to inconsistent provider access, uncompensated costs, variability in perceptions of quality, and fragmented care. Recommendations based upon patient-reported concerns suggest opportunities for AMC health system-level improvements that are compatible with AMC missions.

Project description:Long-term outcome studies are frequently hindered by a decreasing frequency of patient follow-up with the treating surgeon over time. Whether this attrition represents a "loss of faith" in their index surgeon or the realities of a geographically mobile society has never been assessed in a population of patients undergoing spinal surgery. The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone prior surgery and develop new problems attempt to follow-up with their index spine surgeon. The study design was a population survey. All patients seen at two university-based spine centers over a 3-month period were surveyed regarding prior spine surgery. The questionnaire asked details of the previous operation, whether the patient had sought follow-up with their index surgeon, why the patient did not continue treatment with that surgeon, and whether the patient was satisfied with their prior treatment. Sixty-nine patients completed the survey. Prior operations were lumbar (53 patients) and cervical (16). When asked the reason for not seeing their prior surgeon, 10 patients (15%) stated that they (the patient) had moved and 16 (23%) responded that their surgeon no longer practiced in the area. Thirteen (19%) were unhappy with their previous care, 22 (32%) were seeking a second opinion, and 7 (10%) were told they needed more complex surgery. Thirty-seven (54%) discussed their symptoms with their original surgeon before seeking another surgeon. Although 32 patients (46%) had not discussed their new complaints with their index surgeon, only 3 patients (4%) chose not to return to their prior surgeon despite having the opportunity to do so. Forty-nine patients (71%) were satisfied with their prior surgical care, and 42 patients (61%) would undergo the index operation again. Most of the patients seen at the authors' practices after undergoing prior spine surgery elsewhere failed to follow up with their prior spine surgeon for geographical reasons. It appears that the majority of patients who develop new spinal complaints will seek out their treating surgeon when possible. This suggests that patient attrition over long-term follow-up may reflect a geographically mobile population rather than patient dissatisfaction with prior treatment.

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Project description:BackgroundIncomplete ascertainment of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is likely to bias final study results if reasons for unavailability of patient data are associated with the outcome of interest. The primary objective of this study is to assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect. The secondary objectives are to describe, for published RCTs, (1) the reporting of loss to follow-up information, (2) the analytic methods used for handling loss to follow-up information, and (3) the extent of reported loss to follow-up.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of reports of RCTs recently published in five top general medical journals. Eligible RCTs will demonstrate statistically significant effect estimates with respect to primary outcomes that are patient-important and expressed as binary data. Teams of 2 reviewers will independently determine eligibility and extract relevant information from each eligible trial using standardized, pre-piloted forms. To assess the potential impact of loss to follow-up on the estimates of treatment effect we will, for varying assumptions about the outcomes of participants lost to follow-up (LTFU), calculate (1) the percentage of RCTs that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change in effect estimate across RCTs. The different assumptions we will test are the following: (1) none of the LTFU participants had the event; (2) all LTFU participants had the event; (3) all LTFU participants in the treatment group had the event; none of those in the control group had it (worst case scenario); (4) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased, with a higher relative increase in the intervention group; and (5) the event incidence among LTFU participants (relative to observed participants) increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group.DiscussionWe aim to make our objectives and methods transparent. The results of this study may have important implications for both clinical trialists and users of the medical literature.

Dataset Information

"Patient Lost to Follow-up": Opportunities and Challenges in Delivering Primary Care in Academic Medical Centers.

Background

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

"Patient Lost to Follow-up": Opportunities and Challenges in Delivering Primary Care in Academic Medical Centers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets