Dataset Information

Patient clustering in primary care settings: Outcomes and quality of care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether neighbours who share the same family physicians have better cardiovascular and health care outcomes.

Design

Retrospective cohort study using administrative health databases.

Setting

Ontario.

Participants

The study population included 2,690,482 adult patients cared for by 1710 family physicians.

Interventions

Adult residents of Ontario were linked to their family physicians and the geographic distance between patients in the same panel or list was calculated. Using distance between patients within a panel to stratify physicians into quintiles of panel proximity, physicians and patients from close-proximity practices were compared with those from more-distant-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized incidence rates and hazard ratios from cause-specific hazards regression models were determined.

Main outcome measures

The occurrence of a major cardiovascular event during a 5-year follow-up period (2008 to 2012).

Results

Patients of panels in the closest-proximity quintile lived an average of 3.9 km from the 10 closest patients in their panel compared with 12.4 km for the 10 closest patients of panels in the distant-proximity quintile. After adjusting for various patient and physician characteristics, patients in the most-distant-proximity practices had a 24% higher rate of cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio=1.24 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.28], P<.001) than patients in the closest-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized all-cause mortality and total per patient health care costs were also lowest in the closest-proximity quintile. In sensitivity analyses restricted to large urban communities and to White long-term residents, results were similar.

Conclusion

The better cardiovascular outcomes observed in close-proximity panels may be related to a previously unrecognized mechanism of social connectedness that extends the effectiveness of primary care practitioners.

SUBMITTER: Hogg W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9470188 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient clustering in primary care settings: Outcomes and quality of care.

Hogg William W Kotb Ahmed A Chu Anna A Gozdyra Peter P Sivaswamy Atul A Fang Jiming J Kendall Claire E CE Tu Jack J

Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 20220901 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether neighbours who share the same family physicians have better cardiovascular and health care outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort study using administrative health databases.<h4>Setting</h4>Ontario.<h4>Participants</h4>The study population included 2,690,482 adult patients cared for by 1710 family physicians.<h4>Interventions</h4>Adult residents of Ontario were linked to their family physicians and the geographic distance between patients in the same ...[more]

PMID: 36100388

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMore than 1 million Americans receive primary care from federal homeless health care programs yearly. Vulnerabilities that can make care challenging include pain, addiction, psychological distress, and a lack of shelter. Research on the effectiveness of tailoring services for this population is limited.ObjectiveThe aim was to examine whether homeless-tailored primary care programs offer a superior patient experience compared with nontailored ("mainstream") programs overall, and for highly vulnerable patients.Research designNational patient survey comparing 26 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers' homeless-tailored primary care ("H-PACT"s) to mainstream primary care ("mainstream PACT"s) at the same locations.ParticipantsA total of 5766 homeless-experienced veterans.MeasuresPrimary care experience on 4 scales: Patient-Clinician Relationship, Cooperation, Accessibility/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs. Mean scores (range: 1-4) were calculated and dichotomized as unfavorable versus not. We counted key vulnerabilities (chronic pain, unsheltered homelessness, severe psychological distress, and history of overdose, 0-4), and categorized homeless-experienced veterans as having fewer (≤1) and more (≥2) vulnerabilities.ResultsH-PACTs outscored mainstream PACTs on all scales (all P<0.001). Unfavorable care experiences were more common in mainstream PACTs compared with H-PACTs, with adjusted risk differences of 11.9% (95% CI=6.3-17.4), 12.6% (6.2-19.1), 11.7% (6.0-17.3), and 12.6% (6.2-19.1) for Relationship, Cooperation, Access/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs, respectively. For the Relationship and Cooperation scales, H-PACTs were associated with a greater reduction in unfavorable experience for patients with ≥2 vulnerabilities versus ≤1 (interaction P<0.0001).ConclusionsOrganizations that offer primary care for persons experiencing homelessness can improve the primary care experience by tailoring the design and delivery of services.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings.MethodsOvid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework.ResultsThe search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients.ConclusionsThe identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.

Project description:BackgroundSocial isolation is a known predictor of mortality that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations in the USA. Although experts began to recognize it as a public health crisis prior to 2020, the novel coronavirus pandemic has accelerated recognition of social isolation as a serious threat to health and well-being.ObjectiveExamine patient experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation in primary care settings, and whether patient experiences with these activities are associated with the severity of reported social isolation.DesignCross-sectional survey conducted in 2018.ParticipantsAdults (N = 251) were recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.Main measuresA modified version of the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index (SNI), endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; items to assess for prior experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation.Key resultsIn the sample population, 12.4% reported the highest levels of social isolation (SNI = 0/1), compared to 36.7%, 34.7%, and 16.3% (SNI = 2-4, respectively). Most patients had not been asked about social isolation in a healthcare setting (87.3%), despite reporting no discomfort with social isolation screening (93.9%). Neither discomfort with nor participation in prior screening for social isolation was associated with social isolation levels. Desire for assistance with social isolation (3.2%) was associated with a higher level of social isolation (AOR = 6.0, 95% CI, 1.3-28.8), as well as poor or fair health status (AOR = 9.1; 95% CI, 1.3-64.1).ConclusionsIn this study, few patients reported being screened previously for social isolation in a primary care setting, despite low levels of discomfort with screening. Providers should consider broadening social isolation screening and referral practices in healthcare settings, especially among sicker and more isolated patients who express higher levels of interest in assistance with social isolation.

Project description:BackgroundEngaging health care staff in new quality improvement programs is challenging.ObjectiveWe developed 2 virtual patient (VP) avatars in the context of a clinic-level quality improvement program. We sought to determine differences in preferences for VPs and the perceived influence of interacting with the VP on clinical staff engagement with the quality improvement program.MethodsUsing a participatory design approach, we developed an older male smoker VP and a younger female smoker VP. The older male smoker was described as a patient with cardiovascular disease and was ethnically ambiguous. The female patient was younger and was worried about the impact of smoking on her pregnancy. Clinical staff were allowed to choose the VP they preferred, and the more they engaged with the VP, the more likely the VP was to quit smoking and become healthier. We deployed the VP within the context of a quality improvement program designed to encourage clinical staff to refer their patients who smoke to a patient-centered Web-assisted tobacco intervention. To evaluate the VPs, we used quantitative analyses using multivariate models of provider and practice characteristics and VP characteristic preference and analyses of a brief survey of positive deviants (clinical staff in practices with high rates of encouraging patients to use the quit smoking innovation).ResultsA total of 146 clinical staff from 76 primary care practices interacted with the VPs. Clinic staff included medical providers (35/146, 24.0%), nurse professionals (19/146, 13.0%), primary care technicians (5/146, 3.4%), managerial staff (67/146, 45.9%), and receptionists (20/146, 13.7%). Medical staff were mostly male, and other roles were mostly female. Medical providers (OR 0.031; CI 0.003-0.281; P=.002) and younger staff (OR 0.411; CI 0.177-0.952; P=.038) were less likely to choose the younger, female VP when controlling for all other characteristics. VP preference did not influence online patient referrals by staff. In high-performing practices that referred 20 or more smokers to the ePortal (13/76), the majority of clinic staff were motivated by or liked the virtual patient (20/26, 77%).ConclusionsMedical providers are more likely motivated by VPs that are similar to their patient population, while nurses and other staff may prefer avatars that are more similar to them.

Project description:BackgroundIncorporation of patient religious and spiritual beliefs in medical care has been shown to improve the efficacy of medical interventions and health outcomes. While previous study has highlighted differences in patient desire for spiritual assessment based on patient religiosity, little is known about patient desire for spiritual assessment based on community type, particularly in urban compared to rural communities. We hypothesized that, given demographic trends which show a higher degree of religiosity in rural areas, patients in rural communities will be more likely to desire spiritual assessment.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study of 141 adult primary care patients in rural and urban Colorado at non-religiously affiliated clinics, we surveyed patient demographic information, measures of religiosity, patient desire for spiritual assessment, and frequency of spiritual assessment in practice. Univariate logistic regression analyses were used to compare the two populations.ResultsIn both Denver County (urban) and Lincoln County (rural) over 90% of patients identified as religious, spiritual, or a combination of the two. Thirty eight percent (38.3%) of patients in Denver County and 49.1% of patients in Lincoln desired spiritual assessment. Over 97% of patients in both areas reported rarely or never being asked about their R/S within the past year. For patients who have had five or more clinic visits in the past year, more than 91% in both areas stated they have never or rarely been asked about their beliefs.ConclusionsWhile the majority of patients in this study identify as religious or spiritual and many patients desire spiritual assessment, the majority of patients have never or rarely been asked about their spirituality within the past year. This demonstrates a significant gap between patient preference and provider practice of spiritual assessment in the primary care setting, which was similar in both rural and urban settings. This highlights the need for interdisciplinary focus on spiritual assessment and incorporation of patient R/S beliefs in medical care to provide holistic patient care and improve health outcomes.

Project description:RationaleLarge gaps exist between guideline-recommended outpatient chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care and clinical practice. Seeking to design effective interventions, we identified patient and primary care provider (PCP) characteristics associated with receiving evidence-based COPD care.MethodsWe performed an observational study of adults aged ≥ 40 years with clinically diagnosed COPD who received care at 2 University of Washington-affiliated primary care clinics between June 1, 2011, and June 1, 2013. Our primary outcome was the proportion of evidence-based outpatient COPD quality measures received through primary or pulmonary care. Among all patients, we assessed spirometry completion, respiratory symptom identification, smoking status ascertainment, oxygen saturation measurement, and guideline-concordant inhaled therapy prescription. We also determined confirmation of airflow obstruction, oxygen prescription, smoking cessation intervention, and pulmonary rehabilitation referral if eligible. We used multivariable mixed effects linear regression to estimate the association of patient and PCP characteristics with the primary outcome.ResultsAmong 641 patients, 382 were male (59.6%) with mean age 63.6 (standard deviation [SD] 10.6) years. Most patients currently smoked (N=386, 60.2%). Patients saw 150 unique PCPs during 5.3 (SD 3.2) PCP visits, with 107 completing pulmonary referrals (16.7%). Patients received 67.5% (SD 18.4%) of eligible (median 7 [interquartile range 6-7]) evidence-based quality measures. After adjustment, pulmonary referral was associated with a higher receipt of outpatient quality measures (ß117.7%, 95% confidence interval: 12.6%, 22.7%). Patient demographics, comorbidities, and PCP identity/characteristics were not associated with outpatient care quality.ConclusionsThe quality of outpatient COPD care was suboptimal. Future studies should investigate if engaging pulmonologists in COPD management improves care quality.

Project description:BackgroundRegular primary care visits may allow an opportunity to deliver high-value, proactive care. However, no previous study has examined whether more temporally regular primary care visits predict better outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between the temporal regularity of primary care (PC) visits and outcomes.DesignRetrospective cohort study.ParticipantsWe used Medicare claims for 378,862 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, who received PC at 1328 federally qualified health centers from 2010 to 2014.Main measuresWe created five beneficiary groups based upon their annual number of PC visits. We further subdivided those groups according to whether PC visits occurred with more or less regularity than the median value. We compared these 10 subgroups on three outcomes, adjusting for beneficiary characteristics: emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and total Medicare expenditures. We also aggregated to the clinic level and divided clinics into tertiles of more, less, and similarly regular to predicted. We compared these three groups of clinics on the same three outcomes of care.Key resultsWithin each visit frequency group, beneficiaries in the subgroup with fewer regular visits had more ED visits, more hospitalizations, and higher costs. Among beneficiaries with the most frequent PC visits, the less regular subgroup had more ED visits (1.70 vs. 1.31 per person-year), more hospitalizations (0.69 vs. 0.57), and greater Medicare expenditures ($20,731 vs. $17,430, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Clinics whose PC visits were more regular than predicted also had better outcomes than other clinics, although the effect sizes were smaller.ConclusionsTemporal patterns of PC visits are correlated with outcomes, even among beneficiaries who appear otherwise similar. Measuring the temporal regularity of PC visits may be useful for identifying beneficiaries at risk for adverse events, and as a barometer for and an impetus to clinic-level quality improvement.

Dataset Information

Patient clustering in primary care settings: Outcomes and quality of care.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Patient clustering in primary care settings: Outcomes and quality of care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets