Dataset Information

US Generalist Physicians and Groups That Focused Practice in a Single Care Setting: 2014-2017.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Some generalist physicians whose training prepared them for primary care practice increasingly practice in a facility (eg, hospitals, nursing homes); however, whether this trend was accompanied by a complimentary rise in generalist physicians who focused their practice on office-based care is unknown.

Objectives

Our objective in this study was to examine trends in the prevalence of generalist physicians and physician groups that practice in a single setting.

Research design

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of generalist physicians trained in family medicine, internal medicine, or geriatrics. We used 2014-2017 billing data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries to measure the proportion of all patient visits made by physicians in the following care settings: office, outpatient hospital department, inpatient hospital, and other sites.

Results

From 2014 to 2017, the proportion of generalist physicians who narrowed their practice to a single setting increased by 6.69% (from 62.80% to 67.00%, p for trend <0.001). In 2017, 4.63% of physician groups included more than 1 type of setting-based physicians.

Conclusions

Generalist physicians treating older adults increasingly narrowed their practice focus to a single type of health care setting. This trend was not accompanied by growth among physician groups that included different types of setting-based physicians. Further evaluation of the consequences of these trends on the fragmentation of primary care delivery across different health care settings and primary care outcomes is needed.

SUBMITTER: Ryskina KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9588651 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

US Generalist Physicians and Groups That Focused Practice in a Single Care Setting: 2014-2017.

Ryskina Kira L KL Unruh Mark Aaron MA Qian Yuting Y Jung Hye-Young HY

Medical care 20220906 11

<h4>Background</h4>Some generalist physicians whose training prepared them for primary care practice increasingly practice in a facility (eg, hospitals, nursing homes); however, whether this trend was accompanied by a complimentary rise in generalist physicians who focused their practice on office-based care is unknown.<h4>Objectives</h4>Our objective in this study was to examine trends in the prevalence of generalist physicians and physician groups that practice in a single setting.<h4>Research ...[more]

PMID: 36075814

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundParental mental illness is a major public health issue and there is growing evidence that family focused practice can improve outcomes for parents and their families. However, few reliable and valid instruments measure mental health and social care professionals' family focused practice.ObjectivesTo explore the psychometric properties of the Family Focused Mental Health Practice Questionnaire in a population of health and social care professionals.MethodsHealth and Social Care Professionals (n = 836) in Northern Ireland completed an adapted version of the Family Focused Mental Health Practice Questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis was used to test the structure of the underlying dimensions in the questionnaire. The results, and theoretical considerations, guided construction of a model that could explain variation in respondents' items. This model was then validated using confirmatory factor analysis.ResultsExploratory factor analysis revealed that solutions including 12 to 16 factors provided a good fit to the data and indicated underlying factors that could be meaningfully interpreted in line with existing literature. From these exploratory analyses, we derived a model that included 14 factors and tested this model with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The results suggested 12 factors that summarized 46 items that were most optimal in reflecting family focused behaviours and professional and organizational factors. The 12 dimensions identified were meaningful and consistent with substantive theories: furthermore, their inter-correlations were consistent with known professional and organizational processes known to promote or hinder family focused practice.ConclusionThis psychometric evaluation reveals that the scale provides a meaningful measure of professionals' family focused practice within adult mental health and children's services, and the factors that hinder and enable practice in this area. The findings, therefore, support the use of this measure to benchmark and further develop family focused practice in both adult mental health and children's services.

Project description:BackgroundGenetic screening (GS), defined as the clinical testing of a population to identify asymptomatic individuals with the aim of providing those identified as high risk with prevention, early treatment, or reproductive options. Genetic screening (GS) improves patient outcomes and is accessible to the community. Family physicians (FPs) are ideally placed to offer GS. There is a need for FPs to adopt GS to address anticipated genetic specialist shortages.ObjectiveTo explore FP attitudes, perceived roles, motivators and barriers, towards GS; and explore similarities and differences between private and public sector FPs.MethodsWe developed a semi-structured interview guide using existing literature. We interviewed private and public sector FPs recruited by purposive, convenience and snowballing strategies, by telephone or video to theme saturation. All sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded for themes by two independent researchers with an adjudicator.ResultsThirty FPs were interviewed (15 private, 15 public). Theme saturation was reached for each group. A total of 12 themes (6 common, 3 from private-practice participants, 3 public-employed participants) emerged. Six common major themes emerged: personal lack of training and experience, roles and relevance of GS to family medicine, reluctance and resistance to adding GS to practice, FP motivations for adoption, patient factors as barrier, and potential solutions. Three themes (all facilitators) were unique to the private group: strong rapport with patients, high practice autonomy, and high patient literacy. Three themes (all barriers) were unique to the public group: lack of control, patients' lower socioeconomic status, and rigid administrative infrastructure.ConclusionFPs are motivated to incorporate GS but need support for implementation. Policy-makers should consider the practice setting when introducing new screening functions. Strategies to change FP behaviours should be sensitive to their sense of autonomy, and the external factors (either as facilitators or as barriers) shaping FP practices in a given clinical setting.

Project description:BackgroundGenetic literacy among primary healthcare providers is crucial for appropriate patient care with the advances in genetic and genomic medicine. Studies from high-income countries highlight the lack of knowledge in genetics and the need to develop curricula for continuing professional development of non-geneticists. Scarce data is available from resource-constrained countries in Middle East and North Africa. Lebanon is a small country in this region characterized by high rates of consanguinity and genetic disorders like several surrounding countries, such as Jordan, Syria, and Turkey.MethodsThe primary aim of this study assessed the genetic literacy, self-perceived and actual knowledge as well as practices among primary care providers in Lebanon. The secondary aim identified their educational needs and proposed evidence-based continuing education programs. A cross-sectional survey-based study, using a self-administered questionnaire, was conducted targeting physicians from Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Pediatrics. The questionnaire was divided into five sections: demographics, familiarity with genetic tests, self-reported and actual knowledge, genetic practices, and educational needs. Statistics were performed using SPSS v24. The Chi-square test was used for independent variables. Differences between mean scores were measured using paired sample t-tests for groups of two levels and one-way ANOVA for more than two. Multiple linear regression was used to study the variables associated with the knowledge score while controlling for other variables.ResultsThe survey included 123 physicians. They were mostly familiar with karyotype as first-tier genetic test. Although 38% perceived their knowledge as good, only 6% scored as such in knowledge assessment. A better knowledge score was observed in academic institutions as well as in urban settings (p<0.05). One third never ordered any genetic testing, mostly due to poor knowledge. Almost all (98%) were ready to attend continuing professional development sessions in genetics.ConclusionOur findings show the need to improve genetic literacy among healthcare frontliners, focusing on remote regions and nonacademic centers in Lebanon, a model for other resource-constrained country in the Middle East and North Africa region. This study advances recommendations for evidence-based genetic continuing education programs and highlighted the role of that the few genetic specialists can play in their successful implementation.

Project description:BackgroundAssessing physicians' clinical performance using statistically sound, evidence-based measures is challenging. Little research has focused on methodological approaches to setting performance standards to which physicians are being held accountable.ObjectiveDetermine if a rigorous approach for setting an objective, credible standard of minimally-acceptable performance could be used for practicing physicians caring for diabetic patients.DesignRetrospective cohort study.ParticipantsNine hundred and fifty-seven physicians from the United States with time-limited certification in internal medicine or a subspecialty.Main measuresThe ABIM Diabetes Practice Improvement Module was used to collect data on ten clinical and two patient experience measures. A panel of eight internists/subspecialists representing essential perspectives of clinical practice applied an adaptation of the Angoff method to judge how physicians who provide minimally-acceptable care would perform on individual measures to establish performance thresholds. Panelists then rated each measure's relative importance and the Dunn-Rankin method was applied to establish scoring weights for the composite measure. Physician characteristics were used to support the standard-setting outcome.Key resultsPhysicians abstracted 20,131 patient charts and 18,974 patient surveys were completed. The panel established reasonable performance thresholds and importance weights, yielding a standard of 48.51 (out of 100 possible points) on the composite measure with high classification accuracy (0.98). The 38 (4%) outlier physicians who did not meet the standard had lower ratings of overall clinical competence and professional behavior/attitude from former residency program directors (p = 0.01 and p = 0.006, respectively), lower Internal Medicine certification and maintenance of certification examination scores (p = 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively), and primarily worked as solo practitioners (p = 0.02).ConclusionsThe standard-setting method yielded a credible, defensible performance standard for diabetes care based on informed judgment that resulted in a reasonable, reproducible outcome. Our method represents one approach to identifying outlier physicians for intervention to protect patients.

Dataset Information

US Generalist Physicians and Groups That Focused Practice in a Single Care Setting: 2014-2017.

Background

Objectives

Research design

Results

Conclusions

Publications

US Generalist Physicians and Groups That Focused Practice in a Single Care Setting: 2014-2017.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets