David Lanier

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice: Innovative Strategies and Future Directions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been supported by strong research evidence and recommended in clinical practice guidelines for more than a decade. Yet screening rates in the United States remain low, especially relative to other preventable diseases such as breast and cervical cancer. To understand the reasons, the National Cancer Institute and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality sponsored a review of CRC screening implementation in primary care and a program of research funded by these organizations. The evidence base for improving CRC screening supports the value of a New Model of Primary Care Delivery: 1. a team approach, in which responsibility for screening tasks is shared among other members of the practice, would help address physicians’ lack of time for preventive care; 2. information systems can identify eligible patients and remind them when screening is due; 3. involving patients in decisions about their own care may enhance screening participation; 4. monitoring practice performance, supported by information systems, can help target patients at increased risk because of family history or social disadvantage; 5. reimbursement for services outside the traditional provider—patient encounter, such as telephone and e-mail contacts, may foster enhanced screening delivery; 6. training opportunities in communication, cultural competence, and use of information technologies would improve provider competence in core elements of screening programs. Improvement in CRC screening rates largely depends on the efforts of primary care practices to implement effective systems and procedures for screening delivery. Active engagement and support of practices are essential for the enormous potential of CRC screening to be realized.

A National Survey of Primary Care Practice-Based Research Networks

PURPOSE Increasing numbers of primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are being developed in the United States to perform research relevant to everyday practice. To assess the current status and potential value of this resource, we surveyed US primary care PBRNs in operation from late 2003 to early 2004. METHODS We performed a Web-based survey and structured interviews with PBRN directors and administrative officers, assessing PBRNs’ history, size, location, organization, resources, operations, and productivity (funding obtained, studies performed, and articles published). RESULTS Of 111 primary care PBRNs identified, 89 (80%) responded to the survey. The 86 (77%) meeting the criteria for primary care PBRNs contained 1,871 practices, 12,957 physicians (mean 152 per PBRN, median 100), and 14.7 million patients (mean 229,880 per PBRN, median 105,000). Minority and underinsured patients were overrepresented. The average PBRN was young (4.4 ± 5.7 years): one-half had performed 3 or fewer studies. Three-quarters were affiliated with universities. Common research foci included prevention, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, and mental health. Respondent PBRNs had published more than 600 articles in peer-reviewed journals. PBRNs studying questions posed by outside researchers had more federal funding (84% vs 27%, P=.006). PBRNs citing funding as a weakness relied more on local resources to fund research projects (70% vs 40%, P=.036). CONCLUSIONS American primary care PBRNs are mainly young, diverse, and pursuing a variety of research foci. Most have university links and provide a dynamic town-gown relationship that could be a vital national resource for improving primary care, translating research into practice, and meeting the National Institutes of Health Roadmap goals. PBRNs merit further attention from both private and public funding agencies and researchers interested in studying the delivery of primary care.

Genetics in Primary Care: A USA Faculty Development Initiative

The Genetics in Primary Care (GPC) project is a USA national faculty development initiative with the goal of enhancing the training of medical students and primary care residents by developing primary care faculty expertise in genetics. Educational strategies were developed for the project by an executive committee with input from an advisory committee, comprising individuals with primary care, medical education and genetics expertise. These committees identified the key issues in genetics education for primary care as (1) considering inherited disease in the differential diagnosis of common disorders; (2) using appropriate counseling strategies for genetic testing and diagnosis, and (3) understanding the implications of a genetic diagnosis for family members. The group emphasized the importance of a primary care perspective, which suggests that the clinical utility of genetic information is greatest when it has the potential to improve health outcomes. The group also noted that clinical practice already incorporates the use of family history information, providing a basis for discussing the application of genetic concepts in primary care. Genetics and primary care experts agreed that educational efforts will be most successful if they are integrated into existing primary care teaching programs, and use a case-based teaching format that incorporates both clinical and social dimensions of genetic disorders. Three core clinical skills were identified: (1) interpreting family history; (2) recognizing the variable clinical utility of genetic information, and (3) acquiring cultural competency. Three areas of potential controversy were identified as well: (1) the role of nondirective counseling versus shared decision-making in discussions of genetic testing; (2) the intrinsic value of genetic information when it does not influence health outcomes, and (3) indications for a genetics referral. The project provides an opportunity for ongoing discussion about these important issues.

Doctor performance and public accountability

Public concern about the quality of health care has motivated governments, health-care funders, and clinicians to expand efforts to improve professional performance. In this paper, we illustrate such efforts from the perspective of three countries, the UK, the USA, and the Netherlands. The earliest strategies, which included continuing professional education, clinical audits, and peer review, were aimed at the individual doctor, and produced only modest effects. Other efforts, such as national implementation of practice guidelines, effective use of information technologies, and intensive involvement by doctors in continuous quality-improvement activities, are aimed more broadly at health-care systems. Much is yet unknown about whether these or other strategies--such as centralised supervision or regulation of quality improvement, or use of financial incentives--are effective. As demands for greater public accountability rise, continuing performance improvement efforts of each of our countries offer us opportunities to learn from one another.

Describing primary care encounters: the Primary Care Network Survey and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to describe clinical encounters in primary care research networks and compare them with those of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). METHODS Twenty US primary care research networks collected data on clinicians and patient encounters using the Primary Care Network Survey (PRINS) Clinician Interview (PRINS-1) and Patient Record (PRINS-2), which were newly developed based on NAMCS tools. Clinicians completed a PRINS-1 about themselves and a PRINS-2 for each of 30 patient visits. Data included patient characteristics; reason for the visit, diagnoses, and services ordered or performed. We compared PRINS data with data obtained from primary care physicians during 5 cycles of NAMCS (1997–2001). Data were weighted; PRINS reflects participating networks and NAMCS provides national estimates. RESULTS By discipline, 89% of PRINS clinicians were physicians, 4% were physicians in residency training, 5% were advanced practice nurses/nurse-practitioners, and 2% were physician’s assistants. The majority (53%) specialized in pediatrics (34% specialized in family medicine, 9% in internal medicine, and 4% in other specialties). All NAMCS clinicians were physicians, with 20% specializing in pediatrics. When NAMCS and PRINS visits were compared, larger proportions of PRINS visits involved preventive care and were made by children, members of minority racial groups, and individuals who did not have private health insurance. A diagnostic or other assessment service was performed for 99% of PRINS visits and 76% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 74.9%–78.0%). A preventive or counseling/education service was provided at 64% of PRINS visits and 37% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 35.1%–38.0%). CONCLUSIONS PRINS presents a view of diverse primary care visits and differs from NAMCS in its methods and findings. Further examinations of PRINS data are needed to assess their usefulness for describing encounters that occur in primary care research networks.

Variation in the ecology of medical care.

BACKGROUND We wanted to quantify how the location in which medical care is delivered in the United States varies with the sociodemographic characteristics and health care arrangements of the individual person. Methods Data from the 1996 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) were used to estimate the number of persons per 1,000 per month in 1996 who had at least 1 contact with physicians’ offices, hospital outpatient departments, or emergency departments, hospitals, or home care. These data were stratified by age, sex, race, ethnicity, household income, education of head of household, residence in or out of metropolitan statistical areas, having health insurance, and having a usual source of care. Results Physicians’ offices were overwhelmingly the most common site of health care for all subgroups studied. Lacking a usual source of care was the only variable independently associated with a decreased likelihood of care in all 5 settings, and lack of insurance was associated with lower rates of care in all settings but emergency departments. Generally, more complicated patterns emerged for most sociodemographic characteristics. The combination of having a usual source of care and health insurance was especially related to higher rates of care in all settings except the emergency department. Conclusion Frequency and location of health care delivery varies substantially with sociodemographic characteristics, insurance, and having a usual source of care. Understanding this variation can inform public consideration of policy related to access to care.

Using the ecology model to describe the impact of asthma on patterns of health care

BackgroundAsthma changes both the volume and patterns of healthcare of affected people. Most studies of asthma health care utilization have been done in selected insured populations or in a single site such as the emergency department. Asthma is an ambulatory sensitive care condition making it important to understand the relationship between care in all sites across the health service spectrum. Asthma is also more common in people with fewer economic resources making it important to include people across all types of insurance and no insurance categories. The ecology of medical care model may provide a useful framework to describe the use of health services in people with asthma compared to those without asthma and identify subgroups with apparent gaps in care.MethodsThis is a case-control study using the 1999 U.S. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Cases are school-aged children (6 to 17 years) and young adults (18 to 44 years) with self-reported asthma. Controls are from the same age groups who have no self-reported asthma. Descriptive analyses and risk ratios are placed within the ecology of medical care model and used to describe and compare the healthcare contact of cases and controls across multiple settings.ResultsIn 1999, the presence of asthma significantly increased the likelihood of an ambulatory care visit by 20 to 30% and more than doubled the likelihood of making one or more visits to the emergency department (ED). Yet, 18.8% of children and 14.5% of adults with asthma (over a million Americans) had no ambulatory care visits for asthma. About one in 20 to 35 people with asthma (5.2% of children and 3.6% of adults) were seen in the ED or hospital but had no prior or follow-up ambulatory care visits. These Americans were more likely to be uninsured, have no usual source of care and live in metropolitan areas.ConclusionThe ecology model confirmed that having asthma changes the likelihood and pattern of care for Americans. More importantly, the ecology model identified a subgroup with asthma who sought only emergent or hospital services.

Improving colorectal cancer screening through research in primary care settings.

Annual Subscription Rates: United States

Practice-based research networks: laboratories for improving colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.

445 Individual,

The Ecology of Medical Care Revisited

940 Institution,