Gail Bellamy

Bypass of Local Primary Care in Rural Counties: Effect of Patient and Community Characteristics

PURPOSE This national study sought information from rural patients (1) to assess the prevalence of bypass, a pattern of seeking health care outside the local community; (2) to examine the impact of locally available primary care physicians (PCPs) and hospital size on the odds of bypass; and (3) to identify patient demographic and geographic factors associated with bypass. This study also ascertained the reasons patients give for bypass and their suggestions for how hospitals can retain patients locally. METHODS We analyzed data from a 2005 telephone survey of 1,264 adults, aged 18 years or older, who lived within 20 miles of 25 randomly selected Critical Access Hospitals and were linked with a Health Professional Shortage Area and 2004 census data. Respondents were asked about demographic characteristics, travel time and distance to local hospitals, and insurance status, as well as for suggestions of what local hospitals could do to retain patients. RESULTS Overall, 32% of respondents bypassed local primary care; the rate ranged from 9% to 66% across the Critical Access Hospital service areas. Factors associated with bypass included age, education, marital status, satisfaction with the local hospital, admission to a hospital in the past 12 months, hospital size, and local density of PCPs. Compared with residents in areas with a higher density of PCPs (=3,500 residents per PCP), residents in areas with a low density (>4,500 residents per PCP) were more likely to bypass local care (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–2.46). Lack of specialty care and limited services were most frequently mentioned as reasons why patients bypassed local hospitals. CONCLUSIONS The sizable variation in bypass rates among this sample of Critical Access Hospital service areas suggests that strategies to reduce bypass behavior should be directed at the local community or facility level. Changing rural residents’ perception of their local care, helping them gain a better understanding of the function of primary care, and increasing the number of PCPs might help hospitals retain patients and rural communities stay healthy.

Rural Healthy People 2010, 2020, and beyond: the need goes on.

Rural Healthy People 2010 represented the first effort to specifically include small and rural communities in the Healthy People movement to improve the health of Americans. Rural Healthy People 2010 set rural-specific health priority areas, documented what is known about health in rural areas, identified rural best practice programs/interventions, and promoted rural health services research and researchers. Over the last decade Rural Healthy People 2010 has provided policy makers, rural providers, and rural communities with a valuable resource for planning and policy making. Sustaining the Rural Healthy People project in collaboration with the broader Healthy People 2020 effort will provide an important infrastructure for improving rural health.

Getting from here to there: evaluating West Virginia's rural nonemergency medical transportation program

With funding from the 21st Century Challenge Fund, the West Virginia Rural Health Access Program created Transportation for Health, a demonstration project for rural nonemergency medical transportation. The project was implemented in 3 sites around the state, building on existing transportation systems--specifically, a multicounty transit authority, a joint senior center/transit system, and a senior services center. An evaluation of the project was undertaken to answer 3 major questions: (1) Did the project reach the population of people who need transportation assistance? (2) Are users of the transportation project satisfied with the service? (3) Is the program sustainable? Preliminary results from survey data indicate that the answers to questions 1 and 2 are affirmative. A break-even analysis of all 3 sites begins to identify programmatic and policy issues that challenge the likelihood of financial sustainability, including salary expenses, unreimbursed mileage, and reliance on Medicaid reimbursement.

Bypassing the Local Rural Hospital for Outpatient Procedures.

PURPOSE To assess the amount of local rural hospital outpatient department (HOPD) bypass for outpatient procedures. METHODS We analyzed data on colonoscopies and upper gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in the state of Florida over the period 1997-2004. FINDINGS Approximately, 53% of colonoscopy and 45% of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy patients bypassed their local rural hospital for treatment at either a free-standing ambulatory surgical center (ASC) or a nonlocal hospital outpatient department. Independent predictors of bypass included risk-adjusted severity of the patients medical condition, insurance status, and race. Patients treated in ASCs were predominately healthier, white and commercially insured. Nonlocal HOPDs tend to treat a sicker cohort of patients who were publicly insured or under managed care. CONCLUSIONS The results indicate that patients who bypass their local HOPD to an ASC differ from those bypassing to a nonlocal HOPD, and that patient factors influencing bypass for outpatient procedures differ from those influencing inpatient bypass. From a policy perspective, as procedures continue to migrate from the inpatient to the outpatient setting, bypassing the local rural hospital for treatment elsewhere could create conditions that negatively impact rural hospital operations.

Post-Discharge Adverse Events Among Urban and Rural Patients of an Urban Community Hospital: A Prospective Cohort Study

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDThere has been little research to examine post-discharge adverse events (AEs) in rural patients discharged from community hospitals.OBJECTIVEWe aimed to determine the rate of post-discharge AEs, classify the types of post-discharge AEs, and identify risk factors for post-discharge AEs in urban and rural patients.DESIGNThis was a prospective cohort study of patients at risk for post-discharge adverse events from December 2011 through October 2012.PATIENTSSix hundred and eighty-four patients who were under the care of hospitalist physicians and were being discharged home, spoke English, and could be contacted after discharge, were admitted to the medical service. Patients were stratified as urban/rural using zip code of residence. Rural patients were oversampled to ensure equal enrollment of urban and rural patients.MAIN MEASURESThe main outcome of the study was post-discharge AEs based on structured telephone interviews, health record review, and adjudication by two blinded, trained physicians using a previously established methodology.RESULTSOver 28 % of 684 patients experienced post-discharge AEs, most of which were either preventable or ameliorable. There was no difference in the incidence of post-discharge AEs in urban versus rural patients (ARR 1.04 95 % CI 0.82 -1.32 ), but post-discharge AEs were associated with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and number of secondary discharge diagnoses only in urban patients.CONCLUSIONSPost-discharge AEs were common in both urban and rural patients and many were preventable or ameliorable. Potentially different risk factors for AEs in urban versus rural patients suggests the need for further research into the underlying causes. Different interventions may be required in urban versus rural patients to improve patient safety during transitions in care.

Medical Residents’ and Practicing Physicians’ e-Cigarette Knowledge and Patient Screening Activities Do They Differ?

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare medical residents and practicing physicians in primary care specialties regarding their knowledge and beliefs about electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). We wanted to ascertain whether years removed from medical school had an effect on screening practices, recommendations given to patients, and the types of informational sources utilized. Methods: A statewide sample of Florida primary care medical residents (n = 61) and practicing physicians (n = 53) completed either an online or paper survey, measuring patient screening and physician recommendations, beliefs, and knowledge related to e-cigarettes. χ2 tests of association and linear and logistic regression models were used to assess the differences within- and between-participant groups. Results: Practicing physicians were more likely than medical residents to believe e-cigarettes lower cancer risk in patients who use them as an alternative to cigarettes (P = .0003). Medical residents were more likely to receive information about e-cigarettes from colleagues (P = .0001). No statistically significant differences were observed related to e-cigarette knowledge or patient recommendations. Conclusions: Practicing primary care physicians are accepting both the benefits and costs associated with e-cigarettes, while medical residents in primary care are more reticent. Targeted education concerning the potential health risks and benefits associated with the use of e-cigarettes needs to be included in the current medical education curriculum and medical provider training to improve provider confidence in discussing issues surrounding the use of this product.