Gregory M. Garrison

Predictors of Thirty-Day Readmission Among Hospitalized Family Medicine Patients

Purpose: Hospital readmissions within 30 days of initial discharge occur frequently. In studies of elderly patients receiving Medicare, readmissions have been associated with poor-quality inpatient care, ineffective hospital-to-home transitions, patient characteristics, disease burden, and socioeconomic status. Among adult family medicine patients spanning a wide age range, we hypothesize that previous hospitalizations, length of stay, number of discharge medications, medical comorbidities, and patient demographics are associated with a greater risk of hospital readmission within 30 days. Methods: A retrospective case-control study of 276 family medicine inpatients was conducted to determine the factors associated with 30-day readmission. Bivariate statistics were computed and a multivariate analysis using logistic regression was performed to determine the independent effects of each factor. Results: Patients readmitted within 30 days had more hospitalizations, more emergency department visits, longer hospital stays, more comorbidities, and more discharge medications and were less likely to be married. Multivariate logistic regression found that hospitalization within the previous 12 months (odds ratio, 2.71) and long hospital stays (odds ratio, 2.16) were associated with 30-day readmission; being married (odds ratio, 0.54) had a protective effect. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that factors previously found to be associated with 30-day readmission among elderly patients receiving Medicare also apply to family medicine patients of all ages. It also demonstrates prior hospitalizations, length of stay, and marital status are useful proxies for many more complicated factors, such as disease burden, medical complexity, and social issues, that influence hospital readmission.

Early return visits by pediatric primary care patients with otitis media: a retail nurse practitioner clinic versus standard medical office care.

Purpose: To compare outpatient return visits within 2 weeks experienced by pediatric patients diagnosed with otitis media using retail nurse practitioner clinics to similar patients using standard medical office clinics. Background: The impact of retail clinics on return visit rates has not been extensively studied. Data source: Electronic medical records of pediatric primary care patients seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2009 for otitis media. Sample: Patients seen in retail walk-in clinics staffed by nurse practitioners (N = 627) or regular office clinics (N = 2353). Outcome measure: A return visit to any site within 2 weeks. Results: The percentage returning was higher in standard care patients than in retail medicine patients (21.0 vs 11.2, P < .001). The odds of a return visit within 2 weeks were higher in standard care patients than in retail medicine patients after adjusting for propensity to use services, age, and gender (odds ratio = 1.54, P < 0.01). Conclusion: In this group practice, the odds of return visits within 2 weeks for pediatric patients treated for otitis media were lower in retail medicine clinics than in standard office clinics.

Epidemiology of polypharmacy among family medicine patients at hospital discharge.

Background: Polypharmacy has been identified as a quality indicator, but no studies have been reported about the epidemiology of polypharmacy among hospital patients at discharge. Methods: Records of 142 family medicine patients aged ≥65 years who were discharged from the hospital during the period November 2008 to October 2009 were extracted. Forty-six of these patients were readmitted within 30 days and the remaining 96 not readmitted within 30 days. Polypharmacy was measured as >16 medications at dismissal. Independent variables related to person (use of medical care in the 12 months prior to hospitalization, number of high-risk diagnoses, and demographic characteristics), place (living situation at admission and disposition location), and time (month of admission). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and coronary artery disease were diagnoses determined to be high-risk. Results: Mean number of medications at dismissal was 13.5 and 23.2% of patients were prescribed more than 16 medications. No interactions were found between readmission status and any of the independent variables. Use of medical services in the previous year was not related to polypharmacy and no seasonal pattern was detected. Two or more high-risk diagnoses were independently related to polypharmacy (odds ratio [OR] = 4.75, confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-11.2, P = .00). Being discharged to a location with personal health services such as home care or a skilled nursing facility was also related to polypharmacy (OR = 3.07, CI = 1.3-7.2, P = .01). Conclusion: Drug reviews intended to reduce the rate of polypharmacy among discharged persons aged ≥65 years can be targeted at patients who have 2 or more high-risk diagnoses and at those discharged to receive personal health services either at home or in a convalescence facility.

Early return visits by primary care patients: a retail nurse practitioner clinic versus standard medical office care.

The purpose of this study was to compare return visits made by patients within 2 weeks after using retail nurse practitioner clinics to return visits made by similar patients after using standard medical office clinics. Retail medicine clinics have become widely available. However, their impact on return visit rates compared to standard medical office visits for similar patients has not been extensively studied. Electronic medical records of adult primary care patients seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2009 were analyzed for this study. Patients who were treated for sinusitis were selected. Two groups of patients were studied: those who used one of 2 retail walk-in clinics staffed by nurse practitioners and a comparison group who used one of 4 regular office clinics. The dependent variable was a return office visit to any site within 2 weeks. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for case-mix differences between groups. Unadjusted odds of return visits were lower for retail clinic patients than for standard office care patients. After adjustment for case mix, patients with more outpatient visits in the previous 6 months had higher odds of return visits within 2 weeks (2-6 prior visits: odds ratio [OR]=1.99, P=0.00; 6 or more prior visits: OR=6.80, P=0.00). The odds of a return visit within 2 weeks were not different by clinic type after adjusting for propensity to use services (OR=1.17, P=0.28). After adjusting for case mix differences, return visit rates did not differ by clinic type.

Time to Remission for Depression with Collaborative Care Management (CCM) in Primary Care.

Background: Collaborative care management (CCM) has been shown to have superior outcomes to usual care (UC) for depressed patients with a fixed end point. This study was a survival analysis over time comparing CCM with UC using remission (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] score <5) and persistent depressive symptoms (PDSs; PHQ-9 score ≥10) as end points. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 7340 patients with depression cared for at 4 outpatient primary care clinics was conducted from March 2008 through June 2013. All adult patients diagnosed with depression (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision [ICD-9], codes 296.2–3) or dysthymia (ICD-9 code 300.4) with an initial PHQ-9 score ≥10 were included. CCM was implemented at all clinics between 2008 and 2010. Kaplan-Meyer survival curves for time to remission and PDSs were plotted. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to adjust for expected differences between patients choosing CCM versus UC. Results: Median time to remission was 86 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 81–91 days) for the CCM group versus 614 days (95% CI, 565–692 days) for the UC group. Likewise, median duration of PDSs was 31 days (95% CI, 30–33 days) for the CCM group versus 154 days (95% CI, 138–182 days) for the UC group. In the Cox proportional hazards model, which controlled for covariates such as age, sex, race, diagnosis, and initial PHQ-9 score, CCM was associated with faster remission (hazard ratio of the CCM group [HRCCM], 2.48; 95% CI, 2.31–2.65). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that patients enrolled in CCM have a faster rate of remission and a shorter duration of PDSs than patients choosing UC.

Repeat retail clinic visits: impact of insurance coverage and age of patient.

As retail clinics provide a less costly alternative for health care, it would be reasonable to expect an increase in multiple (repeat) retail visits by those patients who may have expenses for receiving primary care. If costs were not a significant factor, then repeat visits should not be significantly different between these patients and those with coverage for primary care visits. The hypothesis for this study was that patients with the potential for out-of-pocket expenses would have a higher frequency of repeat retail clinic visits within 180 days compared to those with primary care coverage. A retrospective chart review was conducted of 5703 patients utilizing a retail clinic in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009. The first visit to the retail clinic was considered the index visit and the chart was reviewed for repeat retail clinic visits within the next 180 days. Using a multiple logistic regression model, the odds of a pediatric patient (N=2344) having a repeat retail visit within 180 days of the index visit were not significantly impacted by insurance coverage (P=0.4209). Of the 3359 adult patients, those with unknown coverage had a 25.6% higher odds ratio of repeat retail clinic visits than those with insurance coverage (odds ratio 1.2557, confidence interval 1.0421-1.5131). This study suggested that when cost is an issue, the adult patient may favor retail clinics for episodic, low-acuity health care. In contrast, the pediatric population did not, suggesting that other factors, such as convenience, may play more of a role in the choice of episodic health care for this age group.

Levothyroxine dosage is associated with stability of thyroid-stimulating hormone values.

OBJECTIVE In patients treated for hypothyroidism, the usual practice is to monitor thyroid-stimulating hormone values yearly once a therapeutic dosage of levothyroxine is determined. This study investigates whether there are any clinical predictors that could identify a subset of patients who might be monitored safely on a less frequent basis. METHODS With the use of a retrospective study design, 715 patients treated for hypothyroidism who had a normal (ie, therapeutic) thyroid-stimulating hormone value in 2006 while taking levothyroxine were identified. All thyroid-stimulating hormone values were then obtained through December 31, 2012. By using a Cox proportional hazard model, gender, age, body mass index, history of chronic autoimmune thyroiditis, initial thyroid-stimulating hormone level, and levothyroxine dose were analyzed for time to first abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone value. RESULTS Age, gender, history of chronic autoimmune thyroiditis, and body mass index at the time of initial normal thyroid-stimulating hormone were not associated significantly with time to abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone value. Levothyroxine dose >125 μg/day had an increased hazard ratio of 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.7-3.4; P < .0001) for time to first follow-up abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone value, but dosages less than that did not increase the hazard ratio. One year after the initial normal thyroid-stimulating hormone value, 91.1% of patients taking ≤ 125 μg/day had a continued normal thyroid-stimulating hormone, whereas only 73.3% of patients taking >125 μg/day did. Transformed thyroid-stimulating hormone value (which represents a measure of how far the initial thyroid-stimulating hormone was from the midpoint of the normal range) also had an increased hazard ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2; P < .0001) for time to first abnormal thyroid-stimulating hormone value. CONCLUSIONS For patients receiving ≤ 125 μg/day of levothyroxine, we propose that a testing interval up to 2 years may be acceptable if their thyroid-stimulating hormone is well within the normal range.

Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants Are Complements to Family Medicine Physicians

Controlling the overall cost of medical care requires controlling the number of physician visits. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) may function as lower-cost substitutes for physicians or they may complement physician services. The association between NP/PA and physician visits when NPs/PAs are not working as primary care providers (PCPs) has not been thoroughly studied. A sample of 400 family medicine patients drawn from 1 large multisite practice was studied using multiple logistic regression analysis. NPs/PAs did not function as PCPs during the study period. Patients were defined as outliers if they visited physicians more than 5 times in a year. Patients who visited NPs/PAs in non-retail clinics were significantly more likely to be physician visit outliers. Visits to NPs/PAs in retail clinics were not related to physician visits. NP/PA visits in standard medical office settings complement physician visits when the NPs/PAs were not working as PCPs in this large multisite practice. Health care reform proposals relying on increased use of NPs/PAs may be more cost-efficient if NPs/PAs are located in retail settings or function as PCPs.

Family Medicine Patients Who Use Retail Clinics Have Lower Continuity of Care

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare continuity of care for family medicine patients using retail medicine clinics to continuity for patients not using retail clinics. Retail medicine clinics have become popular in some markets. However, their impact on continuity of care has not been studied. Methods: Electronic medical records of adult primary care patients seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2011 were analyzed for this study. Two randomly chosen groups of patients were selected (N = 400): those using 1 of 3 retail walk-in clinics staffed by nurse practitioners in addition to standard office care and a comparison group that only used standard office care. Continuity was measured as the percentage of visits that involved the primary care provider. We also compared patients who made zero visits to their primary care providers with those who made some visits to their primary care providers. Results: Continuity of care was lower for patients who used retail clinics than for patients who did not use retail clinics (0.17 vs 0.44, mean difference 0.27). The percentage of patients who made zero visits to their primary care providers was 54.5 for users of retail clinics versus 31.0 for those who did not use retail clinics. Conclusions: Continuity of care should be monitored as retail medicine continues to expand.

Screening For Hypertension Annually Compared With Current Practice

PURPOSE Hypertension is the most common diagnosis in ambulatory care, yet little evidence exists regarding recommended screening intervals or the sensitivity and specificity of a routine office-based blood pressure measurement, the most common screening test. Screening for hypertension is usually performed by measuring blood pressure at every outpatient visit, which often results in transiently elevated findings among adults who do not have a diagnosis of hypertension. We hypothesize that a more limited annual screening strategy may increase specificity while maintaining sensitivity. METHODS A retrospective case-control study of 372 adults without hypertension and 68 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension was conducted to compare the usual screening practice of checking blood pressure at every visit with a second strategy that considered only annual blood pressure measurements. RESULTS Specificity improved from 70.4% (95% CI, 65.5%-75.0%) for the usual practice to 82.0% (95% CI, 77.7%-85.8%) for the annual screening strategy. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity existed between the 2 methods. CONCLUSION A limited annual screening strategy for hypertension can improve specificity without sacrificing sensitivity when compared with routine screening at every visit in previously normotensive adults.