Setting the revisit interval in primary care

Does competition support integrated care to improve quality?

Introduction

This work investigates the compatibility of integrated care and competition in China and analyses the impact of integrated care on regional care quality (DeptQ) within a competitive framework.

Method

The study was built on multivariate correspondence analysis and a two-way fixed-effects model. The data were collected from Xiamen's Big Data Application Open Platform and represent nine specialised departments that regularly performed inter-institutional referrals between 2016 and 2019.

Results

First, care quality for referred patients (ReferQ) and the relative scale of referred patients (ReferScale) and competition have an antagonistic but not completely mutually exclusive relationship. Second, ReferQ and competition both have a significant effect on DeptQ, but only when competition is weak can ReferQ and competition act synergistically on DeptQ. When competition is fierce, competition will weaken the impact of ReferQ on DeptQ.

Conclusion

Changes in the intensity of integrated care and competition ultimately affect care quality.

Insights From Organized Crime for Disorganized Health Care

During college and medical school, the author's summer employment acquainted him with members of organized crime families. After a full career as a primary care clinician and geriatrician with research on improving health care delivery, the author opines that several insights from organized crime should be of interest to health care professionals: (1) don't damage the host; (2) protect the brand; and (3) lead necessary adaption. From these insights, the author presents symptoms of failure evidenced by the US health care system, followed by several adaptations that would reduce the system's costs, improve its image, and address future challenges.

Primary Care Provider Encounter Cadence and HbA1c Control in Older Patients With Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Primary care provider encounters are associated with health and well-being; however, limited evidence guides optimal primary care provider rate of visit, referred to as encounter cadence. This study measures associations between primary care provider encounter cadence and diabetes outcomes among individuals newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 7,106 people enrolled in Medicare Advantage and newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013 were identified and followed for 36 months. Two methods measured primary care provider encounter cadence: total primary care provider encounters (frequency) and quarters with primary care provider encounter (regularity). Logistic regression measured relationships between primary care provider encounter cadence and non-insulin diabetes medication adherence, HbA1c control, emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions. Non-insulin diabetes medication adherence was defined according to the National Committee for Quality Assurance, Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set specifications and measured using healthcare claims data. Post-hoc models examined adherence and diabetes control among those nonadherent (n=5,212) and with noncontrolled HbA1c (n=326) during the encounter/cadence period. Data were extracted and analyzed in 2017.

RESULTS

Adjusted models indicated that both frequency (AOR=1.08, 95% CI=1.06, 1.10) and regularity (AOR=1.18, 95% CI=1.13, 1.22) of primary care provider encounters were associated with increased odds of adherence. Post-hoc analyses indicated that more frequent (AOR=1.12, 95% CI=1.10, 1.15) and regular (AOR=1.27, 95% CI=1.22, 1.33) primary care provider encounters were associated significantly with adherence and were associated directionally with HbA1c control.

CONCLUSIONS

More frequent and regular primary care provider encounters are associated with an increased likelihood of non-insulin diabetes medication adherence. These findings contribute to data needed to establish evidence-based guidelines for primary care provider encounter cadence for those newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The effect of model selection on cost-effectiveness research: a comparison of kidney function-based microsimulation and disease grade-based microsimulation in chronic kidney disease modeling

BACKGROUND

Cost effectiveness research is emerging in the chronic kidney disease (CKD) research field. Especially, an individual-level state transition model (microsimulation) is widely used for these researches. Some researchers set CKD grades as discrete health states, and the transition probabilities between these states were dependent on the CKD grades (disease grade-based microsimulation, MSM-dg), while others set estimated glomerular filtration rate value which determines the severity of CKD as a main variable describing patients' continuous status (kidney function-based microsimulation, MSM-kf). MSM-kf seems to reflect the real world more precisely but is more difficult to implement. We compared the calculation results of these two microsimulation models to evaluate the effect of model selection on CKD cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

We implemented simplified MSM-dg and MSM-kf emulating natural course of CKD in general, and compared models using parameters derived from an IgA nephropathy cohort. After checking these models' overall behavior, life-years, utilities, and thresholds regarding intervention costs below which the intervention is thought as dominant (V0) or cost-effective (V1) were calculated. In addition, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

With base-case parameters, the calculated life-years was shorter in MSM-dg (73.89 vs. 75.80 years) while the thresholds were almost equal (86.87 vs. 90.43 (V0), 132.29 vs. 146.25 [V1 in 1000 USD]) compared to MSM-kf. Sensitivity analyses showed a tendency of the MSM-dg to show shorter results in life-years. V0 and V1 were distributed by approximately ±100,000 USD (V0) and ± 150,000 USD (V1) between models.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimated cost-effectiveness thresholds by both models were not the same and its difference distributed too wide to be ignored. This result indicated that model selection in CKD cost-effectiveness research has large effect on their conclusions.

The importance of frequent return visits and hypertension control among US young adults: a multidisciplinary group practice observational study

Young adults (aged 18 to 39 years) have the lowest hypertension control rates compared with older adults. Shorter follow-up encounter intervals are associated with faster hypertension control rates in older adults; however, optimal intervals are unknown for young adults. The study objective was to evaluate the relationship between ambulatory blood pressure encounter intervals (average number of provider visits with blood pressures over time) and hypertension control rates among young adults with incident hypertension. A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients aged 18 to 39 years (n = 2990) with incident hypertension using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazards analyses over 24 months. Shorter encounter intervals were associated with higher hypertension control: <1 month (91%), 1 to 2 months (76%), 2 to 3 months (65%), 3 to 6 months (40%), and >6 months (13%). Young adults with shorter encounter intervals also had lower medication initiation, supporting the effectiveness of lifestyle modifications. Sustainable interventions for timely young adult follow-up are essential to improve hypertension control in this hard-to-reach population.

Revisit frequency and its association with quality of care among diabetic patients: Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD)

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient and provider characteristics associated with outpatient revisit frequency and to examine the associations between the revisit frequency and the processes and intermediate outcomes of diabetes care.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed data from Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD), a prospective, multicenter, observational study of diabetes care in managed care.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 6040 eligible adult participants with type 2 diabetes (42.6% ≥65 years of age, 54.1% female) whose primary care providers were the main provider of the participants' diabetes care. The median (interquartile range) revisit frequency was 4.0 (3.7, 6.0) visits per year. Being female, having lower education, lower income, more complex diabetes treatment, cardiovascular disease, higher Charlson comorbidity index, and impaired mobility were associated with higher revisit frequency. The proportion of participants who had annual assessments of HbA1c and LDL-cholesterol, foot examinations, advised or documented aspirin use, and influenza immunizations were higher for those with higher revisit frequency. The proportion of participants who met HbA1c (<9.5%) and LDL-cholesterol (<130 mg/dL) treatment goals were higher for those with a higher revisit frequency. The predicted probabilities of achieving more aggressive goals, HbA1c <8.5%, LDL-cholesterol <100mg/dL, and blood pressure <130/85 or even <140/90 mmHg were not associated with higher revisit frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisit frequency was highly variable and was associated with both sociodemographic characteristics and disease severity. A higher revisit frequency was associated with better processes of diabetes care, but the association with intermediate outcomes was less clear.

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

BACKGROUND

The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate in recent decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, six-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005, and previously updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example six months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish.To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 27 September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 27 September 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 27 September 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) for ongoing trials. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. We did not apply any restrictions regarding language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different dental recall intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria of the review, extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessment. We contacted study authors for clarification or further information where necessary and feasible. If we had found more than one study with similar comparisons reporting the same outcomes, we would have combined the studies in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model if there were at least four studies, or a fixed-effect model if there were less than four studies. We expressed the estimate of effect as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We would have used risk ratios with 95% CI for any dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one study that analysed 185 participants. The study compared the effects of a clinical examination every 12 months with a clinical examination every 24 months on the outcomes of caries (decayed, missing, filled surfaces (dmfs/DMFS) increment) and economic cost outcomes (total time used per person). As the study was at high risk of bias, had a small sample size and only included low-risk participants, we rated the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes as very low.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the mean difference (MD) in dmfs increment was -0.90 (95% CI -1.96 to 0.16) in favour of 12-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD in DMFS increment was -0.86 (95% CI -1.75 to 0.03) also in favour of 12-month recall. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better caries outcomes.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the MD in time used by each participant was 10 minutes (95% CI -6.7 to 26.7) in favour of 24-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD was 23.7 minutes (95% CI 4.12 to 43.28) also in favour of 24-month recall. This single study at high risk of bias represents insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better time/cost outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a very low quality body of evidence from one RCT which is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is no evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at six-monthly intervals. It is important that high quality RCTs are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address the objectives of this review.

Six-monthly diabetes monitoring of well-controlled patients: experiences of primary care providers

AIMS

To examine experiences of primary care providers with six-monthly diabetes monitoring of well-controlled patients.

METHODS

This study was part of the EFFIMODI study, examining whether six-monthly monitoring of well-controlled (HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤5.2 mmol/l) type 2 diabetes patients results in equivalent cardiometabolic control compared to three-monthly monitoring. Primary care providers completed a questionnaire about their experiences with six-monthly diabetes monitoring, whether they want to continue six-monthly monitoring and for which type of patients six-monthly monitoring is sufficient.

RESULTS

Of 163 questionnaires, 157 (96.3%) were completed and returned. Only 14 (8.9%) primary care providers were negative about the six-monthly monitoring and 102 (65.0%) would like to continue six-monthly monitoring. Primary care providers disagreed about patients' ability to determine their own monitoring frequency and whether six-monthly monitoring was suitable for all well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients. Practical concerns emerged such as the inability to declare healthcare costs and the unsuitability of electronic health record systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost two out of three primary care providers would like to continue six-monthly monitoring of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients. However, some diabetes care providers should be convinced and some practical concerns should be solved.

Satisfaction of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients with three-monthly and six-monthly monitoring

Background

Patient’s satisfaction with monitoring frequency is of interest when implementing six-monthly monitoring for well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients. Here we want to determine the satisfaction of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients with either three-monthly or six-monthly diabetes monitoring and their future preference.

Methods

Survey among 2215 well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients (not using insulin, HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol, systolic blood pressure ≤145 mmHg and total cholesterol ≤5.2 mmol/l) who participated in the EFFIMODI study, a randomised controlled patient-preference equivalence trial. At baseline, participants were asked whether they had a strong preference for three-monthly or six-monthly monitoring or not. If not, they were randomised to either three-monthly or six-monthly monitoring, while the others were monitored according to their preference. After eighteen months, all participants were asked whether they were satisfied with the monitoring frequency and about their future preference. Patient characteristics associated with satisfaction were also examined.

Results

Most patients (70.8%) would like to continue their monitoring frequency. Patients from the preference groups were more often satisfied than randomised patients (92.7% and 88.1%, respectively) and patients monitored three-monthly were more often satisfied than patients monitored six-monthly (93.5% and 88.5%, respectively). Higher age, better physical health, less diabetes-related distress, higher diabetes treatment satisfaction and less perceived hyper- and hypoglycaemias were associated with a higher monitoring satisfaction.

Conclusions

Most well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients were satisfied with their monitoring frequency and would like to continue it. Although the satisfaction for three-monthly monitoring was slightly higher, the satisfaction with six-monthly monitoring was still rather high (88.5%).

Trial registration

Current controlled trials ISRCTN93201802.

Predictors of provider-patient visit frequency during hemodialysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tied reimbursement for outpatient hemodialysis services to the number of times per month providers see their dialysis patients, resulting in increased provider-patient visit frequency. Greater provider-patient visit frequency is associated with lower hospitalization risk for hemodialysis patients, and determinants of visit frequency are uncertain. We aimed to identify patient, provider, and dialysis facility characteristics associated with provider visit frequency.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data for point-prevalent patients receiving in-center hemodialysis on January 1, 2006 (n = 144,860). Patient characteristics were defined from January 1 to June 30, 2006, and provider-patient visit frequency (<4 vs. ≥4 visits/month) from July 1 to December 31, 2006. Patient characteristics were obtained from the USRDS. Provider data were obtained from the American Medical Association Physician Master File. We determined longitudinal associations between patient, provider, and facility characteristics and provider-patient visit frequency using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics independently associated with greater provider-patient visit frequency included older age, African-American race, longer dialysis duration, higher comorbidity score, Medicaid eligibility, urban residence, better compliance with dialysis, and more hospital days during run-in. Provider characteristics associated with greater provider-patient visit frequency included more years in practice, graduation from a foreign medical school, shorter distance between provider office and dialysis unit, and caring for more dialysis patients; facility characteristics included free-standing, independent status.

CONCLUSION

After the Medicare reimbursement policy change, several patient, provider, and facility characteristics were independently associated with greater dialysis provider-patient visit frequency.

Encounter frequency and blood pressure in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus

The relationship between encounter frequency (average number of provider-patient encounters over a period of time) and blood pressure for hypertensive patients is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that shorter encounter intervals are associated with faster blood pressure normalization. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 5042 hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus treated at primary care practices affiliated with 2 academic hospitals between 2000 and 2005. Distinct periods of continuously elevated blood pressure (>or=130/85 mm Hg) were studied. We evaluated the association of the average encounter interval with time to blood pressure normalization and rate of blood pressure decrease. Blood pressure of the patients with the average interval between encounters <or=1 month normalized after a median of 1.5 months at the rate of 28.7 mm Hg/month compared with 12.2 months at 2.6 mm Hg/month for the encounter interval >1 month (P<0.0001 for all). Median time to blood pressure normalization was 0.7 versus 1.9 months for the average encounter interval <or=2 weeks versus between 2 weeks and 1 month, respectively (P<0.0001). In proportional hazards analysis adjusted for patient demographics, initial blood pressure, and treatment intensification rate, a 1 month increase in the average encounter interval was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.764 for blood pressure normalization (P<0.0001). Shorter encounter intervals are associated with faster decrease in blood pressure and earlier blood pressure normalization. Greatest benefits were observed at encounter intervals (<or=2 weeks) shorter than what is currently recommended.

Accessing patient-centered care using the advanced access model

Waits and delays for healthcare are legendary. These delays are not only frustrating and potentially hazardous for patients and providers but also represent significant cost to office practices. The traditional medical model that defines urgent care versus routine care is a vain and futile attempt to sort demand. This approach is at constant odds with patients' definition of urgency. Trusting patients to determine when and how they want to access care makes sense from a customer service perspective. If approached systematically using the principles of Advanced Access, patient demand patterns can be tracked to forecast demand. These demand patterns become the template for deploying the resources necessary to meet patients' needs. Although not a simple journey, the transformation to Advanced Access provides an entree to patient-centered care where patients can say, "I get exactly the care I want and need, when I want and need it."

Relationship of scheduling interval to missed and cancelled clinic appointments

BACKGROUND

The interval between when a clinical appointment is created and when it occurs may affect the rate of missed and cancelled appointments, affecting access and loss to follow-up, key component of quality.

METHODS

We examined this relationship in various clinic types across Veterans Health Administration clinics nationwide.

RESULTS

As the interval increased, the missed appointment rate increased from 12.0% at day 1 to 20.3% at day 13, then remained constant. Cancellation rates increased steadily from 19% during month 1 to 50% by month 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Scheduling interval has a modest effect on missed appointment rates but a large effect on cancellation rates.

Understanding the work of general practitioners: a social science perspective on the context of medical decision making in primary care

Background

The work of general practitioners (GPs) is increasingly being looked at from the perspective of the strategies and factors shaping it. This reflects the importance given to primary care services in health care system reform. However, the literature provides little insight into the medical decision-making processes in general practice. Our main objective was to better understand how organizational and environmental factors influence the work of GPs.

Methods

We interviewed 28 GPs working in contrasting organizational settings and environments. The data analysis involved using structuration theory to enrich the interpretation of empirical material.

Results

We identified four main factors that influence the practice of GPs: mode of remuneration, peer-to-peer interactions, patients' demands and the availability of other medical resources in the environment. These four conditions of action – what we call primary effects – can directly influence the performance of medical acts and time management, as well as the degree of specialization of GPs. Decisions related to each of those aspects can have a variety of both intentional and non-intentional consequences – what we call secondary effects – that are then likely to become conditions for subsequent action.

Conclusion

This qualitative study helps shed light on the complex causal loops of interrelated factors that shape the work of GPs.

A general method for identifying excess revisit rates: the case of hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To provide a description and application of a novel methodology for comparing actual to expected visit rates at the physician level (controlling for patient characteristics) that could be employed in healthcare monitoring and management.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Two fiscal years (1997/1998 and 1998/1999) of health utilization data extracted from linked administrative data sets on a population-based cohort of 13,688 patients (aged 25+ with hypertension) involving 157 physicians.

STUDY DESIGN

We re-analyzed data from a previously published retrospective cohort study to develop and apply a new methodology for identifying higher or lower than expected physician visit rates for hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We matched each study physician's hypertensive patients on the basis of age, sex, income and co-morbidity to an equal number of control patients drawn from the cohort. We then compared visit rates between the actual practice and the matched control practice.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Although the correlation between the visit rates of the two groups of practices was high (r=.87), there were notable differences in rates, suggesting substantial discretionary practice among physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology outlined in this paper provides a basis for identifying variations in visit levels related to discretionary practice patterns and patient preferences. Deviation from expected visit rates provides a potentially useful measure for performance feedback and quality improvement activities.

Framework for primary care organizations: the importance of a structural domain

Purpose

Conceptual frameworks for primary care have evolved over the last 40 years, yet little attention has been paid to the environmental, structural and organizational factors that facilitate or moderate service delivery. Since primary care is now of more interest to policy makers, it is important that they have a comprehensive and balanced conceptual framework to facilitate their understanding and appreciation. We present a conceptual framework for primary care originally developed to guide the measurement of the performance of primary care organizations within the context of a large mixed-method evaluation of four types of models of primary care in Ontario, Canada.

Methods

The framework was developed following an iterative process that combined expert consultation and group meetings with a narrative review of existing frameworks, as well as trends in health management and organizational theory.

Results

Our conceptual framework for primary care has two domains: structural and performance. The structural domain describes the health care system, practice context and organization of the practice in which any primary care organization operates. The performance domain includes features of health care service delivery and technical quality of clinical care.

Conclusion

As primary care evolves through demonstration projects and reformed delivery models, it is important to evaluate its structural and organizational features as these are likely to have a significant impact on performance.

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

BACKGROUND

The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate for almost 3 decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, 6-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example 6 months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish. To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: 5th March 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - all children and adults receiving dental check-ups in primary care settings, irrespective of their level of risk for oral disease; interventions - recall intervals for the following different types of dental check-ups: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus scale and polish plus preventive advice; e) no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic); f) clinician risk-based recall intervals; outcomes - clinical status outcomes for dental caries (including, but not limited to, mean dmft/DMFT, dmfs/DMFS scores, caries increment, filled teeth (including replacement restorations), early carious lesions arrested or reversed); periodontal disease (including, but not limited to, plaque, calculus, gingivitis, periodontitis, change in probing depth, attachment level); oral mucosa (presence or absence of mucosal lesions, potentially malignant lesions, cancerous lesions, size and stage of cancerous lesions at diagnosis). In addition the following outcomes were considered where reported: patient-centred outcomes, economic cost outcomes, other outcomes such as improvements in oral health knowledge and attitudes, harms, changes in dietary habits and any other oral health-related behavioural change.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted, where deemed necessary and where possible, for further details regarding study design and for data clarification. A quality assessment of the included trial was carried out. The Cochrane Collaboration's statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study (with 188 participants) was included in this review and was assessed as having a high risk of bias. This study provided limited data for dental caries outcomes (dmfs/DMFS increment) and economic cost outcomes (reported time taken to provide examinations and treatment).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at 6-monthly intervals. It is important that high quality RCTs are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address the objectives of this review.

Improving access to specialty care

BACKGROUND

Waits and delays plague health care systems worldwide, and wait times for most specialists exceed those for primary care practices. In office-based practices, the provider office presence is not diluted by competing indispensable activities, and the demand for service is most often for a single type, or stream, of office-based appointment demand. In the more complex specialty practices, however, the demand streams for office visits and other services compete for provider time and dilute the supply of office visits.

SEVEN FLOW STRATEGIES, WITH A FOCUS ON THE INITIAL APPOINTMENT

Seven strategies for reduction of delay can be applied, not only at all steps in patient flow and for all demand streams but also at all steps (for example, office visit, diagnostic procedure, surgery, follow-up) and within all specialty care types and ranges of practice. Each specialty care practice will need to discover how to use the basic principles and implement customized solutions within its own unique environment. Although it is ultimately critical to eliminate the delays in all streams of service, the focus is on the application of change strategies at the initial step between primary care and all specialty care practice types. The strategies are (1) balance supply and demand at each step in the chain, (2) work down the backlog, (3) reduce appointment types, (4) independent contingency planning for all variation, (5) reduce the demand for visits, (6) increase the supply, and (7) improve the efficiency of the office work flow.

SUMMARY

Specialists support various, distinct demand streams that require demand/supply balance to achieve optimal system performance. If demand/supply balance exists within any stream, waits can be minimized, and the practice can choose time frames within which to balance workload.

Predictors of recall assignment decisions by general dental practitioners performing routine oral examinations

The aim of this study was to explore the decision-making behavior of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in performing routine oral examinations (ROEs). Change over time was studied by comparing data from a cohort sample of participants in two surveys in 2000 and 2005. A written questionnaire was sent to 809 dentists (509 responses were obtained) and 475 (61%) were used for analysis. Of the respondents, 347 also participated in the survey in 2000. The mean number of diagnostic ROE items per ROE was 6.9 (standard deviation = 1.7). Groups of GDPs were distinguished based on their answer to the question 'Do you apply for all patients a fixed recall interval between two successive ROEs?' and four personal profiles. Of the GDPs, 38.5% (n = 183) assigned fixed recall intervals (Fxs) for all patients. Individual recall intervals (Ivs) were applied by 61.5% (n = 292) of GDPs, depending on specific selected patient characteristics and risk factors. Logistic regression showed that GDPs applying Fxs also used fixed periods between successive bitewing radiographs. Furthermore, GDPs applying Ivs conducted more frequent periodontal screening and, in the event of periodontal problems, were more inclined to prescribe radiographs. Over a 5 yr period, a shift towards Ivs assignment (from 49% in 2000 to 61.5% in 2005) was found. Differences in assigned recall intervals (Fxs/Ivs) by GDPs are determined by three clinical ROE predictors and two GDP profiles. A shift towards a more individual assessment was found between 2000 and 2005 in the way that Dutch GDPs are dealing with the assignment of recall interval frequency.

Visit frequency and hypertension

The best return visit interval to achieve blood pressure control is currently unknown. This study investigates the relationship between return visit interval and percent change in blood pressure. We reviewed a cohort of hypertensive patient charts from two large, urban family practice offices. Four hundred twenty-nine patients with 7910 intervals showed a mean return visit interval of 79.5 days. Blood pressure control occurred during 34.5% of office visits. Pearson's r correlation coefficients between return visit interval and percent change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure demonstrated a small but statistically significant correlation. Shorter return visit intervals were associated with better percent changes in blood pressure. The return visit interval may be a simple and useful tool to improve management of hypertension.

Routine oral examination: differences in characteristics of Dutch general dental practitioners related to type of recall interval

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore differences in behaviour (characteristics and opinions) among general dental practitioners (GDPs), using either a fixed (Fx) or an individualized recall interval (Iv) between successive routine oral examinations (ROEs).

METHODS

In the year 2000, data were collected by means of a written questionnaire sent to a random stratified sample of 610 dentists of whom 521 responded, of which 508 (83%) were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Two groups of GDPs were distinguished based on their answer to the question: 'Do you apply for all patients a fixed recall interval between two successive ROEs?' Fifty-one per cent of the GDPs (n=257) applied Fxs for all patients, generally for a period of 6 months. Ivs were applied by 49% (n=251) of GDPs, depending on the determination of specific patient characteristics. Logistic regression analysis showed that GDPs applying Fxs also used fixed periods between successive bitewing radiographs for all patients. Furthermore, dentists applying Ivs required more time to conduct an ROE, partly because of a more extensive periodontal screening. GDPs applying Fxs, adhered more to the opinion that a fixed recall regime (every 6 months, as existed before 1995) should be re-introduced, whereas the GDPs in support of Ivs were more in favour to support the opinion that the ROE is 'an excellent instrument for effective, individualized oral care'.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch GDPs differ in the way they deal with the determination of recall interval frequency. These are also specific differences in performance and opinions regarding ROE. With the changing prevalence of oral diseases and the skewed distribution within populations, further research is advocated on consistent decision making to determine the most appropriate recall policy in preventing oral disease.

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients

BACKGROUND

The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate for almost 3 decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, 6-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example 6 months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish. To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals. To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: 9th April 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design- random allocation of participants; participants - all children and adults receiving dental check-ups in primary care settings, irrespective of their level of risk for oral disease; interventions -recall intervals for the following different types of dental check-ups: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus scale and polish plus preventive advice; e) no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic); f) clinician risk-based recall intervals; outcomes - clinical status outcomes for dental caries (including, but not limited to, mean dmft/DMFT, dmfs/DMFS scores, caries increment, filled teeth (including replacement restorations), early carious lesions arrested or reversed); periodontal disease (including, but not limited to, plaque, calculus, gingivitis, periodontitis, change in probing depth, attachment level); oral mucosa (presence or absence of mucosal lesions, potentially malignant lesions, cancerous lesions, size and stage of cancerous lesions at diagnosis). In addition the following outcomes were considered where reported: patient-centred outcomes, economic cost outcomes, other outcomes such as improvements in oral health knowledge and attitudes, harms, changes in dietary habits and any other oral health-related behavioural change.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two authors. Authors were contacted, where deemed necessary and where possible, for further details regarding study design and for data clarification. A quality assessment of the included trial was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study (with 188 participants) was included in this review and was assessed as having a high risk of bias. This study provided limited data for dental caries outcomes (dmfs/DMFS increment) and economic cost outcomes (reported time taken to provide examinations and treatment).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at 6-monthly intervals. It is important that high quality RCTs are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address the objectives of this review.

Prolonging the return visit interval in primary care

PURPOSE

Extending the scheduled return visit interval has been suggested as one means to improve clinic access to the provider. However, prolonging the return visit interval may affect quality of care if prevention measures and chronic disease management receive less attention as clinic visits become less frequent. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a comprehensive education program could encourage providers to lengthen their return visit interval without compromising performance on key quality indicators.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study monitoring scheduling and performance data of primary care providers at the Milwaukee Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Following collection of baseline data (January through June 1999), providers were encouraged to lengthen the return visit interval while increasing reliance on nurses and other clinic staff for interim management of chronic disease. Provider-specific feedback of return visit interval and performance data was utilized to motivate behavioral change. Scheduling and clinical data were abstracted from random medical record audits performed at baseline and from July through December in the years 2000 and 2001.

RESULTS

Compared with the baseline period, the percent of patients scheduled > or =6 months was significantly increased among staff providers and medicine residents at 2 years (Staff providers: 31% vs. 62%, P <0.001; Medicine residents: 22 vs. 44%, P <0.001). Colorectal screening, pneumonia immunizations, and achievement of therapeutic goals for diabetes, hypertension, and lipid disorders significantly improved at 2 years compared with baseline measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions can successfully retrain providers to extend the return visit interval and reduce the scheduling of routine and perhaps unnecessary appointments. This can be accomplished without compromising important performance monitors for diabetes, lipid disorders, hypertension, and prevention.

A general dental practice research network--philosophy, activities and participant views

The importance of building research capability among general dental practitioners was highlighted when in 1996 a large tranche of money was released to support research and development in primary dental care. As a result of the links forged by this research opportunity, a group of primary dental care practitioners was recruited into a Primary Dental Network. This network was closely allied to an academic department and the aim was to develop the practitioners' research interest into research skills and finally into a research project. The group therefore attended a series of structured workshops, designed specifically to augment the practitioners' skills using a 'learning by doing' approach. Once the practitioners had acquired the relevant skills, they undertook a research project, which will be reported in a later paper.

Microsystems in health care: Part 4. Planning patient-centered care

BACKGROUND

Clinical microsystems are the essential building blocks of all health systems. At the heart of an effective microsystem is a productive interaction between an informed, activated patient and a prepared, proactive practice staff. Support, which increases the patient's ability for self-management, is an essential result of a productive interaction. This series on high-performing clinical microsystems is based on interviews and site visits to 20 clinical microsystems in the United States. This fourth article in the series describes how high-performing microsystems design and plan patient-centered care. PLANNING PATIENT-CENTERED CARE: Well-planned, patient-centered care results in improved practice efficiency and better patient outcomes. However, planning this care is not an easy task. Excellent planned care requires that the microsystem have services that match what really matters to a patient and family and protected time to reflect and plan. Patient self-management support, clinical decision support, delivery system design, and clinical information systems must be planned to be effective, timely, and efficient for each individual patient and for all patients.

CONCLUSION

Excellent planned services and planned care are attainable today in microsystems that understand what really matters to a patient and family and have the capacity to provide services to meet the patient's needs.

The association between care co-ordination and emergency department use in older managed care enrollees

Objective

To investigate the association between care co-ordination and use of the Emergency Department (ED) in older managed care enrollees.

Design

Nested case-control with 103 cases (used the ED) and 194 controls (did not use the ED).

Patients and methods

Older patients with multiple chronic illnesses enrolled in a care management programme of a large group-model health maintenance organisation with more than 50,000 members over the age of 64. Better care co-ordination was defined as timely follow-up after a change in treatment; fewer decision-makers involved with the care plan; and a higher patient-perceived rating of overall care co-ordination. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between ED use (the outcome variable) and measures of care co-ordination (the predictor variables).

Results

Self-reported care co-ordination was not significantly different between cases and controls for any of the four classifications of inappropriate ED use. Similarly, no differences were found in the number of different physicians or medication prescribers involved in the patients' care. Four-week follow-up after potentially high-risk events for subsequent ED use, including changes in chronic disease medications, missed encounters, and same day encounters, did not differ between subjects with inappropriate ED use and controls.

Conclusion

Existing measures of care co-ordination were not associated with inappropriate ED use in this study of older adults with complex care needs. The absence of an association may, in part, be attributable to the paucity of validated measures to assess care co-ordination, as well as the methodological complexity inherent in studying this topic. Future research should focus on the development of new measures and on approaches that better isolate the role of care co-ordination from other potential variables that influence utilisation.

What patient population does visit-based sampling in primary care settings represent?

BACKGROUND

Evaluations of outpatient interventions often rely on consecutive sampling of clinic visitors, and assume that study results generalize to the population of patients cared for.

OBJECTIVE

The representativeness of such visit-based sampling compared with the population of patients seen during the same year, in terms of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the user groups that visit-based sampling yielded were assessed.

METHODS

One thousand five hundred forty-six continuing patients visiting the primary care firms in an urban VA medical center were consecutively sampled, and visit frequencies were compared for these patients with subsets of the patient population. Administrative and survey data was then used to describe the types of patients visit-based sampling most represented compared with the types of patients sampled less frequently.

RESULTS

The average sampled patient visited the firms significantly more often than patients in the reference population (18.7 vs. 9.5). Sampled patients were significantly older (>55 years), in poorer health (higher prevalence of cancer, stroke, hypertension), less likely to smoke, and more likely to be single than the average patient visiting the firms (P<0.05). Adjusting for age and sickness, frequent visitors were more apt to have experienced continuity of care during the prior year, to prefer VA care, and to be unemployed.

CONCLUSIONS

Consecutive visit-based sampling actually selected patients with a visit pattern more typical of the patient population visiting four or more times a year. Studies using sampling of consecutive visitors will typically under-represent low users of care and should account for the degree to which results may not generalize to the broader practice population.

Hypertensive patients and their general practitioners

This study examined the relative contribution of hypertensive patients and their physicians in selecting total annual physician visit frequencies and made regional comparisons between two Canadian cities. We found that the frequency of physician visits was primarily influenced by physician referrals and physician practice patterns, which accounted for about 80 percent of the total explainable variance in physician visits. The relative contribution of other available patient and physician characteristics in determining visit frequency was rather small.

Perceived access problems among patients with diabetes in two public systems of care

OBJECTIVE

We examined the prevalence of access problems among public clinic patients after participating in trials of automated telephone disease management with nurse follow-up.

DESIGN

Randomized trial.

SETTING

General medicine clinics of a county health care system and a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.

PARTICIPANTS

Five hundred seventy adults with diabetes using hypoglycemic medication were enrolled and randomized; 520 (91%) provided outcome data at 12 months.

INTERVENTION

Biweekly automated telephone assessments with telephone follow-up by diabetes nurse educators.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

At follow-up, patients reported whether in the prior 6 months they had failed to obtain each of six types of health services because of a financial or nonfinancial access problem. Patients receiving the intervention were significantly less likely than patients receiving usual care to report access problems (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.97). The risk of reporting access problems was greater among county clinic patients than VA patients even when adjusting for their experimental condition, and socioeconomic and clinical risk factors (AOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.53). County patients were especially more likely to avoid seeking care because of a worry about the cost (AOR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.48 to 5.37).

CONCLUSIONS

Many of these public sector patients with diabetes reported that they failed to obtain health services because they perceived financial and nonfinancial access problems. Automated telephone disease management calls with telephone nurse follow-up improved patients' access to care. Despite the impact of the intervention, county clinic patients were more likely than VA patients to report access problems in several areas.