Physicians' preferences for specialty involvement in the care of patients with neurological conditions

Access to device-aided therapies in advanced Parkinson's disease: navigating clinician biases, patient preference, and prognostic uncertainty

Device-aided therapies (DAT), which include deep brain stimulation and pump-based continuous dopaminergic stimulation with either levodopa or apomorphine, are among the major advances in the clinical management of Parkinson's disease (PD). Although DAT are being increasingly offered earlier in the disease course, their classical indication remains advanced PD. Theoretically, every patient should be offered transition to DAT when faced with refractory motor and nonmotor fluctuations and functional decline. Worldwide clinical reality is far from these ideal, and, therefore, question the "real-world" equal opportunity of access to DAT for PD patients with advanced PD-even within a single health care system. Differences in access to care, referral pattern (timing and frequency), as well as physician biases (unconscious/implicit or conscious/explicit bias), and patients' preferences or health-seeking behaviour are to be considered. Compared to DBS, little information is available concerning infusion therapies, as well as neurologists' and patients' attitudes towards them. This viewpoint aims to be thought-provoking and to assist clinicians in moving through the process of DAT selection, by including in their decision algorithm their own biases, patient perspective, ethical concerns as well as the current unknowns surrounding PD prognosis and DAT-related long-term side effects for a given patient.

Effect of integrated community neurology on utilization, diagnostic testing, and access

Background:

The primary care medical home (PCMH) aims to promote delivery of high-value health care. However, growing demand for specialists due to increasingly older adults with complicated and chronic disease necessitates development of novel care models that efficiently incorporate specialty expertise while maintaining coordination and continuity with the PCMH. We describe the effect of a model of integrated community neurology (ICN) on health care utilization, diagnostic testing, and access.

Methods:

This is a retrospective, matched case-control comparison of patients referred to ICN for a face-to-face consultation over a 12-month period. The control group consisted of propensity score–matched patients referred to a non-colocated neurology practice during the study period. Administrative data were used to assess for diagnostic testing, visit utilization, and patient time to appointment.

Results:

From October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, we identified 459 patients evaluated by ICN for a face-to-face visit and 459 matched controls evaluated by the non-colocated neurology practice. The majority of patients were Caucasian and female. ICN patients had lower odds of EMGs ordered (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46–0.89; p = 0.009), MRI brain (adjusted OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45–0.79; p = 0.0004), or subsequent referral to outpatient neurology (adjusted OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.47–0.83; p = 0.001). ICN was not associated with an increase in emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or appointment wait time.

Conclusions:

The ICN model in a PCMH has the potential to reduce diagnostic testing and utilization.

Causal inference as an emerging statistical approach in neurology: an example for epilepsy in the elderly

The elderly population faces an increasing number of cases of chronic neurological conditions, such as epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease. Because the elderly with epilepsy are commonly excluded from randomized controlled clinical trials, there are few rigorous studies to guide clinical practice. When the elderly are eligible for trials, they either rarely participate or frequently have poor adherence to therapy, thus limiting both generalizability and validity. In contrast, large observational data sets are increasingly available, but are susceptible to bias when using common analytic approaches. Recent developments in causal inference-analytic approaches also introduce the possibility of emulating randomized controlled trials to yield valid estimates. We provide a practical example of the application of the principles of causal inference to a large observational data set of patients with epilepsy. This review also provides a framework for comparative-effectiveness research in chronic neurological conditions.

Study protocol of "CHAPS": a randomized controlled trial protocol of Care Coordination for Health Promotion and Activities in Parkinson's Disease to improve the quality of care for individuals with Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Parkinson's disease, the second most common neurodegenerative disease, is diagnostically defined by motor impairments, but also includes often under-recognized impairments in cognition, mood, sleep, and the autonomic nervous system. These problems can severely affect individuals' quality of life. In our prior research, we have developed indicators to measure the quality of care delivered to patients with Parkinson's disease, and we identified gaps in delivering evidence-based treatments for this population. Effective strategies to close these gaps are needed to improve patient quality of life.

METHODS/DESIGN

Building on prior research we developed a multi-faceted proactive implementation program called Care Coordination for Health Promotion and Activities in Parkinson's Disease (CHAPS). To be eligible, patients had to have at least two visits with a primary diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (ICD-9 code: 332.0) at one of five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in the southwestern United States from 2010 to 2014. The program consists of telephone assessments, evidence-based protocols, and tools to enhance patient self-management, care planning, and coordination of care across providers, including an electronic database to support and track coordination of care. Our mixed-methods study employs a randomized, controlled trial design to test whether the CHAPS intervention improves performance in 38 quality measures among an analytic sample of 346 patients. The 38 quality measures are categorized into overarching areas of communication, education, and continuity; regulatory reporting; diagnosis; periodic assessment; medication use; management of motor and non-motor symptoms; use of non-pharmacological approaches and therapies; palliative care; and health maintenance. Secondary outcomes are patient health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, and perceptions of care quality. We are also evaluating the extent of the CHAPS Program implementation and measuring program costs and impacts on health services utilization, in order to perform a analysis of the CHAPS program from the perspective of the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Outcomes are assessed by interviewer-administered surveys collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months, and by medical record chart abstractions. Analyses will be intention-to-treat.

DISCUSSION

The CHAPS Program is poised for dissemination within the VA National Parkinson's Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Center Consortium if demonstrated efficacious.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01532986; registered on January 13, 2012.

Study protocol of "CHAPS": a randomized controlled trial protocol of Care Coordination for Health Promotion and Activities in Parkinson's Disease to improve the quality of care for individuals with Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Parkinson's disease, the second most common neurodegenerative disease, is diagnostically defined by motor impairments, but also includes often under-recognized impairments in cognition, mood, sleep, and the autonomic nervous system. These problems can severely affect individuals' quality of life. In our prior research, we have developed indicators to measure the quality of care delivered to patients with Parkinson's disease, and we identified gaps in delivering evidence-based treatments for this population. Effective strategies to close these gaps are needed to improve patient quality of life.

METHODS/DESIGN

Building on prior research we developed a multi-faceted proactive implementation program called Care Coordination for Health Promotion and Activities in Parkinson's Disease (CHAPS). To be eligible, patients had to have at least two visits with a primary diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (ICD-9 code: 332.0) at one of five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in the southwestern United States from 2010 to 2014. The program consists of telephone assessments, evidence-based protocols, and tools to enhance patient self-management, care planning, and coordination of care across providers, including an electronic database to support and track coordination of care. Our mixed-methods study employs a randomized, controlled trial design to test whether the CHAPS intervention improves performance in 38 quality measures among an analytic sample of 346 patients. The 38 quality measures are categorized into overarching areas of communication, education, and continuity; regulatory reporting; diagnosis; periodic assessment; medication use; management of motor and non-motor symptoms; use of non-pharmacological approaches and therapies; palliative care; and health maintenance. Secondary outcomes are patient health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, and perceptions of care quality. We are also evaluating the extent of the CHAPS Program implementation and measuring program costs and impacts on health services utilization, in order to perform a analysis of the CHAPS program from the perspective of the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Outcomes are assessed by interviewer-administered surveys collected at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months, and by medical record chart abstractions. Analyses will be intention-to-treat.

DISCUSSION

The CHAPS Program is poised for dissemination within the VA National Parkinson's Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Center Consortium if demonstrated efficacious.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01532986; registered on January 13, 2012.

General Practitioner Preferences in Managing Care of Multiple Sclerosis Patients

Background:Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a lifelong neurological disorder requiring care in a variety of settings. The purpose of this study is to describe preferences of general practitioners (GPs) with regards to providing care for MS patients.Methods:A stratified sample of 900 GPs in the province of Quebec were sent a questionnaire, with 266 returning completed questionnaires. Respondents were surveyed about their preferences using four clinical scenarios describing hypothetical patients experiencing different stages of MS. Respondents were asked whether they would continue managing the patient themselves, formally refer the patient to a specialist, or seek specialist advice.Results:In two scenarios representing stable courses, 40.9% and 61.6% of GPs, respectively, intended to manage the patient themselves. GPs who reported having experience with MS patients were more likely to report an intention to continue management. In one scenario, GPs operating in rural areas were less likely to consider management than those in the Montreal metropolitan area (odds ratio=0.422, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.90).Conclusions:For MS patients with a stable disease course, an important proportion of GPs appear to be willing to manage long-term care for MS patients.

What is the evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist non-emergency care? A systematic review and logic model synthesis

Background

Demand management describes any method used to monitor, direct or regulate patient referrals. Several strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions targeting primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

Objective

This research aimed to conduct an inclusive systematic review and logic model synthesis in order to better understand factors impacting on the effectiveness of interventions targeting referral between primary and secondary medical health care.

Design

The approach combined systematic review with logic modelling synthesis techniques to develop an evidence-based framework of factors influencing the pathway between interventions and system-wide changes.

Setting

Primary health care.

Main outcome measures

Referral from primary to secondary care.

Review methods

Systematic searches were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. Quality of individual studies was appraised, with consideration of overall strength of evidence. A narrative synthesis and logic model summary of the data was completed.

Results

From a database of 8327 unique papers, 290 were included in the review. The intervention studies were grouped into four categories of education interventions (n = 50); process change interventions (n = 49); system change interventions (n = 38); and patient-focused interventions (n = 3). Effectiveness was assessed variously in these papers; however, there was a gap regarding the mechanisms whereby these interventions lead to demand management impacts. The findings suggest that, although individual-level interventions may be popular, the stronger evidence relates only to peer-review and feedback interventions. Process change interventions appeared to be more effective when the change resulted in the specialist being provided with more or better quality information about the patient. System changes including the community provision of specialist services by general practitioners, outreach provision by specialists and the return of inappropriate referrals appeared to have evidence of effect. The pathway whereby interventions might lead to service-wide impact was complex, with multiple factors potentially acting as barriers or facilitators to the change process. Factors related, first, to the doctor (including knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and previous experiences of a service), second, to the patient (including condition and social factors) and, third, to the influence of the doctor–patient relationship. We also identified a number of potentially influential factors at a local level, such as perceived waiting times and the availability of a specialist. These elements are key factors in the pathway between an intervention and intended demand management outcomes influencing both applicability and effectiveness.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the complexity of the referral process and multiple elements that will impact on intervention outcomes and applicability to a local area. Any interventions seeking to change referral practice need to address factors relating to the individual practitioner, the patient and also the situation in which the referral is taking place. These conclusions apply especially to referral management in a UK context where this whole range of factors/issues lies well within the remit of the NHS. This work highlights that intermediate outcomes are important in the referral pathway. It is recommended that researchers include measure of these intermediate outcomes in their evaluation of intervention effectiveness in order to determine where blocks to or facilitators of system-wide impact may be occurring.

Study registration

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004037.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Priorities in pediatric epilepsy research: improving children's futures today

The Priorities in Pediatric Epilepsy Research workshop was held in the spirit of patient-centered and patient-driven mandates for developing best practices in care, particularly for epilepsy beginning under age 3 years. The workshop brought together parents, representatives of voluntary advocacy organizations, physicians, allied health professionals, researchers, and administrators to identify priority areas for pediatric epilepsy care and research including implementation and testing of interventions designed to improve care processes and outcomes. Priorities highlighted were 1) patient outcomes, especially seizure control but also behavioral, academic, and social functioning; 2) early and accurate diagnosis and optimal treatment; 3) role and involvement of parents (communication and shared decision-making); and 4) integration of school and community organizations with epilepsy care delivery. Key factors influencing pediatric epilepsy care included the child's impairments and seizure presentation, parents, providers, the health care system, and community systems. Care was represented as a sequential process from initial onset of seizures to referral for comprehensive evaluation when needed. We considered an alternative model in which comprehensive care would be utilized from onset, proactively, rather than reactively after pharmacoresistance became obvious. Barriers, including limited levels of evidence about many aspects of diagnosis and management, access to care--particularly epilepsy specialty and behavioral health care--and implementation, were identified. Progress hinges on coordinated research efforts that systematically address gaps in knowledge and overcoming barriers to access and implementation. The stakes are considerable, and the potential benefits for reduced burden of refractory epilepsy and lifelong disabilities may be enormous.

Dropping the baton: specialty referrals in the United States

CONTEXT

In the United States, more than a third of patients are referred to a specialist each year, and specialist visits constitute more than half of outpatient visits. Despite the frequency of referrals and the importance of the specialty-referral process, the process itself has been a long-standing source of frustration among both primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. These frustrations, along with a desire to lower costs, have led to numerous strategies to improve the specialty-referral process, such as using gatekeepers and referral guidelines.

METHODS

This article reviews the literature on the specialty-referral process in order to better understand what is known about current problems with the referral process and what solutions have been proposed. The article first provides a conceptual framework and then reviews prior literature on the referral decision, care coordination including information transfer, and access to specialty care.

FINDINGS

PCPs vary in their threshold for referring a patient, which results in both the underuse and the overuse of specialists. Many referrals do not include a transfer of information, either to or from the specialist; and when they do, it often contains insufficient data for medical decision making. Care across the primary-specialty interface is poorly integrated; PCPs often do not know whether a patient actually went to the specialist, or what the specialist recommended. PCPs and specialists also frequently disagree on the specialist's role during the referral episode (e.g., single consultation or continuing co-management).

CONCLUSIONS

There are breakdowns and inefficiencies in all components of the specialty-referral process. Despite many promising mechanisms to improve the referral process, rigorous evaluations of these improvements are needed.

Nonphysicians' and physicians' knowledge and care preferences for Parkinson's disease

We compared nonphysician and physician health care providers' knowledge of the pharmacological management of Parkinson's disease (PD) and their preferences for referring PD patients to specialists. A survey instrument was mailed in 2003 to all geriatric, neurology, mental health, and primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in the Pacific Northwest Veterans Health Administration (n = 503). The instrument contained questions about recommended practices for the pharmacotherapy of PD and two clinical scenarios followed by questions regarding referral preferences. The overall response rate was 74%. Nonphysicians answered 46% and physicians answered 50% of questions about PD pharmacotherapy in agreement with recommended clinical practice (P = 0.14). Nonphysician and physician providers did not differ in their preference to refer a PD patient to a specialist for management, but nonphysician providers were more likely to refer a patient to a specialist for diagnostic confirmation odds ratio: 3.03; 95% confidence interval: 1.67, 5.51). Given trends for more nonphysician provider autonomy in patient care, it is reassuring that nonphysician providers have similar knowledge of PD pharmacotherapy as physicians. Policies to substitute nonphysician providers for physician providers may increase referrals to specialty providers for diagnostic confirmation.

Association of specialist involvement and quality of care for Parkinson's disease

Because Parkinson's disease (PD) has multiple neurological symptoms and often complex treatments, the quality of PD care may be higher when a specialist is involved. We examined the medical records, from 1998 to 2004, of 401 Los Angeles veterans with Parkinson's disease to determine whether care met key indicators of PD care quality. All care following a visit to a movement-disorder specialist or general neurologist was classified as specialty care. We compared adherence to each indicator by level of specialist involvement through logistic regression models. Over the study period, 10 indicators of PD care quality were triggered 2,227 times. Overall, movement disorder specialist involvement (78%) was associated with higher adherence to indicators than did general neurologist involvement (70%, P = 0.006) and nonneurologist involvement (52%, P < 0.001). The differences between movement disorder specialist and nonneurologist involvement were especially large for four indicators: treatment of wearing-off, assessments of falls, depression, and hallucinations. There is significant room for improving aspects of PD care quality among patients who do not have the involvement of a specialist. Quality of care interventions should involve specialists in management of motor symptoms and incorporate methods for routine assessment of nonmotor PD symptoms.

Cooperative Dementia Care Clinics: A New Model for Managing Cognitively Impaired Patients

Cooperative health care clinics (CHCCs), or shared medical appointments, are a healthcare innovation that can improve access and expand physicians' capacity to manage common geriatric conditions. This report describes a pilot program and working model for extending CHCCs to patients with dementia. Three cooperative dementia care clinics (CDCCs) met monthly for up to 1 year, drawing participants from a dementia clinic roster of patients and caregivers who had required continued specialty care for at least 3 months. Twenty-six of 33 eligible patient-caregiver dyads expressed interest, and 21 enrolled; five whose clinical status changed during the year withdrew and were replaced with new members. Brief introductory socialization, individualized clinical management, and an educational focus selected from problems of patients and caregivers were common to all sessions. Most participants required several types of clinical intervention and educational support. One group ended after reaching a natural termination point, and two others are ongoing at the request of participants. CDCCs can be a viable approach to increasing dementia care capacity in health systems. Formal service intervention trials to evaluate the generalizability and comparative effectiveness and economic viability of this model versus usual care are an appropriate next step.

The quality of care delivered to Parkinson's disease patients in the U.S. Pacific Northwest Veterans Health System

Background

Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common chronic neurological disorder of the elderly. Despite the fact that a comprehensive review of general health care in the United States showed that the quality of care delivered to patients usually falls below professional standards, there is limited data on the quality of care for patients with PD.

Methods

Using the administrative database, the Pacific Northwest Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Data Warehouse, a population of PD patients with encounters from 10/1/98-12/31/04 were identified. A random sample of 350 patient charts underwent further review for diagnostic evaluation. All patients whose records revealed a physician diagnosis of definite or possible Idiopathic Parkinson's (IPD) disease (n = 150) were included in a medical chart review to evaluate adherence to five evidence-based quality of care indicators.

Results

For those care indicators with good inter-rater reliability, 16.6% of care received by PD patients was adherent for annual depression screening, 23.4% of care was adherent for annual fall screening and, 67.3% of care was adherent for management of urinary incontinence. Patients receiving specialty care were more likely to be adherent with fall screening than those not receiving specialty care OR = 2.3, 95%CI = 1.2–4.2, but less likely to be adherent with management of urinary incontinence, OR = 0.3, 95%CI = 0.1–0.8. Patients receiving care outside the VA system were more likely to be adherent with depression screening OR = 2.4, 95%CI = >1.0–5.5 and fall screening OR = 2.2, 95%CI = 1.1–4.4.

Conclusion

We found very low rates of adherence for annual screening for depression and falls for PD patients but reasonable adherence rates for management of urinary incontinence. Interestingly, receiving concurrent specialty care did not necessarily result in higher adherence for all care indicators suggesting some coordination and role responsibility confusion. The increased adherence in PD patients receiving care outside the VA system suggests that patients with outside care may demand better care within the VA system.

Barriers to translating emerging genetic research on smoking into clinical practice. Perspectives of primary care physicians

OBJECTIVE

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death nationally. Emerging research may lead to improved smoking cessation treatment options, including tailoring treatment by genotype. Our objective was to assess primary care physicians' attitudes toward new genetic-based approaches to smoking treatment.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A 2002 national survey of primary care physicians. Respondents were randomly assigned a survey including 1 of 2 scenarios: a scenario in which a new test to tailor smoking treatment was described as a "genetic" test or one in which the new test was described as a "serum protein" test.

PARTICIPANTS

The study sample was randomly drawn from all U.S. primary care physicians in the American Medical Association Masterfile (e.g., those with a primary specialty of internal medicine, family practice, or general practice). Of 2,000 sampled physicians, 1,120 responded, yielding a response rate of 62.3%.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Controlling for physician and practice characteristics, describing a new test as "genetic" resulted in a regression-adjusted mean adoption score of 73.5, compared to a score of 82.5 for a nongenetic test, reflecting an 11% reduction in physicians' likelihood of offering such a test to their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Merely describing a new test to tailor smoking treatment as "genetic" poses a significant barrier to physician adoption. Considering national estimates of those who smoke on a daily basis, this 11% reduction in adoption scores would translate into 3.9 million smokers who would not be offered a new genetic-based treatment for smoking. While emerging genetic research may lead to improved smoking treatment, the potential of novel interventions will likely go unrealized unless barriers to clinical integration are addressed.

Development of quality of care indicators for Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a major cause of disability. To date, there have been no large-scale efforts to measure the quality of PD care because of a lack of quality indicators for conducting an explicit review of PD care processes. We present a set of quality indicators for PD care. Based on a structured review of the medical literature, 79 potential indicators were drafted. Through a two-round modified Delphi process, an expert panel of seven movement disorders specialists rated each indicator on criteria of validity, feasibility, impact on outcomes, room for improvement, and overall utility. Seventy-one quality indicators met validity and feasibility thresholds. Applying thresholds for impact on outcomes, room for improvement, and overall utility, a subset of 29 indicators was identified, spanning dopaminergic therapy, assessment of functional status, assessment and treatment of depression, coordination of care, and medication use. Multivariable analysis showed that overall utility ratings were driven by validity and impact on outcomes (P < 0.01). An expert panel can reach consensus on a set of highly rated quality indicators for PD care, which can be used to assess quality of PD care and guide the design of quality improvement projects.

Do neurologists and primary care physicians agree on the extent of specialty involvement of patients referred to neurologists?

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the roles and responsibilities of physicians who manage mutual patients is important for assuring good patient care. Among physicians expressing a preference to involve a neurologist in the care of a patient, we evaluated agreement between neurologists and primary care physicians for the extent of specialty involvement in the evaluation and management of the patient, and the factors influencing those preferences.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A self-administered survey containing 3 clinical scenarios was developed with the assistance of a multispecialty advisory board and mailed to a stratified probability sample of physicians.

PARTICIPANTS

Six hundred and eight family physicians, 624 general internists, and 492 neurologists in 9 U.S. states.

INTERVENTIONS

For each scenario, those respondents who preferred involvement of a specialist were asked about the preferred extent of that involvement: one-time consultation with and without test/medication ordering, consultation and limited follow-up, or taking over ongoing care of the specialty problem as long as it persists.

MAIN RESULTS

Survey response rate was 60%. For all 3 scenarios, neurologists preferred a greater extent of specialty involvement compared to primary care physicians (all P <.05). Other physician and practice characteristic factors, including financial incentives, had lesser or no influence on the extent of specialty involvement preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

The disagreement between primary care physicians and specialists regarding the preferred extent of specialist involvement in the care of patients with neurological conditions should raise serious concerns among health care providers, policy makers, and educators about whether mutual patient care is coordinated and appropriate.

Female specialists were more likely to respond to a postal questionnaire about drug treatments for Alzheimer disease

OBJECTIVE

To assess demographic predictors of response for specialists who were mailed a postal questionnaire on drug treatments for Alzheimer disease.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The questionnaire was sent to 317 specialists in Quebec, Canada. Demographic variables included specialty, urban/rural practice, language, sex, and 'number of years since receiving a medical license.' The specialists were stratified according to responder status (i.e., respondent/nonrespondent), and respondents were further stratified as early or late responders. Variables differing between these strata were entered into logistic regression models to see if they predicted response.

RESULTS

Only 'female sex' was a predictor of response in the respondent/nonrespondent analysis (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.17, 3.53). No demographic variables predicted early or late response.

CONCLUSION

Researchers planning postal questionnaires should target male specialists with modified or additional mailings to increase response and reduce the potential for nonresponse bias. Caution should be exercised when comparing early vs. late responders as a means of assessing nonresponse bias.

Creating a useful vascular center: a statewide survey of what primary care physicians really want

OBJECTIVE

Multidisciplinary vascular centers (VCs) have been proposed to integrate vascular patient care. No studies, however, have assessed referring physician interest or which services should be provided. A statewide survey of primary care physicians (PCPs) was performed to answer these questions.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed to 3711 PCPs, asking about familiarity with vascular disease, potential VC usage, and services VCs should provide. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to determine which PCPs would refer patients, the services desired, and which patients would be referred.

RESULTS

Of 1006 PCPs who responded, 66% would refer patients to a VC, especially patients younger than 50 years (P<.001) and those with lower extremity disease (P<.001) or abdominal aortic aneurysm (P<.001). PCPs practicing within 50 miles of a VC (P<.001), those in practice less than 5 years (P<.001), and those without specific training in vascular disease during residency (P=.004) were most likely to refer patients. Vascular surgery (97%), interventional radiology (90%), and a noninvasive vascular laboratory (82%) were considered the most important services, and physician educational services (62%) were also desirable. PCPs did not think cardiology, cardiac surgery, smoking cessation programs, or diabetes or lipid management are needed. Reasons for VC nonuse included travel distance (23%), sufficient local services (21%), and insurance issues (12%). Only 16% of PCPs believe that their patients with vascular disease currently receive optimal care.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable interest in VCs among PCPs. In contrast to recently described models, VCs need not incorporate cardiology, cardiac surgery, smoking cessation programs, or diabetes or lipid management. VCs should include vascular surgery, interventional radiology, a noninvasive vascular laboratory, and physician educational services.

Barriers to the management of patients with surgically remediable intractable epilepsy

It is estimated that only a small proportion of patients with surgically remediable intractable epilepsy receive surgical treatment. There are multiple reasons why this is the case. Patients with intractable epilepsy are sometimes severely disabled and disability can create barriers to getting recommended care. Patients with epilepsy are not well informed about their condition and the available treatments. The incidence of epilepsy is similar in minority populations, and surgically remediable epilepsy frequently presents in adolescence. Nevertheless, these vulnerable populations have specific barriers to receiving epilepsy care, which are often not addressed. In addition, despite scientific evidence for the benefits of the surgical treatment of epilepsy, many healthcare providers do not recommend or adequately discuss surgery with patients. Solutions to these barriers will require interventions that result in informed and capable patients who actively participate in their care and healthcare providers who practice culturally sensitive, recommended care.

Health Services Research in Neurology

This chapter covers the principles of health services research, which is critical for understanding and reducing the burden of neurological disease across populations. The goal of neurologic health services research is to create a scientific basis for measurably improving the care that is provided to patients with both chronic and acute neurological conditions. It is multi-disciplinary research that draws on the expertise of neurologists trained in clinical research methods, economists, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, sociologists, and other social scientists. Typical sources of data for health services research studies are surveys and interviews, medical records, and administrative data sets. Most health services researchers employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods, and they work in collaboration with health care administrators and organizations in which health care is provided in the US. The chapter encompasses the design and execution of studies of access to care, quality of care and outcomes research, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness.

Predictors of cardiologist care for older patients hospitalized for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Studies have suggested that cardiologists may provide higher quality heart failure care than generalists. However, national rates of specialty care during hospitalization for heart failure and factors associated with care by a cardiologist are unknown.

METHODS

We assessed specialty care in a sample of Medicare patients hospitalized nationwide with heart failure between 1998 and 1999 (n = 25,869). Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models were used to identify factors independently associated with treatment by a cardiologist.

RESULTS

One-quarter (25.5%) of patients had a cardiologist as their attending physician, 31.3% of patients received a cardiology consult, and 43.2% of patients were not treated by a cardiologist during hospitalization. Older patients (age <75 years: referent; age 75-84 years: risk ratio [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98; age > or =85 years: RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and women (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93) were less likely to have an attending cardiologist. Patients with a history of heart failure (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.06-1.20), coronary disease (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.32), coronary artery bypass grafting (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.32-1.42), or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.19-1.42) were more likely to be treated by a cardiologist, whereas patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79) and dementia (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-0.70) were less likely to be treated by a cardiologist. Patient race was not associated with treatment by a cardiologist. The strongest predictors of attending cardiology care were hospital factors, including large volume (>300 beds; RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.32-1.42) and geographic location (RR, 1.00 Northeast (referent) vs RR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.46-0.65 Midwest).

CONCLUSIONS

Slightly more than half of older patients with heart failure received care from a cardiologist. Several patient characteristics, including age and sex, were associated with the use of specialty care, suggesting that factors other than clinical presentation may independently influence the use of specialty care.