Patient Relationships and the Personal Physician in Tomorrow's Health System: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference.

A group of senior leaders from the early generation of academic family medicine reflect on the meaning of being a personal physician, based on their own clinical experiences and as teachers of residents and students in academic health centers. Recognizing that changes in clinical care and education at national and local systems levels have added extraordinary demands to the role of the personal physician, the senior group offers examples of how the discipline might go forward in changing times. Differently organized care such as the Family Health Team model in Ontario, Canada; value-based payment for populations in large health systems; and federal changes in reimbursement for populations can have positive effects on physician satisfaction. These changes and examples of changes in medical student and residency education also have the potential to positively affect the primary care workforce. The authors conclude that, without substantive educational and health system reform, the ability to truly serve as a personal physician and adhere to the values of continuity, responsibility, and accountability will continue to be threatened.

Primary care in the age of reform-not a time for complacency.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Improving opportunities for primary care are evident in the evolving health care marketplace. Yet a secure and meaningfully scaled role in the future for family medicine and primary care is not assured. Family medicine can help lead the primary care movement now-from both clinical and policy perspectives-by energetically embracing newly emerging care options rather than becoming complacent or defensive. Avoiding complacency means: (1) improving assessment and intervention for social and health system complexity (our complex patients), (2) regarding primary care as a way of operating, not as a geographical place-even with the name medical home in place, (3) coordinating with dedicated mobile teams for our most complex and costly patients, and (4) improving leadership competence at a level required for transformation, not just maintenance.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Family History and Improving Health.

National Institutes of Health consensus and state-of-the science statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session; 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session; and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health or the U.S. government. The statement reflects the panel's assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a "snapshot in time" of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research.

Primary care for patient complexity, not only disease.

Primary care is increasingly geared toward standardized care and decision-making for common chronic conditions, combinations of medical and mental health conditions, and the behavioral aspects of care for those conditions. Yet even with well-integrated team-based care for health conditions in place, some patients do not engage or respond as well as clinicians would wish or predict. This troubles patients and clinicians alike and is often chalked up informally to "patient complexity." Indeed, every clinician has encountered complex patients and reacted with "Oh my gosh"-but not necessarily with a patterned vocabulary for exactly how the patient is complex and what to do about it. Based on work in the Netherlands, patient complexity is defined here as interference with standard care and decision-making by symptom severity or impairments, diagnostic uncertainty, difficulty engaging care, lack of social safety or participation, disorganization of care, and difficult patient-clinician relationships. A blueprint for patient-centered medical home must address patient complexity by promoting the interplay of usual care for conditions and individualized attention to patient-specific sources of complexity-across whatever diseases and conditions the patient may have.

Somatisation and alexithymia in patients with high use of medical care and medically unexplained symptoms.

Background and objective Few reports in the medical literature examine physician agreement on a standard assessment for somatisation in primary care patients. We describe somatising patients who were subjectively identified by family physicians and subsequently classified on the somatisation spectrum by a standard evaluation. We also examine the relation between somatisation and alexithymia.Method Responding to a brief verbal prompt, family physicians referred high-utilising patients 18 years old and older who had 'persistent medically unexplained symptoms for at least 6 months' (n = 72). Patients who agreed to participate in the study (n = 48) were assessed individually using a structured diagnostic interview and two measures of alexithymia.Results All participating patients met inclusion criteria for one of two abridged subtypes on the somatisation spectrum. Somatisation was not related to alexithymia.Conclusions Family physicians subjectively identified patients who had somatisation, with a high level of accuracy and without formal screening or diagnostic tests. Embedded in a disease-management system, especially an electronic version, a brief verbal prompt to physicians to identify patients on the somatisation spectrum could potentially realise considerable savings in physician time and medical system financial expenditures.

Innovative reflecting interview: effect on high-utilizing patients with medically unexplained symptoms.

This pilot study was conducted to determine the effect of an innovative reflecting interview on the health care utilization, physical health, mental function, and health care satisfaction of high-utilizing primary care patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms. Twenty-four high-utilizing patients met study selection criteria and were randomly assigned to a no-intervention control group or a reflecting interview intervention group. Outcomes were measured at 4 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after the date of study enrollment. Results indicated that high-utilizing patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms who participated in a reflecting interview had reduced total health care costs, primarily through the reduction of hospitalization or inpatient expenses, despite a modest increase in outpatient primary care clinic visits. These data suggest that participation in a reflecting interview and regular visits with a primary care clinician can decrease health care utilization without adversely affecting patient satisfaction.

Predicting persistently high primary care use.

PURPOSE: We wanted to identify risk factors for persistently high use of primary care. METHODS: We analyzed outpatient office visits to practitioners in family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, and obstetrics for 1997-1999 among patients in a small Midwestern city covered by a fee-for-service insurance plan with no co-payments for physician visits and no requirement for referral to specialty care. Logistic regression was used to predict which patients with 10 or more primary care visits in 1997 would repeat high use in 1998 based on demographic and diagnostic categories (adjusted clinical groups [ACGs]). A confirmatory data set (high primary care use in 1998 persistent into 1999) was used to evaluate the model. RESULTS: Two percent of the 54,074 patients had 10 or more primary care visits in 1997, and of these, almost 19% had 10 or more visits in the next year. Among adults, 4 ambulatory diagnosis groups (ADGs) were simultaneously positive predictors of repeated high primary care visits: unstable chronic medical conditions, see and reassure conditions, minor time-limited psychosocial conditions, and minor signs and symptoms. Meanwhile, pregnancy was negatively associated. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.794 for adults in the developmental data set and 0.752 in the confirmatory data set, indicating a moderately accurate assessment. A satisfactory model was not developed for pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many persistently high primary care users appear to be overserviced but underserved, with underlying problems not addressed by a medical approach. Some may benefit from psychosocial support, whereas others may be good candidates for disease management interventions.

Health and behavior: the interplay of biological, behavioral, and social influences: summary of an Institute of Medicine report.

An Institute of Medicine committee was convened to explore the links between biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors and health and to review effective applications of behavioral interventions. Based on the evidence about interactions of the physiological responses to stress, behavioral choices, and social influences, the committee encouraged additional research efforts to explore the integration of these variables and to evaluate their mechanisms. An understanding of the social factors influencing behavior is growing and should be considered in programs and policies for public health, in addition to individual behavior and physiological status. Interventions to change behaviors have been directed toward individuals, communities, and society. Many intervention trials have documented the capacity of interventions to modify risk factors. However, more trials that include measures of morbidity and mortality to determine if the strategy has the desired health effects are needed. Behavior can be changed and new behaviors can be taught. Maintaining behavior changes is a greater challenge. Although short-term changes in behavior following interventions are encouraging, long-duration efforts are needed to improve health outcomes and to provide long-term assessments of effectiveness. Interventions aimed at any level can influence behavior change; however, existing research suggests that concurrent interventions at multiple levels are most likely to sustain behavior change and should be encouraged.