Primary Care Team Perspectives on the Suitability of Telehealth Modality (Phone vs Video) at the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth has the potential to improve access and timeliness of care, enabling primary care teams to deliver hybrid (virtual/in-person) services that will likely extend beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. To optimize its use and sustainability, it is imperative to understand how primary care teams perceive the suitability of telehealth services, including appropriate choice of mode (telephone or video). However, there is limited research on providers' decision-making processes surrounding telehealth use in primary care, including whether to use telephone or video, which this VA-focused study addresses. We examined how primary care (PC) team members determine whether to use telehealth and the mode of delivery, in the care of patients. METHODS: Qualitative case study that included 15 semi-structured interviews with employees who provided or supported telehealth care at primary care clinics at the Veterans Health Administration. We used a team-based rapid analysis approach to identify experiences using telehealth soon after COVID-19's emergence, consisting of the creation of structured summaries of each transcribed interview. The lead author then identified and compiled themes and sub-themes related to the suitability of telehealth in primary care, as well as associated quotes from transcripts. Resulting themes and quotes were reviewed and validated by 2 members of the project team. RESULTS: Primary care team members considered several factors when assessing both the suitability of telehealth for appointments, and mode of use. They were largely guided by patient-related factors including patient preferences, specific health issues, and access to technology. Additional considerations centered on team members' personal preferences and factors that supported the wellbeing of the team, such as the flexibility to work from home (work-life balance) and protection from infection. Generally, participants viewed the option of both telephone and video telehealth modalities as useful tools in the care of patients although a few respondents emphasized its inferiority to in-person care. CONCLUSIONS: Determining the suitability of telehealth services, including appropriate choice of mode is complex. Its suitability is tied to a variety of factors related to multilevel resources, preferences, and timing. When appropriate, telehealth should be considered a useful tool in the care of patients and for employee well-being.

Veterans Health Administration (VA) vs. Non-VA Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed. DISCUSSION: VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Examining telehealth use among primary care patients, providers, and clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: At the onset of COVID-19, there was a rapid expansion of telehealth (video/telephone) visits to maintain delivery of primary care (PC) services at the Veterans Health Administration (VA). This study examines patient, provider, and site-level characteristics of any virtual and video-based care in PC. METHODS: Interrupted time series (ITS) design was conducted using VA administrative/clinical, electronic healthcare data, 12-months before and 12-months after COVID-19 onset (set at March 2020) at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (GLA), between 2019 and 2021. Patients with at least one visit to a VA PC clinic at GLA (n = 547,730 visits) were included in the analysis. The two main outcomes for this study were 1) any telehealth (versus in-person), as well as 2) video-based care (versus telephone). For the ITS analysis, segmented logistic regression on repeated monthly observations of any telehealth and video-based care was used. RESULTS: Percent telehealth and video use increased from 13.9 to 63.1%, and 0.3 to 11.3%, respectively, before to after COVID-19 onset. According to adjusted percentages, GLA community-based clinics (37.7%, versus 29.8% in hospital-based clinics, p < .001), social workers/pharmacists/dietitians (53.7%, versus 34.0% for PC clinicians, p < .001), and minority groups, non-Hispanic African Americans (36.3%) and Hispanics (34.4%, versus 35.3% for Whites, p < .001) were more likely to use telephone than video. Conversely, mental health providers (43.3%) compared to PC clinicians (15.3%), and women (for all age groups, except 75+) compared to men, were more likely to use video than telephone (all p's < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Since telehealth care provision is likely to continue after COVID-19, additional research is needed to identify which PC outpatient services are better suited for telephone (e.g., case management) versus video-based care (e.g., integrated mental health visits). Additionally, it is important to understand how all clinics can systematically increase access to both telephone- and video-based PC services, while ensuring equitable care for all patient populations.

Analysis of Variation in Organizational Definitions of Primary Care Panels: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Primary care panel size plays an increasing role in measuring primary care provider (ie, physicians and advanced practice providers, which include nurse practitioners and physician assistants) workload, setting practice capacity, and determining pay and can influence quality of care, access, and burnout. However, reported panel sizes vary widely. Objective: To identify how panels are defined, the degree of variation in these definitions, the consequences of different definitions of panel size, and research on strengths of different approaches. Evidence Review: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Dissertations and Theses Global databases were searched from inception to April 28, 2021, for subject headings and text words to capture concepts of primary care panel size. Article review and data abstraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Main outcomes reported included rules for adding or removing patients from panels, rules for measuring primary care provider resources, consequences of different rules on reported panel size, and research on advantages and disadvantages of different rules. Findings: The literature search yielded 1687 articles, with 294 potentially relevant articles and 74 containing relevant data. Specific practices were identified from 29 health care systems and 5 empanelment implementation guides. Patients were most commonly empaneled after 1 primary care visit (24 of 34 [70.6%]), but some were empaneled only after several visits (5 [14.8%]), enrollment in a health plan (4 [11.8%]) or any visit to the health care system (1 [3.0%]). Patients were removed when no visit had occurred in a specified look-back period, which varied from 12 to 42 months. Regarding primary care provider resources, half of organizations assigned advanced practice providers independent panels and half had them share panels with a physician, increasing the physician's panel by 50% to 100%. Analyses demonstrated that changes in individual rules for adding patients, removing patients, or estimating primary care provider resources could increase reported panel size from 20% to 100%, without change in actual primary care provider workload. No research was found investigating advantages of different definitions. Conclusions and Relevance: Much variation exists in how panels are defined, and this variation can have substantial consequences on reported panel size. Research is needed on how to define primary care panels to best identify active patients, which could contribute to a widely accepted standard approach to panel definition.

What Is the Optimal Primary Care Panel Size?: A Systematic Review.

Background: Primary care for a panel of patients is a central component of population health, but the optimal panel size is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the association of primary care panel size with health care outcomes and provider burnout. Data Sources: English-language searches of multiple databases from inception to October 2019 and Google searches performed in September 2019. Study Selection: English-language studies of any design, including simulation models, that assessed the association between primary care panel size and safety, efficacy, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, equity, or provider burnout. Data Extraction: Independent, dual-reviewer extraction; group consensus rating of certainty of evidence. Data Synthesis: Sixteen hypothesis-testing studies and 12 simulation modeling studies met inclusion criteria. All but 1 hypothesis-testing study were cross-sectional assessments of association. Three studies each provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with no or modestly adverse effects on patient-centered and effective care. Eight studies provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with variable effects on timely care. No studies assessed the effect of panel size on safety, efficiency, or equity. One study provided very-low-certainty evidence of an association between increased panel size and provider burnout. The 12 simulation studies evaluated 5 models; all used access as the only outcome of care. Five and 2 studies, respectively, provided moderate-certainty evidence that adjusting panel size for case mix and adding clinical conditions to the case mix resulted in better access. Limitation: No studies had concurrent comparison groups, and published and unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations about the optimal primary care panel size for achieving beneficial health outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

The Top 10 Pulmonary Pearls for Primary Care Physicians.

Pulmonary diseases are commonly encountered by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting. Despite their prevalence, many physicians may be unfamiliar with the diagnosis and appropriate management of these disorders. The evidence-based pearls in this article will help primary care physicians navigate important topics in pulmonary medicine and guide their decision to refer their patients to a pulmonary specialist.

Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a treatment option. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have reported different conclusions about the effectiveness of SMT. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (≤6 weeks) low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 1, 2011, through February 6, 2017, as well as identified systematic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT compared with sham or alternative treatments, and that measured pain or function outcomes for up to 6 weeks. Observational studies were included to assess harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was done in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Risk of Bias tool. This tool has 11 items in the following domains: randomization, concealment, baseline differences, blinding (patient), blinding (care provider [care provider is a specific quality metric used by the CBN Risk of Bias tool]), blinding (outcome), co-interventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and intention to treat. Prior research has shown the CBN Risk of Bias tool identifies studies at an increased risk of bias using a threshold of 5 or 6 as a summary score. The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (measured by the 24-point Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index [range, 0-100]), or any harms measured within 6 weeks. FINDINGS: Of 26 eligible RCTs identified, 15 RCTs (1711 patients) provided moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in pain (pooled mean improvement in the 100-mm visual analog pain scale, -9.95 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.3]). Twelve RCTs (1381 patients) produced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements in function (pooled mean effect size, -0.39 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.07]). Heterogeneity was not explained by type of clinician performing SMT, type of manipulation, study quality, or whether SMT was given alone or as part of a package of therapies. No RCT reported any serious adverse event. Minor transient adverse events such as increased pain, muscle stiffness, and headache were reported 50% to 67% of the time in large case series of patients treated with SMT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms. However, heterogeneity in study results was large.

Electronic health record-based interventions for improving appropriate diagnostic imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: One driver of increasing health care costs is the use of radiologic imaging procedures. More appropriate use could improve quality and reduce costs. PURPOSE: To review interventions that use the computerized clinical decision-support (CCDS) capabilities of electronic health records to improve appropriate use of diagnostic radiologic test ordering. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in PubMed from 1995 to September 2014 and searches in Web of Science and PubMed of citations related to key articles. STUDY SELECTION: 23 studies, including 3 randomized trials, 7 time-series studies, and 13 pre-post studies that assessed the effect of CCDS on diagnostic radiologic test ordering in adults. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 independent reviewers extracted data on functionality, study outcomes, and context and assessed the quality of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen studies provided moderate-level evidence that CCDS improves appropriateness (effect size, -0.49 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.26]) and reduces use (effect size, -0.13 [CI, -0.23 to -0.04]). Interventions with a "hard stop" that prevents a clinician from overriding the CCDS without outside consultation, as well as interventions in integrated care delivery systems, may be more effective. Harms have rarely been assessed but include decreased ordering of appropriate tests and physician dissatisfaction. LIMITATION: Potential for publication bias, insufficient reporting of harms, and poor description of context and implementation. CONCLUSION: Computerized clinical decision support integrated with the electronic health record can improve appropriate use of diagnostic radiology by a moderate amount and decrease use by a small amount. Before widespread adoption can be recommended, more data are needed on potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007469).

Electronic patient portals: evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency, and attitudes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals tied to provider electronic health record (EHR) systems are increasingly popular. PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature reporting the effect of patient portals on clinical care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Web of Science searches from 1 January 1990 to 24 January 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Hypothesis-testing or quantitative studies of patient portals tethered to a provider EHR that addressed patient outcomes, satisfaction, adherence, efficiency, utilization, attitudes, and patient characteristics, as well as qualitative studies of barriers or facilitators, were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and addressed discrepancies through consensus discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 6508 titles, 14 randomized, controlled trials; 21 observational, hypothesis-testing studies; 5 quantitative, descriptive studies; and 6 qualitative studies were included. Evidence is mixed about the effect of portals on patient outcomes and satisfaction, although they may be more effective when used with case management. The effect of portals on utilization and efficiency is unclear, although patient race and ethnicity, education level or literacy, and degree of comorbid conditions may influence use. LIMITATION: Limited data for most outcomes and an absence of reporting on organizational and provider context and implementation processes. CONCLUSION: Evidence that patient portals improve health outcomes, cost, or utilization is insufficient. Patient attitudes are generally positive, but more widespread use may require efforts to overcome racial, ethnic, and literacy barriers. Portals represent a new technology with benefits that are still unclear. Better understanding requires studies that include details about context, implementation factors, and cost.

Diagnosing and managing common food allergies: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: There is heightened interest in food allergies but no clear consensus exists regarding the prevalence or most effective diagnostic and management approaches to food allergies. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the available evidence on the prevalence, diagnosis, management, and prevention of food allergies. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were limited to English-language articles indexed between January 1988 and September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Diagnostic tests were included if they had a prospective, defined study population, used food challenge as a criterion standard, and reported sufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for management and prevention outcomes were also used. For foods where anaphylaxis is common, cohort studies with a sample size of more than 100 participants were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently reviewed all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant articles and resolved discrepancies by repeated review and discussion. Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was assessed using the AMSTAR criteria, the quality of diagnostic studies using the QUADAS criteria most relevant to food allergy, and the quality of RCTs using the Jadad criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 12,378 citations were identified and 72 citations were included. Food allergy affects more than 1% to 2% but less than 10% of the population. It is unclear if the prevalence of food allergies is increasing. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves comparing skin prick tests (area under the curve [AUC], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.93) and serum food-specific IgE (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91) to food challenge showed no statistical superiority for either test. Elimination diets are the mainstay of therapy but have been rarely studied. Immunotherapy is promising but data are insufficient to recommend use. In high-risk infants, hydrolyzed formulas may prevent cow's milk allergy but standardized definitions of high risk and hydrolyzed formula do not exist. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the prevalence and management of food allergy is greatly limited by a lack of uniformity for criteria for making a diagnosis.

The top 10 infectious disease pitfalls that hospitalists can avoid.

Infectious diseases are commonly encountered by hospitalists in their day-to-day care of patients. Challenges involved in caring for patients with infectious diseases include choosing the correct antibiotic, treating patients with a penicillin allergy, interpreting blood cultures, and caring for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The evidence-based pearls in this article will help hospitalists avoid common pitfalls in the recognition and treatment of such disorders and guide their decision about when to consult an infectious diseases specialist.

The top 10 things nephrologists wish every primary care physician knew.

Renal disease is commonly encountered by primary care physicians during their day-to-day visits with patients. Common renal disorders include hypertension, proteinuria, kidney stones, and chronic kidney disease. Despite their prevalence, many physicians may be unfamiliar with the diagnosis and initial treatment of these common renal disorders. Early recognition and intervention are important in slowing the progression of chronic kidney disease and preventing its complications. The evidence-based pearls in this article will help primary care physicians avoid common pitfalls in the recognition and treatment of such disorders and guide their decision to refer their patients to a specialist.

Screening for osteoporosis in men: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians guideline.

BACKGROUND: Screening for low bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the primary way to identify asymptomatic men who might benefit from osteoporosis treatment. Identifying men at risk for low BMD and fracture can help clinicians determine which men should be tested. PURPOSE: To identify which asymptomatic men should receive DXA BMD testing, this systematic review evaluates 1) risk factors for osteoporotic fracture in men that may be mediated through low BMD and 2) the performance of non-DXA tests in identifying men with low BMD. DATA SOURCES: Studies identified through the MEDLINE database (1990 to July 2007). STUDY SELECTION: Articles that assessed risk factors for osteoporotic fracture in men or evaluated a non-DXA screening test against a gold standard of DXA. DATA EXTRACTION: Researchers performed independent dual abstractions for each article, determined performance characteristics of screening tests, and assessed the quality of included articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: A published meta-analysis of 167 studies evaluating risk factors for low BMD-related fracture in men and women found high-risk factors to be increased age (>70 years), low body weight (body mass index <20 to 25 kg/m2), weight loss (>10%), physical inactivity, prolonged corticosteroid use, and previous osteoporotic fracture. An additional 102 studies assessing 15 other proposed risk factors were reviewed; most had insufficient evidence in men to draw conclusions. Twenty diagnostic study articles were reviewed. At a T-score threshold of -1.0, calcaneal ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 66% for identifying DXA-determined osteoporosis (DXA T-score, -2.5). At a risk score threshold of -1, the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Screening Tool had a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 68% to identify DXA-determined osteoporosis. LIMITATION: Data on other screening tests, including radiography, and bone geometry variables, were sparse. CONCLUSION: Key risk factors for low BMD-mediated fracture include increased age, low body weight, weight loss, physical inactivity, prolonged corticosteroid use, previous osteoporotic fracture, and androgen deprivation therapy. Non-DXA tests either are too insensitive or have insufficient data to reach conclusions.

Evaluating and minimizing cardiac risk in surgical patients.

Cardiovascular complications are a major cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Proper assessment of risk and subsequent interventions can help diminish these complications. Assessing the patient's risk is based on the type of surgery performed and on individual patient characteristics. The latter can be established with a thorough history and physical, laboratory testing, risk indices, and cardiology studies.

The top 10 things foot and ankle specialists wish every primary care physician knew.

Foot and ankle problems are common complaints of patients presenting to primary care physicians. These problems range from minor disorders, such as ankle sprains, plantar fasciitis, bunions, and iIngrown toenails, to more serious conditions such as Charcot arthropathy and Achilles tendon rupture. Early recognition and treatment of foot and ankle problems are imperative to avoid associated morbidities. Primary care physicians can address many of these complaints successfully but should be cognizant of which patients should be referred to a foot and ankle specialist to prevent common short-term and long-term complications. This article provides evidence-based pearls to assist primary care physicians in providing optimal care for their patients with foot and ankle complaints.