Primary Care Physicians' Experiences With and Adaptations to Time Constraints.

Importance: The primary care workforce shortage is significant and persistent, with organizational and policy leaders urgently seeking interventions to enhance retention and recruitment. Time constraints are a valuable focus for action; however, designing effective interventions requires deeper understanding of how time constraints shape employees' experiences and outcomes of work. Objective: To examine how time constraints affect primary care physicians' work experiences and careers. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between May 1, 2021, and September 31, 2022, US-based primary care physicians who trained in family or internal medicine were interviewed. Using qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews, this study examined how participants experience and adapt to time constraints during a typical clinic day, taking account of their professional and personal responsibilities. It also incorporates physicians' reflections on implications for their careers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and a measure of well-being (American Medical Association Mini-Z survey). Results: Interviews with 25 primary care physicians (14 [56%] female and 11 [44%] male; median [range] age, 43 [34-63] years) practicing in 11 US states were analyzed. Two physicians owned their own practice, whereas the rest worked as employees. The participants represented a wide range of years in practice (range, 1 to ≥21), with 11 participants (44%) in their first 5 years. Physicians described that the structure of their work hours did not match the work that was expected of them. This structural mismatch between time allocation and work expectations created a constant experience of time scarcity. Physicians described having to make tradeoffs between maintaining high-quality patient care and having their work overflow into their personal lives. These experiences led to feelings of guilt, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction. To attempt to sustain long-term careers in primary care, many sought ways to see fewer patients. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that organizational leaders must align schedules with work expectations for primary care physicians to mitigate physicians' withdrawal from work as a coping mechanism. Specific strategies are needed to achieve this realignment, including incorporating more slack into schedules and establishing realistic work expectations for physicians.

"Good Care Is Slow Enough to Be Able to Pay Attention": Primary Care Time Scarcity and Patient Safety.

BACKGROUND: There is growing, widespread recognition that expectations of US primary care vastly exceed the time and resources allocated to it. Little research has directly examined how time scarcity contributes to harm or patient safety incidents not readily capturable by population-based quality metrics. OBJECTIVE: To examine near-miss events identified by primary care physicians in which taking additional time improved patient care or prevented harm. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five primary care physicians practicing in the USA. APPROACH: Participants completed a survey that included demographic questions, the Ballard Organizational Temporality Scale and the Mini-Z scale, followed by a one hour qualitative interview over video-conference (Zoom). Iterative thematic qualitative data analysis was conducted. KEY RESULTS: Primary care physicians identified several types of near-miss events in which taking extra time during visits changed their clinical management. These were evident in five types of patient care episodes: high-risk social situations, high-risk medication regimens requiring patient education, high acuity conditions requiring immediate workup or treatment, interactions of physical and mental health, and investigating more subtle clinical suspicions. These near-miss events highlight the ways in which unreasonably large patient panels and packed schedules impede adequate responses to patient care episodes that are time sensitive and intensive or require flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians identify and address patient safety issues and high-risk situations by spending more time than allotted for a given patient encounter. Current quality metrics do not account for this critical aspect of primary care work. Current healthcare policy and organization create time scarcity. Interventions to address time scarcity and to measure its prevalence and implications for care quality and safety are urgently needed.

Care and Complexity in Emergency Housing: an Examination of the COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place (SIP) Hotel Program to House People Experiencing Homelessness in San Francisco.

In this study, we consider the patient, provider, and public health repercussions of San Francisco's (SF) COVID-related response to homelessness using tourist hotels to house people experiencing homelessness (PEH). We describe the demographics, medical comorbidities, and healthcare utilization patterns of a subset of PEH who accessed the shelter-in-place (SIP) hotel sites during the 2020-2021 pandemic. We focus on how SIP hotels impacted connection to outpatient care and higher-cost emergency utilization. Our mixed methods study integrates qualitative and quantitative data to consider the impact of this temporary housing initiative among a medically complex cohort in a time of increased morbidity and mortality related to substance use. We found that temporary SIP housing increased outpatient care and reduced higher-cost hospital utilization. Our results can inform the future design and implementation of integrated supportive housing models to reduce mortality and promote wellness for PEH.

"The idea is to help people achieve greater success and liberty": A qualitative study of expanded methadone take-home access in opioid use disorder treatment.

Background: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States (US) was already facing an epidemic of opioid overdose deaths. Overdose deaths continued to surge during the pandemic. To limit COVID-19 spread and to avoid disruptions in access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), including buprenorphine and methadone, US federal and state agencies granted unprecedented exemptions to existing MOUD guidelines for Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs), including loosening criteria for unsupervised take-home doses. We conducted a qualitative study to evaluate the impact of these policy changes on MOUD treatment experiences for providers and patients at an OTP in California. Methods: We interviewed 10 providers (including two physicians, five social worker associates, and three nurse practitioners) and 20 patients receiving MOUD. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed all interviews to identify emergent themes. Results: Patient participants were middle-aged (median age 51 years) and were predominantly men (53%). Providers discussed clinical decision-making processes and experiences providing take-homes. Implementation of expanded take-home policies was cautious. Providers reported making individualized decisions, using patient factors to decide if benefits outweighed risks of overdose and misuse. Decision-making factors included patient drug use, overdose risk, housing status, and vulnerability to COVID-19. New patient groups started receiving take-homes and providers noted few adverse events. Patients who received take-homes reported increased autonomy and treatment flexibility, which in turn increased likelihood of treatment stabilization and engagement. Patients who remained ineligible for take-homes, usually due to ongoing non-prescribed opioid or benzodiazepine use, desired greater transparency and shared decision-making. Conclusion: Federal exemptions in response to COVID-19 led to the unprecedented expansion of access to MOUD take-homes within OTPs. Providers and patients perceived benefits to expanding access to take-homes and experienced few adverse outcomes, suggesting expanded take-home policies should remain post-COVID-19. Future studies should explore whether these findings are generalizable to other OTPs and assess larger samples to quantify patient-level outcomes resulting from expanded take-home policies.

Structural Competency: Curriculum for Medical Students, Residents, and Interprofessional Teams on the Structural Factors That Produce Health Disparities.

Introduction: Research on disparities in health and health care has demonstrated that social, economic, and political factors are key drivers of poor health outcomes. Yet the role of such structural forces on health and health care has been incorporated unevenly into medical training. The framework of structural competency offers a paradigm for training health professionals to recognize and respond to the impact of upstream, structural factors on patient health and health care. Methods: We report on a brief, interprofessional structural competency curriculum implemented in 32 distinct instances between 2015 and 2017 throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. In consultation with medical and interprofessional education experts, we developed open-ended, written-response surveys to qualitatively evaluate this curriculum's impact on participants. Qualitative data from 15 iterations were analyzed via directed thematic analysis, coding language, and concepts to identify key themes. Results: Three core themes emerged from analysis of participants' comments. First, participants valued the curriculum's focus on the application of the structural competency framework in real-world clinical, community, and policy contexts. Second, participants with clinical experience (residents, fellows, and faculty) reported that the curriculum helped them reframe how they thought about patients. Third, participants reported feeling reconnected to their original motivations for entering the health professions. Discussion: This structural competency curriculum fills a gap in health professional education by equipping learners to understand and respond to the role that social, economic, and political structural factors play in patient and community health.

Sources and Impact of Time Pressure on Opioid Management in the Safety-Net.

PURPOSE: This study sought to understand clinicians' and patients' experience managing chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and opioids in safety-net primary care settings. This article explores the time requirements of safer opioid prescribing for medically and socially complex patients in the context of safety-net primary care. METHODS: We qualitatively interviewed 23 primary care clinicians and 46 of their patients with concurrent CNCP and substance use disorder (past or current). We also conducted observations of clinical interactions between the clinicians and patients. We transcribed, coded, and analyzed interview and clinical observation recordings using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Clinicians reported not having enough time to assess patients' CNCP, functional status, and risks for opioid misuse. Inadequate assessment of CNCP contributed to tension and conflicts during visits. Clinicians described pain conversations consuming a substantial portion of primary care visits despite patients' other serious health concerns. System-level constraints (eg, changing insurance policies, limited access to specialty and integrative care) added to the perceived time burden of CNCP management. Clinicians described repeated visits with little progress in patients' pain or functional status due to these barriers. Patients acknowledged clinical time constraints and reported devoting significant time to following new opioid management protocols for CNCP. CONCLUSIONS: Time pressure was identified as a major barrier to safer opioid prescribing. Efforts, including changes to reimbursement structures, are needed to relieve time stress on primary care clinicians treating medically and socially complex patients with CNCP in safety-net settings.

Teaching Structure: A Qualitative Evaluation of a Structural Competency Training for Resident Physicians.

BACKGROUND: The influence of societal inequities on health has long been established, but such content has been incorporated unevenly into medical education and clinical training. Structural competency calls for medical education to highlight the important influence of social, political, and economic factors on health outcomes. AIM: This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a structural competency training for medical residents. SETTING: A California family medicine residency program serving a patient population predominantly (88 %) with income below 200 % of the federal poverty level. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 12 residents in the family residency program. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The training was designed to help residents recognize and develop skills to respond to illness and health as the downstream effects of social, political, and economic structures. PROGRAM EVALUATION: The training was evaluated via qualitative analysis of surveys gathered immediately post-training (response rate 100 %) and a focus group 1 month post-training (attended by all residents not on service). DISCUSSION: Residents reported that the training had a positive impact on their clinical practice and relationships with patients. They also reported feeling overwhelmed by increased recognition of structural influences on patient health, and indicated a need for further training and support to address these influences.