Avoidable after-hours calls to physicians in family medicine.

OBJECTIVES: To assess avoidability in after-hours telephone calls. Identification of predictors of avoidable calls is necessary so that system changes can be implemented in the interest of efficiency in patient care. BACKGROUND: A new after-hours family physician call service was established in a large group practice to replace some of the resident call shifts and meet patient expectations. DATA SOURCE: Call logs completed by physicians who were on call. SAMPLE: A total of 131 completed after-hours calls. AVOIDABLE CALL: An after-hours call to a physician that could have been effectively handled by another person, by a communication mechanism, or at another time. ASSESSMENT RESULT: Call defined as avoidable or not avoidable as assessed by the physician on call. SURVEY RESULTS: Less than half (41.9%) of calls were avoidable. Run charts failed tests for shifts and runs. Patient age, time of day, and day of the week were not related to being avoidable, but avoidability varied by physician (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The after-hours call service experienced high rates of avoidable calls. Avoidability was associated with the physician on call. Reducing avoidable after-hours calls to physicians will require building clinical consensus on which types of calls should be considered avoidable and how avoidable calls should be redirected.

Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Poor adherence to therapy, perhaps related to unaddressed patient preferences, limits the effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment in at-risk women. A parallel patient-level randomized trial in primary care practices was performed. METHODS: Eligible postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores less than -1.0 and not receiving bisphosphonate therapy were included. In addition to usual primary care, intervention patients received a decision aid (a tailored pictographic 10-year fracture risk estimate, absolute risk reduction with bisphosphonates, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost), and control patients received a standard brochure. Knowledge transfer, patient involvement in decision-making, and rates of bisphosphonate start and adherence were studied. Data came from medical records, post-visit written and 6-month phone surveys, video recordings of clinical encounters, and pharmacy prescription profiles. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (range of 10-year fracture risk, 6%-60%) were allocated randomly to receive the decision aid (n=52) or usual care (n=48). Patients receiving the decision aid were 1.8 times more likely to correctly identify their 10-year fracture risk (49% vs 28%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.2) and 2.7 times more likely to identify their estimated risk reduction with bisphosphonates (43% vs 16%; 95% CI, 1.3-5.7). Patient involvement improved with the decision aid by 23% (95% CI, 13.6-31.4). Bisphosphonates were started by 44% of patients receiving the decision aid and 40% of patients receiving usual care. Adherence at 6 months was similarly high across both groups, but the proportion with more than 80% adherence was higher with the decision aid (n=23 [100%] vs n=14 [74%]; P = .009). CONCLUSION: A decision aid improved the quality of clinical decisions about bisphosphonate therapy in at-risk postmenopausal women, did not affect start rates, and may have improved adherence.

Can an office practice telephonic response meet the needs of a pandemic?

INTRODUCTION: the H1N1 (subtype hemagglutinin 1 neuraminidase 1) influenza pandemic of 2009 was associated with a large increase in demand for primary care office visits. However, many patients with H1N1 symptoms or exposure could be assessed and treated with telephone protocols. METHODS: specific H1N1 influenza telephone protocols were developed by Mayo Clinic physicians using Centers for Disease Control recommendations. Using symptom calls to a primary care practice in the United States, we captured nurse telephone triage recommendations, telephone antiviral prescriptions, and what callers would have done without telephone advice. We retrospectively analyzed all symptom calls from July 2009 through January 2010. RESULTS: call volume was 5,596 calls monthly during the peak influenza months, which was 56% above the monthly average of 3,595 calls for the nonpeak months (p < 0.001). The calls during October 2009 were 111% over the nonpeak months (p < 0.001). In October 2009, telephone triage nurses gave 412 prescriptions for antivirals accounting for 5.4% of calls and 39% of all telephonic prescriptions for that month. In the peak H1N1 month of October, there were 1,522 callers who intended to stay home for their care. For the same month, triage nurses suggested 3,250 of the callers stay home. For an October 2009 appointment capacity of 35,126 visit slots, a potential 5% capacity was preserved. CONCLUSIONS: a telephone triage solution for the acute demands of influenza H1N1 demonstrated how patients had needs met telephonically while preserving medical access for others.

Protocol for the Osteoporosis Choice trial. A pilot randomized trial of a decision aid in primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates can reduce fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis, but many at-risk patients do not start or adhere to these medications. The aims of this study are to: (1) preliminarily evaluate the effect of an individualized 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk calculator and decision aid (OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE) for postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporotic fractures; and (2) assess the feasibility and validity (i.e., absence of contamination) of patient-level randomization (vs. cluster randomization) in pilot trials of decision aid efficacy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm, randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE to a control group receiving usual primary care. Postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores of <-1.0, not receiving bisphosphonate therapy, and receiving care at participating primary care practices in and around Rochester, Minnesota, USA will be eligible to participate in the trial. We will measure the effect of OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE on five outcomes: (a) patient knowledge regarding osteoporosis risk factors and treatment; (b) quality of the decision-making process for both the patient and clinician; (c) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (d) rate of bisphosphonate use and adherence, and (e) trial processes (e.g., ability to recruit participants, collect patient outcomes). To capture these outcomes, we will use patient and clinician surveys following each visit and video recordings of the clinical encounters. These video recordings will also allow us to determine the extent to which clinicians previously exposed to the decision aid were able to recreate elements of the decision aid with control patients (i.e., contamination). Pharmacy prescription profiles and follow-up phone interviews will assess medication start and adherence at 6 months. DISCUSSION: This pilot trial will provide evidence of feasibility, validity of patient randomization, and preliminary efficacy of a novel approach--decision aids--to improving medication adherence for postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fractures. The results will inform the design of a larger trial that could provide more precise estimates of the efficacy of the decision aid. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT00578981.

Impact of retail medicine on standard costs in primary care: a semiparametric analysis.

Retail medicine clinics have become widely available. However, few studies have been published that compare retail clinic costs of care to standard medical visits for similar patients. The purpose of this study was to compare standard medical costs during a 6-month period after visiting a retail medical clinic to care received in a conventional medical office setting. Medical records of primary care patients (both adults and children) seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2008 were analyzed for this study. Two groups of patients were studied: those who used a retail walk-in clinic (N = 141) and a comparison group who used regular office care for same-day, acute visits (N = 137). Patients treated for 5 common conditions (pink eye, sore throat, viral illness, bronchitis, and cough) were selected. The dependent variables were standard costs using federal rates and the rank of standard costs. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to adjust for differences between groups. Median costs did not differ between sites ($126.30 for usual care and $88.10 for retail, P = 0.139); mean cost ranks were 132.5 for usual care and 115.6 for retail (P = 0.088). After adjusting for previous visit history, age, and sex, patients who received care in the retail setting had lower standard costs and lower cost rank than patients who received usual care (b = -52.9 [P = 0.006] and b = -24.5 [P = 0.021], respectively). After selection of cases with common conditions and adjustment for unequal variances, age, sex, and number of office visits in the previous 6 months, our retail clinic appeared to reduce medical costs for patients during the 6-month period after the index visit.

Nurse-based telephone protocol versus usual care for management of URI and acute sinusitis: a controlled trial.

Two hundred and twelve patients with upper-respiratory-tract infection (URI) or sinusitis were treated using a nurse-based telephone protocol. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and satisfaction of the patients compared with patients receiving usual care. For patients with URI, the rate of antibiotic administration was lower in the nurse-based telephone-treatment group (28% vs. 34%; P = .46), and for those with sinusitis, a greater proportion of the telephone treatment group received first-line antibiotics for the infection, compared with the usual care group (81% vs. 53%; P = .01). A guideline-based nurse telephone treatment protocol may decrease inappropriate use of antibiotics for URI and can result in a greater use of first-line antibiotics for patients with sinus infection with similar clinical outcomes.