Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background While brief duration primary care appointments may improve access, they also limit the time clinicians spend evaluating painful conditions. This study aimed to evaluate whether 15-minute primary care appointments resulted in higher rates of opioid prescribing when compared to ≥ 30-minute appointments. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record (EHR), pharmacy, and administrative scheduling data from five primary care practices in Minnesota. Adult patients seen for acute Evaluation & Management visits between 10/1/2015 and 9/30/2017 scheduled for 15-minute appointments were propensity score matched to those scheduled for ≥ 30-minutes. Sub-groups were analyzed to include patients with acute and chronic pain conditions and prior opioid exposure. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to examine the effects of appointment length on the likelihood of an opioid being prescribed, adjusting for covariates including ethnicity, race, sex, marital status, and prior ED visits and hospitalizations for all conditions. Results We identified 45,471 eligible acute primary care visits during the study period with 2.7% ( N  = 1233) of the visits scheduled for 15 min and 98.2% ( N  = 44,238) scheduled for 30 min or longer. Rates of opioid prescribing were significantly lower for opioid naive patients with acute pain scheduled in 15-minute appointments when compared to appointments of 30 min of longer (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35–0.84). There were no significant differences in opioid prescribing among other sub-groups. Conclusions For selected indications and for selected patients, shorter duration appointments may not result in greater rates of opioid prescribing for common painful conditions.

A rigorous evaluation of the implementation of a diabetes quality measure implementation program across community healthcare clinics in Shanghai, China, where both quality measurement and primary care delivery are relatively recent but centrally supported, identified important concerns about the meaningfulness, feasibility, and accuracy of quality measures that are relevant to all quality measurement programs. These include the importance of stakeholder involvement in measure development and implementation, the need to select measures that accurately and reliably reflect care quality, the link between incentives for improved performance and data manipulation, the necessity for scientific credibility and practical feasibility of the measure, and the assurance that measure performance can be impacted by those being evaluated. In addition to elaborating on these aspects of quality measurement, we also discuss the need for quality measures that are balanced across established domains of quality, are not burdensome to participants, and are transparent, parsimonious, nimble, and oriented around continuous evaluation and improvement.

To decrease the occurrence of remifentanil waste of 1 mg or more (1 full vial) by 25 % in our surgical division while maintaining satisfaction of 60 % of providers by using a remifentanil mixing workflow. A time series–design quality improvement initiative targeted preventable remifentanil waste. A period of active interventions, followed by a pause and reinstatement of a system intervention, was used to validate its effectiveness. An academic medical center in the US with 1219 inpatient beds, performing 144,418 surgical cases in 2019 and 127,341 surgical cases in 2020, in 148 operating rooms. Individual- and system-level interventions provided education on the issues of preventable waste, access to a remifentanil dose calculator, and an automated dispensing cabinet (ADC) alert to halt wasteful practice. Preventable remifentanil waste was identified as disposing of intravenous infusion bags containing 1 mg or more or 1 full vial or more of unused medication. Data were retrieved from ADC reports. A preimplementation and postimplementation survey of anesthesia providers assessed workflow attitudes, perceptions, and satisfaction surrounding remifentanil mixing. Preventable remifentanil waste (≥1 mg or ≥ 1 full vial) decreased significantly from 22.0 % of cases using remifentanil at baseline to 16.7 % of cases using remifentanil (odds ratio, 0.71; 95 % CI, 0.60–0.84; P < .001) during the final data collection. Individual-level interventions of education, remifentanil dose calculator, and practice champions did not significantly affect waste while unpaired from the system intervention of the ADC alert. The implementation of an ADC alert reduced preventable remifentanil waste among anesthesia providers. ••Remifentanil waste has environmental, financial, and safety implications.••A system intervention influenced waste more than did individual interventions.••Pausing an active automated dispensing cabinet alert validated the intervention.••Interventions decreased preventable remifentanil waste by 24 %.

When making an appointment, patients are generally unaware of how much clinician time is available to address their concerns. Similarly, the primary care clinician is often unaware of what the patient expects to accomplish during the visit, leading to uncertainty about how much time they can allot to each sequentially appearing concern, and whether they can reasonably expect to address necessary preventive services and chronic disease management. Neither patient nor clinician expectations can be adequately managed through standardized scheduling templates, which assign a fixed appointment length based on a single stated reason for the visit. As such, standardized appointment scheduling may contribute to inefficient use of valuable face-to-face time, patient and clinician dissatisfaction, and low-value care. Herein, we suggest several potential mechanisms for improving the scheduling process, including (1) entrusting scheduling to the primary care team; (2) advance visit planning; (3) pro-active engagement of ancillary team members including behavioral health, nursing, social work, and pharmacy; and (4) application of innovative, technologically advanced solutions such as telehealth and artificial intelligence to the scheduling process. These changes have the potential to improve efficiency, patient and clinician satisfaction, and health outcomes, while decreasing low-value testing and return visits for unaddressed concerns.

Background: If a patient presents for an acute care visit and sees their assigned primary care provider (PCP), they may be more likely to receive preventive and other services than a patient not seeing their assigned PCP. Methods: After exclusion of 2 visits with insufficient information, we reviewed 98 consecutive, outpatient internal medicine 15-minute acute care visits comparing patients seeing their assigned PCP with those seeing a non-PCP provider. The primary outcome, preventive service ordering, was measured in 2 ways: percentage of patient visits with any preventive service ordered and the total number of preventive services ordered as a proportion of all preventive service items due for each entire cohort. The secondary outcome of other work completed was assessed by comparing tests and consults ordered, and by counting the number of physical examination elements and discrete medical diagnoses documented. Results: The PCPs were significantly more likely than non-PCPs to order any preventive service 45% versus 17% (P = .005; odds ratio [OR]: 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-12.0). The PCP cohort ordered a higher proportion of the total number of preventive services due compared with the non-PCP cohort (30% vs 11%; P = .002; OR: 3.4, CI: 1.5-7.7). The PCPs also addressed more medical diagnoses (2.3 vs 1.4; P = .008) and more frequently ordered tests outside the reason for that visit (40% vs 13%; P = .003; OR: 4.27, CI: 1.5-11.8). Conclusion: Patients seeing their assigned PCP in brief, acute visits have higher rates of preventive and other service ordering compared to those not seeing their assigned PCP.

Background To meet increasing demand, healthcare systems may leverage shorter appointment lengths to compensate for a limited supply of primary care providers (PCPs). Limiting the time spent with patients when evaluating acute health needs may adversely affect quality of care and increase subsequent healthcare utilization; however, the impact of brief duration appointments on healthcare utilization in the United States has not been examined. This study aimed to assess for potential inferiority of shorter (15-min) primary care appointments compare to longer (≥ 30-min appointments) with respect to downstream healthcare utilization within 7 days of the initial appointment. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record (EHR), billing, and administrative scheduling data from five primary care practices in Midwest United States. Adult patients seen for acute Evaluation & Management visits between 10/1/2015 and 9/30/2017 were included. Patients scheduled for 15-min appointments were propensity score matched to those scheduled for ≥ 30-min. Multivariate regression models examined the effects of appointment length on repeat primary care visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and diagnostic services within 7 days following the visit. Models were adjusted for baseline patient, visit, and provider characteristics. A non-inferiority approach was employed. Results We identified 173,758 total index visits (6.5% 15-min, 93.5% ≥ 30-min). 11,222 15-min appointments were matched to a comparable ≥ 30-min visit. Longer appointments were more frequent among trainee physicians, patients with limited English proficiency, and patients with more comorbidities. There was no significant effect of scheduled appointment length on the incidence of repeat primary care visits (OR = 0.983, CI: 0.873, 1.106) or ED visits (OR = 0.856, CI: 0.700, 1.047). Shorter appointments were associated with lower rates of subsequent hospitalizations (OR = 0.689, CI: 0.504, 0.941), laboratory services (OR = 0.682, CI: 0.643, 0.724), and diagnostic imaging services (OR = 0.499, CI: 0.466, 0.534). None of the non-inferiority thresholds were exceeded. Conclusions For select indications and select low risk patients, shorter duration appointments may be a non-inferior option for scheduling of patient care that will not result in greater downstream healthcare utilization. These findings can help inform healthcare delivery models and triage processes as health systems and payers re-examine how to best deliver care to growing patient populations.

Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org.

In modern primary care practice, clinicians face increasing volumes of asynchronous, electronic, non-visit care (NVC). Systems for completing this work, however, remain under-developed and often lack definition around patient and practice expectations for work completion and team member contributions. The resulting reactive, unstructured, and unscheduled NVC workflows cause and exacerbate physicians’ cognitive overload, distraction, and dissatisfaction. Herein, we propose that primary care practices take an intentional, holistic approach to managing systems of NVC and offer a conceptual model for managing NVC work, analogizing the flow of these tasks to the flow of water through a river system: (1) by carefully controlling the inputs into the NVC system (the tributaries entering the river system); (2) by carefully defining the workflows, roles and responsibilities for completion of common tasks (the direction of river flow); (3) by improving the interface of the electronic health record (obstacles encountered in the river); and (4) by optimizing effectiveness of primary care teams (the contours of the river determining rate of flow). This framework for managing NVC, viewed from a broader system perspective, has the potential to improve productivity, quality of care, and clinician work experience.

Background: There are numerous recommendations from expert sources that help guide primary care providers in cancer screening, infectious disease screening, metabolic screening, monitoring of drug levels, and chronic disease management. Little is known about the potential effort needed for a healthcare system to address these recommendations, or the patient effort needed to complete the recommendations. Methods: For 73 recommended population healthcare items, we examined each of 28,742 patients in a primary care internal medicine practice to determine whether they were up-to-date on recommended screening, immunizations, counseling, and chronic disease management goals. We used a rule-based software tool that queries the medical record for diagnoses, dates, laboratory values, pathology reports, and other information used in creating the individualized recommendations. We counted the number of uncompleted recommendations by age groups and examined the healthcare staff needed to address the recommendations and the potential patient effort needed to complete the recommendations. Results: For the 28,742 patients, there were 127,273 uncompleted recommendations identified for population health management (mean recommendations per patient 4.36, standard deviation of 2.65, range of 0–17 recommendations per patient). The age group with the most incomplete recommendations was age of 50–65 years with 5.5 recommendations per patient. The 18–35 years age group had the fewest incomplete recommendations with 2.6 per patient. Across all age groups, initiation of these recommendations required high-level input (physician, nurse practitioner, or physician’s assistant) in 28%. To completely adhere to recommended services, a 1000-patient cross-section cohort would require a total of 464 procedures and 1956 lab tests. Conclusion: Providers and patients face a daunting number of tasks necessary to meet guideline-generated recommendations. We will need new approaches to address the burgeoning numbers of uncompleted recommendations.

Since its publication in 2008, SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) has contributed to the completeness and transparency of reporting of quality improvement work, providing guidance to authors and reviewers of reports on healthcare improvement work. In the interim, enormous growth has occurred in understanding factors that influence the success, and failure, of healthcare improvement efforts. Progress has been particularly strong in three areas: the understanding of the theoretical basis for improvement work; the impact of contextual factors on outcomes; and the development of methodologies for studying improvement work. Consequently, there is now a need to revise the original publication guidelines. To reflect the breadth of knowledge and experience in the field, we solicited input from a wide variety of authors, editors and improvement professionals during the guideline revision process. This Explanation and Elaboration document (E&E) is a companion to the revised SQUIRE guidelines, SQUIRE 2.0. The product of collaboration by an international and interprofessional group of authors, this document provides examples from the published literature, and an explanation of how each reflects the intent of a specific item in SQUIRE. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist authors in writing clearly, precisely and completely about systematic efforts to improve the quality, safety and value of healthcare services. Authors can explore the SQUIRE statement, this E&E and related documents in detail at http://www.squire-statement.org.