Primary Care Access During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Simulated Patient Study

Primary care indicators for disease burden, monitoring and surveillance of COVID-19 in 31 European countries: Eurodata Study

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of patients received ambulatory treatment, highlighting the importance of primary health care (PHC). However, there is limited knowledge regarding PHC workload in Europe during this period. The utilization of COVID-19 PHC indicators could facilitate the efficient monitoring and coordination of the pandemic response. The objective of this study is to describe PHC indicators for disease surveillance and monitoring of COVID-19's impact in Europe.

METHODS

Descriptive, cross-sectional study employing data obtained through a semi-structured ad hoc questionnaire, which was collectively agreed upon by all participants. The study encompasses PHC settings in 31 European countries from March 2020 to August 2021. Key-informants from each country answered the questionnaire. Main outcome: the identification of any indicator used to describe PHC COVID-19 activity.

RESULTS

Out of the 31 countries surveyed, data on PHC information were obtained from 14. The principal indicators were: total number of cases within PHC (Belarus, Cyprus, Italy, Romania and Spain), number of follow-up cases (Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Spain and Turkey), GP's COVID-19 tests referrals (Poland), proportion of COVID-19 cases among respiratory illnesses consultations (Norway and France), sick leaves issued by GPs (Romania and Spain) and examination and complementary tests (Cyprus). All COVID-19 cases were attended in PHC in Belarus and Italy.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic exposes a crucial deficiency in preparedness for infectious diseases in European health systems highlighting the inconsistent recording of indicators within PHC organizations. PHC standardized indicators and public data accessibility are urgently needed, conforming the foundation for an effective European-level health services response framework against future pandemics.

An Electronic Health Record-Based Automated Self-Rescheduling Tool to Improve Patient Access: Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In many large health centers, patients face long appointment wait times and difficulties accessing care. Last-minute cancellations and patient no-shows leave unfilled slots in a clinician's schedule, exacerbating delays in care from poor access. The mismatch between the supply of outpatient appointments and patient demand has led health systems to adopt many tools and strategies to minimize appointment no-show rates and fill open slots left by patient cancellations.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated an electronic health record (EHR)-based self-scheduling tool, Fast Pass, at a large academic medical center to understand the impacts of the tool on the ability to fill cancelled appointment slots, patient access to earlier appointments, and clinical revenue from visits that may otherwise have gone unscheduled.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we extracted Fast Pass appointment offers and scheduling data, including patient demographics, from the EHR between June 18, 2022, and March 9, 2023. We analyzed the outcomes of Fast Pass offers (accepted, declined, expired, and unavailable) and the outcomes of scheduled appointments resulting from accepted Fast Pass offers (completed, canceled, and no-show). We stratified outcomes based on appointment specialty. For each specialty, the patient service revenue from appointments filled by Fast Pass was calculated using the visit slots filled, the payer mix of the appointments, and the contribution margin by payer.

RESULTS

From June 18 to March 9, 2023, there were a total of 60,660 Fast Pass offers sent to patients for 21,978 available appointments. Of these offers, 6603 (11%) were accepted across all departments, and 5399 (8.9%) visits were completed. Patients were seen a median (IQR) of 14 (4-33) days sooner for their appointments. In a multivariate logistic regression model with primary outcome Fast Pass offer acceptance, patients who were aged 65 years or older (vs 20-40 years; P=.005 odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), other ethnicity (vs White; P<.001, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.91), primarily Chinese speakers (P<.001; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.79), and other language speakers (vs English speakers; P=.001; OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.87) were less likely to accept an offer. Fast Pass added 2576 patient service hours to the clinical schedule, with a median (IQR) of 251 (216-322) hours per month. The estimated value of physician fees from these visits scheduled through 9 months of Fast Pass scheduling in professional fees at our institution was US $3 million.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-scheduling tools that provide patients with an opportunity to schedule into cancelled or unfilled appointment slots have the potential to improve patient access and efficiently capture additional revenue from filling unfilled slots. The demographics of the patients accepting these offers suggest that such digital tools may exacerbate inequities in access.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Malignancy Diagnosis and Treatment: Never the Same but Lessons Learned

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic affected the pediatric oncology population globally. Over the course of 2 years, increasing reports have been made to better understand this entity and its pathologic complications on these patients. The pandemic has allowed healthcare providers, hospital systems, and leading oncologic societies to quickly adapt and formulate new guidelines for the effective understanding, management, and treatment of patients with pediatric malignancy.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Being Offered or Choosing Telephone vs Video Virtual Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Importance

After the rapid expansion of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is debate about the role and reimbursement of telephone vs video visits. Missing is an understanding of what type of virtual visits clinicians may offer or patients may choose when given the option.

Objective

To evaluate characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries associated with practices and clinicians offering telephone visits only and patients receiving telephone visits only, when both telephone and video were available.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study used 2019-2020 nationally representative Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data. Participants included community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with a usual source of medical care who attended a practice offering telemedicine. Data were analyzed from May 3 to August 23, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify patient sociodemographic (age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational level, income, English proficiency, housing type, and number living at home), clinical (dementia, mental illness, self-rated health, hearing impairment, and vision impairment), and technology (technology access and prior use of video visits) factors associated with respondents' report of (1) practices offering telephone virtual visits only, (2) being offered telephone visits only when both video and telephone visits were available, and (3) receiving telephone visits only when both video and telephone visits were offered.

Results

Of 4691 respondents (representing 27 887 642 Medicare beneficiaries; mean [SD] age, 71.3[8.1] years; 55.0% female) reporting that their practice offered telemedicine, 1234 (23.3% weighted) reported that their practices offered telephone virtual visits only; factors associated with being in a practice offering telephone only included older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.62 [95% CI, 1.10-2.39] for those aged ≥85 years vs 18-64 years), male sex (aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.12-1.64]), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.03-1.95]), lower income (aOR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.43-2.49] for those with income ≤100% vs >200% of the federal poverty level), poor self-rated health (aOR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]), and less technology access (aOR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.61-2.60] for those with low vs high access). Of the 1593 patients in practices offering both video and telephone visits, 297 (16.7% weighted) were themselves offered telephone visits only; factors associated with being offered telephone only included Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.13-3.41]), limited English proficiency (aOR, 3.05 [95% CI, 1.28-7.31]), and less technology access (aOR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.00-2.81] for those with low vs high access). Finally, of the 711 respondents who were themselves offered both video and telephone visits, 304 (43.1% weighted) had a telephone visit; factors associated with receiving telephone visits only were older age (aOR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.21-5.92] for those aged 75-84 years vs 18-64 years) and less technology access (aOR, 2.65 [95% CI, 1.12-6.25] for those with moderate vs high access]). Among those who used video calls in other settings and were offered a choice, 122 (28.5%, weighted) chose telephone visits.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study of Medicare beneficiaries, respondents often reported being offered or choosing telephone visits even when video visits were available. Study findings suggest that policy makers and clinical leaders should support the use of telephone visits to the extent that telephone is appropriate, while addressing both practice-level and patient-level barriers to video visits.

COVID-19 Impacts on Primary Care Clinic Care Management Processes

PURPOSE

To learn whether the COVID-19 pandemic's disruptions and associated reduced health outcomes for people with chronic conditions might have been caused by a decrease in care management processes (CMPs) in primary care clinics METHODS: Longitudinal cohort design with repeated survey-based measures of CMPs from 2017, 2019, and 2021 in 269 primary care clinics in Minnesota.

RESULTS

There were only small differences in organizational characteristics and no differences in overall CMPs between the 269 clinics analyzed and the 287 that only completed surveys in 1 or 2 years. Overall CMP scores rose by similar amounts (1.6% and 2.1%) from 2017 to 2019 and from 2019 to 2021. In 2021, CMP scores were lower in small medical groups than in large medical groups in 2017 (66.1% vs 78.5%, P <.001), a similar difference to that in 2017. Care management process scores were also lower in clinics in urban areas compared with rural areas (73.9% vs 79.0%, P <.001), but overall scores in all subgroups were higher in 2021 than in 2017. This improvement occurred despite reports from 55% of clinic leaders that the pandemic had been very or extremely disruptive.

CONCLUSIONS

Although quite disrupted by the pandemic, care management processes for chronic disease care in these resilient primary care clinics actually increased from 2019 to 2021, at least in clinics that were part of large organizations. However, that was not true for clinics from smaller groups and perhaps for other areas of care.

Evaluating the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Monthly Trends in Primary Care

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, multiple barriers arose for patients and providers in the primary care setting. Despite the attempt to utilize telemedicine to overcome barriers, visits remained lower than pre-pandemic levels. This raises concern for preventative medicine and chronic disease management.

Methods

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the pandemic in primary care by utilizing two years of data from a family medicine clinic. Data obtained from the electronic medical record for March 2019 through February 2020 and March 2020 through February 2021 were used to evaluate monthly trends from the year before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic in the following six categories: hypertension control, diabetes control, lipid profile screening, breast cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, and cervical cancer screening.

Results

The paired t-tests found a significant difference in the averages between the two years for all categories except hypertension control. The results for chi-square demonstrated a significant difference in four months for cervical cancer screening, five months for hypertension control and colorectal cancer screening, nine months for diabetes control and lipid profile screening, and 10 months for breast cancer screening.

Conclusion

These results show a profound impact of the pandemic on both preventative medicine and chronic disease management. This study had a large sample size but is not generalizable to the entire population. These results can help guide quality improvement measures going forward. However, further research is necessary to better understand the full extent of COVID-19’s impact on primary care.

Patient experience of residents with restricted primary care access during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate primary care access for COVID-19 consultation among residents who have a usual source of care (USC) and to examine their associations with patient experience during the pandemic in Japan.

DESIGN

Nationwide cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Japanese general adult population.

PARTICIPANTS

1004 adult residents who have a USC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient experience assessed by the Japanese version of Primary Care Assessment Tool Short Form (JPCAT-SF).

RESULTS

A total of 198 (19.7%) reported restricted primary care access for COVID-19 consultation despite having a USC. After adjustment for possible confounders, restricted primary care access for COVID-19 consultation was negatively associated with the JPCAT-SF total score (adjusted mean difference = -8.61, 95% CI -11.11 to -6.10). In addition, restricted primary care access was significantly associated with a decrease in all JPCAT-SF domain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-fifth of adult residents who had a USC reported restricted primary care access for COVID-19 consultation during the pandemic in Japan. Our study also found that restricted primary care access for COVID-19 consultation was negatively associated with a wide range of patient experience including first contact. Material, financial and educational support to primary care facilities, the spread of telemedicine and the application of a patient registration system might be necessary to improve access to primary care during a pandemic.

National Trends and Outcomes Associated With Presence and Type of Usual Clinician Among Older Adults With Multimorbidity

IMPORTANCE

Declining primary care visit rates and increasing specialist visit rates among older adults with multimorbidity raise questions about the presence, specialty, and outcomes associated with usual clinicians of care for these adults.

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends in the presence and specialty of usual clinicians and the association with preventive care receipt and spending.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This survey study used repeated cross-sectional analyses of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data from 2010, 2013, and 2016. Participants were community-dwelling Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare members with at least 2 chronic conditions. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2020, to February 5, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Trends and factors associated with self-reported usual clinician presence and specialty. Multivariable regression was used to examine associations between usual clinician presence and specialty with preventive care receipt and spending, controlling for respondent sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 25 490 unweighted respondent-years were examined, representing 90 324 639 respondent-years across the United States. Overall, 58.4% of respondent-years belonged to women, and the mean (SD) age of respondents was 77.5 (7.5) years. From 2010 to 2016, those reporting usual clinicians dropped from 94.2% to 91.0% (P < .001). Across study years, respondents were more likely to report a usual clinician if they were women (adjusted marginal difference [AMD], 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.5-3.5 percentage points) or had higher income (≥$50 000 vs <$15 000: AMD, 2.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4 percentage points) and less likely if they were Black beneficiaries (vs White: AMD, -2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.3 to -1.3 percentage points) or had traditional Medicare (vs Medicare Advantage: AMD, -3.2 percentage points; 95% CI. -4.1 to -2.3 percentage points). Among 23 279 respondents with usual clinicians, those reporting specialists as their usual clinicians decreased from 5.3% to 4.1% (P < .001). Across the study period, respondents were more likely to report specialists as their usual clinicians if they had traditional Medicare (vs Medicare Advantage: AMD, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.6 to 2.9 percentage points), were Black or non-White Hispanic (Black vs White: AMD, 1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 2.8 percentage points; non-White Hispanic vs White: AMD, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.9 to 5.7 percentage points), or lived in the Northeast (vs Midwest: AMD, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 5.2 percentage points). Compared with those without usual clinicians, respondents with usual clinicians were more likely to receive all examined preventive services, such as cholesterol screening (AMD, 6.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.4 to 8.1 percentage points) and influenza vaccines (AMD, 11.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 9.2 to 14.0 percentage points). Among respondents with usual clinicians, those reporting specialist usual clinicians (vs primary care) were less likely to receive influenza vaccines (AMD, -5.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.2 to -2.1).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, older adults with multimorbidity were less likely to have a usual clinician over the study period, with potential implications for preventive care receipt. Our results suggest a key role for usual clinicians, especially primary care clinicians, in vaccination uptake for this population.