The effect of additional shots on the vaccine administration process: results of a time-motion study in 2 settings.
(49/982)
CONTEXT: The introduction of combination vaccines to the pediatric regimen offers the possibility of reducing the number of injections required to reach full vaccination status. Fewer injections benefit the patient/child and the parent/caregiver, and the healthcare provider may benefit from savings in personnel time associated with vaccine administration. To date, however, these savings have not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: To study the vaccine administration process in a managed care environment. STUDY DESIGN: We studied 2 settings in which vaccinations were administered: (1) a devoted injection room and (2) the examination room as part of the well-child examination. For each setting, we documented the vaccine administration process, identified vaccine-related activities, and quantified the time savings in each activity by reductions in the number of shots. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For vaccine recipients younger than 2 years, time-motion data on vaccine-related activities in 2 managed care settings were collected by a professional industrial engineering consultant. Activity time data by the number of shots administered were analyzed using linear regression adjusting for patient age. RESULTS: We observed 276 vaccination visits (137 in an examination room, and 139 in an injection room). Total nurse time associated with vaccine administration decreased by 2.4 and 1.7 minutes per shot eliminated in the examination room setting (P = .006) and in the injection room setting (P < .001), respectively. Significant time savings were realized for activities associated with vaccine preparation, vaccine injection, and administrative duties. In addition, infant crying time decreased by 1.0 and 0.4 minutes per shot eliminated in the examination room and injection room settings, respectively (P < or = .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions in vaccine administration time could be achieved by eliminating injections during a well-child regimen. (+info)
Diagnosis of skin disease by nondermatologists.
(50/982)
OBJECTIVE: To determine how often primary care physicians diagnose and treat skin disease and to compare their experience with that of dermatologists. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. METHODS: We reviewed data from the 1990-1994 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey on outpatient visits to physicians for both dermatologic and nondermatologic disorders. RESULTS: Dermatitis is the most common dermatologic problem diagnosed by internists, family physicians, and pediatricians and is the 35th, 17th, and 15th most common diagnosis made by these providers, respectively. Dermatologists had 728 and 352 office visits per year for acne and contact dermatitis, respectively, whereas internists averaged 3 and 9 visits, family physicians averaged 8 and 27 visits, and pediatricians averaged 8 and 37 visits. Overall, dermatologists spent 930 outpatient hours per year with patients with dermatologic conditions, compared with 21, 53, and 56 hours per year for internists, family physicians, and pediatricians. CONCLUSIONS: Although most visits for skin disease are managed by primary care physicians, these physicians treat few cases of individual skin conditions. The different levels of experience between dermatologists and nondermatologists may affect the quality of dermatologic care and may explain in part the greater expertise dermatologists have in diagnosing and treating skin disease. This should be considered in decisions about the delivery of dermatologic healthcare services and in planning educational programs designed to improve dermatologic care. (+info)
Visits to primary care physicians and to specialists under gatekeeper and point-of-service arrangements.
(51/982)
OBJECTIVE: To assess utilization of ambulatory visits to primary care physicians (PCPs) and to specialists in 2 different managed care models: a closed panel gatekeeper health maintenance organization (HMO) and an open panel point-of-service HMO. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients enrolled in a single managed care organization with 2 distinct product lines: a gatekeeper HMO and a point-of-service HMO. Both plans shared the same physician network. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study sample included 16,192 working-age members of the gatekeeper HMO and 36,819 working-age members of the point-of-service HMO. We estimated the number of PCP and specialist visits using negative binomial regression models and predicted the number of visits per year for each person under each HMO type and copayment option. RESULTS: There were more annual visits to PCPs and a greater number of total physician visits in the gatekeeper HMO than in the point-of-service plan. However, we did not observe higher rates of specialist visits in the point-of-service HMO. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that direct patient access to specialists leads to higher rates of specialty visits in plans with modest cost-sharing arrangements. (+info)
Health care access and use among low-income children: who fares best?
(52/982)
In this paper we assess how access to care and use of services among low-income children vary by insurance status. Although 40 percent of low-income children rely on private health insurance, little is known about how this coverage compares with Medicaid coverage in meeting their health care needs. We find that Medicaid and privately insured low-income children appear to have fairly comparable access but that Medicaid-covered children are more likely to receive services and to have more visits when they receive care. Expanding public coverage may not be sufficient to ensure that all low-income children have access to comprehensive and high-quality care. It may require improvements in preventive and dental care for children with private coverage, an area in which states have limited influence. (+info)
Disability prevention principles in the primary care office.
(53/982)
The simple request for a sick note can disguise important medical, psychologic or social issues. Disability may be influenced by social and cultural factors as well as by patient expectations. Assessment of impairment and subsequent disability is best made on the basis of objective data by use of a biopsychosocial model to ensure that the expression of disability does not mask other unaddressed psychologic or social issues. Enabling prolonged disability in such a situation can be a dysfunctional physician response to a maladaptive process. The physician's role is to treat the condition, to fulfill the appropriate role of patient advocate, to facilitate health (including resumption of activity), to offer proactive advice on the basis of prognosis, to be familiar with the patient's social obligations and resources and to provide education about the therapeutic benefits of returning to optimal function. This factual, medical-based approach offers an effective preventive strategy that will save many patients from unnecessary disability and morbidity. (+info)
Are patients' chief complaints generally specific to one organ system?
(54/982)
BACKGROUND: The coordinator of care function is one of the most important roles played by primary care physicians. This role is essential for efficient delivery of healthcare to patients with unfocused medical problems. OBJECTIVES: To identify which chief complaints are unfocused and to determine how often visits to office-based physicians are for unfocused chief complaints. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data. METHODS: We defined an unfocused chief complaint as one for which fewer than 95% of the office visits for the top 10 diagnoses associated with that chief complaint were related to a single organ system or specialty area. We analyzed data from the 1990-1994 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to determine the frequency of new patient visits to physicians for different chief complaints and to determine the frequency with which common chief complaints yield diagnoses in a single organ system. RESULTS: The 3 most common chief complaints in each of 12 symptom categories accounted for 80 million (32%) of the 250 million new patient office visits made during the survey period. Unfocused conditions accounted for 26% of visits for these chief complaints. The unfocused chief complaints included musculoskeletal conditions (back pain, knee pain, low back pain), mental/nervous system conditions (anxiety/nervousness, smoking problems, headaches, vertigo/dizziness), abnormal pulsations, swollen glands, and abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' chief complaints and the resulting diagnoses are often within the same organ system. We found that a coordinator of care role for primary care physicians is appropriate for common neurologic, rheumatologic, and general complaints. A coordinator of care is not needed for specific specialty areas, including ophthalmology, dermatology, obstetrics/gynecology, urology, and otolaryngology, because patients typically can accurately self-refer to these specialists. Our study did not address reasons to use primary care physicians as coordinators of care, such as preventive care, patient preference, or cost effectiveness of care. (+info)
Trend data on medical encounters: tracking a moving target.
(55/982)
The National Health Care Survey (NHCS), conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, consists of separate data collection activities that can be used to track the number and content of health care encounters in the United States. Tracking even something as simple as the number of encounters, however, is complicated by the fact that the content of these encounters changes over time. Results from the NHCS indicate that the U.S. population has been receiving more drugs, more cardiac procedures, more ambulatory surgery, more therapies in nursing homes, and more home health care over time. Policymakers and researchers who examine health care trends should be wary about judging whether the number of length of encounters is positive or negative without also examining the content of these encounters. (+info)
Patient-perceived benefits of and barriers to using out-of-hours primary care centres.
(56/982)
BACKGROUND: The rapid growth of GP co-operatives has encouraged the development of primary care centres, but little is known about patients' views and experiences of these new forms of out-of-hours service delivery. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to understand patients' views, expectations and experiences of attending an out-of-hours primary care centre which was part of an inner London GP co-operative. METHODS: Systematic samples of patients using the out-of-hours service received semi-structured interviews covering the decision to contact the service, expectations and experience of the service and, if relevant, the experience of travelling to the primary care centre. Interviews were conducted by telephone between 7 and 10 days after patient contact. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 55.4% (72/130) of sampled patients who were primary care centre attenders, 50.0% (47/94) of those receiving telephone advice and 45.3% (53/117) of those receiving a home visit. Most attenders of the primary care centre said that they were satisfied with the consultation (90.0%, 65) and were able to get all the help they needed (83%, 60). The speed of being seen and the opportunity of having a face-to-face consultation were key benefits identified. For some, this outweighed difficulties experienced in attending the centre, including arranging transport, caring for other children, managing several children on the journey and travelling while ill. The main barriers patients identified for not wanting to attend the primary care centre included feeling too ill to travel, having other dependants to care for or lacking transportation. CONCLUSIONS: While primary care centres offer patients speedy access to face-to-face consultations, there are a range of obstacles which are encountered. Those who are socially disadvantaged appear likely to experience greatest difficulty, raising concerns about equity in access to services. Out-of-hours services may need to give consideration to patient transport and a more flexible approach to visiting at home if such inequities are to be avoided. (+info)