Can computer autoacquisition of medical information meet the needs of the future? A feasibility study in direct computation of the fine grained electronic medical record.
(1/84)
The project describes feasibility testing of a two-year clinical deployment of an electronic record keeping system for primary care medicine that allowed financial medical management and clinical disease study without the encumbrance of human encoding. The software used an expert system for acquisition of historical information and automatic database encoding of each independent fact. The historical acquisition system was combined with a screen-based physician data entry system to create a fine-grained medical record. Fine-grained data allowed direct computer processing to mimic the ends that presently require human encoding--gatekeeping, disease characterization and remote disease surveillance. The project demonstrated the possibility of real time gatekeeping through direct analysis of data. Detection and characterization of disease states using statistical methods within the database was possible, however, limited in this study because of the large numbers of patient interviews required. The possibilities for remote disease monitoring and clinical studies are also discussed. (+info)
The effect of primary care gatekeepers on the management of patients with chest pain.
(2/84)
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with chest pain referred to a cardiologist from a gatekeeper managed care organization differ from those referred from an open-access managed care organization. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study using clinical and claims data from a cardiac network database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed data from 1414 patients with chest pain or angina who were referred to a cardiologist between January 1, 1995, and June 30, 1996. We examined baseline clinical characteristics and subsequent physician practice patterns for these patients, who were referred from either a primary care gatekeeper model (n = 490) or an open-access model (n = 924). RESULTS: Although twice as many open-access patients were referred to a cardiologist, there were no differences in patient demographics or clinical characteristics at the time of referral. Cardiologists ordered similar diagnostic tests for patients from both types of managed care plans, and gatekeeper patients did not have a higher rate of abnormal tests. Rates of cardiac catheterization, coronary angioplasty, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization were similar in both groups. A significantly higher percentage of gatekeeper patients received a cardiac catheterization on the day of referral (7% versus 1%; P = .05). Open-access patients were significantly more likely to continue to be seen by a cardiologist (44% versus 28%; P < .01). Cardiology professional charges per patient were lower among gatekeeper patients ($972 +/- 1398 versus $1187 +/- 1897; P = .06), and total cardiology professional charges were significantly lower for the gatekeeper group because of the smaller number of patients seen. CONCLUSIONS: The type of cardiology services provided to patients with chest pain was not affected by the primary care administrative structure of the managed care organization, but the higher volume of patient referrals from the open-access plan may be an important consideration for cardiology practices participating in capitated contracts. The lower volume of referrals and coordination of care suggest potential cost advantages for the gatekeeper model. (+info)
Perceived role of primary care physicians in Nova Scotia's reformed health care system. Qualitative study.
(3/84)
OBJECTIVE: To determine primary care physicians' perceptions of their role in a reformed health system. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. SETTING: Province of Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: Purposefully selected sample of 14 practising primary care physicians. MAIN OUTCOME FINDINGS: Participants identified seven aspects of their role: primarily, diagnosis and treatment of patient's medical problems; then coordination, counseling, education, advocacy, disease prevention, and gatekeeping. The range of activities and degree of responsibility assumed by participants, however, varied. Factors affecting role perception fell into three categories: philosophical view of health and medicine, willingness to collaborate, and practical realities. Participants differed in their understanding of primary health care and their overall vision of the health system. Remuneration policies and concerns about sharing accountability were factors preventing an integrated, collaborative approach to care. Personal, patient, and structural realities also limited physicians' roles. CONCLUSIONS: This sample of primary care physicians had diverse perceptions of their role. Results of this study could provide information for identifying issues that need to be addressed to facilitate changes taking place in the health care system. (+info)
Decisions about access to health care and accountability for reasonableness.
(4/84)
Insurers make decisions that directly limit access to care (e.g., when deciding about coverage for new technologies or formulary design) and that indirectly limit access (e.g., by adopting incentives to induce physicians to provide fewer or different services). These decisions raise questions about legitimacy and fairness. By holding health plans accountable for the reasonableness of their decisions, it is possible to address these questions. Accountability for reasonableness involves providing publicly accessible rationales for decisions and limiting rationales to those that all "fair-minded" persons can agree are relevant to meeting patient needs fairly under resource constraints. This form of accountability is illustrated by examining its implications for the three examples of direct and indirect limit setting noted here. (+info)
Will German patients accept their family physician as a gatekeeper?
(5/84)
OBJECTIVE: Looking to the experience in the United States with managed care and the possible introduction of gatekeeping in the near future in Germany, we performed a population-based survey to examine preferences for future gatekeeping arrangements. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey. SETTING: Four health districts in Thuringia (formerly East Germany) and Lower Saxony (formerly West Germany). PARTICIPANTS: Out of a random sample of 644 adults in the 4 districts, 415 persons (64.4%) took part in the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using multiple logistic regression, we analyzed associations between preferences for gatekeeping arrangements and patient satisfaction, insurance status, and sociodemographic characteristics. Seventy-four percent of respondents valued first-contact care, especially older people (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.0 to 9.3), people who were very satisfied with the relationship with their family physician (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.8) and members of sickness funds in contrast to privately insured persons (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.2). The family physician's influence in coordinating the use of specialist services was appreciated by 86%, more often by members of sickness funds (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.4 to 14. 3), people who were very satisfied with their doctor's professional competence (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 6.3) and older persons (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.7). CONCLUSIONS: A vast majority of the German population would accept their family physician as entry point and as coordinator of all other health services. Since patient satisfaction, among other reasons, strongly influenced preferences for gatekeeper arrangements, family physicians themselves may be able to promote primary care health services. (+info)
Patient desire and reasons for specialist referral in a gatekeeper-model managed care plan.
(6/84)
OBJECTIVE: To describe patient desire and reasons for specialist referrals in a gatekeeper-model managed care plan. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional prospective study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a patient questionnaire to gather demographic data and to gauge patients' desire for specialist referral and their reasons for seeking such referral. The survey was administered at 2 sites--an ambulatory care facility of a university hospital and an internal medicine clinic in a suburban ambulatory care site. Patients asked to complete the questionnaire at the university hospital site were enrolled in a gatekeeper-model managed care plan (called CU Gold); those seen at the internal medicine clinic were enrolled in a group-model health maintenance organization. Patients were asked to complete the 1-page questionnaire in the waiting room before being seen by their primary care physician. RESULTS: Among the 860 CU Gold patients who met the inclusion criteria during the 3-month study period (September to December 1997), 112 (13%) reported a definite desire to see a specialist and 274 (32%) indicated a possible desire to see a specialist at the time of their primary care visit. Compared with the CU Gold patients, significantly fewer patients in the health maintenance organization indicated a definite desire to see a specialist (3% versus 13%), but a similar percentage expressed a possible desire to see a specialist (30% versus 32%). The difference in definite desire for referral between the 2 groups could not be explained by patient or primary care physician characteristics. The principal health concerns for which patients sought referral were musculoskeletal, genitourinary or gynecologic, or dermatologic problems. Need for reassurance (cited by 67% of patients), seeing a specialist before (56%), and believing the primary care physician lacked expertise (49%) were the primary reasons patients sought referral. Seventy-four percent of patients referred by their primary care provider and 54% of those not referred agreed it was a good idea to see their primary care physician first before seeing a specialist. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have a significant desire for specialist referral, driven by their need for reassurance, previous specialist referral, and belief that their primary care physician does not have the requisite expertise. Patients' expectations for referral varied significantly, depending on the healthcare system (academic primary care clinic or health maintenance organization) in which they were enrolled. (+info)
Visits to primary care physicians and to specialists under gatekeeper and point-of-service arrangements.
(7/84)
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)
Balancing rationalities: gatekeeping in health care.
(8/84)
Physicians are increasingly confronted with the consequences of allocation policies. In several countries, physicians have been assigned a gatekeeper role for secondary health care. Many ethicists oppose this assignment for several reasons, concentrating on the harm the intrusion of societal arguments would inflict on doctor-patient relations. It is argued that these arguments rest on a distinction of spheres of values and of rationality, without taking into account the mixing of values and rationalities that takes place in everyday medical practice. If medical practice, then, does not follow a single, pure rationality, can it also incorporate the societal rationality of the gatekeeper role? Using a case from general practice, I try to show how physicians may integrate societal arguments into their practice in a morally acceptable way. A version of the model of reflective equilibrium and especially Beauchamp and Childress's safeguards, may be helpful both to analyse and teach such balancing of values and rationalities. (+info)