family practice

Evaluation of a Dragons' Den-inspired symposium to spread primary health care innovations in Quebec, Canada: a mixed-methods study using quality-improvement e-surveys

Author/s: 
Smithman, M. A., Dumas-Pilon, M., Campbell, M. J., Breton, M.

Background: On May 24, 2017, the Quebec College of Family Physicians held an innovation symposium inspired by the television show Dragons' Den, at which innovators pitched their innovations to Dragon-Facilitators (i.e., decision-makers) and academic family medicine clinical leads. We evaluated the effects of the symposium on the spread of primary health care innovations.

Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of the symposium. We collected data related to Rogers' innovation-decision process using 3 quality-improvement e-surveys (distributed between May 2017 and February 2018). The first survey evaluated spread outputs (innovation discovery, intention to spread, improvements) and was sent to all participants immediately after the symposium. The second evaluated short-term spread outcomes (follow-ups, successes, barriers) and was sent to innovators 3 months after the symposium. The third evaluated medium-term spread outcomes (spread, perceived impact) and was sent to innovators and clinical leads 9 months after the symposium. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, content analysis and joint display.

Results: Fifty-one innovators, 66 clinical leads (representing 42 clinics) and 37 Dragon-Facilitators attended the symposium. The response rates for the surveys were 61% (82/134) for the immediate post-symposium survey of all participants; 68% (21/31) for the 3-month survey of innovators; and 49% (48/97) for the 9-month survey of clinical leads and innovators. Immediately after the symposium, clinical leads and Dragon-Facilitators reported a high likelihood of adopting an innovation (mean ± standard deviation 8.02 ± 1.63 on a 10-point Likert scale) and 87% (53/61) agreed that they had discovered innovations at the symposium. Nearly all innovators (95%, 20/21) intended to follow up with potential adopters. After 3 months, 62% (13/21) of innovators had followed up in some way. After 9 months, 72% of clinical leads (18/25) had implemented at least 1 innovation, and 52% of innovators (12/23) had spread or were in the process of spreading innovations.

Interpretation: The innovation symposium supported participants in achieving the early stages of spreading primary health care innovations. Replicating such symposia may help spread other health care innovations.

Itchy vesicles

Author/s: 
Colom, M., Stulberg, D.

A 58-year-old man presented to the family medicine skin clinic with a 4-month history of intensely pruritic vesicles on his forehead, back, elbows, dorsum of his hands, and knees. The patient also reported lesions inside his mouth; however, they were not visible at the time of the office visit. He had a history of psoriasis and Graves disease and had recently been given a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of celiac disease.

What’s your diagnosis?

The 2020 Medicare Documentation, Coding, and Payment Update

Author/s: 
Moore, K., Mullins, A., Solis, E.

As usual, the new year brings changes in how doctors bill and get paid for the services they provide to Medicare patients. The reforms that will most affect family physicians’ pay aren’t coming until 2021, when several changes in evaluation and management (E/M) coding and payment are projected to result in a 12% increase for family medicine.1 But there are still a host of things family physicians should know for 2020, including new codes to help you get paid for interacting with patients via the internet and new codes that should help make chronic care management (CCM) more financially rewarding. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is also continuing its quest to streamline documentation requirements and develop new payment models intended to reward quality instead of volume. This article summarizes the 2020 changes most relevant to family medicine. As always, private payers’ policies may differ, so consult with your billing staff to understand any important differences.

Keywords 

Practice Transformation Under the University of Colorado's Primary Care Redesign Model

Author/s: 
Smith, P.C., Lyon, C., English, A.F., Conry, C.

PURPOSE:

We compared the transformation experience of 2 family medicine practices that implemented the Primary Care Redesign (PCR) team-based model to improve access, quality, and experience without increasing cost. The University of Colorado's A.F. Williams Family Medicine clinic (pilot practice) implemented the model in February 2015, and a smaller, community-based practice (wave 2 practice) did so 2 years later, in February 2017.

METHODS:

The PCR model increased the ratio of medical assistants to clinicians from about 1:2 to 2.5:1 while expanding the role of the medical assistants, through enhanced rooming procedures, in-room support (eg, scribing), postclinician wrap-up, and in-basket assistance. We assessed access, clinical quality metrics, staffing costs, and clinician and staff experience and burnout for at least 7 months before and 42 months after the intervention.

RESULTS:

In the pilot practice, compared with preimplementation, there were improvements in total appointments and rates of hypertension control, colorectal cancer screening, and most diabetic quality metrics. In the wave 2 practice, total appointments increased slightly when clinicians were added pre-PCR and then increased substantially after implementation; initially variable hypertension control improved rapidly after implementation. The wave 2 practice's colorectal cancer screening improved gradually, then accelerated postimplementation, while diabetic metrics initially remained stable or declined, then improved postimplementation. New patient appointments began to increase for both practices in late 2015, but grew faster in the pilot practice under PCR. Over time, all experiential domains improved for clinicians; most remained stable for staff. Clinician burnout was reduced by at least one-half in both practices except during low staffing periods, which also adversely affected staff. After a ramp-up period, the number of staff hours per visit remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS:

The PCR model is associated with simultaneous improvements in quality, access, and clinician experience, as well as reductions in burnout, while maintaining staffing costs.

Terminating a Patient: Is It Time to Part Ways?

Author/s: 
Willis, Deanna R., Zerr, Ann

Many family physicians chose the specialty of family medicine because of the value placed on the therapeutic relationship between the patient and the physician. When that relationship is significantly or repeatedly challenged, family physicians feel it deeply, and it’s not always clear how best to address the problem.

We have found that, when emotions are high, having a standardized process for dealing with these challenges makes it easier to take appropriate action. Our process provides patients with plenty of opportunities to reconsider their behavior and re-engage in the relationship, when appropriate, and it provides the physician and staff the assurance that comes with following a reasoned, consistent approach when difficult circumstances arise. If it becomes necessary to terminate the relationship, our approach describes how to do it without running afoul of payers’ guidelines.

While our system is not perfect, it has significantly improved our ability to set expectations and draw boundaries in an environment where some payers have very narrowly defined the circumstances under which termination is acceptable. The flow charts in this article are based on ones we have used with success in our health system. You can download them below and adapt them for use in your practice.

Subscribe to family practice