primary health care

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.

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care testing of C-reactive protein (CRP) may be a way to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics without harming patients who have acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with a diagnosis of COPD in their primary care clinical record who consulted a clinician at 1 of 86 general medical practices in England and Wales for an acute exacerbation of COPD. The patients were assigned to receive usual care guided by CRP point-of-care testing (CRP-guided group) or usual care alone (usual-care group). The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for acute exacerbations of COPD within 4 weeks after randomization (to show superiority) and COPD-related health status at 2 weeks after randomization, as measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, a 10-item scale with scores ranging from 0 (very good COPD health status) to 6 (extremely poor COPD health status) (to show noninferiority).

RESULTS

A total of 653 patients underwent randomization. Fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use than in the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.47). The adjusted mean difference in the total score on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks was −0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI, −0.33 to −0.05) in favor of the CRP-guided group. The antibiotic prescribing decisions made by clinicians at the initial consultation were ascertained for all but 1 patient, and antibiotic prescriptions issued over the first 4 weeks of follow-up were ascertained for 96.9% of the patients. A lower percentage of patients in the CRP-guided group than in the usual-care group received an antibiotic prescription at the initial consultation (47.7% vs. 69.7%, for a difference of 22.0 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.45) and during the first 4 weeks of follow-up (59.1% vs. 79.7%, for a difference of 20.6 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46). Two patients in the usual-care group died within 4 weeks after randomization from causes considered by the investigators to be unrelated to trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD in primary care clinics resulted in a lower percentage of patients who reported antibiotic use and who received antibiotic prescriptions from clinicians, with no evidence of harm. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; PACE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN24346473.)

IMPORTANCE:

Anticholinergic medicines have short-term cognitive adverse effects, but it is uncertain whether long-term use of these drugs is associated with an increased risk of dementia.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess associations between anticholinergic drug treatments and risk of dementia in persons 55 years or older.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This nested case-control study took place in general practices in England that contributed to the QResearch primary care database. The study evaluated whether exposure to anticholinergic drugs was associated with dementia risk in 58 769 patients with a diagnosis of dementia and 225 574 controls 55 years or older matched by age, sex, general practice, and calendar time. Information on prescriptions for 56 drugs with strong anticholinergic properties was used to calculate measures of cumulative anticholinergic drug exposure. Data were analyzed from May 2016 to June 2018.

EXPOSURES:

The primary exposure was the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) of anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the 1 to 11 years prior to the date of diagnosis of dementia or equivalent date in matched controls (index date).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Odds ratios (ORs) for dementia associated with cumulative exposure to anticholinergic drugs, adjusted for confounding variables.

RESULTS:

Of the entire study population (284 343 case patients and matched controls), 179 365 (63.1%) were women, and the mean (SD) age of the entire population was 82.2 (6.8) years. The adjusted OR for dementia increased from 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09) in the lowest overall anticholinergic exposure category (total exposure of 1-90 TSDDs) to 1.49 (95% CI, 1.44-1.54) in the highest category (>1095 TSDDs), compared with no anticholinergic drug prescriptions in the 1 to 11 years before the index date. There were significant increases in dementiarisk for the anticholinergic antidepressants (adjusted OR [AOR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.24-1.34), antiparkinson drugs (AOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.16-2.00), antipsychotics (AOR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.90), bladder antimuscarinic drugs (AOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.56-1.75), and antiepileptic drugs (AOR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.22-1.57) all for more than 1095 TSDDs. Results were similar when exposures were restricted to exposure windows of 3 to 13 years (AOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.41-1.52) and 5 to 20 years (AOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.32-1.57) before the index date for more than 1095 TSDDs. Associations were stronger in cases diagnosed before the age of 80 years. The population-attributable fraction associated with total anticholinergic drug exposure during the 1 to 11 years before diagnosis was 10.3%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Exposure to several types of strong anticholinergic drugs is associated with an increased risk ofdementia. These findings highlight the importance of reducing exposure to anticholinergic drugs in middle-aged and older people.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE:

An estimated 1.1 million individuals in the United States are currently living with HIV, and more than 700 000 persons have died of AIDS since the first cases were reported in 1981. In 2017, there were 38 281 new diagnoses of HIV infection reported in the United States; 81% of these new diagnoses were among males and 19% were among females. Although treatable, HIV infection has no cure and has significant health consequences.

OBJECTIVE:

To issue a new US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of HIV infection.

EVIDENCE REVIEW:

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits of PrEP for the prevention of HIV infection with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy or combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine and whether the benefits vary by risk group, population subgroup, or regimen or dosing strategy; the diagnostic accuracy of risk assessment tools to identify persons at high risk of HIVacquisition; the rates of adherence to PrEP in primary care settings; the association between adherence and effectiveness of PrEP; and the harms of PrEP when used for HIV prevention.

FINDINGS:

The USPSTF found convincing evidence that PrEP is of substantial benefit in decreasing the risk of HIV infection in persons at high risk of HIV acquisition. The USPSTF also found convincing evidence that adherence to PrEP is highly associated with its efficacy in preventing the acquisition of HIV infection; thus, adherence to PrEP is central to realizing its benefit. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that PrEP is associated with small harms, including kidney and gastrointestinal adverse effects. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the magnitude of benefit of PrEP with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based therapy to reduce the risk of acquisition of HIV infection in persons at high risk is substantial.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:

The USPSTF recommends offering PrEP with effective antiretroviral therapy to persons at high risk of HIV acquisition. (A recommendation).