Search

Purpose: This study aims to determine whether there is consensus regarding staging and management of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) across the various specialties that manage this disease., Materials and Methods: A survey regarding CSCC high-risk features, staging, and management was created and emailed to cutaneous oncology experts including dermatology, head and neck surgery/surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and medical oncology., Results: One hundred fifty-six (46%) of 357 invited physicians completed the survey. Depth of invasion (92%), perineural invasion (99%), histologic differentiation (85%), and patient immunosuppression (90%) achieved consensus (>80%) as high-risk features of CSCC. Dermatologists were more likely to also choose clinical tumor diameter (79% vs. 54%) and histology (99% vs. 66%) as a high-risk feature. Dermatologists were also more likely to utilize the Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) staging system alone or in conjunction with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) (71%), whereas other cancer specialists (OCS) tend to use only AJCC (71%). Respondents considered AJCC T3 and higher (90%) and BWH T2b and higher (100%) to be high risk and when they consider radiologic imaging, sentinel lymph node biopsy, post-operative radiation therapy, and increased follow-up. Notably, a large number of respondents do not use staging systems or tumor stage to determine treatment options beyond surgery in high-risk CSCC., Conclusion: This survey study highlights areas of consensus and differences regarding the definition of high-risk features of CSCC, staging approaches, and management patterns between dermatologists and OCS. High-risk CSCC is defined as, but not limited to, BWH T2b and higher and AJCC T3 and higher, and these thresholds can be used to identify cases for which treatment beyond surgery may be considered. Dermatologists are more likely to utilize BWH staging, likely because BWH validation studies showing advantages over AJCC were published in dermatology journals and discussed at dermatology meetings. Additional data are necessary to develop a comprehensive risk-based management approach for CSCC., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: This study aims to compare the management practices of a headache specialist with non-headache specialists in the treatment of children with migraine. The use of appropriate rescue medications and prophylactic agents, application of neuroimaging, and short-term outcomes are compared in children treated by the two groups of physicians., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by utilizing the electronic medical records of children 3-18 years of age with migraine, who were evaluated at a tertiary care children's hospital from 2016 to 2018., Results: Of the 849 patients who met the study criteria, 469 children were classified as having chronic migraine or high-frequency episodic migraine and were followed-up on at least 1 occasion by the neurologists. Imaging was obtained in 66.5% of all children with migraine. The headache specialist used 5-HT agonists ("triptans") for migraine management in 56.7% (76/135) of cases compared to non-headache specialists who prescribed them in 28.7% (96/334) of cases (P < .001). Of the children with chronic migraine, the headache specialist evaluated 135 patients while the non-headache specialists treated 334 children. Non-headache specialists prescribed prophylaxis in the form of natural supplements more frequently (63.8% of cases) compared to the headache specialist (38.5% of children) (P < .001). Moreover, prophylaxis with prescription drugs was utilized more often by headache specialist (66.7%) than non-headache specialists (37.4%) (P < .001)., Conclusions: Imaging appears to be commonly recommended by both headache specialists and non-headache specialists in children with migraine. The headache specialist was more likely to use triptans as rescue medications for pediatric migraine. Outcomes in the short-term were not statistically different whether children were being managed by the headache specialist or the non-headache specialists., (© 2019 American Headache Society.)

Background: Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?, Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015., Selection Criteria: One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types., Main Results: We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty)., Authors' Conclusions: This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

Background and Objective: Efforts have recently been made in Spain to improve the communication model between primary care and specialized care. The aim of our study was to analyze the impact of a change in the communication model between the two areas when comparing a traditional system to a consulting system in terms of satisfaction of general practitioners and the number of patient referrals., Methods: A questionnaire was used to assess the point of view on the relations with the endocrinologist team of 20 general practitioners from one primary care center at baseline and 18 months after the implementation of the new method of communication. In addition, we counted the number of referrals during the two periods., Results: We analyzed 30 questionnaires; 13 before and 17 after the consulting system was established. Consulting system was preferred to other alternatives as a way of communication with endocrinologists. After the consulting system was implemented, general practitioners were more confident in treating hypothyroidism and diabetes. There was a decrease in the number of patient referrals to specialized care from 93.8 to 34.6 per month after implementation of the consultant system., Conclusions: The consultant system was more efficient in resolving problems and responding to general practitioners than the traditional system. General practitioners were more confident in self-management of hypothyroidism and diabetes. A very large decrease in the number of patient referrals was observed after implementation of the consultant system., (Copyright © 2015 SECA. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Specialist physicians may act either as consultants or co-managers for patients with chronic diseases along with their primary healthcare (PHC) physician. We assessed factors associated with specialist involvement., Methods: We used questionnaire and administrative data to measure co-management and patient and PHC practice characteristics in 702 primary care patients with common chronic diseases. Analysis included multilevel logistic regressions., Results: In all, 27% of the participants were co-managed. Persons with more severe chronic diseases and lower health-related quality of life were more likely to be co-managed. Persons who were older, had a lower socioeconomic status, resided in rural regions and who were followed in a PHC practice with an advanced practice nurse were less likely to be co-managed., Discussion: Co-management of patients with chronic diseases by a specialist is associated with higher clinical needs but demonstrates social inequalities. PHC practices more adapted to chronic care may help optimize specialist resources utilization., (Copyright © 2014 Longwoods Publishing.)

Purpose: Longitudinally (2008-2012) assess whether community-level sociodemographic characteristics were associated with patient-centered medical home (PCMH) capacity among primary care and specialty physician practices, and the extent to which variation in PCMH capacity can be accounted for by sociodemographic characteristics of the community., Design/methodology/approach: Linear growth curve models among 523 small and medium-sized physician practices that were members of a consortium of physician organizations pursuing the PCMH., Findings: Our analysis indicated that the average level of sociodemographic characteristics was typically not associated with the level of PCMH capacity, but the heterogeneity of the surrounding community is generally associated with lower levels of capacity. Furthermore, these relationships differed for interpersonal and technical dimensions of the PCMH., Implications: Our findings suggest that PCMH capabilities may not be evenly distributed across communities and raise questions about whether such distributional differences influence the PCMH's ability to improve population health, especially the health of vulnerable populations. Such nuances highlight the challenges faced by practitioners and policy makers who advocate the continued expansion of the PCMH as a means of improving the health of local communities., Originality/value: To date, most studies have focused cross-sectionally on practice characteristics and their association with PCMH adoption. Less understood is how physician practices' PCMH adoption varies as a function of the sociodemographic characteristics of the community in which the practice is located, despite work that acknowledges the importance of social context in decisions about adoption and implementation that can affect the dissemination of innovations.

Purpose: An initial pilot program demonstrated promising results in improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) and prompted us to test these findings in a controlled trial. The purpose of the Diabetes-focused, Algorithm-directed care, Midlevel practitioner-administered, Electronically coached, Treatment (DAMET-2) program clinical trial was to investigate the benefits of a novel program for disseminating guidance in the treatment of diabetes from a central specialist clinic to primary care centers with access to midlevel provider services., Data Sources: DAMET-2 included standardized treatment algorithms and education disseminated through computer-assisted and traditional methods associated with distance medicine. Two primary care practices were selected and subjects with diagnosed type 2 diabetes > or =6 months, > or =18 years of age with one or more cardiovascular risk factors (identified by chart review) were eligible for inclusion. Midlevel practitioners for subjects in the experimental group (N = 34) received training in American Diabetes Association treatment algorithms, had telephone consultations at 2- to 4-week intervals and bimonthly visits with diabetes specialists, and received treatment guidance within 24 h from remote diabetes specialists. Weekly diabetes clinics were made available to subjects in the experimental group. After 12 months, the last available subject data were extracted from the subjects' charts and compared to 12-month chart data from a control group (N = 101) that did not receive additional study services., Conclusions: Mean HbA(1c) values decreased from baseline by 0.46% in the active treatment group versus 0.06% in the control group; however, reductions in HbA(1c) did not achieve statistical significance potentially because of the small sample size of the experimental group. Mean SBP values were significantly reduced in both groups; however, LDL-C was only significantly reduced in the control group, where more aggressive use of statins may have had an effect., Implications for Practice: Despite the inconsistencies in risk factor reduction from the pilot program, the DAMET-2 program provided insights regarding the importance of electronic records and provider notifications, patient adherence, prioritization of provider resources by risk factor level among patients, and access to self-management education.

Background: The Capital Health (CH) region in Alberta serves the population of the Edmonton area as well as a large referral population in western Canada. CH is responsible for the delivery of the spectrum of patient care, from inpatient to outpatient services. Growth in outpatient care, in particular, has led to the development of several ambulatory care facilities from which the delivery of care to several populations with a chronic disease will be coordinated., Assessment of Problem: The traditional model of care delivery is unsuited to the management of chronic diseases. Physicians must be part of the planning and implementation of new models if they are to be successful and sustainable. The concept of integration into a delivery team is not well understood or practised. This is not conducive to the integration of specialist physicians into multidisciplinary teams in ambulatory care that serves the needs of patients from a large geographic area., Results: Chronic disease management using the Chronic Care Model has proven to be an effective method of delivering care to this wide population. Specialist physicians have not always taken advantage of opportunities to be involved in the planning and development of such new health care projects. In CH, physician integration in the planning, development and implementation of this new model has proven vital to its success., Strategies for Change: We based our strategy for change on Wagner's Chronic Care Model. This involved eight steps, the first four of which have been completed and the fifth and sixth are underway., Lessons and Messages: Five factors contributed to the successful integration of specialist physicians in chronic disease management: collaboration between disciplines and organizations; creating patient-centred services; organizational commitments; strong clinical leadership; and early involvement of clinicians.

Background: Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than either primary or specialty care alone. It has been defined as the joint participation of primary care physicians and specialty care physicians in the planned delivery of care, informed by an enhanced information exchange over and above routine discharge and referral notices. It has the potential to offer improved quality and coordination of care delivery across the primary-specialty care interface and to improve outcomes for patients., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of shared-care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary-specialty care interface., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register (and the database of studies awaiting assessment); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (from 1966); EMBASE (from 1980) and CINAHL (from 1982). We also searched the reference lists of included studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of shared-care interventions for chronic disease management. The participants were primary care providers, specialty care providers and patients. The outcomes included physical health outcomes, mental health outcomes, and psychosocial health outcomes, treatment satisfaction, measures of care delivery including participation in services, delivery of care and prescribing of appropriate medications, and costs of shared care., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality., Main Results: Twenty studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management were identified, 19 of which were randomised controlled trials. The majority of studies examined complex multifaceted interventions and were of relatively short duration. The results were mixed. Overall there were no consistent improvements in physical or mental health outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, psychosocial measures including measures of disability and functioning, hospital admissions, default or participation rates, recording of risk factors and satisfaction with treatment. However, there were clear improvements in prescribing in the studies that considered this outcome. The methodological quality of studies varied considerably with only a minority of studies of high-quality design. Cost data were limited and difficult to interpret across studies., Authors' Conclusions: This review indicates that there is, at present, insufficient evidence to demonstrate significant benefits from shared care apart from improved prescribing. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may partially account for this lack of evidence. This review indicates that there is no evidence to support the widespread introduction of shared care services at present. Future shared-care interventions should only be developed within research settings and with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and the need to carry out longer studies to test the effectiveness and sustainability of shared care over time.

Background: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is undertreated by general practitioners (GPs). However, the impact of the suboptimal clinical management is unknown., Objective: To assess the mortality rate of PAD patients in relation to the type of physician who provides their care (GP or vascular specialist)., Design: Prospective study., Setting: Primary care practice and academic vascular laboratory., Participants: GP patients (n = 60) were those of the Peripheral Arteriopathy and Cardiovascular Events study (PACE). Patients managed by specialists (n = 82) were consecutive subjects with established PAD who were referred to our vascular laboratory during the enrollment period of the PACE study., Measurements: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality., Results: After 32 months of follow-up, specialist management was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.04; 95% CI 0.01-0.34; p = .003) and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.01-0.65; p = .020), after adjustment for patients' characteristics. Specialists were more likely to use antiplatelet agents (93% vs 73%, p < .001), statins (62% vs 25%, p < .001) and beta blockers (28% vs 3%, p < .001). Survival differences between specialists and GPs disappeared once the use of pharmacotherapies was added to the proportional hazard model. The fully adjusted model showed that the use of statins was significantly associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.02; 95% CI 0.01-0.73, p = .034) and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.02; 95% CI 0.01-0.71, p = .033)., Conclusions: Specialist management of patients with symptomatic PAD resulted in better survival than generalist management. This effect appears to be mainly caused by the more frequent use of effective medicines by specialists.

Depression is a major public health problem in the United States and is responsible for an enormous economic burden and loss of productivity and quality of life. In many cases, PCPs are well situated to identify and treat unrecognized depression, but an optimal treatment program often comprises both medical and psychotherapeutic interventions. Many collaborative models that integrate the efforts of PCPs, psychiatrists, behavioral health organizations, and workplace assistance programs are being tested and may prove to be the best direction for improving care for patients with depression. Looking ahead, improvement in treatment of depression will depend on numerous factors, including educating health care practitioners to recognize silent depression, expanding current collaborative models to cover more of the population, involving MCOs and payers in the development of effective treatment systems, and improving workplace-support programs to encourage more patients to seek appropriate care.

Four large rural multispecialty group practice systems employ a mix of organizational technologies to provide chronic disease management with measurable impacts on their patient populations and costs. Four technologies-administrative, clinical, information, and social-are proposed as key dimensions for examining disease management programs. The benefits of disease management are recognized by these systems despite marked variability in the organization of the programs. Committees spanning health plans and clinics in the 4 systems and electronic medical records and/or other disease management information systems are important coordinating mechanisms. Increased reliance on nurses for patient education and care coordination in all 4 systems reflects significant extension of clinical and social technologies in the management of patient care. The promise of disease management as offered by these systems and other auspices are considered.

Some patients simply can't be taken care of in your typical 15-minute office visit. That's why a Houston-based organization developed a new model--and a new specialist--to deal with the growing number of patients affected by multiple diagnoses and other factors putting them at high risk for hospital utilization. With early success, the approach has now attracted the attention of Medicare and other insurers.

In this article, we describe an evidence-based stepped care approach to improving the care of chronic illness in organized health care systems. We review the common principles that have been found to improve the management and outcomes of patients with major depression, asthma, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. These population-based methods to improve care of chronic illness require reorganizing the roles of specialists, primary care physicians, and nurses.

Purpose: To assess the effects of physician specialty on the knowledge, management, and outcomes of patients with coronary disease or heart failure., Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE from 1980 to 1997, as well as bibliographic references to articles about the effects of physician specialty on the knowledge, treatment, and outcomes of patients with coronary disease or heart failure in the United States., Results: Twenty-four articles met our criteria for inclusion (including eight that involved knowledge or self-reported practices, 14 that described actual practice patterns, and six that measured clinical outcomes). Cardiologists were more knowledgeable than generalist physicians about the optimal evaluation and management of coronary disease but not about the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for heart failure. Patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction were more likely to receive proven medical therapies, and possibly had improved outcomes, if they were treated by cardiologists. The use of lipid-lowering drugs after myocardial infarction was also more common among patients of cardiologists. ACE inhibitor use for heart failure was probably greater, and short-term readmission rates were lower, with cardiology care., Conclusions: Patients with coronary disease or heart failure in the United States who are treated by cardiologists appear more likely to receive evidence-based care and probably have better outcomes. Investigation of collaborative models of care and innovative efforts to improve the use of proven therapies by physicians are needed.

In Mexico, no effort has been made to estimate a nationwide prevalence rate of asthma. However, in the last 10 years several local studies have been carried out that analyze the same age cohort that have similar methodological features, enabling us to have a reference from which to look at childhood asthma prevalence in Mexico. Applying statistical analysis to all the surveys, we obtained a prevalence rate of childhood asthma of 11.85% with a confidence interval of 11.32% and 12.38%. We have data that let us know that the prevalence of asthma in México is increasing as in other countries. The comportment of asthma medication is changing very slowly, at least in the commercial market.

The evolution of health care in the United States has recently given rise to a movement commonly referred to as "Disease Management" in which improved outcomes are sought by using a data-driven process to direct appropriate resources to patients most likely to benefit from them. Related to asthma, debate has tended to focus on studies that have demonstrated better patient-centered outcomes for patients managed by asthma specialists, rather than the ability of the goals of asthma DM to serve the interests of patients, health care providers, and health plans. This article reviews the major forces that propel the disease management movement, describes the nature of DM programs, and presents a proposal that underscores the viability of specialty care in asthma disease management. Also presented are several examples from the author's experience in Texas of practical ways that asthma specialists can become constructively engaged in the evolution of effective and efficient systems of care for patients with asthma.

Specialty managed care contracting requires specialists to understand their role in managing care, as well as carve-out and subcapitation agreements. Specialists should know their referral sources, their costs for providing care, and how to provide care that meets their referral sources' needs and the payers' requirements. Once specialists enter carve-out or subcapitation arrangements, they need to determine the best payment calculation method for their practice. Three methods to consider are resource-based relative value scale, per-referral basis, and a point system. Because each method produces different results, providers need to understand each method and the unique concerns of specialty managed care contracting to negotiate the best contracts for their situation.

While the majority of migraine sufferers are treated by primary care providers, headache specialists can manage migraine much more cost-effectively--in some cases up to 87% less. Here's why, along with tips for improved treatment and algorithms for treating migraine.

Breakthroughs in treatments for HIV/AIDS are offering new hope. Health plans are identifying the right professionals to coordinate these promising but complex new treatments.

Patients and physicians are wary that managed care will unnecessarily limit access to specialists. At the same time, there is a recognized need to control medical costs. Clinical decision support criteria can help group practices achieve balance between clinical protocol and cost management. They help protect against over- and underutilization of resources, including specialist care. They also help physicians justify care decisions to the patient and to the health plan providing payment.

In increasingly cost-conscious, accountable and integrated health-care systems, the appropriate role of speciality care is under scrutiny. The data on the impact of rheumatologist care on outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is limited and inconclusive. However, based on a review of processes of care known to be related to superior patient outcomes it is suggested that rheumatologists should be the lead physicians in patients with RA. Rheumatologists but usually not generalists have the experience necessary to make an early diagnosis and to initiate appropriate disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment. Rheumatologists have an in-depth understanding of new assessment methods to optimize medical treatment and to make best use of and co-ordinate multi-disciplinary care. To avoid delay of diagnosis and initiation of treatment, patients with polyarthritis should be referred to rheumatologists as soon as possible. This requires that access to rheumatologist care is guaranteed.