Search

Complex socio-environmental challenges require interdisciplinary, team-based research capacity. Graduate students are fundamental to building such capacity, yet formal opportunities for graduate students to develop these capacities and skills are uncommon. This paper presents an assessment of the Graduate Pursuit (GP) program, a formal interdisciplinary team science graduate research and training program administered by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the program’s first cohort revealed that participants became significantly more comfortable with interdisciplinary research and team science approaches, increased their capacity to work across disciplines, and were enabled to produce tangible research outcomes. Qualitative analysis of four themes—(1) discipline, specialization, and shared purpose, (2) interpersonal skills and personality, (3) communication and teamwork, and (4) perceived costs and benefits—encompass participants’ positive and negative experiences and support findings from past assessments. The findings also identify challenges and benefits related to individual personality traits and team personality orientation, the importance of perceiving a sense of autonomy and independence, and the benefit of graduate training programs independent of the university and graduate program environment.

Assembling a dedicated QI team is only half the challenge. Here's how to build and sustain their momentum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that investigates the efficacy of electronic health record (EHR) adoption in improving ambulatory care quality in the U.S. Researchers did a study on 798 diabetic patients found in 16 EHR. They found that EHR enhancement is not sure that it will boost the quality of EHR for diabetes care.

The article presents a study which examines the implementation of coordinated care to address health behavior change needs of patients in primary care. Data from the site visit, documents, interviews, and online implementation diaries from practice-based research networks (PBRNs) were collected and a cross-case comparative analysis was conducted. Results show that in-practice health risk assessment (HRA) and brief counseling, coupled with referral and outreach are the best counseling approach.

Many patients in primary care present with ear pain (otalgia). When the ear is the source of the pain (primary otalgia), the ear examination is usually abnormal. When the ear is not the source of the pain (secondary otalgia), the ear examination is typically normal. The cause of primary otalgia is usually apparent on examination; the most common causes are otitis media and otitis externa. The cause of secondary otalgia is often difficult to determine because the innervation of the ear is complex and there are many potential sources of referred pain. The most common causes are temporomandibular joint syndrome, pharyngitis, dental disease, and cervical spine arthritis. If the diagnosis is not clear from the history and physical examination, options include a trial of symptomatic treatment without a clear diagnosis; imaging studies; and consultation with an otolaryngologist. Patients who smoke, drink alcohol, are older than 50 years, or have diabetes are at higher risk of a cause of ear pain that needs further evaluation. Patients whose history or physical examination increases suspicion for a serious occult cause of ear pain or whose symptoms persist after symptomatic treatment should be considered for further evaluation, such as magnetic resonance imaging, fiberoptic nasolaryngoscopy, or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer screening (LCS) can reduce lung cancer mortality but has potential harms for patients. A shared decision-making (SDM) conversation about LCS is required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for LCS reimbursement. To overcome barriers to SDM in primary care, this protocol describes a telehealth decision coaching intervention for LCS in primary care clinics delivered by patient navigators. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and its implementation potential, compared with an enhanced usual care (EUC) arm., Methods: Patients (n = 420) of primary care clinicians (n = 120) are being recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial. Clinicians are randomly assigned to 1) TELESCOPE intervention: prior to an upcoming non-acute clinic visit, patients participate in a telehealth decision coaching session about LCS delivered by trained patient navigators and nurse navigators place a low-dose CT scan (LDCT) order for each TELESCOPE patient wanting LCS, or 2) EUC: patients receive enhanced usual care from a clinician. Usual care is enhanced by providing clinicians in both arms with access to a Continuing Medical Education (CME) webinar about LCS and an LCS discussion guide. Patients complete surveys at baseline and 1-week after the scheduled clinic visit to assess quality of the SDM process. Re-navigation is attempted with TELESCOPE patients who have not completed the LDCT within 3 months. One month before being due for an annual screening, TELESCOPE patients whose initial LCS showed low-risk findings are randomly assigned to receive a telehealth decision coaching booster session with a navigator or no booster. Electronic health records are abstracted at 6, 12 and 18 months after the initial decision coaching session (TELESCOPE) or clinic visit (EUC) to assess initial and annual LCS uptake, imaging results, follow-up testing for abnormal findings, cancer diagnoses, treatment, and tobacco treatment referrals. This study will evaluate factors that facilitate or interfere with program implementation using mixed methods., Discussion: We will assess whether a decision coaching and patient navigation intervention can feasibly support high-quality SDM for LCS and guideline-concordant LCS uptake for patients in busy primary care practices serving diverse patient populations., Trial Registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05491213) on August 4, 2022., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Background and Objectives: Many people with hepatitis C receive all or most of their care from primary care physicians, yet little information exists about the practice patterns, knowledge, and beliefs and attitudes of family physicians related to hepatitis C., Methods: We mailed a written survey to a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians., Results: Nearly all respondents (94%) reported at least one patient with hepatitis C in their practice, and 66% had diagnosed at least one new case of hepatitis C in the past year. While most respondents (85%) correctly identified common hepatitis C risk factors, only 63% reported routinely asking patients about those risk factors. Respondents (74%) preferred to involve specialists in the care of hepatitis C patients, but half (50%) reported barriers to referral. A small number (5%) of respondents have prescribed antiviral medication within the past year. Most respondents think family physicians should screen (94%), diagnose (98%), and provide general care (69%) for hepatitis C patients., Conclusions: Family physicians know how to identify high-risk people and test for hepatitis C. Most prefer to refer patients with hepatitis C to specialists for workup and treatment but report frequent barriers to those referrals.

Background and Objectives: Anecdotal evidence suggests that many providers who previously delivered babies are no longer doing so, both in Oregon and nationally. This study determined the proportion of pregnancy care providers who have stopped or are planning to stop providing this care in Oregon and identified the important factors influencing such practice changes., Methods: We mailed a survey in October and November 2002 to all obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, general practitioners, and certified nurse midwives practicing in Oregon. The survey inquired about whether they currently perform deliveries. If they did not do so, or if they did so but planned to stop, further questions were asked about reasons for not providing this care., Results: A total of 2,158 surveys were mailed; 1,232 were returned (58% adjusted response rate), and 1,069 had sufficient information to be included in our analysis. Of respondents, 511 (47.8%) currently perform deliveries. Of these, 157 (30.7%) indicated that they planned to stop doing so in 1 to 5 years, with cost of professional liability insurance (59%) and fear of lawsuits (43%) most frequently cited as major reasons. A total of 367 (34%) respondents had previously stopped performing deliveries. Providers who stopped providing this care since 1999 were significantly more likely to cite cost of medical liability insurance and low reimbursement as major reasons, compared to providers who stopped earlier., Conclusions: Our study suggests that as many as half of clinicians who previously performed or currently perform deliveries in Oregon are planning to stop or have already stopped providing this service, raising concern about access to pregnancy care services for women in the state.