Background

Although many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain.

Objective

To describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs.

Design

Cross-sectional study and time trend analysis.

Data

Nationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010.

Main measures

Proportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality.

Key results

Among 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p = 0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p < 0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p < 0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p < 0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists.

Conclusions

Medical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.

Importance

Back pain treatment is costly and frequently includes overuse of treatments that are unsupported by clinical guidelines. Few studies have evaluated recent national trends in guideline adherence of spine-related care.

Objective

To characterize the treatment of back pain from January 1, 1999, through December 26, 2010.

Design, setting, and patients

Using nationally representative data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, we studied outpatient visits with a chief symptom and/or primary diagnosis of back or neck pain, as well as those with secondary symptoms and diagnoses of back or neck pain. We excluded visits with concomitant "red flags," including fever, neurologic symptoms, or cancer. Results were analyzed using logistic regression adjusted for patient and health care professional characteristics and weighted to reflect national estimates. We also present adjusted results stratified by symptom duration and whether the health care professional was the primary care physician (PCP).

Main outcomes and measures

We assessed imaging, narcotics, and referrals to physicians (guideline discordant indicators). In addition, we evaluated use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen and referrals to physical therapy (guideline concordant indicators).

Results

We identified 23,918 visits for spine problems, representing an estimated 440 million visits. Approximately 58% of patients were female. Mean age increased from 49 to 53 years (P< .001) during the study period. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or acetaminophen use per visit decreased from 36.9% in 1999-2000 to 24.5% in 2009-2010 (unadjusted P< .001). In contrast, narcotic use increased from 19.3% to 29.1% (P< .001). Although physical therapy referrals remained unchanged at approximately 20%, physician referrals increased from 6.8% to 14.0% (P< .001). The number of radiographs remained stable at approximately 17%, whereas the number of computed tomograms or magnetic resonance images increased from 7.2% to 11.3% during the study period (P< .001). These trends were similar after stratifying by short-term vs long-term presentations, visits to PCPs vs non-PCPs, and adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, PCP status, symptom duration, region, and metropolitan location.

Conclusions and relevance

Despite numerous published clinical guidelines, management of back pain has relied increasingly on guideline discordant care. Improvements in the management of spine-related disease represent an area of potential cost savings for the health care system with the potential for improving the quality of care.

Importance

Hospital-employed physicians provide primary care within the hospital or within community-based office practices. Yet, little is understood regarding the influence of hospital location and ownership on the delivery of low-value care.

Objective

To assess the association of hospital location and hospital ownership with the provision of low-value health services.

Design, setting, and participants

This study compared low-value service use after primary care visits at hospital-based outpatient practices from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2011, vs community-based office practices and at hospital-owned vs physician-owned community-based office practices from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2013. Logistic regression models adjusted for patient and health care professional characteristics and year, and weighted results were used to reflect population estimates. Results were also stratified by symptom acuity and whether a generalist physician (eg, general internist or family practitioner) was the patient's primary care provider. This study used nationally representative data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2013) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2011) on outpatient visits to generalist physicians. Participants were patients seen with 3 common primary care conditions, namely, upper respiratory tract infection, back pain, and headache.

Main outcomes and measures

The use of antibiotics (for upper respiratory tract infection), computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (for back pain and headache), radiographs (for upper respiratory tract infection and back pain), and specialty referrals (for all 3 conditions).

Results

This study identified 31 162 visits for upper respiratory tract infection, back pain, and headache, representing an estimated 739 million US primary care visits from 1997 to 2013. Compared with visits with community-based physicians, patients in visits to hospital-based physicians were younger (mean age, 44.5 vs 49.1 years; P < .001) and less frequently saw their primary care provider (52.7% vs 81.9%, P < .001). Although antibiotic use was similar in both settings, hospital-based visits had more orders for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (8.3% vs 6.3%, P = .01), radiographs (12.8% vs 9.9%, P < .001), and specialty referrals (19.0% vs 7.6%, P < .001) than community-based visits. Multivariable adjustment and symptom acuity stratification revealed similar findings. Visits with a generalist other than the patient's primary care provider were associated with greater provision of low-value care but mainly within hospital-based settings. Practice patterns were similar among hospital-owned vs physician-owned community-based practices with the exception of specialty referrals, which were more frequent in hospital-owned community-based practices.

Conclusions and relevance

Visits to US hospital-based practices are associated with greater use of low-value computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, radiographs, and specialty referrals than visits to community-based practices, and visits to hospital-owned community-based practices had more specialty referrals than visits to physician-owned community-based practices. These findings raise concerns about the provision of low-value care at hospital-associated primary care practices.

Background

Headache is a frequent complaint and among the most common reasons for visiting a physician.

Objective

To characterize trends from 1999 through 2010 in the management of headache.

Design

Longitudinal trends analysis.

Data

Nationally representative sample of visits to clinicians for headache from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, excluding visits with "red flags," such as neurologic deficit, cancer, or trauma.

Main measures

Use of advanced imaging (CT/MRI), opioids/barbiturates, and referrals to other physicians (guideline-discordant indicators), as well as counseling on lifestyle modifications and use of preventive medications including verapamil, topiramate, amitriptyline, or propranolol (guideline-concordant during study period). We analyzed results using logistic regression, adjusting for patient and clinician characteristics, and weighted to reflect U.S. population estimates. Additionally, we stratified findings based on migraine versus non-migraine, acute versus chronic symptoms, and whether the clinician self-identified as the primary care physician.

Key results

We identified 9,362 visits for headache, representing an estimated 144 million visits during the study period. Nearly three-quarters of patients were female, and the mean age was approximately 46 years. Use of CT/MRI rose from 6.7% of visits in 1999-2000 to 13.9% in 2009-2010 (unadjusted p < 0.001), and referrals to other physicians increased from 6.9 % to 13.2% (p = 0.005). In contrast, clinician counseling declined from 23.5 % to 18.5% (p = 0.041). Use of preventive medications increased from 8.5 % to 15.9% (p = 0.001), while opioids/barbiturates remained unchanged, at approximately 18%. Adjusted trends were similar, as were results after stratifying by migraine versus non-migraine and acute versus chronic presentation. Primary care clinicians had lower odds of ordering CT/MRI (OR 0.56 [0.42, 0.74]).

Conclusions

Contrary to numerous guidelines, clinicians are increasingly ordering advanced imaging and referring to other physicians, and less frequently offering lifestyle counseling to their patients. The management of headache represents an important opportunity to improve the value of U.S. healthcare.

Objectives

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) increasingly practice in emergency departments (EDs), yet limited research has compared their practice patterns with those of physicians.

Design, setting and participants

Using nationally representative data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we analysed ED visits among NPs/PAs and physicians between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2017. To compare NP/PA and physician utilisation, we estimated propensity score-weighted multivariable regressions adjusted for clinical/sociodemographic variables, including triage acuity score (1=sickest/5=healthiest). Because NPs/PAs may preferentially consult physicians for more complex patients, we performed sensitivity analyses restricting to EDs with >95% of visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.

Exposures

NPs/PAs.

Main outcome measures

Use of hospitalisations, diagnostic tests, medications, procedures and six low-value services, for example, CT/MRI for uncomplicated headache, based on Choosing Wisely and other practice guidelines.

Results

Before propensity weighting, we studied visits to 12 410 NPs/PAs-alone, 21 560 to the NP/PA-physician combination and 143 687 to physicians-alone who saw patients with increasing age (41, 45 and 47 years, p<0.001) and worsening triage acuity scores (3.03, 2.85 and 2.67, p<0.001), respectively. After weighting, NPs/PAs-alone used fewer medications (2.62 vs 2.80, p=0.002), diagnostic tests (3.77 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.67 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations (OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.46)) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.80)) than physicians. Contrastingly, the NP/PA-physician combination used more medications (3.08 vs 2.80, p<0.001), diagnostic tests (5.07 vs 4.66, p<0.001), procedures (0.86 vs 0.77, p<0.001), hospitalisations OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.51) and low-value CT/MRI studies (OR 1.23 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.43)) than physicians-results were similar among EDs with >95% of NP/PA visits including the NP/PA-physician combination.

Conclusions and relevance

While U.S. NPs/PAs-alone used less care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging, the NP/PA-physician combination used more care and low-value advanced diagnostic imaging than physicians alone. Findings were reproduced among EDs where nearly all NP/PA visits were collaborative with physicians, suggesting that NPs/PAs seeing more complex patients used more services than physicians alone, but the converse might be true for more straightforward patients.

Background

Databases of practicing physicians are important for studies that require sampling physicians or counting the physician population in a given area. However, little is known about how the three main sampling frames differ from each other.

Objective

Our purpose was to compare the National Provider and Plan Enumeration System (NPPES), the American Medical Association Masterfile and the SK&A physician file.

Methods

We randomly sampled 3000 physicians from the NPPES (500 in six specialties). We conducted two- and three-way comparisons across three databases to determine the extent to which they matched on address and specialty. In addition, we randomly selected 1200 physicians (200 per specialty) for telephone verification.

Key results

One thousand, six hundred and fifty-five physicians (55 %) were found in all three data files. The SK&A data file had the highest rate of missing physicians when compared to the NPPES, and varied by specialty (50 % in radiology vs. 28 % in cardiology). NPPES and SK&A had the highest rates of matching mailing address information, while the AMA Masterfile had low rates compared with the NPPES. We were able to confirm 65 % of physicians' address information by phone. The NPPES and SK&A had similar rates of correct address information in phone verification (72-94 % and 79-92 %, respectively, across specialties), while the AMA Masterfile had significantly lower rates of correct address information across all specialties (32-54 % across specialties).

Conclusions

None of the data files in this study were perfect; the fact that we were unable to reach one-third of our telephone verification sample is troubling. However, the study offers some encouragement for researchers conducting physician surveys. The NPPES and to a lesser extent, the SK&A file, appear to provide reasonably accurate, up-to-date address information for physicians billing public and provider insurers.