primary health care

Approach to Obesity Treatment in Primary Care: A Review

Author/s: 
Susan Z Yanovski, Jack A Yanovski

Importance: More than 40% of US adults have obesity, which increases the risks for multiple chronic diseases and premature mortality. Historically, nonsurgical interventions often have not led to sufficient weight loss and maintenance to improve health, but highly effective antiobesity medications (AOMs) have recently become available, and additional effective therapeutics are under development. Given that most medical care for adults with obesity is delivered in primary care settings, guidance for integrating weight-management approaches is needed.

Observations: Lifestyle interventions can lead to a mean weight loss of 2% to 9% of initial weight at 1 year and increase the likelihood of weight loss of 5% or more, but weight regain over time is common even with continued treatment. Adjunctive treatments, including AOMs and surgical approaches, can lead to larger, more sustained weight loss and improvements in numerous obesity-associated medical conditions. Highly effective AOMs, including nutrient-stimulated hormone-based therapies, induce mean weight loss of 15% or more. Barriers to intervention, including access to care, have a disproportionate influence on populations most affected by obesity and its consequences.

Conclusions and relevance: Primary care clinicians play a vital role in the assessment, management, and support of patients with obesity. With careful clinical assessment and shared decision-making, a flexible treatment plan can be developed that reflects evidence of treatment efficacy, patient preference, and feasibility of implementation. Adjunctive therapies to lifestyle interventions, including more effective pharmacotherapeutics for obesity, offer hope to patients and the potential for considerable improvements in health and quality of life.

Project nature: promoting outdoor physical activity in children via primary care

Author/s: 
Georgia M Griffin, Carolina Nieto, Kirsten Senturia, Marshall Brown, Kimberly Garrett, Elizabeth Nguyen, Danette Glassy, Emily Kroshus, Pooja Tandon

Background

Families face a range of barriers in supporting their children’s active play in nature including family circumstances, environmental constraints, and behavioral factors. Evidence-based strategies to address these barriers are needed. We aimed to develop and pilot test a primary care-based family-centered behavioral intervention to promote active outdoor play in 4–10 year-old children.

Methods

Project Nature, a provider-delivered intervention that provides informational resources and an age-appropriate toy for nature play, was initially developed for children ages 0–3. With stakeholder input, we adapted existing materials for 4–10 year-olds and conducted usability testing at an urban clinic serving families from diverse backgrounds. Subsequently, we conducted a mix-methods pilot study to evaluate intervention feasibility and acceptability. Parents of 4–10 year-olds completed pre- and post-surveys (n = 22), and a purposive subset (n = 10) completed qualitative interviews. Post-intervention, pediatric providers (n = 4) were interviewed about their implementation experiences.

Results

The majority (82%) of parents liked the information provided and the remaining (18%) were neutral. Qualitatively, parents reported that: the toy provided a tangible element to help children and parents be active, they did not use the website, and they wished the intervention emphasized strategies for physical activity during cold and wet seasons. Providers felt the materials facilitated discussion about behavior change with families. There were no statistically significant changes in PA and outdoor time pre- and post-intervention.

Conclusions

Project Nature was welcomed by providers and families and may be a practical intervention to promote outdoor active play during well-child visits. Providing an age-appropriate nature toy seemed to be a critical component of the intervention, and may be worth the additional cost, time and storage space required by clinics. Building from these results, Project Nature should be revised to better support active outdoor play during suboptimal weather and evaluated to test its efficacy in a fully-powered trial.

Perinatal Depression: A Guide to Detection and Management in Primary Care

Author/s: 
Manish H Dama, Ryan J Van Lieshout

Introduction: Existing guidelines for primary care clinicians (PCCs) on the detection and management of perinatal depression (PD) contain important gaps. This review aims to provide PCCs with a summary of clinically relevant evidence in the field.

Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted by searching PubMed and PsycINFO for articles published between 2010 to 2023. Guidelines, systematic reviews, clinical trials, and/or observational studies were all examined.

Results: Screening with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 followed by a diagnostic evaluation for major depressive disorder in probable cases can enhance PD detection. At-risk individuals and mild to moderate PD should be referred for cognitive behavioral therapy or interpersonal psychotherapy when available. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors should be used for moderate to severe PD, with sertraline, escitalopram, or citalopram being preferred first. Using paroxetine or clomipramine in pregnancy, and fluoxetine or doxepin during lactation is generally not preferred. Gestational antidepressant use is associated with a small increase in risk of reduced gestational age at birth, low birth weight, and lower APGAR scores, though whether these links are causal is unclear. Sertraline and paroxetine have the lowest rate of adverse events during lactation. Consequences of untreated PD can include maternal and offspring mortality, perinatal complications, poor maternal-infant attachment, child morbidity and maltreatment, less breastfeeding, and offspring developmental problems.

Conclusions: These clinically relevant data can support the delivery of high-quality care by PCCs. Risks and benefits of PD treatments and the consequences of untreated PD should be discussed with patients to support informed decision making.

Gold 2023: Highlights for Primary Care

Author/s: 
Alvar Agustí, Antoni Sisó-Almirall, Miguel Roman, Claus F. Vogelmeier

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) has issued its 2023 annual report1. Compared with former versions, it has been significantly updated. Here, we summarize the most relevant changes for a Primary Care audience. The complete document can be downloaded for free from the GOLD web page (www.goldcopd.org), together with a “pocket guide” and a “teaching slide set”.

Referred otalgia: Common causes and evidence-based strategies for assessment and management

Author/s: 
Fatemeh Ramazani, Charmaine Szalay-Anderson, Arthur Volpato Batista, Phillip Park, Euna Hwang, Justin Chau, Justin Lui

Objective: To provide family physicians and general otolaryngologists with a practical, evidence-based, and comprehensive approach to the management of patients presenting with suspected referred otalgia.

Sources of information: The approach described is a review based on the authors' clinical practices along with research and clinical review articles published between 2000 and 2020. MEDLINE and PubMed were searched using the terms otalgia, referred otalgia, and secondary otalgia. Current guidelines for the management of referred otalgia were also reviewed.

Main message: Otalgia is defined as pain localized to the ear. It is one of the most common head and neck presentations in primary care, otolaryngology, and emergency medicine. Secondary otalgia arises from nonotologic pathology and represents nearly 50% of otalgia cases. Otalgia in the absence of other otologic symptoms is highly indicative of a secondary cause. A thorough assessment of patients presenting with referred otalgia requires an understanding of the possible causes of this condition, including dental and oral mucosal pathologies, temporomandibular joint disorders, cervical spine pathology, sinusitis, upper airway infection, and reflux, as well as head and neck malignancy. This paper aims to highlight the most common causes of referred otalgia, their presentations, and initial options for assessment and management.

Conclusion: The prevalence of referred otalgia makes this an important condition for family physicians to be able to assess, manage, and triage based on patient presentation and examination. Understanding the common causes of referred otalgia will help reduce wait times for specialist assessment and allow ease and speed of access to management options for patients in community clinics.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Author/s: 
Alexander C Ford, Alexandra Wright-Hughes, Sarah L Alderson, Pei-Loo Ow, Matthew J Ridd, Robbie Foy, Gina Bianco, Felicity L Bishop, Matthew Chaddock, Heather Cook, Deborah Cooper, Catherine Fernandez, Elspeth A Guthrie, Suzanne Hartley, Amy Herbert, Daniel Howdon, Delia P Muir, Taposhi Nath, Sonia Newman, Thomas Smith, Christopher A Taylor, Emma J Teasdale, Ruth Thornton, Amanda J Farrin, Hazel A Everitt, ATLANTIS trialists

Background: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting.

Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants.

Findings: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication.

Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial.

Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Approach to atrial fibrillation: Essentials for primary care

Author/s: 
Bell, A., Andrade, J. G., Macle, L., Connelly, K. A., LaBine, L., Singer, A. G.

Objective: To support family physicians in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients at risk and in identifying and managing those with established AF; and to summarize key recommendations for ideal screening and care of patients.

Sources of information: The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Heart Rhythm Society comprehensive guidelines for the management of AF, based on current evidence and clinical experience related to AF.

Main message: Atrial fibrillation, which is estimated to affect at least 500,000 Canadians, is associated with high risks of stroke, heart failure, and death. Primary care clinicians occupy a central role in the management of this chronic condition, focusing on the challenges of preventing AF and identifying, diagnosing, treating, and following patients with AF. Evidence-based guidelines that provide optimal management strategies have been published by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Heart Rhythm Society to assist in these tasks. Messages critical to primary care are offered to support effective knowledge translation.

Conclusion: Most patients with AF can be managed effectively in primary care. Family physicians not only play an important role in ensuring patients with AF receive timely diagnoses, but they are also key to providing initial and ongoing care, especially in patients with comorbid conditions.

Suicide Prevention in Primary Care: A Toolkit for Primary Care Clinicians and Leaders

Author/s: 
Institute of Family Health, Little, V.

Suicide prevention has been named a national priority and much work has been done to review existing evidence and identify gaps in how our nation’s mental health and health care systems address this public health challenge. A national task force that was part of the effort to update the national suicide prevention strategy reviewed research and best practices from the field and
concluded that suicide prevention could be improved in health care. The task force found three common characteristics among successful suicide prevention programs in health care settings. Health care staff in these organizations:
Believed that suicide can be prevented in the population they serve through improvements in service access and quality, and through systems of continuous improvement;
Created a culture that finds suicide unacceptable and sets and monitors ambitious goals to prevent suicide; and
Employed evidence-based clinical care practice, including standardized risk stratification, evidence-based interventions, and patient engagement approaches1.

The task force’s recommendations formed the foundation of the Zero Suicide Approach for health care organizations. The recommendations contained in this guide are based on those offered in the comprehensive Zero Suicide in Health and Behavioral Health Care Toolkit [http://zerosuicide.sprc.org/toolkit]. Here they have been adapted specifically for primary care organizations and clinicians who care for underserved populations.
The guide focuses on two core components:
1. Screening and assessment
2. Care management and referral processes
The final section contains some additional information on administrative and legal issues providers and leaders may find helpful to support integration of safer suicide care in practice. Many providers and clinical leaders erroneously assume if they discuss suicide with a patient they open up themselves to liability. Utilizing a patient safety approach, primary care organizations can
establish safer suicide care practices that deliver high quality care to patients and reduce risk to the organization.
In each section of this guide you will find:
Information summarized for providers, including some helpful provider communication tips.
A list of recommended trainings and resources to learn more.
Leadership actions organizations may wish to undertake to help providers reduce suicide in their organization’s
patient population, and
Relevant tools, templates and case studies.
This toolkit begins with a brief background on the impact of suicide and offers a case study illustrating how one federally qualified health center adopted a safer suicide care model.

Revising the advanced access model pillars: a multimethod study

Author/s: 
Breton, M., Gaboury, I., Beaulieu, C., Sasseville, M., Hudon, C., Malham, S. A., Duhoux, A., Rodrigues, I., Haggerty, J.

Background: The advanced access model was developed 20 years ago and has been implemented in several countries. We aimed to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model based on its contemporary practice by professionals in primary health care.

Methods: This multimethod sequential study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel of provincial and local decision-makers, primary health care clinic members (family physicians, nurses and administrative staff), patients and researchers from the province of Quebec. Throughout the consultation process, participants were asked to develop a common vision of the pillars and subpillars that make up the advanced access model and to react to suggested definitions or content.

Results: The revised advanced access model is defined by 5 pillars, of which 2 were updated from the original model (“Appointment system” and “Interprofessional practice”), 1 was merged with a revised pillar (“Develop contingency plans” with “Planning of needs and supply”) and 1 underwent major transformations (“Backlog reduction” to “Continuous adjustment”). A new pillar concerning communication emerged from the consultation process. Subsequent steps for operationalizing definitions of subpillars confirmed the nature of the revised advanced access pillars and stabilized their content.

Interpretation: The overall consultation process resulted in a revised contemporary advanced access model, with strong consensus among participating experts. The revised model will be used to develop a reflective tool for primary health care professionals to evaluate their advanced access practice.

Timely access is a cornerstone of strong primary health care and a key component of a patient-centred medical home for ensuring population health.1 Numerous innovations have been implemented to improve timely access,2 with one of the most recommended around the world being the advanced access model, also called open access.2,3 Based on greater accessibility linked with patients’ relational and informational continuity with a primary health care professional or team, the advanced access model aims to ensure that patients obtain access to health care services at a time and date convenient for them when needed, regardless of the urgency of the demand.4 Originally developed in the United States in the early 2000s, advanced access is defined by Murray and Berwick as having 5 pillars: balance supply and demand, reduce the backlog of previously scheduled appointments, review the appointment system, integrate interprofessional practice and develop contingency plans.5,6 Several scientific papers on the foundations of advanced access have been published over the past 20 years, and its benefits have been reported in many countries, including the US, the United Kingdom and Canada.6–9

Over the last 2 decades, primary health care practice has evolved to increase interdisciplinarity in clinical teams. Thus, the need for a model that incorporates new practices and professionals has necessitated development of an updated advanced access model. Furthermore, advanced access was originally developed in a context that prioritized implementing a new way of doing, with less emphasis on the ongoing practice and sustainability of the model.10,11 However, changes in primary health care practice require revisions to the advanced access model to adapt it to the contemporary context.

In this study, we redefine the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model by integrating an interdisciplinary team–based focus, while considering the integration of primary health care professionals, such as nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers and other allied professionals, in primary health care practices. The objective of this study was to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model.

Revising the advanced access model pillars: a multimethod study

Author/s: 
Breton, M., Gaboury, I., Beaulieu, C., Sasseville, M., Hudon, C., Malham, S. A., Duhoux, A., Rodrigues, I., Haggerty, J.

Background: The advanced access model was developed 20 years ago and has been implemented in several countries. We aimed to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model based on its contemporary practice by professionals in primary health care.

Methods: This multimethod sequential study was informed by a literature review and an expert panel of provincial and local decision-makers, primary health care clinic members (family physicians, nurses and administrative staff), patients and researchers from the province of Quebec. Throughout the consultation process, participants were asked to develop a common vision of the pillars and subpillars that make up the advanced access model and to react to suggested definitions or content.

Results: The revised advanced access model is defined by 5 pillars, of which 2 were updated from the original model (“Appointment system” and “Interprofessional practice”), 1 was merged with a revised pillar (“Develop contingency plans” with “Planning of needs and supply”) and 1 underwent major transformations (“Backlog reduction” to “Continuous adjustment”). A new pillar concerning communication emerged from the consultation process. Subsequent steps for operationalizing definitions of subpillars confirmed the nature of the revised advanced access pillars and stabilized their content.

Interpretation: The overall consultation process resulted in a revised contemporary advanced access model, with strong consensus among participating experts. The revised model will be used to develop a reflective tool for primary health care professionals to evaluate their advanced access practice.

Timely access is a cornerstone of strong primary health care and a key component of a patient-centred medical home for ensuring population health.1 Numerous innovations have been implemented to improve timely access,2 with one of the most recommended around the world being the advanced access model, also called open access.2,3 Based on greater accessibility linked with patients’ relational and informational continuity with a primary health care professional or team, the advanced access model aims to ensure that patients obtain access to health care services at a time and date convenient for them when needed, regardless of the urgency of the demand.4 Originally developed in the United States in the early 2000s, advanced access is defined by Murray and Berwick as having 5 pillars: balance supply and demand, reduce the backlog of previously scheduled appointments, review the appointment system, integrate interprofessional practice and develop contingency plans.5,6 Several scientific papers on the foundations of advanced access have been published over the past 20 years, and its benefits have been reported in many countries, including the US, the United Kingdom and Canada.6–9

Over the last 2 decades, primary health care practice has evolved to increase interdisciplinarity in clinical teams. Thus, the need for a model that incorporates new practices and professionals has necessitated development of an updated advanced access model. Furthermore, advanced access was originally developed in a context that prioritized implementing a new way of doing, with less emphasis on the ongoing practice and sustainability of the model.10,11 However, changes in primary health care practice require revisions to the advanced access model to adapt it to the contemporary context.

In this study, we redefine the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model by integrating an interdisciplinary team–based focus, while considering the integration of primary health care professionals, such as nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers and other allied professionals, in primary health care practices. The objective of this study was to revise and operationalize the pillars and subpillars of the advanced access model.

Subscribe to primary health care