1. Home
  2. primary care

primary care

The Primary Cares Initiative: Value-Based Redesign of Primary Care

Author/s: 
Bliss, HE, George, P, Adashi, EY

On April 22, 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rolled out the Primary Cares Initiative, a collection of voluntary payment model options in support of high value primary care.1 The first element of the initiative, Primary Care First, is to engage advanced primary care practice sites via two performance-based payment model options.1 The second element of the initiative, Direct Contracting, aims to involve larger primary care entities via three risk-assuming payment model options.

Keywords 
primary care medicare medicaid primary care first payment model

Primary Care First Model Options

Author/s: 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Primary Care First is a set of voluntary five-year payment model options that reward value and quality by offering innovative payment model structures to support delivery of advanced primary care. In response to input from primary care clinician stakeholders, Primary Care First is based on the underlying principles of the existing CPC+ model design:  prioritizing the doctor-patient relationship; enhancing care for patients with complex chronic needs and high need, seriously ill patients, reducing administrative burden, and focusing financial rewards on improved health outcomes.

Keywords 
primary care

Powering-Up Primary Care Teams: Advanced Team Care With In-Room Support

Author/s: 
Christine A, Bodenheimer, Thomas

Primary care teams are underpowered. Teams do not maximally redistribute team functions when clinicians are diverted from activities where they add the most value. This commentary describes "advanced team care with in-room support" as a way to "power-up" primary care teams. In this core team model, each clinician is paired with 2 or 3 highly trained medical assistants or nurses-care team coordinators (CTCs). Early evidence suggests that this model is more satisfying to clinicians, staff, and patients and is financially sustainable. Yet its spread has been hobbled by several misguided beliefs, such as that the physician can and should do most tasks, that technology replaces people, that health care is a transactional endeavor more than a therapeutic relationship, that regulation is the main lever by which to advance quality, and that the principal way to increase net revenue is to reduce overhead. A shift in mindset is needed to energize primary care.

Keywords 
primary care primary care teams

C-Reactive Protein Testing to Guide Antibiotic Prescribing for COPD Exacerbations

Author/s: 
Butler, Christopher C., Gillespie, David, White, Patrick, Bates, Janine, Lowe, Rachel, Thomas-Jones, Emma, Wootton, Mandy, Hood, Kerenza, Phillips, Rhiannon, Melbye, M., Llor, Carl, Cals, Jochen W.L.

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.)

Keywords 
C-reactive protein primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease copd CRP randomized control trial antibiotics

Chronic Constipation

Author/s: 
Bharucha, Adil E., Wald, Arnold

Constipation is a common symptom that may be primary (idiopathic or functional) or associated with a number of disorders or medications. Although most constipation is self-managed by patients, 22% seek health care, mostly to primary care physicians (>50%) and gastroenterologists (14%), resulting in large expenditures for diagnostic testing and treatments. There is strong evidence that stimulant and osmotic laxatives, intestinal secretagogues, and peripherally restricted μ-opiate antagonists are effective and safe; the lattermost drugs are a major advance for managing opioid-induced constipation. Constipation that is refractory to available laxatives should be evaluated for defecatory disorders and slow-transit constipation using studies of anorectal function and colonic transit. Defecatory disorders are often responsive to biofeedback therapies, whereas slow-transit constipation may require surgical intervention in selected patients. Both efficacy and cost should guide the choice of treatment for functional constipation and opiate-induced constipation. Currently, no studies have compared inexpensive laxatives with newer drugs that work by other mechanisms.

Keywords 
chronic constipation primary care

Gen-Equip: Genetics Education for Primary Care

About us

The partners in this project currently work in six different European countries.  We have partners with expertise in primary care practice, genetics and adult education, as well as a patient support organisation.  The project was originally designed by Professor Heather Skirton, who has a background in nursing, midwifery and genetic counselling, and Dr Isa Houwink, a GP from the Netherlands.

Keywords 
genetics primary care education of patients health literacy

Proton‐Pump Inhibitors and Long‐Term Risk of Community‐Acquired Pneumonia in Older Adults

Author/s: 
Zirk-Sadowski, Jan, Masoli, Jane A., Delgada, Joao, Hamilton, Willie, Strain, W. David, Henley, William, Melzer, David, Ble, Alessandro

Objectives

To estimate associations between long‐term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and pneumonia incidence in older adults in primary care.

Design

Longitudinal analyses of electronic medical records.

Setting

England

Participants

Individuals aged 60 and older in primary care receiving PPIs for 1 year or longer (N=75,050) and age‐ and sex‐matched controls (N=75,050).

Measurements

Net hazard ratios for pneumonia incidence in Year 2 of treatment were estimated using the prior event rate ratio (PERR), which adjusts for pneumonia incidence differences before initiation of treatment. Inverse probability weighted models adjusted for 78 demographic, disease, medication, and healthcare usage measures.

Results

During the second year after initiating treatment, PPIs were associated with greater hazard of incident pneumonia (PERR‐adjusted hazard ratio=1.82, 95% confidence interval=1.27–2.54), accounting for pretreatment pneumonia rates. Estimates were similar across age and comorbidity subgroups. Similar results were also obtained from propensity score– and inverse probability–weighted models.

Conclusion

In a large cohort of older adults in primary care, PPI prescription was associated with greater risk of pneumonia in the second year of treatment. Results were robust across alternative analysis approaches. Controversies about the validity of reported short‐term harms of PPIs should not divert attention from potential long‐term effects of PPI prescriptions on older adults.

Keywords 
pneumonia primary care proton pump inhibitors
Subscribe to primary care