Furst, Joseph W.

ABSTRACT A process employing patient- or parent-collected pharyngeal swabs for group A Streptococcus (GAS) testing would expedite diagnosis and treatment, reduce patient exposure to the health care setting, and decrease health care costs. Our aim was to determine the concordance between patient- or parent-collected (self-collected) and health care worker (HCW)-collected pharyngeal swabs for detection of GAS by PCR. From 9 October 2012 to 21 March 2013, patients presenting with a sore throat meeting criteria for GAS testing and not meeting criteria for severe disease were offered the opportunity to collect their own pharyngeal swab. The HCW also collected a swab. Paired swabs were tested by GAS real-time PCR, allowing semiquantitative comparisons between positive results. Of the 402 participants, 206 had a swab collected by the patient and 196 a swab collected by the parent. The percent positivity results were 33.3% for HCW-collected swabs and 34.3% for self-collected swabs ( P = 0.41). The overall concordance between the two collection strategies was 94.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.3 to 96.0). Twenty-four of the paired swabs had discordant results, with 10 and 14 positives detected only with the HCW- and self-collected swabs, respectively ( P = 0.41). The person collecting the swab in the self-collected arm, the order of collection, and prior swab collection training did not influence results. Among the 124 specimens that were positive by both collection methods, the amount of GAS DNA was higher in the self-collected versus the HCW-collected swabs ( P = 0.008). Self-collected pharyngeal swabs provide a reliable alternative to HCW collection for detection of GAS and offer a strategy for improved health care delivery.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare continuity of care for family medicine patients using retail medicine clinics to continuity for patients not using retail clinics. Retail medicine clinics have become popular in some markets. However, their impact on continuity of care has not been studied. Methods: Electronic medical records of adult primary care patients seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2011 were analyzed for this study. Two randomly chosen groups of patients were selected (N = 400): those using 1 of 3 retail walk-in clinics staffed by nurse practitioners in addition to standard office care and a comparison group that only used standard office care. Continuity was measured as the percentage of visits that involved the primary care provider. We also compared patients who made zero visits to their primary care providers with those who made some visits to their primary care providers. Results: Continuity of care was lower for patients who used retail clinics than for patients who did not use retail clinics (0.17 vs 0.44, mean difference 0.27). The percentage of patients who made zero visits to their primary care providers was 54.5 for users of retail clinics versus 31.0 for those who did not use retail clinics. Conclusions: Continuity of care should be monitored as retail medicine continues to expand.

Aim The purpose of this study was to compare return visits in 2 weeks experienced by patients using a retail nurse-practitioner clinic to similar patients using standard drop-in clinic located in a medical office. Background Retail medicine clinics have become widely available. However, their impact on return visit rates compared to drop-in medical office visits for similar patients is unknown. Methods Medical records of primary care patients (both adults and children) seen in a large group practice in Minnesota in 2008 were analyzed for this study. Patients treated for five common conditions were selected (pink eye, sore throat, viral illness, bronchitis, and cough, n = 279). Two groups of patients were studied: those using a retail walk-in clinic staffed by nurse practitioners ( n = 142) and a comparison group using regular office care for same-day visits ( n = 137). The dependent variable was a return office visit within 2 weeks. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for case mix differences between groups. Findings The percent of office visits within 2 weeks for these groups was 20.4 for retail drop-in patients and 27.7 for same-day medical office patients, respectively ( P = 0.15). After adjustment for age, gender, visit reason, and number of office visits in the previous 6 months, no significant difference in risk of early return visits in comparison to an office-based drop-in clinic was found (odds ratio 0.83, confidence interval 0.43–1.63). Our retail nurse-practitioner clinic appeared to increase access without increasing early return visits.

Open-access or advanced-access scheduling, which opens the clinic calendar to patients without requiring them to schedule far in advance of the visit, is being introduced in primary care for the purpose of improving access. None of the evaluations reported to date have measured differences in actual visits that might be associated with different scheduling systems. The purpose of this study was to compare utilization of visits to primary care providers for patients served by an open-access clinic with utilization patterns of patients served at clinics not using open-access scheduling. We hypothesized that the odds that a continuing patient received more than one primary care visit would be greater in the clinic where open-access scheduling was in use than in comparison clinics. Our study provides mixed support for the hypotheses. After adjustment for case mix, stable chronic patients treated in open-access clinics may sometimes have greater odds of receiving two or more preventive care visits. However, these effects do not occur in all clinics, suggesting that other clinic characteristics may overcome the effects of open-access scheduling.