Presutti, R. John

Introduction: Primary care clinicians are presented with hundreds of new clinical recommendations and guidelines. To consider practice change clinicians must identify relevant information and develop a contextual framework. Too much attention to information irrelevant to one’s practice results in wasted resources. Too little results in care gaps. A small group of primary care clinicians in a large health system sought to address the problem of vetting new information and providing peer reviewed context. This was done by engaging colleagues across the system though a primary care learning collaborative. Methods: The collaborative was a grass roots initiative between community and academic-based clinicians. They invited all the system’s primary care clinicians to participate. They selected new recommendations or guidelines and used surveys as the principal communication instrument. Surveys shared practice experience and also invited members to give narrative feedback regarding their acceptance of variation in care relate to the topic. A description of the collaborative along with its development, processes, and evolution are discussed. Process changes to address needs during the COVID-19 pandemic including expanded information sharing was necessary. Results: Collaborative membership reached across 5 states and included family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. Members found involvement with the collaborative useful. Less variation in care was thought important for public health crises: the COVID pandemic and opioid epidemic. Greater practice variation was thought acceptable for adherence to multispecialty guidelines, such as diabetes, lipid management, and adult ADHD care. Process changes during the pandemic resulted in more communications between members to avoid practice gaps. Conclusion: An internet-based learning collaborative in a health system had good engagement from its members. Using novel methods, it was able to provide members with feedback related to the importance of new practice recommendations as perceived by their peers. Greater standardization was thought necessary when adopting measures to address public health crisis, and less necessary when addressing multispecialty guidelines. By employing a learning collaborative, this group was able to keep members interested and engaged. During the first year of the COVID pandemic the collaborative also served as a vehicle to share timely information.

Introduction: Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient’s self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire. Methods: We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record. Results: Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients’ risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient’s family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire. Conclusions: Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

Context: Athletes are a unique group of patients whose activities, particularly in high-contact sports such as wrestling and football, place them at high risk of developing skin conditions. The correct diagnosis of sports dermatoses requires familiarity with their clinical characteristics. It is critical that primary care physicians recognize the most common skin disorders to provide prompt treatment and prevent transmission. Evidence Acquisition: The Mayo Clinic library obtained articles from 2012 onward related to dermatologic conditions in athletes. Study Design: Review article. Level of Evidence: Level 3. Results: Dermatologic diseases in athletes are often infectious and contagious due to close-contact sports environments. Sports-related dermatoses include bacterial infections, such as impetigo, ecthyma, folliculitis, abscesses, furuncles, carbuncles, erysipelas, and cellulitis; fungal infections, such as tinea and intertrigo; viral infections, such as herpes, verrucae, and molluscum contagiosum; and noninfectious conditions, such as acne, blisters, and contact dermatitis. Conclusion: This article aims to address the manifestations of the most common cutaneous diseases in athletes on the first primary care visit. It discusses the appropriate tests and most recent evidence-based treatments for each ailment. It also addresses return-to-play recommendations related to the guidelines and regulations of selected sports organizations in the United States. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): C.

ABSTRACT The nurse practitioner (NP) and physician assistant (PA) professions are rapidly growing. Historically, these professions have filled a health care delivery gap caused by lack of health care access and physician shortages. Many medical practices are more accustomed to adding new physicians as compared with adding new NPs or PAs. This article describes one institution's approach to develop and implement a successful NP/PA onboarding program. Several key components are discussed, including (1) established roles and responsibilities, (2) a clear timeline of the onboarding period including a foundational curriculum, (3) the mentor–mentee relationship, (4) the onboarding checklist, and (5) the onboarding itinerary. The objective was to have our NPs/PAs on a regular patient calendar within the 6-month period. The success rate with this has been 86%. In addition, there has been a 90% retention of NP/PA hires over the past 3 years. The authors believe this approach to NP/PA onboarding serves the patients well, providing excellent patient outcomes and patient experience.

There is a movement in the United States to transform family medicine practices from single physician–based patient care to team-based care. These teams are usually composed of multiple disciplines, including social workers, pharmacists, registered nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physicians. The teams support patients and their families, provide holistic care to patients of all ages, and allow their members to work to the highest level of their training in an integrated fashion. Grouping care team members together within visual and auditory distance of each other is likely to enhance communication and teamwork, resulting in more efficient care for patients. This grouping is termed colocation. The authors describe how the use of colocation can lead to clearer, faster communication between care team members. This practice style has the potential to be expanded into various clinical settings in any given health system and to almost all clinical specialties and practices.

e13161 Background: Capturing family health history is a simple and cost-effective way to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary cancers. Several barriers exist to family history collection in the clinical setting. Self-reported histories can be limited, inaccurate or static. Physicians are often overwhelmed with data and “alert fatigue.” These complex factors make it difficult to quantify hereditary risks. Patients with increased genetic predisposition may be missed and may not receive individualized cancer surveillance measures. Methods: A practice improvement project was implemented at Mayo Clinic Florida to enhance family history screening. A questionnaire and simple scoring algorithm were developed to prompt referral for genetic counseling. This tool was pilot tested in a multi-specialty gastroenterology clinic. The questionnaire was administered in the waiting room (tablet interface). Patients with significant risk factors identified were contacted and offered genetic counseling. Results: Currently, 291 patients have completed the questionnaire. Thirty of the 60 patients identified to have significant familial risk factors met with a genetic counselor. Of the twenty who completed genetic testing, 9 patients received one or more variants of unknown significance. Two pathogenic variants were identified. One patient was molecularly confirmed to have multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, which can allow for cascade screening in her unaffected sibling. A pathogenic ATM variant was found in a patient with a recent personal history of pancreatic cancer. The result prompted consideration of platinum based chemotherapy and/or PARP inhibitors in her cancer management. She has had a visible response thus far with the treatment. Her sister implemented a new surveillance regimen after testing positive for the familial variant. Conclusions: Enhanced family history screening is a low cost, effective method for the identification of patients who may benefit from hereditary cancer screening and genetic testing. Increased attention to family history is a vital component of precision medicine in any care setting.