Miller, Nathaniel E

Introduction Correct inhaler technique is of utmost importance in the optimal delivery of therapeutics utilized for respiratory illnesses. Previous research suggests that the ability of both patients and providers to correctly use these inhalers is sub-optimal and is associated with poorer patient outcomes. Further education about inhaler types and technique as part of residency education could serve to correct these trends. Methods Family medicine residents were taught correct inhaler technique with an inhaler training device (In-Check TM DIAL G16) using a didactic lecture with hands-on teaching exercise utilizing pharmacy interprofessional teaching. We assessed pre- and post-intervention comfort and knowledge of correct inhaler technique. Results Twenty of twenty-seven eligible family medicine residents attended an interdisciplinary workshop with clinical pharmacists with the purpose of improving inhaler technique comfort level and knowledge. A pre- and post-knowledge test and comfort questionnaire were provided to those participating. Comfort levels with prescribing different inhaler types increased after the intervention and knowledge of different inhalers improved. Conclusion Use of an inhaler training device coupled with an interdisciplinary lecture format improved provider knowledge of correct inhaler technique and comfort with prescribing inhalers.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening has played a critical role in reducing prostate cancer mortality but remains controversial due to concerns regarding overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and inconsistent screening guidelines. In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade D recommendation against PSA screening, leading to a national decline in PSA testing and prostate biopsy rates. This was followed by an increase in the incidence of metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis. The USPSTF has since revised its recommendation to grade C, emphasizing shared decision-making for men aged 55 to 69 years. However, variability in screening recommendations across professional societies has resulted in clinical uncertainty, particularly for primary care physicians (PCPs), who frequently initiate PSA testing and urology referrals. This review provides an evidence-based overview of PSA screening tailored for the PCP. We performed a comprehensive literature review using Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, including systematic reviews published between January 2020 and April 2025, and current guidelines from the American Urological Association (AUA), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Association of Urology (EAU), and American Cancer Society (ACS). We summarize the evolving landscape of PSA screening and its integration with contemporary tools such as shared decision-making, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and transperineally targeted biopsy. We advocate for initiating PSA screening between the ages of 45 and 49 in men with average or elevated risk, based on long-term evidence demonstrating the value of an early baseline PSA level and risk-stratified follow-up. This approach, coupled with improved diagnostic tools, can help PCPs navigate guideline variability and implement a rational, common-sense strategy to maximize early detection while minimizing harm.

Background: Patients performing self-triage for chest pain need to pick an algorithm which includes questions pertinent to chest pain to triage accurately. Objective: Our study reviews patient self-triage choices and outcomes for patients who completed an online self-triage encounter before being triaged by a nurse for chest pain. Methods: Patients who underwent telephone nurse triage for chest pain, and also had an online self-triage encounter within the prior 24 hours were reviewed for the frequency with which they chose “chest pain” as their symptom to triage for during self-triage, whether they reported chest pain during the self-triage encounter (if asked as part of the algorithm for their chosen self-triage symptom) and whether the patient had any follow up evaluation within 1 week. Results: There were 70 self-triage and nurse triage dyads during the study period where triage nurses chose “chest pain” as the primary symptom to be triaged for during the telephone triage encounter. Of these, only 5 (7.1%) patients chose the “chest pain” self-triage option during online self-triage. During the self-triage encounter, 50 (71%) reported chest pain, 10 (14%) denied chest pain and 10 chose to self-triage their symptoms with an algorithm that did not include a question on whether chest pain was present. Of the 70 total dyads 59 (84%) had a follow up emergency department (40 patients) or office visit (19 patients) documented. Conclusion: Most patients chosen to be triaged for chest pain by triage nurses did not choose the online self-triage algorithm for chest pain even though the majority did report chest pain during their self-triage encounter (when asked). This is concerning from a safety perspective as a non-chest pain self-triage option chosen by the patient may not always ask about the presence or absence of chest pain and thus could increase the risk of being triaged inaccurately. Implications for improvement of self-triage could include diagrams for patients to choose the symptom area.

A 33-year-old female presented with finger pain, swelling, and erythema was diagnosed with cellulitis and treated with antibiotics. Persistent symptoms led to further evaluation including a point-of-care ultrasound revealing a cystic structure, concerning for abscess. Incision and drainage yielded a solid mass rather than fluid. Pathological examination revealed a schwannoma, a benign peripheral nerve sheath tumor. This case highlights the rare presentation of a schwannoma mimicking an infectious process and emphasizes the importance of considering peripheral nerve tumors in the differential diagnosis of soft tissue masses, especially when the clinical course is atypical. It also underscores the value of pathological examination in establishing a definitive diagnosis and preventing misdiagnosis, which can have implications for patient management.

Objectives Guidelines advise repeat screening within four months if Papanicolaou (Pap) results are unsatisfactory for evaluation. This utilizes healthcare system resources and may decrease patient satisfaction due to needing a second clinic appointment. We assessed unsatisfactory Pap test (UPT) rates and associations with clinician and patient characteristics to inform future interventions to decrease UPTs. Setting Multisite midwestern United States primary care practice. Methods Retrospective analysis of women aged 21–65 with a Pap between 7/1/2021 and 6/30/2023. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess for associations between UPTs and clinician gender, degree, residency status, and experience. Results Of 51,195 Paps completed, 2.3% were unsatisfactory. Female clinicians performed the most Pap tests (83.2%) with slightly less likelihood of UPTs compared with male clinicians ( p = 0.015). There was no significant difference comparing physicians to advanced practice providers in UPTs ( p = 0.18). Residency training level did not affect UPT rates ( p = 0.95). Clinician experience was associated with higher UPT rates in first and fourth quartiles (least and most Paps performed) compared to middle two quartiles ( p = 0.004). UPTs were more likely among women aged > 50 years old ( p < 0.001), married ( p < 0.001), and Asian ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Clinician characteristics played a small role in predicting UPTs but patient age may be the factor most amenable to intervention to lower UPTs. Transitioning to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening in peri/post-menopausal women could decrease UPTs given Paps are performed on the clinician-collected cervical specimen only if HPV testing is positive.

Introduction: Online self-scheduling of medical appointments is increasingly common. An automated waitlist can be used for patients who desire an earlier appointment time if one becomes available after they are scheduled. Our study examines outcomes of an automated waitlist and self-rescheduling process. Methods: We studied outcomes of an automated waitlist self-rescheduling process in which patients with existing appointments elected to be placed on an automated waitlist for an earlier appointment offer. When software found earlier dates for the same visit type, patients were then notified through an automated process and could self-reschedule. We reviewed appointments for which patients were sent new offers when earlier appointment slots were found. We compared the accepted appointment offers with the original scheduled appointments and determined the number of days that the appointment had been moved up. Results: Spanning the calendar year 2023 there were 1 019 698 appointment offers generated by an automated waitlist process for 229 998 appointments and sent to 164 248 patients. The waitlist process automatically found open appointments as they became available and sent the first new appointment offer within 2 days after being placed on the waitlist for 74 736 (32.5%) of the 229 998 waitlisted appointments. Patients sent back at least 1 response for 104 554 (45.4%) of the waitlisted appointments. Of the responses, 56 636 accepted one of the sent offers for an accept rate of 24.6% (56 636/229 998). For accepted, moved-up visits, appointments were self-rescheduled earlier by a mean of 22.6 days (95%CI; 22.2, 22.9, P < .0001). Conclusion: New appointments can be successfully self-rescheduled using an automated waitlist process that allows patients to accept or decline new appointment offers. This process can increase the efficiency of scheduling and decrease appointment wait time for patients desiring more timely access to healthcare. In addition, this process can be successfully applied across several different appointment type categories.

Objective: Diabetes-related care makes up approximately 24% of outpatient clinic visits. Therefore, confidence and understanding of diabetes management is necessary for family medicine residents. Methods: We developed a combined lecture and simulation lab curriculum utilizing a registered nurse and pharmacist to deliver education to 20 family medicine learners. Pre and post surveys of the educational material were completed in 2 sections including one gauging medical knowledge and a second part gauging level of comfort. Results: Of the learners who participated, fourteen completed the pre-post surveys. Most (53%) respondents improved their scores, while 20% scored the same 27% scored worse. The overall average score increased 57% to 70% and improvement was statistically significant ( P < .05). All learners improved confidence by at least 1 point. Conclusion: An interprofessional team utilizing a lecture curriculum focusing on providing education on effective prescribing, medication safety profiles, and resource availability, showed improvement in confidence but mixed knowledge benefit. Further modifications to the curriculum may yield further educational gains.

Objectives Primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by clinician-collection is endorsed by U.S. guideline organizations for cervical cancer screening, but uptake remains low and insights into patients’ understanding are limited. This study aims to primarily address patient awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection and acceptance of primary HPV screening by clinician- and self-collection, and secondarily assess factors associated with awareness and acceptance. Setting Primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center. Methods A cross-sectional survey study of screening-eligible women aged 30–65 years was conducted to assess awareness and acceptability of primary HPV screening. We analyzed bivariate associations of respondent characteristics with awareness of primary HPV screening by clinician-collection, willingness to have clinician- or self-collected primary HPV testing, and reasons for self-collection preference. Results Respondents (n = 351; response rate = 23.4%) reported cervical cancer screening adherence of 82.8% but awareness of clinician-collected primary HPV as an option was low (18.9%) and only associated with HPV testing with recent screening ( p = 0.003). After reviewing a description of primary HPV screening, willingness for clinician-collected (81.8%) or home self-collected (76.1%) HPV testing was high, if recommended by a provider. Acceptability of clinician-collected HPV testing was associated with higher income ( p = 0.009) and for self-collection was associated with higher income ( p = 0.002) and higher education ( p = 0.02). Higher education was associated with reporting self-collection as easier than clinic-collection ( p = 0.02). Women expected self-collection to be more convenient (94%), less embarrassing (85%), easier (85%), and less painful (81%) than clinician-collection. Conclusions Educational interventions are needed to address low awareness about the current clinician-collected primary HPV screening option and to prepare for anticipated federal licensure of self-collection kits. Informing women about self-collection allows them to recognize benefits which could address screening barriers.