Horn, Jennifer L.

The optimal patient panel size (PPS) in primary care and the factors determining it remain unclear. We conducted a meta-narrative review of the literature to evaluate factors influencing PPS and assess its association with patient outcomes. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed from inception through December 2023, focusing on original studies reporting factors used to determine PPS and related outcomes (eg, clinical outcomes, process measures, and resource utilization). A total of 48 studies were included, identifying 7 key factors influencing PPS. Smaller panels were associated with improved patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and health promotion, while clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs showed minimal impact by PPS. Panel size was primarily associated with patient age, sex, comorbidities, and practice type and structure. Community-based centers typically managed smaller panels, often staffed by female clinicians and serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with greater health needs than hospital-based practices. Female clinicians were also independently associated with managing smaller panels, higher quality care indicators, fewer emergency department visits, and improved patient satisfaction. Determining the ideal PPS is a multifaceted process influenced by practice setting, patient demographics, and clinician characteristics. While practice-related factors showed limited association with PPS, patient-reported outcomes were more closely linked to it. Primary care practices should tailor panel sizes to their patient populations, emphasizing a patient-centered approach and ensuring adequate infrastructure support to optimize care delivery.

Objectives: Health literacy is an individual’s capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information needed to make appropriate health decisions. Failure to understand and correctly execute a plan of care often leads to poor health outcomes. Determining patient health literacy allows health care providers to tailor their plan of care instructions, increasing the probability of understanding, and adherence. Several validated health literacy tests have been developed to assess the health literacy of individuals and ethnic groups. However, because a proctor is required to administer these tests, their usefulness in clinical settings is limited. The issue of health literacy is especially relevant within minority groups. This research focused on producing a translatable assessment that can be administered quickly without a proctor. Methods: We developed a 15-question instrument (the RIHLA) in English using the Delphi method with a panel of bilingual experts and translated it into Spanish. Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for 3 groups: Native English-speaking College students (NESC), Native English-speaking patients (NES), and Limited English Proficient Spanish-speaking patients (LEP). External validity was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to compare our instrument to a previously validated, proctored instrument measuring health literacy (the SAHL-E). Results: Four hundred fifteen subjects completed the RIHLA. Of these, 192 (46.3%) were NESC, 208 (50.1%) were NES, and 15 (3.6%) were LEP. The mean number of correct answers was 11.2, 11.6, and 8.3 respectively with the LEP group scoring lower ( P < .01). Cronbach’s alpha was >.70 for each group. Moderate correlation between the RIHLA and the previously validated instrument was present ( P < .01) with Pearson’s r = .47 (95% CI: 0.18-0.69). Conclusion: The RIHLA is a non-proctored assessment tool that may provide a measure of patients’ health literacy in multiple languages. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm the reliability, validity, and generalizability to a wider population.

Known gaps exist between what patients value and institutions prioritize. We sought to incorporate patients’ reasons for valuing family medicine into a new Mission and Vision statement by deploying brief surveys to a convenience sample of patients. We conducted descriptive quantitative analyses of demographics and inductive content analysis of written responses. Patients returned 92 (20%) of 450 questionnaires. Responders were 63% female, mean age of 47 years. Patients noted distinguishing features of family medicine were (1) continuity of care, (2) all-encompassing care, and (3) trusted referrals. Some patients reported not knowing there was a distinction between family medicine and other primary care.

The objective was to determine if a greater proportion of physician full-time equivalent (FTE%) relative to nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) on care teams was associated with improved individual clinician diabetes quality outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 420 family medicine clinicians in 110 care teams in a Midwest health system, using administrative data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between physician FTE% and the number of patients meeting 5 criteria included in a composite metric for diabetes management (D5). Covariates included panel size, clinician type, sex, years in practice, region, patient satisfaction, care team size, rural location, and panel complexity. Of the 420 clinicians, 167 (40%) were NP/PA staff and 253 (60%) were physicians. D5 criteria were achieved in 37.9% of NP/PA panels compared with 44.5% of physician panels ( P < .001). In adjusted analysis, rate of patients achieving D5 was unrelated to physician FTE% on the care team ( P = .78). Physicians had a 1.082 (95% confidence interval 1.007–1.164) times greater rate of patients with diabetes achieving D5 than NPs/PAs. Clinicians at rural locations had a .904 (.852-.959) times lower rate of achieving D5 than those at urban locations. Physicians had a greater rate of patients achieving D5 compared with NPs/PAs, but physician FTE% on the care team was unrelated to D5 outcomes. This suggests that clinician team composition matters less than team roles and the dynamics of collaborative care between members.

Introduction: Hospitalists have been shown to have shorter lengths of stays than physicians with concurrent outpatient practices. However, hospitalists at academic medical centers may be less aware of local resources that can support the hospital to home transition for local primary care patients. We hypothesized that local family medicine patients admitted to a family medicine inpatient service have shorter length of stay than those admitted to general hospitalist services which also care for tertiary patients at an academic medical center. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an academic medical center with a department of family medicine providing primary care to over 80 000 local patients. A total of 3100 consecutive family medicine patients admitted to either the family medicine inpatient service or a general medicine inpatient service over 3 years were studied. The primary outcome was length of stay, which was adjusted using multivariate linear regression for demographics, prior utilization, diagnosis, and disease severity. Results: Adjusted length of stay was 33% longer (95% CI 24%-44%) for local family medicine patients admitted to general medicine inpatient services as compared with the family medicine inpatient service. Readmission rates within 30 days were not different (19% vs 16%, P = .14). Conclusions: Local primary care patients were safely discharged from the hospital sooner on the family medicine inpatient service than on general medicine inpatient services. This is likely because the family physicians staffing their inpatient service are more familiar with outpatient resources that can be effectively marshaled to help local patients with the transition from hospital to home.