Angstman, Kurt B.

Background and Objectives: Primary care physicians can spend 24% of their ambulatory care work day on patient care duties outside the office visit (ie, nonvisit care [NVC]). Resident work hours must be performed within duty hour restrictions defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, making it crucial for program directors to understand how much time residents spend on NVC tasks. Little information is available on resident work hours dedicated to NVC generated in the continuity clinic. We designed this study to look at an objective measure of the time family medicine residents spend on NVC. Methods: We collected and categorized from the electronic health record the NVC events completed by 22 family medicine residents in a rural residency training clinic over a 9-month period. With the use of an institutional time study performed in 2014, we identified the average amount of time required to complete a single event in each category of NVC. Results: Residents spent a mean of 13.6 hours per month completing NVC, which was equivalent to 127.3 minutes of NVC per 100 empaneled patients per month for each resident. Conclusions: This study quantified the amount of time residents spend on NVC, allowing program directors to plan curriculum so that residents can keep their work time within duty hour requirements.

Introduction: Medical schools have an enduring need to provide ongoing faculty development and to foster educational alliances between teachers and learners, so that feedback provided to learners is both frequent and of high quality. We hypothesized that medical students trained as academic detailers with a mission to increase the emphasis on feedback could serve in this role during our clerkship, while still being evaluated as students in our clerkship rotation. Methods: The family medicine clerkship at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine launched a revised curriculum in 2016 in which students were taught how they might build an educational alliance with preceptors, were taught characteristics of high-quality feedback, and practiced requesting more useful feedback when initial quality was poor. After utilizing a clerkship-specific curriculum with small group sessions on receiving feedback, and training students and preceptors on the SNAPPs model, students were then directed to request feedback from their preceptors and model successful feedback conversations for preceptors. The study evaluated the medical students’ summative evaluations to compare the rate from the preintervention year (2015-2016) and the intervention year (2016-2017) at which preceptors added comments on students’ use of feedback. Results: Preceptors’ written comments about students seeking feedback increased at about a four-fold rate (74.4% vs 18.8%, P<.001) after implementing a suite of changes to our clerkship curriculum. Conclusions: Using medical students to change preceptor behaviors was an important part of our suite of interventions. This intervention directed preceptor attention toward our instructional goal of increased medical student feedback.

Background: Depression is common in the primary care setting and tobacco use is more prevalent among individuals with depression. Recent research has linked smoking to poorer outcomes of depression treatment. We hypothesized that in adult primary care patients with the diagnosis of depression, current smoking would have a negative impact on clinical outcomes, regardless of treatment type (usual primary care [UC] vs collaborative care management [CCM]). Methods: A retrospective chart review study of 5155 adult primary care patients with depression in a primary care practice in southeast Minnesota was completed. Variables obtained included age, gender, marital status, race, smoking status, initial Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and 6-month PHQ-9. Clinical remission (CR) was defined as 6-month PHQ-9 <5. Persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) were defined as PHQ-9 ≥10 at 6 months. Treatment in both CCM and UC were compared. Results: Using intention to treat analysis, depressed smokers treated with CCM were 4.60 times as likely (95% CI 3.24-6.52, P < .001) to reach CR and were significantly less likely to have PDS at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.19, 95% CI 0.14-0.25, P < .001) compared with smokers in UC. After a 6-month follow-up, depressed smokers treated with CCM were 1.75 times as likely (95% CI 1.18-2.59, P = .006) to reach CR and were significantly less likely to have PDS (AOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.64, P < .001) compared with smokers in UC. Conclusions: CCM significantly improved depression outcomes for smokers at 6 months compared with UC. However, in the UC group, smoking outcomes were not statistically different at 6 months for either remission or PDS. Also, nonsmokers in CCM had the best clinical outcomes at 6 months in both achieving clinical remission and reduction of PDS when compared with smokers in UC as the reference group.

Background and Objectives: Demographic trends show an increasing older adult population. Therefore, family medicine training programs may need to reevaluate how well their residents perform clinic procedures essential to older adults. Our objective was to compare the rates of the most frequently performed clinic procedures for Medicare patients in a large multiregional health care system (MRHCS) with those in a family medicine residency clinic. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, Current Procedural Terminology coding data were queried from the billing systems of an MRHCS (the control group) and a family medicine residency clinic (the study group) for a 3-year period. The primary outcome was the procedural rate ratios per 1,000 office visits for the 10 most common clinic procedures in the MRHCS billed to Medicare. Results: The study group consisted of 19,099 office visits by Medicare patients to the residency clinic; the control group consisted of 2,034,188 visits to the MRHCS. Except for large joint injection, procedural rates were significantly different for the other nine procedures (destruction of benign skin lesions, nail care, punch or shave skin biopsy, removal of impacted cerumen, wound debridement of skin, Unna boot application, excision of skin lesion, paring of corn or callus, and insertion of bladder catheter). The rate of skin excision was higher in the residency clinic than in the MRHCS but lower for the other eight procedures. Conclusions: These data suggest that teaching programs may need to adapt to meet the current and future practice needs of this increasing patient population.

ObjectivesThe primary objective of this study was to determine whether pharmacist‐clinician collaborative (PCC) visits within 7 days after hospital discharge (early‐visit cohort) would reduce the risk of 30‐day hospital readmission compared with PCC visits eight or more days after hospital discharge (late‐visit cohort).MethodsThis retrospective study of adult primary care patients was conducted from July 26, 2013 to April 1, 2016. Patients who were included were receiving at least one medication that put them at high risk for emergent hospital admission and at least 10 total medications. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess 30‐day readmission risk between the two groups.ResultsThe early‐visit cohort included 393 patients; the late‐visit cohort included 109 patients. After adjusting for statistically different baseline characteristics and the LACE index score (which predicts the risk of death or unplanned readmission within 30 days after hospital discharge), 30‐day readmission risk was not significantly different between the late‐visit cohort and the early‐visit cohort (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34‐1.88; P = 0.61). Similarly, the difference was not significant 60 and 180 days after the PCC visit.ConclusionPatients in the early‐visit cohort had no greater risk of readmission 30 days after the visit than patients in the late‐visit cohort. Although previous research indicates that PCC visits may have significant benefits for decreasing readmission risk, delaying them may not increase the patient's risk. This finding may allow more flexibility in scheduling a pharmacist and a primary care clinician to meet with the patient.

Background: Previous studies have suggested that having a comorbid personality disorder (PD) along with major depression is associated with poorer depression outcomes relative to those without comorbid PD. However, few studies have examined the influence of specific PD cluster types. The purpose of the current study is to compare depression outcomes between cluster A, cluster B, and cluster C PD patients treated within a collaborative care management (CCM), relative to CCM patients without a PD diagnosis. The overarching goal was to identify cluster types that might confer a worse clinical prognosis. Methods: This retrospective chart review study examined 2826 adult patients with depression enrolled in CCM. The cohort was divided into 4 groups based on the presence of a comorbid PD diagnosis (cluster A/nonspecified, cluster B, cluster C, or no PD). Baseline clinical and demographic variables, along with 6-month follow-up Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) scores were obtained for all groups. Depression remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 at 6 months, and persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) was defined as a PHQ-9 score ≥10 at 6 months. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were determined for both remission and PDS using logistic regression modeling for the 6-month PHQ-9 outcome, while retaining all study variables. Results: A total of 59 patients (2.1%) had a cluster A or nonspecified PD diagnosis, 122 patients (4.3%) had a cluster B diagnosis, 35 patients (1.2%) had a cluster C diagnosis, and 2610 patients (92.4%) did not have any PD diagnosis. The presence of a cluster A/nonspecified PD diagnosis was associated with a 62% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.20-0.70). The presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was associated with a 71% lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.47). Conversely, having a cluster C diagnosis was not associated with a significantly lower likelihood of remission at 6 months (AOR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.42-1.65). Increased odds of having PDS at 6-month follow-up were seen with cluster A/nonspecified PD patients (AOR = 3.35; 95% CI 1.92-5.84) as well as cluster B patients (AOR = 3.66; 95% CI 2.45-5.47). However, cluster C patents did not have significantly increased odds of experiencing persistent depressive symptoms at 6-month follow-up (AOR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.45-2.00). Conclusions: Out of the 3 clusters, the presence of a cluster B PD diagnosis was most significantly associated with poorer depression outcomes at 6-month follow-up, including reduced remission rates and increased risk for PDS. The cluster A/nonspecified PD group also showed poor outcomes; however, the heterogeneity of this subgroup with regard to PD features must be noted. The development of novel targeted interventions for at-risk clusters may be warranted in order to improve outcomes of these patients within the CCM model of care.

Background: The use of a collaborative care management (CCM) model can dramatically improve short- and long-term treatment outcomes for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Patients with comorbid personality disorder (PD) may experience poorer treatment outcomes for MDD. Our study seeks to examine the differences in MDD treatment outcomes for patients with comorbid PD when using a CCM approach rather than usual care (UC). Methods: In our retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the records of 9614 adult patients enrolled in our depression registry with the clinical diagnosis MDD and the diagnosis of PD (Yes/No). Clinical outcomes for depression were measured with Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) scores at 6 months. Results: In our study cohort, 59.4% of patients (7.1% of which had comorbid PD) were treated with CCM, as compared with 40.6% (6.8% with PD) treated with UC. We found that the presence of a PD adversely affected clinical outcomes of remission within both groups, however, at 6 months patients with PD had significantly lower MDD remission rates when treated with UC as compared with those treated with CCM (11.5% vs 25.2%, P = .002). Patients with PD in the UC group were also noted to have an increased rate of persistent depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 score ≥10) at 6 months as compared with those in the CCM group (67.7% vs 51.7%, P = .004). Conclusions: In patients with comorbid MDD and PD, clinical outcomes at 6 months were significantly improved when treated with CCM compared with UC. This finding is encouraging and supports the idea that CCM is an effective model for caring for patients with behavioral concerns, and it may be of even greater benefit for those patients being treated for comorbid behavioral health conditions.

Background: Collaborative care management (CCM) is an evidence-based model that contributes to better outcomes for depression treatment in the primary care setting. Tobacco use increases overall economic costs, morbidity, and mortality and has been shown to impact behavioral health outcomes. Our study aims to observe clinical outcomes for depression treatment for patients with comorbid tobacco use and depression within the CCM model. Methods: A retrospective chart review study of 2826 adult patients with depression enrolled in CCM was performed to determine the association between regular tobacco use and depression outcomes. Baseline intake data consisting of clinical and demographic variables along with 6-month follow-up of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores for smokers (n = 727, 25.7%) and nonsmokers (n = 2099, 74.3%) were obtained. Depression remission was defined as a PHQ-9 score <5 and persistent depressive symptoms (PDS) as a PHQ-9 score ≥10 at 6 months. Results: Using an intention-to-treat analysis, the multivariate modeling demonstrated that smokers, at 6 months, had an increased adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for PDS: 1.624 (95% CI: 1.353-1.949). Furthermore, smokers had a lower AOR of depression remission: 0.603 (95% CI: 0.492-0.739). Patient adherence to treatment was also lower in smokers with an AOR of 0.666 (95% CI: 0.553-0.802). Conclusions: Smokers enrolled in CCM were associated with reduced treatment adherence and worse outcomes for depression treatment at 6 months compared to nonsmokers, even when baseline clinical and demographic variables were controlled. Thus, new tailored practices may be warranted within the CCM model to treat comorbid depression and tobacco use disorders.