Literature DB >> 10203635

Setting the revisit interval in primary care.

L M Schwartz1, S Woloshin, J H Wasson, R A Renfrew, H G Welch.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although longitudinal care constitutes the bulk of primary care, physicians receive little guidance on the fundamental question of how to time follow-up visits. We sought to identify important predictors of the revisit interval and to describe the variability in how physicians set these intervals when caring for patients with common medical conditions.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of physicians performed at the end of office visits for consecutive patients with hypertension, angina, diabetes, or musculoskeletal pain. PARTICIPANTS/
SETTING: One hundred sixty-four patients under the care of 11 primary care physicians in the Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Research Network. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome measures were the variability in mean revisit intervals across physicians and the proportion of explained variance by potential determinants of revisit intervals. We assessed the relation between the revisit interval (dependent variable) and three groups of independent variables, patient characteristics (e.g., age, physician perception of patient health), identification of individual physician, and physician characterization of the visit (e. g., routine visit, visit requiring a change in management, or visit occurring on a "hectic" day), using multiple regression that accounted for the natural grouping of patients within physician. MAIN
RESULTS: Revisit intervals ranged from 1 week to over 1 year. The most common intervals were 12 and 16 weeks. Physicians' perception of fair-poor health status and visits involving a change in management were most strongly related to shorter revisit intervals. In multivariate analyses, patient characteristics explained about 18% of the variance in revisit intervals, and adding identification of the individual provider doubled the explained variance to about 40%. Physician characterization of the visit increased explained variance to 57%. The average revisit interval adjusted for patient characteristics for each of the 11 physicians varied from 4 to 20 weeks. Although all physicians lengthened revisit intervals for routine visits and shortened them when changing management, the relative ranking of mean revisit intervals for each physician changed little for different visit characterizations-some physicians were consistently long and others were consistently short.
CONCLUSION: Physicians vary widely in their recommendations for office revisits. Patient factors accounted for only a small part of this variation. Although physicians responded to visits in predictable ways, each physician appeared to have a unique set point for the length of the revisits interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10203635      PMCID: PMC1496560          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00322.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  15 in total

1.  A model for planning optimal follow-up for outpatients on warfarin anticoagulation. Warfarin Optimal Outpatient Follow-up Study Group.

Authors:  D L Kent; D Vermes; M McDonell; J Henikoff; S D Fihn
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1992 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Evaluation of nonlinear optimization for scheduling of follow-up cystoscopies to detect recurrent bladder cancer. The Bladder Cancer follow-up Group.

Authors:  D L Kent; R A Nease; H C Sox; L D Shortliffe; R Shachter
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1991 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  The cooperative information project: Part 2: some initial clinical, quality assurance, and practice management studies.

Authors:  E C Nelson; J W Kirk; B W Bise; R J Chapman; F A Hale; P L Stamps; J H Wasson
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1981-11       Impact factor: 0.493

4.  Testing for physician-induced demand with hypothetical cases.

Authors:  D Hemenway; D Fallon
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  The Cooperative Information Project: Part 1: A sentinel practice network for service and research in primary care.

Authors:  E C Nelson; J W Kirk; B W Bise; R J Chapman; F A Hale; P L Stamps; J H Wasson
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 0.493

6.  The functional status of patients. How can it be measured in physicians' offices?

Authors:  E C Nelson; J M Landgraf; R D Hays; J H Wasson; J W Kirk
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Variation in physician opinion about scheduling of return visits for common ambulatory care conditions.

Authors:  J K Tobacman; R R Zeitler; A M Cilursu; M Mori
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Visit frequency for controlled essential hypertension: general practitioners' opinions.

Authors:  M J Lichtenstein; P M Sweetnam; P C Elwood
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 0.493

9.  Differences in the mix of patients among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study.

Authors:  R L Kravitz; S Greenfield; W Rogers; W G Manning; M Zubkoff; E C Nelson; A R Tarlov; J E Ware
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-03-25       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Visit frequency for essential hypertension: observed associations.

Authors:  M J Lichtenstein; M A Steele; T P Hoehn; C J Bulpitt; E C Coles
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 0.493

View more
  12 in total

1.  Revisit frequency and its association with quality of care among diabetic patients: Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD).

Authors:  Keiko Asao; Laura N McEwen; Jesse C Crosson; Beth Waitzfelder; William H Herman
Journal:  J Diabetes Complications       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 2.852

2.  Perceived access problems among patients with diabetes in two public systems of care.

Authors:  J D Piette
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Encounter frequency and blood pressure in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Alexander Turchin; Saveli I Goldberg; Maria Shubina; Jonathan S Einbinder; Paul R Conlin
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 10.190

4.  Predictors of provider-patient visit frequency during hemodialysis.

Authors:  Yelena Slinin; Haifeng Guo; Suying Li; Jiannong Liu; Benjamin Morgan; Kristine Ensrud; David T Gilbertson; Allan J Collins; Areef Ishani
Journal:  Am J Nephrol       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 3.754

5.  A general method for identifying excess revisit rates: the case of hypertension.

Authors:  Norman Frohlich; Marilyn Cree; K C Carriere
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2008-02

6.  Visit frequency and hypertension.

Authors:  Richard Guthmann; Nancy Davis; Matthew Brown; Jose Elizondo
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  The association between care co-ordination and emergency department use in older managed care enrollees.

Authors:  Eric A Coleman; Theresa B Eilertsen; David J Magid; Douglas A Conner; Arne Beck; Andrew M Kramer
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2002-10-24       Impact factor: 5.120

8.  The importance of frequent return visits and hypertension control among US young adults: a multidisciplinary group practice observational study.

Authors:  Cecile C King; Christie M Bartels; Elizabeth M Magnan; Jennifer T Fink; Maureen A Smith; Heather M Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  Satisfaction of well-controlled type 2 diabetes patients with three-monthly and six-monthly monitoring.

Authors:  Paulien R Wermeling; Jolien Janssen; Kees J Gorter; Joline W J Beulens; Guy E H M Rutten
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  Framework for primary care organizations: the importance of a structural domain.

Authors:  William Hogg; Margo Rowan; Grant Russell; Robert Geneau; Laura Muldoon
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2007-11-30       Impact factor: 2.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.