This study detected an important process difference between boarded patients compared with control patients, which could explain previously suggested outcome differences between these 2 groups. This provides additional support for efforts to move patients to inpatient care areas in a timely fashion rather than board in the ED.
BackgroundPatients are increasingly offered electronic access to their doctors' notes, and many consistently receive paper After‐Visit Summaries. Specific feedback from patients about notes and summaries are lacking, particularly within safety‐net settings.DesignA mixed methods studySetting and ParticipantsPatients with poorly controlled diabetes attending two urban safety‐net primary care clinics in Washington State.MethodsPatients read their own most recent clinic note and After‐Visit Summary, then completed a brief survey followed by a focus group discussion (3 groups in a large general medicine teaching clinic and 1 in an HIV/AIDS clinic) about their perceptions of the clinic note and After‐Visit Summary.ResultsTwenty‐seven patients participated; 70% were male, 41% were Black, 48% were unemployed or disabled, 56% reported fair/poor health, and 37% had accessed the electronic patient portal. A majority of patients felt their note content was useful (89%); a minority reported that their notes were not accurate (19%), had too much medical jargon (29%), or were too long (26%). Themes identified from the discussions included reliance on the provider to explain confusing content; a desire for more rather than less detail; and perceived inaccuracies, particularly in heavily templated notes. In each focus group, one or more portal users were enthusiastically willing to teach other patients.ConclusionsThe majority of focus group participants at this safety‐net site had not accessed the electronic patient portal, but those who had were willing to promote the portal benefits and assist others. Patients identified specific opportunities to improve clinic notes and After‐Visit Summaries.
Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate patient factors associated with nonengagement in a Diabetes Collaborative Care Team (DCCT) program in a safety-net clinic. Methods The first 18 months of a multidisciplinary care, team-based diabetes care management program in a safety-net primary care clinic were studied. Nonengagement was defined as fewer than 2 visits with a team member during the 18 months of the program. Patients who did not engage in the program were compared with those who did engage on demographics, comorbid medical and psychiatric diagnoses, and cardiovascular risk factors, using univariate and multivariable analyses. Results Of the 151 patients referred to the DCCT, 68 (45%) were nonengaged. In unadjusted analyses, patients who did not engage were more likely to be female and have higher baseline A1C values; they were less likely to have major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, any depression diagnosis, and hyperlipidemia. Female gender and chronic pain were independently associated with nonengagement after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions The findings suggest that among patients with uncontrolled diabetes in an urban safety-net primary care clinic, there is a need to address barriers to engagement for female patients and to integrate chronic pain management strategies within multicondition collaborative care models.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.