Introduction: Team-based care has become an essential part of modern medical practice. Patient-centered medical homes often struggle to balance the dual competing goals of acute access and continuity of care. Multimorbidity patients may value continuity more than healthy patients, and thus may prefer to wait to see their primary care physician (PCP). Methods: A total of 1700 randomly selected healthy adults and multimorbidity patients were asked to rate satisfaction with care and presented with 4 acute and 4 chronic scenarios to choose an access and continuity preference in an anonymous mailed survey. Results: In all, 770 responses were obtained. All respondents preferred to be seen 2.5 days sooner for acute appointments. Multimorbidity patients preferred to wait 0.28 days longer for acute issues to see their PCP. Patients who were not satisfied with their care team preferred to wait 0.75 days to see their PCP. Those not satisfied with their PCP choose to be seen 0.38 days sooner by their care team or any physician. Conclusions: All patients prefer continuity of care with their PCP for chronic disease management and value quick access to care for acute problems. For acute visits, multimorbidity patients prefer to wait longer to see their PCP than healthy adults. Satisfaction also plays an important role in patients’ willingness to wait for an appointment with their PCP.

ObjectiveTo describe the steps taken and results obtained by a rural primary care practice to effectively implement opioid prescribing guidelines.Patients and MethodsBetween December 1, 2014, and May 30, 2017, a quality improvement project was undertaken. Elements included prescribing registries, a nurse coordinator, and an Opioid Use Review Panel. Clinic workflow was redesigned to more consistently incorporate these and other guideline recommendations into practice. The effect on opioid prescribing was measured as well as patient outcomes.ResultsThere were 462 patients meeting inclusion criteria before implementation. At the conclusion, 16 patients (3%) had died, 9 patients (2%) were no longer seeing clinicians participating in the project, and 2 patients (0.4%) had transitioned to hospice or long-term care facilities. Of the remaining 435 patients, 96 (22.1%; 95% CI, 18.4-26.2) had decreased prescribing below the threshold for inclusion or were no longer receiving opioid prescriptions. Originally, 64 patients (13.9%; 95% CI, 11.0-17.3) were using average daily doses equal to or greater than 90 morphine milligram equivalents. After implementation, 54 of 435 patients (12.4%; 95% CI, 9.6-15.8) were still using equal to or greater than 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day after accounting for death or loss to follow-up.ConclusionA change in clinic process to implement guidelines for prescribing of chronic opioid therapy was completed. It was associated with a decrease in the number of patients using chronic opioid therapy, primarily at lower doses. This was accomplished in a rural practice with very limited resources in pain medicine, psychiatry, and addiction medicine.

The use of cannabis products to help with sleep and various other medical conditions by the public has increased significantly in recent years. Withdrawal from cannabinoids can lead to sleep disturbance. Here, we describe a patient who developed significant insomnia leading to worsening anxiety, mood, and suicidal ideation in the setting of medical cannabis withdrawal, prompting presentation to the Emergency Department and inpatient admission. There is a limited evidence base for the use of cannabis products for sleep. We provide a comprehensive review evaluating the literature on the use of cannabis products on sleep, including an overview of cannabis and related psychoactive compounds, the current state of the law as it pertains to the prescribing and use of these substances, and potential side effects and drug interactions. We specifically discuss the impact of cannabis products on normal sleep and circadian sleep-wake rhythms, insomnia, excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea, parasomnias, and restless legs syndrome. We also describe the effects of cannabis withdrawal on sleep and how this increases relapse to cannabis use. Most of the studies are observational but the few published randomized controlled trials are reviewed. Our comprehensive review of the effects of cannabis products on normal sleep and sleep disorders, relevant to primary care providers and other clinicians evaluating and treating patients who use these types of products, shows that cannabis products have minimal to no effects on sleep disorders and may have deleterious effects in some individuals. Further research examining the differential impact of the various types of cannabinoids that are currently available on each of these sleep disorders is required.

Purpose:Clinical provider peer review (CPPR) is a process for evaluating a patient's experience in encounters of care. It is part of ongoing professional practice evaluation and focused professional practice evaluation—important contributors to provider credentialing and privileging. Critical access hospitals are hindered in CPPR by having a limited number of providers, shortages of staff resources, and relationships among staff members that make unbiased review difficult. Small departments within larger institutions may face similar challenges.Methods:A CPPR process created at Mayo Clinic Health System is described. It involved a case review questionnaire built on the Institute of Medicine “Six Aims for Changing the Health Care System,” a standardized intervention algorithm and tracking tool.Outcomes:During 2007 through 2014, a total of 994 cases were reviewed; 31% led to provider dialog and education or intervention. Findings were applied to core measure processes with success rate going from 87% to 97%. Changes were adopted in end-of-life care, contributing to a 50% reduction in all-cause mortality rate.Conclusions:Providing peer review tools to a critical access hospital can keep peer review within a group with knowledge of the individual provider's practice and can make process improvement the everyday work of those involved.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although efforts are being made to limit access to prescription opioids, the use of heroin and synthetic opioids as well as death due to opioid overdose has increased. Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is the pairing of psychosocial intervention with a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved medication (methadone, buprenorphine plus naltrexone) to treat OUD. MAT has resulted in reductions in overdose deaths, criminal activity, and infectious disease transmission. Access to MAT in rural areas is limited by shortages of addiction medicine-trained providers, lack of access to comprehensive addiction programs, transportation, and cost-related issues. Rural physicians express concern about lack of mentorship and drug diversion as reasons to avoid MAT. The prescribing of MAT with buprenorphine requires a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) waiver that can easily be obtained by Family Medicine providers. MAT can be incorporated into the outpatient practice, where patient follow-up rates and number needed to treat to effect change are similar to that of other chronic medical conditions. We describe a case of opioid overdose and a suggested protocol for the induction of MAT with buprenorphine/naloxone (Suboxone) for OUD in a rural family medicine outpatient practice. Treatment access is facilitated by utilizing the protocol, allowing office staff work to the extent allowed by their licensure, promoting teamwork and minimizing physician time commitment. We conclude that improved access to MAT can be accomplished in a rural family medicine outpatient clinic by staff that support and mentor one another through use of a MAT protocol.

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 The number of pre-anesthetic medical evaluations (PAMEs) being conducted in primary care is increasing. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine has surged, providing a feasible way to conduct some of these visits. This study aimed to identify patient-related factors where a face to face (FTF) evaluation is indicated, measured by the need for pre-operative testing. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients age ≥ 18 years who had a PAME between January 2019–June 2020 at a rural primary care clinic in Southeast Minnesota. Data collected included age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index Score, medications, revised cardiac risk index (RCRI), smoking status, exercise capacity, body mass index, and pre-operative testing. Logistical regression modeling for odds ratios of outcomes was performed. Results 254 patients were included, with an average age of 64.1 years; 43.7% were female. Most were obese (mean BMI 31.6), non-smoking (93.7%) with excellent functional capacity (87.8% ≥ 5 METs). 76.8% of the planned surgeries were intermediate or high risk. 35.0% ( n = 89) of visits resulted in medication adjustments and 76.7% ( n = 195) in pre-operative testing. Age ≥ 65 years, ≥7 current medications, and diabetes all significantly increased the odds of requiring pre-operative testing ( P < .05). Conclusions This study was able to identify patient-related factors that increased the likelihood of requiring pre-operative testing. Patients who are age ≥ 65 years, ≥7 current medications, and those with diabetes could be scheduled for a FTF evaluation. Others could be scheduled for a telemedicine visit to minimize health-care exposures.

Provider approachability surveys are a safe, effective method of assessing and encouraging positive interactions that promote trust and influence positive communication. The process created an opportunity to identify and assist providers who were less approachable.