No abstract

Group care models, in which patients with similar health conditions receive medical services in a shared appointment, have increasingly been adopted in a variety of health care settings. Applying the Triple Aim framework, we examined the potential of group medical care to optimize health system performance through improved patient experience, better health outcomes, and the reduced cost of health care. A systematic review of English language articles was conducted using the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Studies based on data from randomized control trials (RCTs) conducted in the US and analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach to test the effect of group visits versus standard individual care on at least one Triple Aim domain were included. Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies focused on pregnancy (n = 9), diabetes (n = 15), and other chronic health conditions (n = 7). Compared with individual care, group visits have the potential to improve patient experience, health outcomes, and costs for a diversity of health conditions. Although findings varied between studies, no adverse effects were associated with group health care delivery in these randomized controlled trials. Group care models may contribute to quality improvements, better health outcomes, and lower costs for select health conditions.

BACKGROUND: Broad consensus supports the use of primary care to address unmet need for mental health treatment. OBJECTIVE: To better understand whether primary care filled the gap when individuals were unable to access specialty mental health care. DESIGN: 2018 mixed methods study with a national US internet survey (completion rate 66%) and follow-up interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Privately insured English-speaking adults ages 18-64 reporting serious psychological distress that used an outpatient mental health provider in the last year or attempted to use a mental health provider but did not ultimately use specialty services (N = 428). Follow-up interviews were conducted with 30 survey respondents. MAIN MEASURES: Whether survey respondents obtained mental health care from their primary care provider (PCP), and if so, the rating of that care on a 1 to 10 scale, with ratings of 9 or 10 considered highly rated. Interviews explored patient-reported barriers and facilitators to engagement and satisfaction with care provided by PCPs. KEY RESULTS: Of the 22% that reported they tried to but did not access specialty mental health care, 53% reported receiving mental health care from a PCP. Respondents receiving care only from their PCP were less likely to rate their PCP care highly (21% versus 48%; p = 0.01). Interviewees reported experiences with PCP-provided mental health care related to three major themes: PCP engagement, relationship with the PCP, and PCP role. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is partially filling the gap for mental health treatment when specialty care is not available. Patient experiences reinforce the need for screening and follow-up in primary care, clinician training, and referral to a trusted specialty consultant when needed.

333 Background: Tissue-based gene expression (genomic) tests improve estimates of prostate cancer aggressiveness and are increasingly used for patients considering or engaged in active surveillance; however, little is known about patient experiences with genomic testing and its role in decision-making for active surveillance. Methods: We performed a qualitative descriptive study consisting of in-depth, semi-structured interviews of patients with low- or favorable-intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. The interview guide focused on experiences with biopsy-based genomic testing during their decision-making for prostate cancer management. We used purposive sampling to include patients who received genomic testing as part of routine clinical care and we over-sampled Black and Latino men. We continued interviews until thematic saturation was reached, iteratively created a code key and used conventional content data analysis. Results: The mean age was 68 years (range 51-79; n=20). At initial biopsy, 17 (85%) had a Gleason grade group 1, and 3 (15%) had a grade group 2 tumor. Fourteen (70%) participants identified their race/ethnicity as White, 5 (25%) as Black, and 2 (10%) as Latino. The decision to undergo genomic testing was driven by both participants and physicians’ recommendations; however, some participants were unaware that testing had occurred. Overall, participants understood the role of genomic testing in estimating their prostate cancer risk, and the test results increased their confidence in the decision for active surveillance. However, participants did not understand the difference between tissue-based gene expression tests and germline genetic tests, and commonly believed that tissue-based tests measured hereditary cancer risk. While some participants expressed satisfaction with the explanations provided by their physicians, others felt that communication was inaccessible and lacked sufficient detail. Conclusions: Patients interact with and are influenced by the results of biopsy-based genomic testing during active surveillance for prostate cancer, however testing may increase informational needs. Our findings indicate areas for improvement in patient counseling that can be used to increase patient knowledge and comfort with genomic testing.

Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a rare complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) that is usually seen in patients with encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis. We present a case of SBO that was caused by mechanical obstruction from omental adhesions around the PD catheter. This is the case of 71-year-old female with end-stage renal disease who was recently started on PD and presented with recurrent syncopal episodes and altered mental status. During hospitalization, the patient began experiencing incomplete drainage of the PD solution. Abdominal computerized tomography revealed SBO with a transition point near the PD catheter. The patient then underwent laparoscopy, which revealed omental adhesions around the PD catheter near the obstruction area, but no adhesion of the intestine was observed. The adhesions were dissected by laparoscopy, and the PD catheter was removed. This case highlights the challenges of PD access.