Biomedical subjects

Carlos R Jaén

Publications and source records attributed to Carlos R Jaén.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Self-report and primary care medical record documentation of mammography and Pap smear utilization among low-income women.

PURPOSE: To determine whether self-report of mammography and Pap smear utilization was accurate and to determine whether racial/ethnic differences existed. METHODS: Face-to-face surveys were administered to 314 consecutively selected women over 40 attending two low-income inner-city family practice sites. Medical records were reviewed for documentation of mammography and Pap smear utilization. Level of agreement between self-report and chart review was reported. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. MAIN FINDINGS: Puerto Rican women had lower income levels and were less educated than African-American and non-Latina white women. Self-report of mammograms and Pap smears were higher than medical record documentation. Level of agreement was higher for more recent tests. Negative predictive values for mammography were high (75-95.5%). Lower sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for mammography were seen among Puerto Rican women compared to African-American and non-Latina white women. CONCLUSIONS: High negative predictive values suggest that asking women about mammography use may be an inexpensive, easy intervention in the primary care setting to increase screening among women currently not being screened by increasing conversations between patients and providers to address personal barriers to screening.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Addressing the unique challenges of inner-city practice: a direct observation study of inner-city, rural, and suburban family practices.

Previous research on geographic variations in health care contains limited information regarding inner-city medical practice compared with suburban and rural settings. Our main objective was to compare patient characteristics and the process of providing medical care among family practices in inner-city, suburban, and rural locations. A cross-sectional multimethod study was conducted emphasizing direct observation of outpatient visits by trained research nurses involving 4,454 consecutive patients presenting for outpatient care to 138 family physicians during 2 days of observation at 84 community family practices in northeast Ohio. Time use during office visits was assessed with the Davis Observation Code; satisfaction was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study nine-item Visit Rating Scale; delivery of preventive services was as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force; and patient-reported domains of primary care were assessed with the Components of Primary Care Instrument. Results show that inner-city patients had more chronic medical problems, more emotional problems, more problems evaluated per visit, higher rates of health habit counseling, and longer and more frequent office visits. Rural patients were older, more likely to be established with the same physician, and had higher rates of satisfaction and patient-reported physician knowledge of the patient. Suburban patients were younger, had fewer chronic medical problems, and took fewer medications chronically. Inner-city family physicians in northeast Ohio appear to see a more challenging patient population than their rural and suburban counterparts and have more complex outpatient office visits. These findings have implications for health system organization along with the reimbursement and recruitment of physicians in medically underserved inner-city areas.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

COGME's 16th Report to Congress: too many physicians could be worse than wasted.

Departing from past reports, the latest Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME) report warns of a physician deficit of 85,000 by 2020 and recommends increases in medical school and residency output. COGME notes that contributions of other clinicians and changes in how medical care is delivered in the future would likely offset physician deficits but chose not to modify their recommendations. COGME offers a relatively minor workforce correction in an otherwise flawed system of health care; however, the nation awaits a reassessment of its physician workforce based on what the nation wants and needs from physicians working in modern systems of care. Great caution should be exercised in expanding the physician workforce. Producing a physician surplus could be far worse than wasted, because the investment required and resulting rise in health care cost may harm, not help, the health of people in the United States. Instead, these resources could be applied in ways that improve health.

Health Workforce↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A practice change model for quality improvement in primary care practice.

Faced with a rapidly changing healthcare environment, primary care practices often have to change how they practice medicine. Yet change is difficult, and the process by which practice improvement can be understood and facilitated has not been well elucidated. Therefore, we developed a model of practice change using data from a quality improvement intervention that was successful in creating a sustainable practice improvement. A multidisciplinary team evaluated data from the Study To Enhance Prevention by Understanding Practice (STEP-UP), a randomized clinical trial conducted to improve the delivery of evidence-based preventive services in 79 northeastern Ohio practices. The team conducted comparative case-study analyses of high- and low-improvement practices to identify variables that are critical to the change process and to create a conceptual model for the change. The model depicts the critical elements for understanding and guiding practice change and emphasizes the importance of these elements' evolving interrelationships. These elements are (1) motivation of key stakeholders to achieve the target for change; (2) instrumental, personal, and interactive resources for change; (3) motivators outside the practice, including the larger healthcare environment and community; and (4) opportunities for change--that is, how key stakeholders understand the change options. Change is influenced by the complex interaction of factors inside and outside the practice. Interventions that are based on understanding the four key elements and their interrelationships can yield sustainable quality improvements in primary care practice.

Female↗