TY - JOUR
T1 - Describing primary care encounters
T2 - The primary care network survey and the national ambulatory medical care survey
AU - Binns, Helen J.
AU - Lanier, David
AU - Pace, Wilson D.
AU - Galliher, James M.
AU - Ganiats, Theodore G.
AU - Grey, Margaret
AU - Ariza, Adolfo J.
AU - Williams, Robert
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2008 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2007/1
Y1 - 2007/1
N2 - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe clinical encounters in primary care research networks and compare them with those of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). METHODS: Twenty US primary care research networks collected data on clinicians and patient encounters using the Primary Care Network Survey (PRINS) Clinician Interview (PRINS-1) and Patient Record (PRINS-2), which were newly developed based on NAMCS tools. Clinicians completed a PRINS-1 about themselves and a PRINS-2 for each of 30 patient visits. Data included patient characteristics; reason for the visit, diagnoses, and services ordered or performed. We compared PRINS data with data obtained from primary care physicians during 5 cycles of NAMCS (1997-2001). Data were weighted; PRINS refl ects participating networks and NAMCS provides national estimates. RESULTS: By discipline, 89% of PRINS clinicians were physicians, 4% were physicians in residency training, 5% were advanced practice nurses/nurse-practitioners, and 2% were physician's assistants. The majority (53%) specialized in pediatrics (34% specialized in family medicine, 9% in internal medicine, and 4% in other specialties). All NAMCS clinicians were physicians, with 20% specializing in pediatrics. When NAMCS and PRINS visits were compared, larger proportions of PRINS visits involved preventive care and were made by children, members of minority racial groups, and individuals who did not have private health insurance. A diagnostic or other assessment service was performed for 99% of PRINS visits and 76% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 74.9%-78.0%). A preventive or counseling/education service was provided at 64% of PRINS visits and 37% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 35.1%-38.0%). CONCLUSIONS: PRINS presents a view of diverse primary care visits and differs from NAMCS in its methods and findings. Further examinations of PRINS data are needed to assess their usefulness for describing encounters that occur in primary care research networks.
AB - PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe clinical encounters in primary care research networks and compare them with those of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). METHODS: Twenty US primary care research networks collected data on clinicians and patient encounters using the Primary Care Network Survey (PRINS) Clinician Interview (PRINS-1) and Patient Record (PRINS-2), which were newly developed based on NAMCS tools. Clinicians completed a PRINS-1 about themselves and a PRINS-2 for each of 30 patient visits. Data included patient characteristics; reason for the visit, diagnoses, and services ordered or performed. We compared PRINS data with data obtained from primary care physicians during 5 cycles of NAMCS (1997-2001). Data were weighted; PRINS refl ects participating networks and NAMCS provides national estimates. RESULTS: By discipline, 89% of PRINS clinicians were physicians, 4% were physicians in residency training, 5% were advanced practice nurses/nurse-practitioners, and 2% were physician's assistants. The majority (53%) specialized in pediatrics (34% specialized in family medicine, 9% in internal medicine, and 4% in other specialties). All NAMCS clinicians were physicians, with 20% specializing in pediatrics. When NAMCS and PRINS visits were compared, larger proportions of PRINS visits involved preventive care and were made by children, members of minority racial groups, and individuals who did not have private health insurance. A diagnostic or other assessment service was performed for 99% of PRINS visits and 76% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 74.9%-78.0%). A preventive or counseling/education service was provided at 64% of PRINS visits and 37% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 35.1%-38.0%). CONCLUSIONS: PRINS presents a view of diverse primary care visits and differs from NAMCS in its methods and findings. Further examinations of PRINS data are needed to assess their usefulness for describing encounters that occur in primary care research networks.
KW - Allied health personnel
KW - Ambulatory care
KW - Health care delivery
KW - Health services research
KW - Office visits
KW - Physicians
KW - Practice-based research
KW - Prevention
KW - Primary care
KW - Survey methods
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846686163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846686163&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1370/afm.620
DO - 10.1370/afm.620
M3 - Article
C2 - 17261863
AN - SCOPUS:33846686163
SN - 1544-1709
VL - 5
SP - 39
EP - 47
JO - Annals of Family Medicine
JF - Annals of Family Medicine
IS - 1
ER -