How Many Problems Do Family Physicians Manage at Each Encounter? A WReN Study

PURPOSE The number of problems managed concurrently by family physicians during patient encounters has not been fully explored despite the implications for quality assessment, guideline implementation, education, research, administration, and funding. Our study objective was to determine the number of problems physicians report managing at each visit and compare that with the number reflected in the chart and the bill. METHODS Twenty-nine members of the Wisconsin Research Network reported on encounters with 572 patients using a physician problem log. The patient chart notes and the diagnoses submitted for billing from the encounters were compared with the information in these logs. RESULTS The physicians reported managing an average of 3.05 problems per encounter and recorded 2.82 in the chart and 1.97 on the bill. For all patients, 37% of encounters addressed more than 3 problems, and 18% addressed more than 4. For patients older than 65 years, there was an average of 3.88 problems at each visit, and for diabetic patients there was an average of 4.60. There was evidence for the selective omission of mental health and substance problems from the diagnoses used for billing. CONCLUSIONS Family medicine involves the concurrent care of multiple problems, which billing data do not adequately reflect. Our findings suggest a mismatch between family medicine and current approaches to quality assessment, guideline implementation, education, research, administration, and funding. Activities in all these areas need to address the physician’s task of prioritizing and integrating care for multiple problems concurrently.

[1]  V. Hunt Primary Care: America's Health in a New Era , 1997, The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

[2]  J. Coyne,et al.  The role of competing demands in the treatment provided primary care patients with major depression. , 2000, Archives of family medicine.

[3]  W. Phillips,et al.  Cancer screening by primary care physicians: a comparison of rates obtained from physician self-report, patient survey, and chart audit. , 1995, American journal of public health.

[4]  W. Levinson,et al.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. , 1999, JAMA.

[5]  S Kessler,et al.  Social system responses to Huntington disease. , 1989, Family process.

[6]  B Starfield,et al.  New paradigms for quality in primary care. , 2001, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[7]  S. Flocke,et al.  The effect of a secondary patient on the family practice visit. , 1998, The Journal of family practice.

[8]  M. Barry,et al.  Involving patients in medical decisions: how can physicians do better? , 1999, JAMA.

[9]  P. Nutting,et al.  Competing demands from physical problems: effect on initiating and completing depression care over 6 months. , 2000, Archives of family medicine.

[10]  Judith Smith,et al.  The effect of L-dopa on the potentiation of radiation damage to human melanoma cells. , 1990, British Journal of Cancer.

[11]  D. Cherry,et al.  National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2000 summary. , 2002, Advance data.

[12]  S. Flocke,et al.  Addressing multiple problems in the family practice office visit. , 2001, The Journal of family practice.

[13]  T. Schwenk,et al.  Physician and patient determinants of difficult physician-patient relationships. , 1989, The Journal of family practice.

[14]  K. Stange,et al.  Evaluation and management services. A comparison of medical record documentation with actual billing in community family practice. , 2000, Archives of Family Medicine.

[15]  John F. Steiner,et al.  Descriptions of Barriers to Self-Care by Persons with Comorbid Chronic Diseases , 2003, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[16]  Barbara Starfield,et al.  Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology , 1998 .

[17]  K. Stange The paradox of the parts and the whole in understanding and improving general practice. , 2002, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[18]  S. Greenfield,et al.  Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties. Results from the medical outcomes study. , 1995, JAMA.

[19]  K C Stange,et al.  Trade-offs in high-volume primary care practice. , 1998, The Journal of family practice.

[20]  J. Beasley,et al.  Evaluating continuity and comprehensiveness of care in an elective family practice clerkship. , 1985, Journal of medical education.

[21]  B Kennedy,et al.  Income inequality, primary care, and health indicators. , 1999, The Journal of family practice.

[22]  R. Horner,et al.  Accuracy of patient encounter and billing information in ambulatory care. , 1991, The Journal of family practice.

[23]  J. Susman,et al.  Depression in rural family practice. Easy to recognize, difficult to diagnose. , 1995, Archives of family medicine.

[24]  B. Starfield,et al.  Presence of observers at patient-practitioner interactions: impact on coordination of care and methodologic implications. , 1979, American journal of public health.

[25]  L. Pol,et al.  Tailoring tobacco counseling to the competing demands in the clinical encounter. , 2001, The Journal of family practice.

[26]  W. Loesche "The Best of Times and the Worst of Times" , 1987, Journal of dental research.

[27]  Christopher B Forrest,et al.  Comorbidity: Implications for the Importance of Primary Care in ‘Case’ Management , 2003, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[28]  B Starfield,et al.  Is US health really the best in the world? , 2000, JAMA.

[29]  S. Flocke,et al.  Billing for physician services: a comparison of actual billing with CPT codes assigned by direct observation. , 1998, Journal of Family Practice.

[30]  Bodo W. Treu The value of a family physician , 1995, Nature Medicine.

[31]  M. Cabana,et al.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. , 1999, JAMA.

[32]  S Greenfield,et al.  Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study. , 1992, JAMA.

[33]  K C Stange,et al.  Illuminating the 'black box'. A description of 4454 patient visits to 138 family physicians. , 1998, The Journal of family practice.

[34]  K C Stange,et al.  Care of the secondary patient in family practice. A report from the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network. , 2001, The Journal of family practice.

[35]  M. Stewart,et al.  The role of patient, physician and systemic factors in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. , 2002, Family practice.

[36]  P. Nutting,et al.  Competing demands in the office visit: what influences mammography recommendations? , 2001, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

[37]  S Greenfield,et al.  Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. , 1995, Annual review of public health.