Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

When to Repatriate? Clinicians’ Perspectives on the Transfer of Patient Management from Specialty to Primary Care

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Capsule Commentary to this article was published on 12 July 2014

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Subspecialty ambulatory care visits have doubled in the past 10 years and nearly half of all visits are for follow-up care. Could some of this care be provided by primary care providers (PCPs)?

OBJECTIVE

To determine how often PCPs and specialists agree that a mutual patient’s condition could be managed exclusively by the PCP, and to understand PCPs’ perspectives on factors that influence decisions about ‘repatriation,’ or the transfer of patient management to primary care.

DESIGN

A mixed method approach including paired surveys of PCPs and specialists about the necessity for ongoing specialty care of mutual patients, and interviews with PCPs about care coordination practices and reasons for differing opinions with specialists.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and eighty-nine PCPs and 59 physicians representing five medicine subspecialties completed paired surveys for 343 patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 PCPs.

MEASUREMENTS

For each patient, PCPs and specialists were asked, “Could this diagnosis be managed exclusively by the PCP?”

RESULTS

Specialists and PCPs agreed that transfer to primary care was appropriate for 16 % of patients, whereas 36 % had specialists and PCPs who agreed that ongoing specialty care was appropriate. Specialists were half as likely as PCPs to identify patients as appropriate for transfer to primary care. PCPs identified several factors that influence the likelihood that patients will be transferred to primary care, including perceived patient preferences, limited access to physician appointments, excessive workload, inter-clinician communication norms, and differences in clinical judgment. We group these factors into two domains: ‘push-back’ and ‘pull-back’ to primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

At a large academic medical center, approximately one in six patients receiving ongoing specialty care could potentially be managed exclusively by a PCP. PCPs identified several non-clinical factors to explain continuation of specialty care when patient transfer to PCP is clinically appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Barnett ML, Song Z, Landon BE. Trends in physician referrals in the United States, 1999–2009. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:163–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Valderas JM, Starfield B, Forrest CB, Sibbald B, Roland M. Ambulatory care provided by office-based specialists in the United States. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7:104–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Merritt HA. Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times. Irving, TX: Merritt, Hawkins & Associates; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Murray MF. Improving access to specialty care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33:125–135.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mehrotra A, Forrest CB, Lin CY. Dropping the baton: specialty referrals in the United States. Milbank Q. 2011;89:39–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Pham HH, O’Malley AS, Bach PB, Saiontz-Martinez C, Schrag D. Primary care physicians’ links to other physicians through Medicare patients: the scope of care coordination. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:236–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Liss DT, Chubak J, Anderson ML, Saunders KW, Tuzzio L, Reid RJ. Patient-reported care coordination: associations with primary care continuity and specialty care use. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9:323–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Malley AS, Cunningham PJ. Patient experiences with coordination of care: the benefit of continuity and primary care physician as referral source. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:170–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Malley AS, Reschovsky JD. Referral and consultation communication between primary care and specialist physicians: finding common ground. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:56–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aubin M, Vezina L, Verreault R, et al. Patient, primary care physician and specialist expectations of primary care physician involvement in cancer care. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;27:8–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bowman BT, Kleiner A, Bolton WK. Comanagement of diabetic kidney disease by the primary care provider and nephrologist. Med Clin N Am. 2013;97:157–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wegner SE, Lathren CR, Humble CG, Mayer ML, Feaganes J, Stiles AD. A medical home for children with insulin-dependent diabetes: comanagement by primary and subspecialty physicians—convergence and divergence of opinions. Pediatrics. 2008;122:383–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Starfield B, Forrest CB, Nutting PA, von Schrader S. Variability in physician referral decisions. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002;15:473–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Creswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. California’s ‘Bridge to Reform’ Medicaid Demonstration Waiver - Policy Brief - 8197-R. Oct. 2011. Available at: http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/californias-bridge-to-reform-medicaid-demonstration-waiver/. Accessed 23 May 2014.

  16. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:1758–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lincoln YS. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kirschner N, Greenlee MC. The Patient-Centered Medical Home Neighbor: The Interface of the Patient-Centered Medical Home with Specialty/Subspecialty Practices. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 2010: Policy Paper. (Available from American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106.)

  20. Jaén CR, Ferrer RL, Miller WL, et al. Patient outcomes at 26 months in the patient-centered medical home National Demonstration Project. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(Suppl 1):S57–S67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kirschner N, Barr MS. Specialists/subspecialists and the patient-centered medical home. Chest. 2009;137:200–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen AH, Kushel MB, Grumbach K, Yee HF. A safety-net system gains efficiencies through “eReferrals” to specialists. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:969–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Foy R, Hempel S, Rubenstein L, et al. Meta-analysis: effect of interactive communication between collaborating primary care physicians and specialists. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:247–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Diller PM, Smucker DR, David B. Comanagement of patients with congestive heart failure by family physicians and cardiologists: frequency, timing, and patient characteristics. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:188–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stewart MA. Effective physician–patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152:1423–33.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Contributors

We would like to express gratitude to the many clinicians who shared their perspectives with us. We also thank Chartis, Inc. for their assistance with survey administration and Gina Intinarelli for her ongoing support and encouragement.

Funding

Support for this study came through existing clinical operations and evaluation initiatives sponsored by the UCSF Medical Center, the UCSF Department of Medicine Ambulatory Care Operations and Innovations Program, and the Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) Program. None of these groups were involved in the design, conduct, collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data. We did not require their approval of the manuscript or decision to submit.

Presentations

Preliminary results of the study reported here were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine in Denver, CO in April 2013.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Gonzales serves as Medical Advisor to Phreesia, Inc. To the best of our knowledge, the authors do not have any additional conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara L. Ackerman PhD, MPH.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Appendix 1

(PDF 26 kb)

Appendix 2

(PDF 27 kb)

Appendix 3

(PDF 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ackerman, S.L., Gleason, N., Monacelli, J. et al. When to Repatriate? Clinicians’ Perspectives on the Transfer of Patient Management from Specialty to Primary Care. J GEN INTERN MED 29, 1355–1361 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2920-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2920-z

KEY WORDS

Navigation