Addressing the unique challenges of inner-city practice: a direct observation study of inner-city, rural, and suburban family practices
- 96 Downloads
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 out patient 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.
KeywordsInner City Office Visit Characteristics Patient Characteristics Rural Suburban
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Council on Graduate Medical Education. Third Report—Improving Access to Health Care Through Physician Workforce Reform: Direction for the 21st Century, Rockville, MD: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Resources and Service Administration; 1992.Google Scholar
- 7.US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Health Care in Rural America. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; September 1990. Publication OTA-H-434.Google Scholar
- 8.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-to-state variation in screening mammograms for women 50 years of age and older: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1987. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1989;38:157–160.Google Scholar
- 13.Schappert SM. Advance data from vital and health statistics. Advance Data. In National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1994 Summary. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1996;1–20.Google Scholar
- 15.Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA. Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 17.Kirschner CG, Burkett RC, Coy JA, et al. Physicians’ Current Procedural Terminology: CPT ’95. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1994.Google Scholar
- 18.Ware J, Nelson E, Sherbourne C, Steward A. Preliminary tests of a six-item general health survey: a patient application. In: Ware J, ed. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1992:291–307.Google Scholar
- 21.US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1996.Google Scholar
- 26.American Academy of Family Physicians. 1996 Facts About Family Practice. Kansas City, MO: American Academy of Family Physicians; 1996.Google Scholar
- 27.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Increased cholesterol awareness in urban and rural areas: Missouri, 1988–1991. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1992;41:323–325.Google Scholar