UNASSIGNED: Opioid misuse is a significant public health crisis. The aim sought to identify potential gaps in opioid care in primary care practices.
UNASSIGNED: American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) offered a monthly online educational series to seven U.S. practices. Practices were asked to complete up to 50 chart reviews for visits during two periods: February-April, 2019, and February-April, 2022. Each chart had to have an ICD-10 diagnosis of opioid misuse, opioid dependence, or opioid use. Chart reviews consisted of 14 questions derived from an American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP) Performance in Practice activity, and then, scored based on practices\' responses. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic and multinomial regressions were used.
UNASSIGNED: Both periods had 173 chart reviews (total: 346) from the six practices. Most chart reviews were for patients with a diagnosis of opioid dependence (2019: 90.2%; 2022: 83.2%). Three questions for assessing OUD treatment behaviors had high levels of documentation across both time periods (>85%): other drug use, treatment readiness, and treatment discussion.
UNASSIGNED: Results show a gap in the treatment of patients with OUD in primary care across several clinical practice recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: Expanding OUD treatment integration to primary care remains the most promising effort to combat the opioid crisis.

No abstract available.

Clinical (service) integration in primary care settings describes how comprehensive care is coordinated by family physicians (FPs) over time across healthcare contexts to meet patient care needs. To improve care integration and healthcare service planning, a systematic approach to understanding its numerous influencing factors is paramount. The objective of this study is to generate a comprehensive map of FP-perceived factors influencing clinical integration across diseases and patient demographics.
We developed the protocol with the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute systematic review methodology framework. An information specialist built search strategies for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases using keywords and MeSH terms iteratively collected from a multidisciplinary team. Two reviewers will work independently throughout the study process, from article selection to data analysis. The identified records will be screened by title and abstract and reviewed in the full text against the criteria: FP in primary care (population), clinical integration (concept) and qualitative and mixed reviews published in 2011-2021 (context). We will first describe the characteristics of the review studies. Then, we will extract qualitative, FP-perceived factors and group them by content similarities, such as patient factors. Lastly, we will describe the types of extracted factors using a custom framework.
Ethics approval is not required for a systematic review. The identified factors will help generate an item bank for a survey that will be developed in the Phase II study to ascertain high-impact factors for intervention(s), as well as evidence gaps to guide future research. We will share the study findings with various knowledge users to promote awareness of clinical integration issues through multiple channels: publications and conferences for researchers and care providers, an executive summary for clinical leaders and policy-makers, and social media for the public.

Moving towards high quality primary health care, involving family physicians in primary care research becomes an essential prerequisite to ensures a better adoption and routinization of patient-centred, evidence-based practices.
To assess the effectiveness of strategies to engage family physicians in primary care research.
We systematically reviewed evidence for strategies used to engage family physicians in primary care research. We included any study design that reported at least one quantitative outcome. Searches were carried out on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Pairs of reviewers independently screened for publications in two stages using standardized forms. We performed data analysis through a narrative synthesis approach, using the Reasoned-action approach as framework.
A total of 4859 deduped records were identified of which 41 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. The majority of studies (n = 35) investigated family physician\'s participation in a research project. They aimed to influence family physicians\' intention (n = 7) or their ability (n = 3) to participate in a research project. Three types of strategies (compensation/incentive, recruitment by a peer and support from a research network or an academic institution) demonstrated a significant increase in participation rate. Methodological quality of the studies evaluating these strategies was relatively low. Few studies (n = 6) targeted research capacity-building programmes with no significant impact noted.
Numerous strategies have been used to engage family physicians in primary care research, but few studies evaluated their effectiveness in a rigorous way.
The protocol of this review was registered with the SPOR Evidence Alliance and on the PROSPERO platform (registration number: CRD42020189322).

Burnout is a work-related syndrome documented to have negative consequences for GPs and their patients.
To review the existing literature concerning studies published up to December 2020 on the prevalence of burnout among GPs in general practice, and to determine GP burnout estimates worldwide.
Systematic literature search and meta-analysis.
Searches of CINAHL Plus, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus were conducted to identify published peer-reviewed quantitative empirical studies in English up to December 2020 that have used the Maslach Burnout Inventory - Human Services Survey to establish the prevalence of burnout in practising GPs (that is, excluding GPs in training). A random-effects model was employed.
Wide-ranging prevalence estimates (6% to 33%) across different dimensions of burnout were reported for 22 177 GPs across 29 countries were reported for 60 studies included in this review. Mean burnout estimates were: 16.43 for emotional exhaustion; 6.74 for depersonalisation; and 29.28 for personal accomplishment. Subgroup and meta-analyses documented that country-specific factors may be important determinants of the variation in GP burnout estimates. Moderate overall burnout cut-offs were found to be determinants of the variation in moderate overall burnout estimates.
Moderate to high GP burnout exists worldwide. However, substantial variations in how burnout is characterised and operationalised has resulted in considerable heterogeneity in GP burnout prevalence estimates. This highlights the challenge of developing a uniform approach, and the importance of considering GPs\' work context to better characterise burnout.

Digitalization and the increasing availability of online information have changed the way in which information is searched for and retrieved by the public and by health professionals. The technical developments in the last two decades have transformed the methods of information retrieval. Although systematic evidence exists on the general information needs of specialists, and in particular, family physicians (FPs), there have been no recent systematic reviews to specifically address the needs of FPs and any barriers that may exist to accessing online health information.
This review aims to provide an up-to-date perspective on the needs of FPs in searching, retrieving, and using online information.
This systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies searched a multitude of databases spanning the years 2000 to 2020 (search date January 2020). Studies that analyzed the online information needs of FPs, any barriers to the accessibility of information, and their information-seeking behaviors were included. Two researchers independently scrutinized titles and abstracts, analyzing full-text papers for their eligibility, the studies therein, and the data obtained from them.
The initial search yielded 4541 studies for initial title and abstract screening. Of the 144 studies that were found to be eligible for full-text screening, 41 were finally included. A total of 20 themes were developed and summarized into 5 main categories: individual needs of FPs before the search; access needs, including factors that would facilitate or hinder information retrieval; quality needs of the information to hand; utilization needs of the information available; and implication needs for everyday practice.
This review suggests that searching, accessing, and using online information, as well as any pre-existing needs, barriers, or demands, should not be perceived as separate entities but rather be regarded as a sequential process. Apart from accessing information and evaluating its quality, FPs expressed concerns regarding the applicability of this information to their everyday practice and its subsequent relevance to patient care. Future online information resources should cater to the needs of the primary care setting and seek to address the way in which such resources may be adapted to these specific requirements.

To understand the ability of trigger tools to detect preventable adverse events (pAEs) in the primary care outpatient setting using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement\'s (IHI) Outpatient Adverse Event Trigger Tool (IHI Tool).
The OVID MEDLINE and OVID MEDLINE In-process and non-Indexed citations databases were queried using controlled vocabulary and Medical Subject Headings related to the concepts \"primary care\" and \"adverse events.\" Included articles were conducted in the outpatient setting, used at least 1 of the triggers identified in the IHI Tool, and identified pAEs of any type. Articles were selected for inclusion based first on assessment of titles then abstracts by 2 trained reviewers independently, followed by full text review by 2 authors.
Our search identified 6435 unique articles, and we included 15 in our review. The most common studied trigger was laboratory abnormalities. The most common pAEs were medication errors followed by unplanned hospitalizations. The effectiveness of triggers in identifying AEs varied widely.
There is insufficient data on the IHI Tool and its use to identify pAEs in the general real-world outpatient setting. Health care providers of the primary care setting may benefit from better trigger tools and other methods to help them detect pAEs. More research is needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of trigger tools to reduce barriers of cost and time and improve patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Demands on gastroenterology are growing, as a result of the high prevalence of digestive diseases, the impact of colon cancer screening programs and an aging population. Prioritizing referrals to gastroenterology would assist in managing wait times. Our objectives were (1) to assess whether there were consistent criteria to guide referrals from family physicians for gastroenterological outpatient consultation and (2) to determine if there were different levels of urgency or priority in referral criteria.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review, searching Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from 1997 to 2009, using the terms referral, triage, consultation and at least one from a list of gastroenterology-specific search terms. Of 2978 initial results, 51 papers were retrieved, and 20 were retained after review by two reviewers. Additional publications were identified through hand searches of retained papers, website searches and nomination by a panel of specialists.
RESULTS: Thirty-four papers, reports or websites were retained. No referral criteria covered the spectrum of disorders that might be referred by family physicians to gastroenterologists. Criteria for referral were most commonly listed for suspected colorectal cancer, followed by suspected upper GI cancer, hepatitis, and functional disorders.
CONCLUSIONS: A clinical panel comprised of gastroenterologists and primary care providers, informed by this literature review, are completing the work of formulating a Gastroenterology Priority Referral Score, and plan to test the reliability and validity of the tool for determining the relative urgency for referral from primary care to gastroenterology.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of interventions by laboratories and to increase rational and reduce unnecessary family physician test ordering.
METHODS: MEDLINE [1946-present], EMBASE [1980-present], EBM Reviews [1991-present](Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, - Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database), PubMed [1966-present], PubMed Central [1900-present], Scopus [1960-present], Web of Science [1900-present] and CINAHL [1982-present] were searched with no language or publication limits. Non-randomised studies were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
RESULTS: The search identified 9282 titles and abstracts, 238 were read in full-text and 3 cohort and 7 before- and after-studies were included. Most focused on changing a few tests and evaluated the interventions over several months. Seven changed laboratory forms (the two largest involved 5.2 million and 3.2 million tests), one negotiated a test ordering protocol with family physicians, and two required laboratory approval. They achieved an average 35% reduction in the 19 targeted tests, with a wide range (0%-100% reduction).
CONCLUSIONS: Ten studies were identified which tested interventions by laboratories to reduce test ordering by family physicians, and achieved an average 35% reduction in the 19 targeted tests. The rationale for choosing specific tests for intervention was often not explained, most studies targeted a few tests for several months, the tests and test volumes differed widely across studies, no author improved the results of previous interventions or asked participants their opinions about the intervention or assessed factors impeding change.