Office visits are essential to providing quality care

Office visits are essential to providing quality care

As I have written many times in my previous blogs, it is essential that patients and physicians partner in the management of disease.  Outcomes are improved when patients are actively engaged in their own healthcare.  Part of engagement involves forming a relationship with a physician through regular follow up visits.  Relationships with doctors, just as with friends and spouses, evolve over time.  Trust and communication skills are built through recurrent contact and interaction.  Recently, a large meta analysis performed by the Cochrane group was published and concluded that routine office visits with a primary care physician had no impact on patient outcomes.

Although there was an expected “buzz” in the national press concerning these findings, a closer look at the analysis demonstrates why these conclusions may not be entirely valid.  As a cardiologist, I struggle to increase compliance in my patients.  One of the most successful ways to improve my patient’s health and prevent cardiovascular events is through routine office visits.  I can only imagine what it must be like for internists, family physicians and other primary care doctors–office visits not only allow for treatment of chronic known disorders but also provide opportunities to screen and prevent other diseases from occurring.  I would argue, in contrast to the Cochrane analysis, that the routine office visit may in fact be the most cost effective therapy in medicine today.

In response to the Cochrane publication, an article was published in the New York Times on the importance of primary care office visits.  Author Dr. Danielle Ofri points out that each and every office encounter is an opportunity to make a difference with her patients.  Often, a patient will come in with one complaint and leave having had another diagnosis made.  Sometimes these diagnoses can be minor and other times diseases that could ultimately be life threatening are made.  The point is, through an office interaction, patients are screened and examined.  “Silent” killers such as hypertension are discovered and treatments are provided.  Moreover, a relationship is built and patients and physicians can become partners and friends.  Office visits create opportunity.  If there are no routine opportunities then the only time that patients are seen is when disease is present and manifested.  There is also a real benefit to developing a doctor-patient relationship before the patient gets sick.  Difficult decisions sometimes have to be made when one is critically ill — it is nice to be able to make those decisions with someone you trust and have known for a long time rather than with a complete stranger in a white coat.

Now, more than ever, we must be good stewards of heatlhcare dollars.  We must carefully decide when to test, and what treatment to use.  We must avoid unnecessary testing and we must use proven therapies that have lots of evidence to back up their effectiveness.  However, eliminating routine interaction between doctor and patient is not the way to cut costs.  I would argue that this maneuver, while it may save money in the short term, will ultimately drive costs even higher.  Medicine is built on relationships.  A gentle touch of the hand, a smile, a nod.  Like old friends meeting for coffee, an office visit is a good time to ask about family, children, and grandchildren.  Many of us go into medicine because we like to interact with other people.  A keen observation or a comment made as an aside may provide clues for an astute physician to ask more pointed questions and make a potential life changing diagnosis.  Taking these interactions away and using pooled data derived from database dredging to minimize their impact cheapens the art of medical practice.

So, office visits are essential to providing quality care.  It provides opportunity for impact.  As a physician, a patient encounter is a chance to make a difference. Use each encounter to its fullest potential.

Kevin R. Campbell is a cardiac electrophysiologist who blogs at his self-titled site, Dr. Kevin R. Campbell, MD.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

email

  • buzzkillerjsmith

    Nah. Routine visits are over-rated and I say this as a family doc. Except for a bit of screening, see me when you’re sick. Otherwise, if you know what’s good for, stay the heck away, there are flu cases here!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1338422225 Tom Garvey

      For truly healthy, well-informed patients with no bad habits, I agree. But a lot of patients who would not come in for a sick visit are not healthy, or well-informed, or free of self-destructive habits. Also, I don’t want to meet a patient for the first time when they are in extremis. If I am aware of a patient’s personality and values in advance, I am better equipped to treat them when they are ill. For instance, it helps to know that a patient is by nature stoic so that when they come in for an otherwise common complaint, you might be more concerned than usual.

  • Homeless

    It’s nice to know that scientific evidence can be disregarded when it doesn’t agree with opinion.

    • Docbart

      What a study finds often reflects the agenda of those doing the study. The answer you get depends on which question you ask and how you look for an answer. Evidence is evidence, not proof. Bean-counter researchers ask bean-counter questions, use bean-counter methods and get bean-counter answers.

      Ask a sick patient if care from a doc they know and trust isn’t better than seeing a stranger. A big part of the doctor’s healing power is patient trust and knowledge of how to communicate with the patient and their family. It’s hard to measure that, but you know it when you see it.

      As an aside, It’s really unfortunate that more and more primary docs abandon their patients to hospitalists when the patients need them most. It deprives the patient and family of comfort and confidence in treatment and undermines patient loyalty to their docs.

      • Homeless

        So you think the Cochrane Review is where all the bean counters work?

        I am a sick patient and my primary care doctor is unavailable for urgent care, emergency care or hospital care…

        When the symptoms first surfaced, they came one quickly and I was sent to urgent care. All those annual physicals were worthless because when I needed a trusted physician, my care was provided by a stranger.

        I did spend some time with a naturpathic physician, where I experienced that healing power built on trust. Is that scientific evidence that her care was valuable to my health?

        • Docbart

          A series of 1 is not research. Perhaps the healing power of trust is what was really at work.

          I agree with your feelings about your experience with your primary doc. Perhaps you can find one who does do hospital work. I know that they still exist. The economics do not favor it, though. Good luck.

          • Homeless

            My series of 1 contains all the primary care doctors in my medium sized suburb. None of the doctors do hospital work…the fifteen that I know of. My spouse was sent the emergency room to be admitted to the hospital, cared for by a series of PA and rotating doctors.

            We all know that the trend in primary care involves teams, referring to specialists, hospitalists, and hospital owned clinics. If my anecdotal evidence isn’t good enough, why is it that “trust” is considered a healing power? Do you have clinical evidence that trust promotes healing or is it just an opinion?

            All those alternative medicine practitioners that are frequently ridiculed by medical doctors provide trust.

          • Docbart

            There was an interesting study of acupuncture, where they did real vs. sham acupuncture. It was done by 2 practitioners, one of whom was a middle-aged man and the other was a young woman. The efficacy was the same with real vs sham, but was markedly greater for the man than for the woman. So, it was the trust, not the procedure.

            Sorry about the primary care problem. You might consider calling the medical staff office of the hospital you use and ask them if there are any primary care doc’s in your area (maybe driving a little further away) who do admit their own patients.

          • Homeless

            So I am supposed to get that sham yearly physical exam with a middle-aged man?

            Doesn’t that study show that if I need treatment, it’s better to be cared for by someone who has the perception of someone in authority…where I get a good placebo effect?

          • Docbart

            Physicals and tests are real, not shams. “Alternative” medicine has much higher sham content. Yearly physicals for healthy adults may serve little purpose for some, but do allow screening for diabetes, BP and other things. If the tests are negative, it seems like a waste. If they turn up something, it could save you a lot of grief to start treatment early. It’s also good to have someone who knows you, who you can see when you have an acute problem, or who will refer you to an appropriate specialist, if necessary.

            The study does imply that you will possibly derive more healing effect from someone you trust. That’s more likely to happen if you have seen a doc long enough to establish some rapport.

          • Homeless

            The Cochrane Review showed there was no difference in mortality rates from those that had and annual physical and those that didn’t.

            Patients who got regular physicals were more likely to be prescribed drugs. And we know that it didn’t prolong their lives.

            There is also the possibility of over-diagnosis and over-treatment…and in my opinion, it’s better to not fix things that aren’t broken.

          • Docbart

            Mortality isn’t the only measure of health. It also depends on methodology- who is followed and for how long, who is doing the physicals and how are those patients followed. What is the quality of life for those groups? Not so easy, even for bean-counters.

            As for your approach, when people say that to me, I ask them if they change the oil in their car or do they wait for the motor to seize up, You can get a new car. You only get one body, unless you believe in reincarnation. Overdiagnosis certainly is a problem, and I do see patients led on wild goose chases. Some of that is overzealous doc’s who act out of fear of lawsuits or pursuit of profit. Some is the patient pushing to have all the tests done because it costs them little or nothing, and perhaps because they are anxious about their own health.

            All this is to say that you need to find a doc whose approach is consistent with your views and desires. Not all docs work the same way.

          • Homeless

            You really seem unfamiliar with the Cochrane Collaboration..

            .”The Cochrane Collaboration is an international network of more than 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries. We work together to help healthcare providers, policy-makers, patients, their advocates and carers, make well-informed decisions about health care, by preparing, updating, and promoting the accessibility of Cochrane Reviews – over 5,000 so far, published online in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library. We also prepare the largest collection of records of randomised controlled trials in the world, called CENTRAL, published as part of The Cochrane Library.

            Our work is internationally recognised as the benchmark for high quality information about the effectiveness of health care.”

            Here is an editorial:

            GENERAL HEALTH CHECKS IN ADULTS FOR REDUCING MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY FROM DISEASE
            By: Stephanie Thompson & Marcello Tonelli

            “The review only included randomized trials studying more than one screening intervention in multiple organ systems, and excluded those enrolling only older populations (people aged over 65 years). All studies evaluated asymptomatic populations that were unselected for disease or risk factors.”

            “Sixteen randomized studies from primary care or community settings were included;”

            “General health checks either had no effect on other outcomes (patient worry, unscheduled physician visits, hospital admissions, and absences from work), or estimates of effect were unreliable (self-reported health, disability).”

          • Docbart

            Sounds nice. Doesn’t tell me what the underlying agenda is. Doesn’t tell me what studies were excluded because they might have contradicted those findings. Doesn’t tell me how long the patients were followed and many other issues.

            If you don’t want a checkup, by all means, don’t go. It’s a free country. Feeling lucky?

          • Homeless

            Since these studies exist that contradict your opinion, I suggest you educate yourself. Otherwise, you are no different than a charlatan. I would suggest you look it up instead of giving an opinion in ignorance.

          • Docbart

            I suggest you refrain from personal insults, troll.

          • Homeless

            I present you with credible research from a well respected source and you call me a troll?

          • Docbart

            Insults are for trolls. Please do our species a favor- don’t go for checkups, put the cost of the co-pay towards some smokes. It’s your chance to improve gene pool.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=881580563 Kristy Sokoloski

            A question for you. I am aware that under insurance physicals and other wellness visits such as the well women visits done by gyns are covered at 100%. But when something is found on the screening tests the tests needed to find the problem and then the treatments to fix or manage the problem are not covered 100% by insurance. So, what are people that have insurance that covers the physicals and wellness visits supposed to do when a doctor recommends that they have additional testing to find out what’s causing the problem (if a problem is found) but they can’t do the testing or treatments for that matter after the problem is found? Even 15% of a lot is still alot. There was an article that came out not too long ago in the AMA news about the number of people with insurance having to forego medical care such as routine physicals because they can’t afford the additional testing and/or treatments that may be necessary to fix the problem.
            I wondered something else in relation to this topic. How exactly do annual physicals and wellness visits help those with chronic health problems since now they have problems when it comes to the benefits of having them? I was curious about that because I know that means they are often having to spend time at the doctor’s offices in order to keep the problems in check.

          • Docbart

            I understand the dilemma. There is no easy answer. I guess the patient has to communicate the problem to the doc ordering those tests and ask that they be confined to the essentials. Sometimes you may be able to get the copays reduced if you make the providers aware if it is a financial hardship.

            In the US, medical care is not free, and sometimes even the copay can be a burden. Not diagnosing and treating chronic conditions has its own costs for the patient and society, but we are not willing, as a society to pay for everything people need. Sometimes, though, patients say they can’t afford something, when it really comes down to priorities. Those patients may still find money for smoking, drinking, tattoos and other extras.

            I’m not sure I understand your last question.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=881580563 Kristy Sokoloski

            Well, a lot of people think and feel that annual physicals and wellness visits are of benefit to those that have no problems, but then if something is found it can be spotted, caught and treated early. That’s good if someone can afford to have the other tests and/or treatments (and in this case the issue of cost is about the coinsurance as well). But if someone has health problems already and they are frequently having to see the doctor to keep them managed how do these same visits that benefit the ones with chronic health problems?
            I do agree that medical care in this country is not free, but as far as the aspect of society not being willing to pay for everything that people need yes I can see that. Unfortunately that’s not the case for those that can’t afford it. They want to, but they just can’t because they don’t have the money. They have to make the decision of which is more important: eating and keeping a roof over their head or taking medication. But you are correct about those that don’t have their priorities set straight.
            You are also correct that that not diagnosing and treating chronic conditions has its own costs for the patient. Too bad that not everyone understands this and that it could create other problems. It becomes a very terrible cycle when it comes to healthcare and the cost for it. Did you get a chance to read the article that was recently published in Time Magazine? It was very interesting.

          • Docbart

            I did read the article. Some really shocking stuff, but also some oversimplification. Hospitals mark things up a lot, but at least some of that is justified to pay for the whole infrastructure involved in using those items.

            When people have chronic conditions, a check-up may still be useful, especially if the chronic problems are treated by specialists, who may not do things like pelvic exams, mammograms, blood counts, etc.

            As for costs, there are many low cost generic drugs available to treat the more common medical problems. Some docs may not favor them, but a patient can ask them to use those preferentially. For branded products, the mfrs have indigent patient programs to make the drugs available free, if necessary or the doc may have to fight the insurer to get it reimbursed. The doc needs to do some paperwork, but that may help, as well.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=881580563 Kristy Sokoloski

            And, are there special programs out there to help with covering the costs of tests such as MRIs and CT Scans as well?

          • Docbart

            There are clinics that charge on sliding income scales and there are freestanding radiology facilities that may do the studies for lower fees. The big issue is to have the ordering doc carefully consider the necessity for the test in the first place.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=881580563 Kristy Sokoloski

            That’s very good to know. Thank you for the information. This is very helpful.

  • Lesley Ranft

    Indeed, the relationship that a patient has with their physician may play a role in the outcome of care. Visits to establish baselines and screenings are important. The quality of the visit is up to the patient and the physician.

    Today’s patients must be active participants in their care or have a support advocate with them. During consultations, patients need to ask- the 10 W’s (as I call them)-What is wrong with me? What is the proposed diagnostic test capable of diagnosing? What can’t the diagnostic test rule out? What are the risks associated with the test? What is the proposed treatment plan? What are the risks and benefits associated with the proposed treatment plan? What are the alternatives to such diagnostics and treatment plans? Why does the physician have a preference? What coping skills will be required by the patient to manage a sub-optimal outcome? What time frame is called for to have the proposed tests and treatment plan? What will the proposed treatment plan not correct?

    Patients need to know that there may be more than one medical
    condition or risk thereof relating to their symptoms that their
    physician may or may not focus on in their practice, particularly in
    cases where there may be advanced diagnostics and treatment available
    somewhere else or locations for less expensive tests and treatment plans.
    When patients are ill, physicians must have the goal to provide a diagnosis, proposed treatment plan, alternatives to select diagnostics and alternative treatments plans, as well as, risks and benefits of all. This includes providing patients with copies of their medical records so they can investigate peer viewed content and make timely, well educated decisions when possible that may also be far less costly for patients and physicians alike.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1338422225 Tom Garvey

    The Cochrane review concerned patients who got annual physicals in Denmark. I think the conclusions are probably correct–for Denmark’s healthcare system. I would be surprised if Denmark’s primary care docs are limited to the ridiculous 15-minute routine follow-up visits most of us are allowed here.

    I think most of the annual physical is bunk. Aside from a few key screening procedures, going over a healthy patient’s body with a checklist is pointless and proven so by objective data. I often advise young, healthy patients that I do not consider it important for them to have a physical more often than every two or three years.

    On the other hand, the annual physical is the only time I have 45 minutes to get to know my patients. I talk to them about bad habits like smoking, about diet and exercise, about their moods, their sleep, and their understanding of their own health, and so on. There is very little time anywhere else for me to do these essential tasks without running late (which I often do).

    I would be much more interested to see a Cochrane review of outcomes correlated with amount of time spent in visits with the doctor (adjusted, of course, for all the potentially confounding factors). I suspect that is part of where our system breaks down. It will not be fixed by eliminating the annual physical.

Trending