National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2007 summary.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Health Care Statistics, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA.
National health statistics reports 11/2010;
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This report describes ambulatory care visits made to physician offices in the United States. Statistics are presented on selected characteristics of the physician's practice, the patient, and the visit.
The data presented in this report were collected in the 2007 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), a national probability sample survey of visits to nonfederal office-based physicians in the United States. Sample data are weighted to produce annual national estimates of physician visits.
During 2007, an estimated 994.3 million visits were made to physician offices in the United States, an overall rate of 335.6 visits per 100 persons. About one-third of office visits, 34.9 percent, were made to practices with all or partial electronic medical records systems, while 85.1 percent of the visits were made to practices with all or partial electronic submission of claims. From 1997 to 2007, the percentage of visits to physicians who were solo practitioners decreased 21 percent. During the same period, visits to physicians who were part of a group practice with 6-10 physicians increased 46 percent. There were an estimated 106.5 million injury- or poisoning-related office visits in 2007, representing 10.7 percent of all visits. Medications were ordered, supplied, or administered at 727.7 million office visits, accounting for 73.2 percent of all office visits. In 2007, about 2.3 billion drugs were ordered, supplied, or administered, resulting in an average of 226.3 drug mentions per 100 visits.

0 0
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Diet is the first line of treatment for elevated cholesterol. High-intensity dietary counseling (>=360 minutes/year of contact with providers) improves blood lipids, but is expensive and unsustainable in the current healthcare settings. Low-intensity counseling trials (<= 30 minutes/year) have demonstrated modest diet changes, but no improvement in lipids. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility and the effects on lipids and diet of a low-intensity dietary counseling intervention provided by the primary care physician (PCP), in patients at risk for cardiovascular diseases. METHODS: Six month study with a three month randomized-controlled phase (group A received the intervention, group B served as controls) followed by three months of intervention in both groups.Sixty-one adults age 21 to 75 years, with LDL-cholesterol >= 3.37mmol/L, possessing Internet access and active email accounts were enrolled. Diet was evaluated using the Rate-Your-Plate questionnaire. Dietary counseling was provided by the PCP during routine office visits, three months apart, using printed educational materials and a minimally interactive counseling website. Weekly emails were sent reminding participants to use the dietary counseling resources. The outcomes were changes in LDL-cholesterol, other lipid subclasses, and diet quality. RESULTS: At month 3, group A (counseling started at month 1) decreased their LDL-cholesterol by -0.23 mmol/L, (-0.04 to -0.42 mmol/L, P = 0.007) and total cholesterol by -0.26 mmol/L, (-0.05 to -0.47 mmol/L, P = 0.001). At month 6, total and LDL-cholesterol in group A remained better than in group B (counseling started at month 3). Diet score in group A improved by 50.3 points (38.4 to 62.2, P < 0.001) at month 3; and increased further by 11.8 (3.5 to 20.0, P = 0.007) at month 6. Group B made the largest improvement in diet at month 6, 55 points (40.0 to 70.1, P < 0.001), after having a small but significant improvement at month 3, 22.3 points (12.9 to 31.7, P < 0.001). No significant changes occurred in HDL-cholesterol in either group. CONCLUSIONS: A low-intensity dietary counseling provided by the PCP in patients at risk for cardiovascular diseases produced clinically meaningful improvements in both diet and lipids of magnitude similar to changes reported with high intensity interventions.Trial registration: NCT01695837.
    BMC Family Practice 05/2013; 14(1):59. · 1.61 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Escalating rates of prescription opioid use and abuse have occurred in the context of efforts to improve the treatment of nonmalignant pain. The aim of the study was to characterize the diagnosis and management of nonmalignant pain in ambulatory, office-based settings in the United States between 2000 and 2010. Serial cross-sectional and multivariate regression analyses of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), a nationally representative audit of office-based physician visits, were conducted. (1) Annual visit volume among adults with primary pain symptom or diagnosis; (2) receipt of any pain treatment; and (3) receipt of prescription opioid or nonopioid pharmacologic therapy in visits for new musculoskeletal pain. Primary symptoms or diagnoses of pain consistently represented one-fifth of visits, varying little from 2000 to 2010. Among all pain visits, opioid prescribing nearly doubled from 11.3% to 19.6%, whereas nonopioid analgesic prescribing remained unchanged (26%-29% of visits). One-half of new musculoskeletal pain visits resulted in pharmacologic treatment, although the prescribing of nonopioid pharmacotherapies decreased from 38% of visits (2000) to 29% of visits (2010). After adjusting for potentially confounding covariates, few patient, physician, or practice characteristics were associated with a prescription opioid rather than a nonopioid analgesic for new musculoskeletal pain, and increases in opioid prescribing generally occurred nonselectively over time. Increased opioid prescribing has not been accompanied by similar increases in nonopioid analgesics or the proportion of ambulatory pain patients receiving pharmacologic treatment. Clinical alternatives to prescription opioids may be underutilized as a means of treating ambulatory nonmalignant pain.
    Medical care 10/2013; 51(10):870-878. · 3.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Arthritis affects 20 % of the adult US population and is associated with comorbid depression. Depression screening guidelines have been endorsed for high-risk groups, including persons with arthritis, in the hopes that screening will increase recognition and use of appropriate interventions. To examine national rates of depression and depression screening for patients with arthritis between 2006 and 2010. We used nationally representative cross-sections of ambulatory visits in the United States from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2006 to 2010, which included 18,507 visits with a diagnosis of arthritis. When weighted to the US population, this total represents approximately 644 million visits. Visits where arthritis was listed among diagnoses. Outcomes were survey-weighted estimates of depression and prevalence of depression screening among patients with arthritis across patient and physician characteristics. Of the 644,419,374 visits with arthritis listed, 83,574,127 (13 %) were associated with a comorbid diagnosis of depression. The odds ratio for comorbid depression with arthritis was 1.42 (95 % CI 1.3, 1.5). Depression screening occurred at 3,835,000 (1 %) visits associated with arthritis. When examining the rates of depression screening between ambulatory visits with and without arthritis listed, there was no difference in depression screening rates; both were approximately 1 %. There was no difference in screening rates by provider type. Compared to visits with other common, chronic conditions, the prevalence of depression at arthritis visits was high (13 per 100 visits), although the prevalence of depression screening at arthritis visits was low (0.68 per 100 visits). Despite the high prevalence of depression with arthritis, screening for depression was performed at few arthritis visits, representing missed opportunities to detect a common, serious comorbidity. Improved depression screening by providers would identify affected patients, and may lead to appropriate interventions such as mental health referrals and/or treatment with anti-depressants.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 07/2013; · 3.28 Impact Factor

Chun-Ju Hsiao