Effect of Improved Primary Care Access on Quality of Depression Care

Leif I. Solberg; A. Lauren Crain; JoAnn M. Sperl-Hillen; Mary C. Hroscikoski; Karen I. Engebretson; Patrick J. O’Connor

doi:10.1370/afm.426

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

New Tool, Old Concept
Dean A. Seehusen

Published on: 01 February 2006

Published on: (1 February 2006)
Page navigation anchor for New Tool, Old Concept
New Tool, Old Concept
Dean A. Seehusen, Evans, GA, USA
The Future of Family Medicine project made many recommendations for changes in the way Family Medicine thinks about itself, the way we take care of patients and our business practices.(1) It was easy to see that some of these recommendations would improve our specialty while others were more difficult to swallow. Open access, or advanced access, was one of those recommendations that many have had a difficult time buyin...
Show More

The Future of Family Medicine project made many recommendations for changes in the way Family Medicine thinks about itself, the way we take care of patients and our business practices.(1) It was easy to see that some of these recommendations would improve our specialty while others were more difficult to swallow. Open access, or advanced access, was one of those recommendations that many have had a difficult time buying into. I have heard many pessimistic colleagues say that open access wouldn’t work. Others feel that it might be popular with patients but will be inconvenient for providers.(2)
It is reassuring to see research start to support the recommendations put forth in the Future of Family Medicine. O’Hare and Corlett have reviewed the research showing the administrative and financial benefits that can be gained with open access.(3) This study by Solberg et al. demonstrates that advanced access can positively impact chronic disease outcomes as well. Moreover, it appears that the benefits noted were due to improved continuity of care, which has always been a central tenet of Family Medicine. As more research is conducted on the positive effects of open access scheduling, the critics will be silenced, the concept will gain support, and the specialty will move towards the New Model. However, not everything about the New Model is new. Family physicians have always understood that continuity of care is central to effective chronic disease management. Open access is one new way of increasing that continuity.
1. Graham R, Bagley B, Kilo CM, Spann SJ, Bogdewic SP. Task Force 1: Report of the Task Force on Patient Expectations, Core Values, Reintegration, and the New Model of Family Medicine. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(Suppl 1):S33-S50.
2. Edsall RL. Open Access: Whatever You May Think, It Works. Fam Pract Manag. 2004;11(4):17.
3. O’Hare CD, Corlett J. The Outcomes of Open-Access Scheduling. Fam Pract Manag. 2004;11(2):35-8.
Competing interests: None declared
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.