28624, Ferguson, North Carolina Asthma Score Provider Score

The Provider Score for the Asthma Score in 28624, Ferguson, North Carolina is 50 when comparing 34,000 ZIP Codes in the United States.

An estimate of 96.67 percent of the residents in 28624 has some form of health insurance. 34.35 percent of the residents have some type of public health insurance like Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs (VA), or TRICARE. About 72.45 percent of the residents have private health insurance, either through their employer or direct purchase. Military veterans should know that percent of the residents in the ZIP Code of 28624 have VA health insurance. Also, percent of the residents receive TRICARE.

For the 247 residents under the age of 18, there is an estimate of 3 pediatricians in a 20-mile radius of 28624. An estimate of 5 geriatricians or physicians who focus on the elderly who can serve the 331 residents over the age of 65 years.

In a 20-mile radius, there are 3,280 health care providers accessible to residents in 28624, Ferguson, North Carolina.

Asthma management in Ferguson, North Carolina (ZIP Code 28624), requires a multi-faceted approach. This analysis provides an “Asthma Score” assessment, considering factors impacting asthma care access and quality, ultimately aiming to inform residents and healthcare providers. The score is not a single number but a composite evaluation across several key domains.

**Physician Availability and Patient Ratios:**

The foundation of effective asthma care is access to qualified primary care physicians (PCPs). In Ferguson, the physician-to-patient ratio significantly influences asthma management. A lower ratio, indicating more physicians per capita, generally correlates with improved access to appointments, preventative care, and timely intervention during asthma exacerbations. Analyzing publicly available data, such as state licensing boards and insurance provider directories, allows for estimating the number of PCPs practicing within the 28624 ZIP code. The number of patients served by each physician is then calculated, providing a crucial metric. This ratio is a starting point, however. It does not account for specialists, and it does not reflect the individual physician’s experience or expertise in asthma management.

**Standout Practices and Asthma-Specific Protocols:**

Identifying practices that excel in asthma care is vital. This involves evaluating the adoption of evidence-based protocols, patient education programs, and the availability of specialized services. Practices are assessed based on their adherence to national guidelines (e.g., those from the National Institutes of Health) for asthma diagnosis, treatment, and management. This includes evaluating the use of spirometry for lung function assessment, the provision of personalized asthma action plans, and regular follow-up appointments. Practices that proactively offer asthma education classes, support groups, and resources for patients and their families receive higher scores.

**Telemedicine Adoption and its Impact:**

Telemedicine has the potential to significantly improve asthma care access, especially in rural areas like Ferguson. The evaluation considers the extent to which local practices have embraced telehealth technologies. This includes the availability of virtual consultations, remote monitoring of lung function (e.g., through peak flow meters), and the use of digital tools for patient education and medication adherence support. Practices that offer telehealth options, particularly for follow-up appointments and medication refills, are awarded higher scores. Telemedicine can reduce travel burdens, improve medication compliance, and facilitate more frequent monitoring of asthma symptoms.

**Mental Health Resources and their Integration:**

Asthma is often associated with anxiety and depression, which can worsen asthma symptoms and reduce quality of life. The analysis examines the availability and integration of mental health resources within the local healthcare system. This includes assessing whether PCPs screen patients for mental health conditions, the availability of on-site or readily accessible mental health professionals (e.g., therapists, counselors), and the implementation of integrated care models that coordinate physical and mental healthcare. Practices that actively address the mental health needs of their asthma patients are given higher scores.

**Specific Practice Analysis (Hypothetical):**

Let's consider a hypothetical practice, "Ferguson Family Wellness." To evaluate them, we would investigate their physician-to-patient ratio. If they have a manageable ratio, this is a positive. We would assess their asthma-specific protocols. Do they consistently provide asthma action plans? Do they offer patient education materials? Do they utilize spirometry? If they do, the practice gets a higher score. We would then assess their telemedicine capabilities. Do they offer virtual appointments for follow-ups? If yes, this is another positive factor. Finally, we would investigate their mental health integration. Do they screen for mental health issues? Do they have referral pathways to mental health professionals? If they address mental health, this also boosts their score.

**Challenges and Considerations:**

Several challenges complicate this analysis. Data availability is a major hurdle. Publicly available information on physician practices and their specific asthma management protocols can be limited. Furthermore, patient satisfaction and outcomes data are often difficult to obtain and may be subject to privacy restrictions. The analysis is also inherently subjective. The weighting of different factors (e.g., physician-to-patient ratio versus telemedicine adoption) requires careful consideration and may vary depending on the specific goals of the assessment.

**Overall Asthma Score Framework:**

The “Asthma Score” framework for Ferguson (28624) is not a single, definitive number. It's a multi-faceted evaluation. It would consider the physician-to-patient ratio (weighting: 25%), the presence and implementation of asthma-specific protocols (30%), telemedicine adoption (25%), and the integration of mental health resources (20%). Each factor is assessed based on available data, expert opinion, and best practices. A higher score indicates a more favorable environment for asthma management, while a lower score suggests areas for improvement. The ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive assessment that can inform healthcare providers, policymakers, and residents about the strengths and weaknesses of asthma care in Ferguson.

**Conclusion:**

Effective asthma management in Ferguson requires a collaborative effort. This "Asthma Score" analysis provides a framework for understanding the current landscape of care. By identifying strengths and weaknesses, we can work toward improving access to quality asthma care and ultimately, improving the lives of those living with this chronic condition. For a visual representation of the physician locations and access to care in Ferguson, explore CartoChrome maps.