Dr. Timothy  Wolfe  Md image

Dr. Timothy Wolfe Md

11 John Stark Hwy
Newport NH 03773
603 265-5167
Medical School: Other - 1977
Accepts Medicare: Yes
Participates In eRX: No
Participates In PQRS: Yes
Participates In EHR: No
License #: 6962
NPI: 1124113485
Taxonomy Codes:

Request Appointment Information

Awards & Recognitions

About Us

Practice Philosophy


Dr. Timothy Wolfe is associated with these group practices

Procedure Pricing

HCPCS Code Description Average Price Average Price
Allowed By Medicare
HCPCS Code:G0438 Description:PPPS, initial visit Average Price:$333.00 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
HCPCS Code:G0439 Description:PPPS, subseq visit Average Price:$233.77 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
HCPCS Code:G0180 Description:MD certification HHA patient Average Price:$162.13 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
HCPCS Code:G0179 Description:MD recertification HHA PT Average Price:$126.66 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:

HCPCS Code Definitions

Annual wellness visit, includes a personalized prevention plan of service (pps), subsequent visit
Annual wellness visit; includes a personalized prevention plan of service (pps), initial visit
Physician certification for medicare-covered home health services under a home health plan of care (patient not present), including contacts with home health agency and review of reports of patient status required by physicians to affirm the initial implementation of the plan of care that meets patient's needs, per certification period
Physician re-certification for medicare-covered home health services under a home health plan of care (patient not present), including contacts with home health agency and review of reports of patient status required by physicians to affirm the initial implementation of the plan of care that meets patient's needs, per re-certification period

Medical Malpractice Cases

None Found

Medical Board Sanctions

None Found


Doctor Name
Family Practice
Diagnostic Radiology
Diagnostic Radiology
Family Practice
Orthopedic Surgery
Diagnostic Radiology
Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine
*These referrals represent the top 10 that Dr. Wolfe has made to other doctors


Intranasal medication delivery for children: a brief review and update. - Pediatrics
With the exception of oral medications, most traditional forms of drug delivery outside the operating suite require an injection with a needle-a process that is painful and anxiety-provoking, risks needle stick injury, and consumes valuable staff time. In addition, intravenous access in pediatrics may be difficult for inexperienced providers. Intranasal medication delivery offers an alternative method of drug delivery that is often as fast in onset as intravenous medication, usually painless, inexpensive, easy to deliver, and effective in a variety of acute pediatric medical conditions. This article briefly reviews the most common uses for intranasal medication delivery in pediatrics: pain control, anxiolysis, and seizure control.
A comparison of infusion volumes in the measurement of intra-abdominal pressure. - Journal of intensive care medicine
Bladder pressure measurement through a foley catheter is the current standard in monitoring for intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Accurate pressure transduction requires a continuous fluid column with a small volume of transducing medium at the tip of the catheter. Infusing excessive fluid volume can falsely elevate the measured intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) due to bladder overdistention and can lead to intrinsic muscular contraction. This effect can be seen with volumes as low as 60 mL. Recent expert consensus has recommended 25 mL as the maximal infusion volume; however, 50 mL is the most commonly cited volume of infusion in the literature. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the variance between IAP values using a range of volume infusions between 10 and 60 mL. Eighteen adult, surgical intensive care unit (SICU) patients who were undergoing IAP measurement for IAH or clinically indicated monitoring were enrolled in a prospective, nontreatment study. Intra-abdominal pressure measurements were obtained with stepwise increases of injectate volume from 10 to 60 mL (in 10 mL increments). Bland-Altman analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used for analysis. After analysis accounting for data correlation within patients, means and standard deviations were generated for differences between 50 mL and 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 mL bladder infusion volumes. Bland-Altman analyses showed good agreement between measurements and no significant difference in variance (mean < or =1.35 mm Hg) between volume comparisons. The ROC curve generated for each test volume using a diagnostic pressure value for IAH (!12 mm Hg) showed that a value between 11 and 12 mm Hg gave the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for all test volumes. In SICU patients, with a clinical indication for IAP monitoring, bladder infusion volumes between 10 mL and 60 mL provide consistent IAP measurements.
Reproducibility of bladder pressure measurements in critically ill patients. - Intensive care medicine
Intra-abdominal hypertension is an independent cause of multiorgan failure and directly effects other physiological measurements, making it an important factor in the management of critically ill patients, but no clinical studies have investigated the reproducibility of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement to ensure diagnostic accuracy. This study evaluated the intraobserver and interobserver variability of bladder pressure measurements.Prospective, observational study in a university-based adult surgical intensive care unit.Critically ill patients undergoing intra-abdominal pressure readings, measured by nursing staff.The study compared patient IAP measurements obtained by the same nurse (intraobserver variation) and between two different nurses (interobserver variation) in critical care patients with clinical indications for IAP monitoring. Data related to the nursing technique and performance were observed and collected for each IAP measurement obtained. Good correlation of bladder pressure measurements between the same and different individuals was found. Intraobserver and interobserver Pearson's correlations for measured IAP were 0.934 and 0.950, respectively. A unit protocol for IAP measurement standardization was modified based on observational data collected.Intra-abdominal pressure can be accurately and reliably measured in critically ill patients by utilizing a standardized measurement device combined with a standardized clinical protocol.
Intranasal midazolam therapy for pediatric status epilepticus. - The American journal of emergency medicine
Prolonged seizure activity in a child is a frightening experience for families as well as care providers. Because duration of seizure activity impacts morbidity and mortality, effective methods for seizure control should be instituted as soon as possible, preferably at home. Unfortunately, parenteral methods of medication delivery are not available to most caregivers and rectal diazepam, the most commonly used home therapy, is expensive and often ineffective. This brief review article examines recent research suggesting that there is a better way to treat pediatric seizures in situations where no intravenous access is immediately available. Intranasal midazolam, which delivers antiepileptic medication directly to the blood and cerebrospinal fluid via the nasal mucosa, is safe, inexpensive, easy to learn by parents and paramedics, and provides better seizure control than rectal diazepam.
Efficacy of intranasal naloxone as a needleless alternative for treatment of opioid overdose in the prehospital setting. - The Journal of emergency medicine
Prehospital providers are at increased risk for blood-borne exposure and disease due to the nature of their environment. The use if intranasal (i.n.) medications in high-risk populations may limit this risk of exposure. To determine the efficacy of i.n. naloxone in the treatment of suspected opiate overdose patients in the prehospital setting, a prospective, nonrandomized trial of administering i.n. naloxone by paramedics to patients with suspected opiate overdoses over a 6-month period was performed. All adult patients encountered in the prehospital setting as suspected opiate overdose (OD), found down (FD), or with altered mental status (AMS) who met the criteria for naloxone administration were included in the study. i.n. naloxone (2 mg) was administered immediately upon patient contact and before i.v. insertion and administration of i.v. naloxone (2 mg). Patients were then treated by EMS protocol. The main outcome measures were: time of i.n. naloxone administration, time of i.v. naloxone administration, time of appropriate patient response as reported by paramedics. Ninety-five patients received i.n. naloxone and were included in the study. A total of 52 patients responded to naloxone by either i.n. or i.v., with 43 (83%) responding to i.n. naloxone alone. Seven patients (16%) in this group required further doses of i.v. naloxone. In conclusion, i.n. naloxone is a novel alternative method for drug administration in high-risk patients in the prehospital setting with good overall effectiveness. The use of this route is further discussed in relation to efficacy of treatment and minimizing the risk of blood-borne exposures to EMS personnel.
The risk of patient cross-contamination from Venturi-Principle atomizers. - ORL-head and neck nursing : official journal of the Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head-Neck Nurses
Otolaryngology clinicians care for numerous immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients with transmissible bacterial, viral and fungal infections, including serious pathogens, such as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), tuberculosis (TB), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In addition, otolaryngology clinicians commonly use a device to deliver topical anesthetics and decongestants to the nose and throat with a known potential to cross-contaminate patients, the air-driven DeVilbiss atomizer, which operates according to the Venturi principle. This article will review the mechanism of action of the air-driven atomizer and discuss the literature which demonstrates the associated a risk for patient cross-contamination.
The comparative risks of bacterial contamination between a venturi atomizer and a positive displacement atomizer. - American journal of rhinology
This laboratory study determined the incidence of internal contamination of Venturi principle atomizers and positive displacement atomizers exposed to high external concentrations of Staphylococcal aureus (Staph).Atomizer device nozzle tips were immersed into a Staph solution and I ml of spray was atomized via compressed wall air (Venturi) or hydraulic pump (positive displacement). The Venturi nozzle was then wiped with 70% isopropyl alcohol while the disposable positive displacement nozzle was replaced. After 30 minutes, 1 ml of atomized fluid was collected and cultured and the process was repeated. After sixteen uses the fluid remaining in the bottles was cultured. The Venturi atomizer also was subjected to a single use trial to determine the location of device contamination.Venturi atomizers sprays grew Staph in every case (144/144), while positive displacement atomizer sprays never grew contaminants (0/144; p < 0.0001). At the end of 16 uses, 7/9 of Venturi atomizers had Staph within their medication reservoirs while none (0/9; p = 0.002) existed in the positive displacement atomizers. After a single use of the Venturi atomizer, the medication reservoir, the air lumen and the medication lumen of the nozzle were all contaminated with Staph.External bacterial contamination of the atomizer nozzle tip results in internal bacterial contamination of Venturi devices in as little as one use but not of positive displacement devices. These results warrant further investigation to determine whether a risk of cross-contamination exists in a clinical setting.
Evaluation of an electronic esophageal detector device in patients with morbid obesity and pulmonary failure. - Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors
Undetected esophageal intubation can result in permanent injury or death. Clinical confirmation of tube location may be misleading. Adjunctive methods should be used to supplement clinical judgment. Unfortunately, end-tidal carbon dioxide may misidentify properly placed tracheal tubes in low perfusion situations, while esophageal detector devices (EDDs) may misidentify properly placed tracheal tubes in situations where little airway dead space exists (morbid obesity, pulmonary failure). This study evaluated a modified EDD (the electronic esophageal detector device, or EEDD) designed to eliminate the problem of misidentified tracheal intubations.Intubated morbidly obese or pulmonary failure patients were eligible for study entry. All endotracheal tubes (ETTs) were confirmed to be tracheal by waveform capnography and clinical judgment prior to study entry. Following consent, all patients were attached to the EEDD and a "measurement" was made to determine the "location" of their ETTs. Probability of misidentifying a tracheal intubation in these high-risk populations was calculated using a log-normal distribution method.Twenty-seven morbidly obese patients and 37 pulmonary failure patients were entered. The EEDD correctly identified all tracheal intubations in these patients, giving a false-negative rate of zero. The probability of misidentifying a tracheal intubation in the combined group was 0.06%.This study demonstrates that the EEDD reliably identifies tracheal intubations in situations where standard EDDs may fail. However, future studies must determine the reliability of this device for identification of esophageal intubations and the reliability of this device in the less controlled emergency department and prehospital settings.

Map & Directions

11 John Stark Hwy Newport, NH 03773
View Directions In Google Maps

Nearby Doctors

50 John Stark Hwy
Newport, NH 03773
603 633-3124
17 Main St
Newport, NH 03773
603 636-6400
9 Main Street Suite #6
Newport, NH 03773
603 634-4930
48 Belknap Avenue Maxfield Clinic
Newport, NH 03773
603 633-3434
104 John Stark Hwy
Newport, NH 03773
603 636-6680
17 Main St Valley Regional Primary Care Physicians
Newport, NH 03773
603 636-6400
104 John Stark Hwy
Newport, NH 03773
810 746-6727
4 Fletcher Rd
Newport, NH 03773
603 520-0963
11 John Stark Hwy
Newport, NH 03773
603 634-4100