Project description:Initiatives to mitigate physician burnout and improve patient experience occur largely in isolation. At the level of the department/division, we found lower physician burnout was associated with a more positive patient experience. Physician Maslach Burnout Inventory data and patient Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group experience scores were significantly correlated with 5 of 12 patient experience questions: "Got Routine Care Appointment" (-0.632, P = .001), "Recommend Provider" (-0.561, P = .005), "Provider Knew Medical History" (-0.532, P = .009), "Got Urgent Care Appointment" (-0.518, P = .014), and "Overall Rating" (-0.419, P = .047). These correlations suggest burnout and experience might be better addressed in tandem. Principles to guide an integrated approach are suggested.
Project description:BackgroundExcellent communication is a necessary component of high-quality health care. We aimed to determine whether a training module could improve patients' perceptions of physician communication behaviors, as measured by change over time in domains of patient experience scores related to physician communication.Study designWe designed a comprehensive physician-training module focused on improving specific "etiquette-based" physician communication skills through standardized simulations and physician coaching with structured feedback. We employed a quasi-experimental pre-post design, with an intervention group consisting of internal medicine hospitalists and residents and a control group consisting of surgeons. The outcome was percent "always" scores for questions related to patients' perceptions of physician communication using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey and a Non-HCAHPS Physician-Specific Patient Experience Survey (NHPPES) administered to patients cared for by hospitalists.ResultsA total of 128 physicians participated in the simulation. Responses from 5020 patients were analyzed using HCAHPS survey data and 1990 patients using NHPPES survey data. The intercept shift, or the degree of change from pre-intervention percent "always" responses, for the HCAHPS questions of doctors "treating patients with courtesy" "explaining things in a way patients could understand," and "overall teamwork" showed no significant differences between surgical control and hospitalist intervention patients. Adjusted NHPPES percent excellent survey results increased significantly post-intervention for the questions of specified individual doctors "keeping patient informed" (adjusted intercept shift 9.9% P = 0.019), "overall teamwork" (adjusted intercept shift 11%, P = 0.037), and "using words the patient could understand" (adjusted intercept shift 14.8%, p = 0.001).ConclusionA simulation based physician communication coaching method focused on specific "etiquette-based" communication behaviors through a deliberate practice framework was not associated with significantly improved HCAHPS physician communication patient experience scores. Further research could reveal ways that this model affects patients' perceptions of physician communication relating to specific physicians or behaviors.
Project description:In response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, all in-person cystic fibrosis (CF) appointments were converted to telemedicine visits at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital. The purpose of our study was to learn about the experiences that patients, families, and providers had with telemedicine visits and to assess their interest in using telemedicine in the future. Our hypothesis was that most patients, families, and providers want to continue telemedicine visits in the future. An anonymous 11-question survey was distributed to patients, families, and providers in November and December 2020. The survey was completed by 46 of 72 families (64% response rate) and 24 of 25 providers (96% response rate). Thirty-seven families (80%) and 21 providers (88%) were satisfied with their telemedicine experience. Thirty-three families (72%) want to have telemedicine visits in the future. Thirty-five families (76%) and 22 providers (92%) were satisfied with their experience using Zoom. Forty families (87%) and 19 providers (90%) want 2 or more visits each year to be via telemedicine. Our study showed that most families and providers were satisfied with telemedicine, would like to continue using telemedicine, and prefer to have at least 2 of the 4 recommended annual CF visits via telemedicine. Our survey identified the following benefits to telemedicine: decreased travel time, decreased cost, and avoiding exposure to COVID. However, we need to ensure that we do not exacerbate existing health disparities for families that do not speak English and/or do not have the internet capabilities to support telemedicine technology.
Project description:BackgroundPatient experience measures are widely used to compare performance at the individual physician level.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of unmeasured patient characteristics on visit-level patient experience measures and the sample sizes required to reliably measure patient experience at the primary care physician (PCP) level.DesignRepeated cross-sectional design.SettingAcademic family medicine practice in California.ParticipantsOne thousand one hundred forty-one adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 PCPs (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians).MeasurementsPost-visit patient experience surveys including patient measures used for standard adjustment as recommend by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Consortium and additional patient characteristics used for expanded adjustment (including attitudes toward healthcare, global life satisfaction, patient personality, current symptom bother, and marital status).ResultsThe amount of variance in patient experience explained doubled with expanded adjustment for patient characteristics compared with standard adjustment (R2 = 20.0% vs. 9.6%, respectively). With expanded adjustment, the amount of variance attributable to the PCP dropped from 6.1% to 3.4% and the required sample size to achieve a reliability of 0.90 in the physician-level patient experience measure increased from 138 to 255 patients per physician. After ranking of the 56 PCPs by average patient experience, 8 were reclassified into or out of the top or bottom quartiles of average experience with expanded as compared to standard adjustment [14.3% (95% CI: 7.0-25.2%)].ConclusionsWidely used methods for measuring PCP-level patient experience may not account sufficiently for influential patient characteristics. If methods were adapted to account for these characteristics, patient sample sizes for reliable between-physician comparisons may be too large for most practices to obtain.
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the extent to which medical group and market factors are related to individual primary care physician (PCP) performance on patient experience measures.Data sourcesThis study employs Clinician and Group CAHPS survey data (n=105,663) from 2,099 adult PCPs belonging to 34 diverse medical groups across California. Medical group directors were interviewed to assess the magnitude and nature of financial incentives directed at individual physicians and the adoption of patient experience improvement strategies. Primary care services area (PCSA) data were used to characterize the market environment of physician practices.Study designWe used multilevel models to estimate the relationship between medical group and market factors and physician performance on each Clinician and Group CAHPS measure. Models statistically controlled for respondent characteristics and accounted for the clustering of respondents within physicians, physicians within medical groups, and medical groups within PCSAs using random effects.Principal findingsCompared with physicians belonging to independent practice associations, physicians belonging to integrated medical groups had better performance on the communication ( p=.007) and care coordination ( p=.03) measures. Physicians belonging to medical groups with greater numbers of PCPs had better performance on all measures. The use of patient experience improvement strategies was not associated with performance. Greater emphasis on productivity and efficiency criteria in individual physician financial incentive formulae was associated with worse access to care ( p=.04). Physicians located in PCSAs with higher area-level deprivation had worse performance on the access to care ( p=.04) and care coordination ( p<.001) measures.ConclusionsPhysicians from integrated medical groups and groups with greater numbers of PCPs performed better on several patient experience measures, suggesting that organized care processes adopted by these groups may enhance patients' experiences. Physicians practicing in markets with high concentrations of vulnerable populations may be disadvantaged by constraints that affect performance. Future studies should clarify the extent to which performance deficits associated with area-level deprivation are modifiable.
Project description:BACKGROUND: The use of electronic medical records can improve the technical quality of care, but requires a computer in the exam room. This could adversely affect interpersonal aspects of care, particularly when physicians are inexperienced users of exam room computers. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether physician experience modifies the impact of exam room computers on the physician-patient interaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys of patients and physicians. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty five adults seen for scheduled visits by 11 faculty internists and 12 internal medicine residents in a VA primary care clinic. MEASUREMENTS: Physician and patient assessment of the effect of the computer on the clinical encounter. MAIN RESULTS: Patients seeing residents, compared to those seeing faculty, were more likely to agree that the computer adversely affected the amount of time the physician spent talking to (34% vs 15%, P = 0.01), looking at (45% vs 24%, P = 0.02), and examining them (32% vs 13%, P = 0.009). Moreover, they were more likely to agree that the computer made the visit feel less personal (20% vs 5%, P = 0.017). Few patients thought the computer interfered with their relationship with their physicians (8% vs 8%). Residents were more likely than faculty to report these same adverse effects, but these differences were smaller and not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Patients seen by residents more often agreed that exam room computers decreased the amount of interpersonal contact. More research is needed to elucidate key tasks and behaviors that facilitate doctor-patient communication in such a setting.
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to report physician experience-based "real-world" treatment patterns with botulinum toxin type A in patients with stroke and traumatic brain injury.DesignA prospective, multicenter, international observational registry design was used.ResultsSix hundred twenty-seven participants with stroke and 132 participants with traumatic brain injury were assessed and treated by 17 more experienced physicians and 12 less experienced physicians. Due to the limited usage of abobotulinumtoxinA Dysport and incobotulinumtoxinA Xeomin, data were reported on onabotulinumtoxinA BOTOX only. Based on physician experience, onabotulinumtoxinA doses were statistically different with larger mean doses injected by more experienced physicians in the upper limb (59.9 [39.0], P = 0.001) and in the lower limb (101.8 [69.2], P < 0.001). Treated deformities significantly differed for both upper limb and lower limb (P < 0.001). More experienced physicians showed a larger mean change in Ashworth Scale scores from baseline for the equinovarus/equinus foot and stiff knee (P = 0.001 and 0.03). Less experienced physicians showed a larger mean change in Ashworth Scale scores from baseline for the adducted thigh (P = 0.05). Less experienced physicians had statistically significant larger change in hand pain scores for clenched fist deformity treatment at follow-up compared with more experienced physicians (P = 0.01). Physician experience demonstrated a significant difference on patients reported satisfaction toward their secondary goal with higher scores for more experienced physician (P = 0.04).ConclusionsThis international registry provides clinical nuances of treatment based on physician clinical experience in a robust sample size.
Project description:IntroductionDespite evidence of possible patient harm and substantial costs, medication overuse is persistent. Patient reaction is one potential barrier to deprescribing, but little research has assessed this in specific instances of medication discontinuation. We sought to understand Veteran and provider experience when de-implementing guideline-discordant use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in those with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods analysis in a provider-randomized quality improvement project testing a proactive electronic-consultation from pulmonologists recommending ICS discontinuation when appropriate. PCPs at two Veterans Health Administration healthcare systems were included. We completed interviews with 16 unexposed providers and 6 intervention-exposed providers. We interviewed 9 patients within 3 months after their PCP proposed ICS discontinuation. We conducted inductive and deductive content analysis of qualitative data to explore an emergent theme of patient reaction. Forty-eight PCPs returned surveys (24 exposed and 24 unexposed, response rate: 35%).ResultsThe unexposed providers anticipated their patients might resist ICS discontinuation because it seems counterintuitive to stop something that is working, patient's fear of worsening symptoms, or if the prescription was initiated by another provider. Intervention-exposed providers reported similar experiences in post-intervention interviews. Unexposed providers anticipated that patients may accept ICS discontinuation, citing tactical use of patient-centered care strategies. This was echoed by intervention-exposed providers who had successfully discontinued an ICS. Veterans reported acceding to their providers out of trust or deference to their advanced training, even after describing an ICS as a 'security blanket'. Our survey findings supported the subthemes from our interviews. Among providers who proposed discontinuation of an ICS, 76% reported that they were able to discontinue it or switch to another more appropriate medication.ConclusionsWhile PCPs anticipated that patients would resist discontinuing an ICS, interviews with patient and intervention-exposed PCPs along with surveys suggest that patients were receptive to this change.
Project description:There has been limited research on patient-provider communication dynamics regarding Lyme disease (LD) diagnosis and treatment. Evidence suggests communication in the clinical encounter improves when both patient and healthcare provider (HCP) have concordant orientations (or beliefs) on discussed topics, resulting in higher patient satisfaction and care outcomes. The purpose of this scoping review was to characterize and summarize current research findings on patient and provider knowledge and experiences regarding LD - two factors that may influence the orientation of both patients and providers toward LD in the clinical setting. None of the articles included in the review specifically addressed patient-provider interaction and relationships as the main objective. However, the existing literature indicates notable HCP uncertainty regarding LD diagnosis, treatment, and applied practice patterns. Current research also describes limited knowledge of LD among patient populations and a high prevalence of negative perceptions of care received in mainstream healthcare settings among individuals with persistent symptoms. We identified a critical gap in research that seeks to understand the dynamic of patients and HCPs communicating on the topic of LD in the clinical setting. Future research may identify opportunities where the patient-provider communication dynamic can be improved.
Project description:ImportanceWidespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in medical care has resulted in increased physician documentation workload and decreased interaction with patients. Despite the increasing use of medical scribes for EHR documentation assistance, few methodologically rigorous studies have examined the use of medical scribes in primary care.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of use of medical scribes with primary care physician (PCP) workflow and patient experience.Design, setting, and participantsThis 12-month crossover study with 2 sequences and 4 periods was conducted from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, in 2 medical center facilities within an integrated health care system and included 18 of 24 eligible PCPs.InterventionsThe PCPs were randomly assigned to start the first 3-month period with or without scribes and then alternated exposure status every 3 months for 1 year, thereby serving as their own controls. The PCPs completed a 6-question survey at the end of each study period. Patients of participating PCPs were surveyed after scribed clinic visits.Main outcomes and measuresPCP-reported perceptions of documentation burden and visit interactions, objective measures of time spent on EHR activity and required for closing encounters, and patient-reported perceptions of visit quality.ResultsOf the 18 participating PCPs, 10 were women, 12 were internal medicine physicians, and 6 were family practice physicians. The PCPs graduated from medical school a mean (SD) of 13.7 (6.5) years before the study start date. Compared with nonscribed periods, scribed periods were associated with less self-reported after-hours EHR documentation (<1 hour daily during week: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 18.0 [95% CI, 4.7-69.0]; <1 hour daily during weekend: aOR, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.7-28.7). Scribed periods were also associated with higher likelihood of PCP-reported spending more than 75% of the visit interacting with the patient (aOR, 295.0; 95% CI, 19.7 to >900) and less than 25% of the visit on a computer (aOR, 31.5; 95% CI, 7.3-136.4). Encounter documentation was more likely to be completed by the end of the next business day during scribed periods (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1). A total of 450 of 735 patients (61.2%) reported that scribes had a positive bearing on their visits; only 2.4% reported a negative bearing.Conclusions and relevanceMedical scribes were associated with decreased physician EHR documentation burden, improved work efficiency, and improved visit interactions. Our results support the use of medical scribes as one strategy for improving physician workflow and visit quality in primary care.