Dataset Information

Organizational and market influences on physician performance on patient experience measures.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the extent to which medical group and market factors are related to individual primary care physician (PCP) performance on patient experience measures.

Data sources

This 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 design

We 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 findings

Compared 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.

Conclusions

Physicians 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.

SUBMITTER: Rodriguez HP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2699913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient experience measures are widely used to compare performance at the individual physician level. OBJECTIVE:To 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. DESIGN:Repeated cross-sectional design. SETTING:Academic family medicine practice in California. PARTICIPANTS:One thousand one hundred forty-one adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 PCPs (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians). MEASUREMENTS:Post-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). RESULTS:The 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%)]. CONCLUSIONS:Widely 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:BACKGROUND:There is significant promise in analyzing physician patient-sharing networks to indirectly measure care coordination, yet it is unknown whether these measures reflect patients' perceptions of care coordination. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the associations between network-based measures of care coordination and patient-reported experience measures. DESIGN:We analyzed patient-sharing physician networks within group practices using data made available by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. SUBJECTS:Medicare beneficiaries who provided responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey in 2016 (data aggregated by physician group practice made available through the Physician Compare 2016 Group Public Reporting). MAIN MEASURES:The outcomes of interest were patient-reported experience measures reflecting aspects of care coordination (CAHPS). The predictor variables of interests were physician group practice density (the number of physician pairs who share patients adjusting for the total number of physician pairs) and clustering (the extent to which sets of three physicians share patients). KEY RESULTS:Four hundred seventy-six groups had patient-reported measures available. Patients' perception of "Clinicians working together for your care" was significantly positively associated with both physician group practice density (Est (95?%?CI)?=?5.07(0.83,?9.33),?p?=?0.02) and clustering (Est (95?%?CI)?=?3.73(1.01,?6.44),?p?=?0.007). Physician group practice clustering was also significantly positively associated with "Getting timely care, appointments, and information" (Est (95?%?CI)?=?4.63(0.21,?9.06), p?=?0.04). CONCLUSIONS:This work suggests that network-based measures of care coordination are associated with some patient-reported experience measures. Evaluating and intervening on patient-sharing networks may provide novel strategies for initiatives aimed at improving quality of care and the patient experience.

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:Our purpose was to identify physicians' individual characteristics, attitudes, and organizational contextual factors associated with higher enrollment of patients in cancer clinical trials among physician participants in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). We hypothesized that physicians' individual characteristics, such as age, medical specialty, tenure, CCOP organizational factors (i.e. policies and procedures to encourage enrollment), and attitudes toward participating in CCOP would directly determine enrollment. We also hypothesized that physicians' characteristics and CCOP organizational factors would influence physicians' attitudes toward participating in CCOP, which in turn would predict enrollment.We evaluated enrollment in National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer clinical trials in 2011 among 481 physician participants using Structural Equation Modeling. The data sources include CCOP Annual Progress Reports, two surveys of CCOP administrators and physician participants, and the American Medical Association Masterfile.Physicians with more positive attitudes toward participating in CCOP enrolled more patients than physicians with less positive attitudes. In addition, physicians who practiced in CCOPs that had more supportive policies and practices in place to encourage enrollment (i.e. offered trainings, provided support to screen and enroll patients, gave incentives to enroll patients, instituted minimum accrual expectations) also significantly enrolled more patients. Physician status as CCOP Principal Investigator had a positive direct effect on enrollment, while physician age and non-oncology medical specialty had negative direct effects on enrollment. Neither physicians' characteristics nor CCOP organizational factors indirectly influenced enrollment through an effect on physician attitudes.We examined whether individual physicians' characteristics and attitudes, as well as CCOP organizational factors, influenced patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials among CCOP physicians. Physician attitudes and CCOP organizational factors had positive direct effects, but not indirect effects, on physician enrollment of patients. Our results could be used to develop physician-directed strategies aimed at increasing involvement in clinical research. For example, administrators may want to ensure physicians have access to support staff to help screen and enroll patients or institute minimum accrual expectations. Our results also highlight the importance of recruiting physicians for volunteer clinical research programs whose attitudes and values align with programmatic goals. Given that physician involvement is a key determinant of patient enrollment in clinical trials, these interventions could expand the overall number of patients involved in cancer research. These strategies will be increasingly important as the CCOP network continues to evolve.