Dataset Information

Patients' experience and satisfaction in primary care: secondary analysis using multilevel modelling.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore whether responses to questions in surveys of patients that purport to assess the performance of general practices or doctors reflect differences between practices, doctors, or the patients themselves.

Design

Secondary analysis of data from a study of access to general practice, combining data from a survey of patients with information about practice organisation and doctors consulted, and using multilevel modelling at practice, doctor, and patient level.

Setting

Nine primary care trusts in England.

Participants

4573 patients who consulted 150 different doctors in 27 practices.

Main outcome measures

Overall satisfaction; experience of wait for an appointment; reported access to care; satisfaction with communication skills.

Results

The experience based measure of wait for an appointment was more discriminating between practices (practice level accounted for 20.2% (95% confidence interval 9.1% to 31.3%) of variance) than was the overall satisfaction measure (practice level accounted for 4.6% (1.6% to 7.6%) of variance). Only 6.3% (3.8% to 8.9%) of the variance in the doctors' communication skills measure was due to differences between doctors; 92.4% (88.5% to 96.4%) of the variance occurred at the level of the patient (including differences between patients' perceptions and random variation). At least 79% of the variance on all measures occurred at the level of the patient, and patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and housing and employment status explained some of this variation. However, adjustment for patients' characteristics made very little difference to practices' scores or the ranking of individual practices.

Conclusions

Analyses of surveys of patients should take account of the hierarchical nature of the data by using multilevel models. Measures related to patients' experience discriminate more effectively between practices than do measures of general satisfaction. Surveys of patients' satisfaction fail to distinguish effectively between individual doctors because most of the variation in doctors' reported performance is due to differences between patients and random error rather than differences between doctors. Although patients' reports of satisfaction and experience are systematically related to patients' characteristics such as age and sex, the effect of adjusting practices' scores for the characteristics of their patients is small.

SUBMITTER: Salisbury C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2954274 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to investigate factors associated with patient experience with primary care in a large public health system in Mexico and determine the amount of variability in experience attributable to facility-level and state-level factors. METHODS:We analysed cross-sectional 2016 national satisfaction survey data from the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS). Patient-level data were merged with facility-level data and information on poverty by state. We assessed general contextual effects and examined the relationship of patient, facility and state factors with four patient experience measures using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS:25?745 patients' responses from 319 facilities were analysed. The majority experienced good communication (78%), the opportunity to share health concerns (91%) and resolution of doubts (85%). 29% of visits were rated as excellent. Differences between facilities and states accounted for up to 12% and 6% of the variation in patient experience, respectively. Inclusion of facility-level contextual effects improved model predictions by 8%-12%; models with facility random effects and individual covariates correctly predicted 64%-71% of individual outcomes. In adjusted models, larger patient population was correlated with worse reported communication, less opportunity to share concerns and less resolution of doubts. Men reported more positive communication; older individuals reported more positive communication and experiences overall, but less opportunity to share concerns; and more educated individuals were less likely to report positive communication but more likely to report resolution of doubts and overall positive experiences. Preventive care visits were rated higher than curative visits for resolution of doubts, but lower for opportunity to share concerns, and specific conditions were associated with better or worse reported experiences in some cases. CONCLUSION:Quality improvement efforts at IMSS facilities might bolster individual experiences with primary care, given that up to 12% of the variation in experience was attributable to facility-level differences. The relationship between individual characteristics and experience ratings reinforces the importance of patients' expectations of care and the potential for differential treatment by providers to impact experience.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread changes to healthcare, but few studies focus on ambulatory care during the early phase of the pandemic. We characterize veterans' ambulatory care experience, specifically access and satisfaction, early in the pandemic.MethodsWe employed a semi-structured telephone interview to capture quantitative and qualitative data from patients scheduled with a primary care provider between March 1 - June 30, 2020. Forty veterans were randomly identified at a single large urban Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center. The interview guide utilized 56 closed and open-ended questions to characterize veterans' perceptions of access to and satisfaction with their primary care experience at VHA and non-VHA primary care sources. We also explored the context of veterans' daily lives during the pandemic. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and verbatim quotes using a matrix analysis.ResultsVeterans reported completing more appointments (mean 2.6 (SD 2.2)) than scheduled (mean 2.3 (SD 2.2)) mostly due to same-day or urgent visits, with a shift to telephone (mean 2.1 (SD 2.2)) and video (mean 1.5 (SD 0.6)). Among those who reported decreased access to care early in the pandemic (n = 27 (67%)), 15 (56%) cited administrative barriers ("The phone would hang up on me") and 9 (33%) reported a lack of provider availability ("They are not reaching out like they used to"). While most veterans (n = 31 (78%)) were highly satisfied with their VHA care (mean score 8.6 (SD 2.0 on a 0-10 scale), 9 (23%) reported a decrease in satisfaction since the pandemic. The six (15%) veterans who utilized non-VHA providers during the period of interest reported, on average, higher satisfaction ratings (mean 9.5 (SD 1.2)). Many veterans reported psychosocial effects such as the worsening of mental health (n = 6 (15%)), anxiety concerning the virus (n = 12 (30%)), and social isolation (n = 8 (20%), "I stay inside and away from people").ConclusionsWhile the number of encounters reported suggest adequate access and satisfaction, the comments regarding barriers to care suggest that enhanced approaches may be warranted to improve and sustain veteran perceptions of adequate access to and satisfaction with primary care during times of crisis.

Project description:BackgroundWhether patients receive low-value hospital care (care that is not expected to provide a net benefit) may be influenced by unmeasured factors at the hospital they attend or the hospital's Local Health District (LHD), or the patients' areas of residence. Multilevel modelling presents a method to examine the effects of these different levels simultaneously and assess their relative importance to the outcome. Knowing which of these levels has the greatest contextual effects can help target further investigation or initiatives to reduce low-value care.MethodsWe conducted multilevel logistic regression modelling for nine low-value hospital procedures. We fit a series of six models for each procedure. The baseline model included only episode-level variables with no multilevel structure. We then added each level (hospital, LHD, Statistical Local Area [SLA] of residence) separately and used the change in the c statistic from the baseline model as a measure of the contribution of the level to the outcome. We then examined the variance partition coefficients (VPCs) and median odds ratios for a model including all three levels. Finally, we added level-specific covariates to examine if they were associated with the outcome.ResultsAnalysis of the c statistics showed that hospital was more important than LHD or SLA in explaining whether patients receive low-value care. The greatest increases were 0.16 for endoscopy for dyspepsia, 0.13 for colonoscopy for constipation, and 0.14 for sentinel lymph node biopsy for early melanoma. SLA gave a small increase in c compared with the baseline model, but no increase over the model with hospital. The VPCs indicated that hospital accounted for most of the variation not explained by the episode-level variables, reaching 36.8% (95% CI, 31.9-39.0) for knee arthroscopy. ERCP (8.5%; 95% CI, 3.9-14.7) and EVAR (7.8%; 95% CI, 2.9-15.8) had the lowest residual variation at the hospital level. The variables at the hospital, LHD and SLA levels that were available for this study generally showed no significant effect.ConclusionsInvestigations into the causes of low-value care and initiatives to reduce low-value care might best be targeted at the hospital level, as the high variation at this level suggests the greatest potential to reduce low-value care.