Dataset Information

Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients' survey data for general practices and individual doctors.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice.

Design

Analysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices.

Setting

Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey.

Participants

7721 of 15,172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013.

Main outcome measure

Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models.

Results

After control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores.

Conclusions

Aggregating patients' ratings of doctors' communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to "screen" for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

SUBMITTER: Roberts MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4230029 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand disparities in primary care patient experience.DesignA serial cross-sectional study was conducted to understand disparities in patient experience at 2 time points (2014 and 2016). Disparities related to age, gender, neighbourhood income, and self-rated health were explored using 3 analytic approaches: stratification, logistic regression, and relative comparison across multiple demographic variables.SettingA multisite family health team in Toronto, Ont.ParticipantsPatients in the family medicine practice who completed e-mail surveys in 2014 (n = 1171, 19% response rate) and 2016 (n = 1823, 15% response rate).Main outcome measuresPatient-reported access (timely access when sick, access after hours) and patient-centredness (opportunity to ask questions, involvement in care decisions, enough time with provider).ResultsPerformance for all measures improved between 2014 and 2016, with the greatest absolute improvement seen in access after hours (61% in 2014; 75% in 2016). Patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported worse patient experiences than those in high-income neighbourhoods did, as did patients with poor versus excellent self-rated health, even after adjustment for other variables. For example, in 2016, 60% of patients residing in low-income neighbourhoods reported timely access when sick versus 70% in high-income neighbourhoods (adjusted odds ratio of 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95); 60% of patients with poor or fair self-rated health reported timely access when sick versus 72% with excellent self-rated health (adjusted odds ratio of 0.54, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.84). Comparing across demographic groups, patients with excellent self-rated health and poor or fair self-rated health reported the best and worst experiences, respectively, for all measures. In 2016, the average disparity between subgroups was largest for access after hours.ConclusionIn this setting, patient experience was worse for patients in lower-income neighbourhoods and those with poor or fair self-rated health. Access after hours demonstrated the greatest overall absolute improvement but also the greatest widening of disparities.

Project description:ObjectivesUncertainties exist about when and how best to adjust performance measures for case mix. Our aims are to quantify the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level scores in a national survey of patient experience, to identify why and when it may be useful to adjust for case mix, and to discuss unresolved policy issues regarding the use of case-mix adjustment in performance measurement in health care.Design/settingSecondary analysis of the 2009 English General Practice Patient Survey. Responses from 2 163 456 patients registered with 8267 primary care practices. Linear mixed effects models were used with practice included as a random effect and five case-mix variables (gender, age, race/ethnicity, deprivation, and self-reported health) as fixed effects.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level means (adjusted minus unadjusted) and changes in practice percentile ranks for questions measuring patient experience in three domains of primary care: access; interpersonal care; anticipatory care planning, and overall satisfaction with primary care services.ResultsDepending on the survey measure selected, case-mix adjustment changed the rank of between 0.4% and 29.8% of practices by more than 10 percentile points. Adjusting for case-mix resulted in large increases in score for a small number of practices and small decreases in score for a larger number of practices. Practices with younger patients, more ethnic minority patients and patients living in more socio-economically deprived areas were more likely to gain from case-mix adjustment. Age and race/ethnicity were the most influential adjustors.ConclusionsWhile its effect is modest for most practices, case-mix adjustment corrects significant underestimation of scores for a small proportion of practices serving vulnerable patients and may reduce the risk that providers would 'cream-skim' by not enrolling patients from vulnerable socio-demographic groups.

Project description:BackgroundThe 2007/8 GP Access Survey in England measured experience with five dimensions of access: getting through on the phone to a practice, getting an early appointment, getting an advance appointment, making an appointment with a particular doctor, and surgery opening hours. Our aim was to identify predictors of patient satisfaction and experience with access to English primary care.Methods8,307 English general practices were included in the survey (of 8,403 identified). 4,922,080 patients were randomly selected and contacted by post and 1,999,523 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 40.6%. We used multi-level logistic regressions to identify patient, practice and regional predictors of patient satisfaction and experience.ResultsAfter controlling for all other factors, younger people, and people of Asian ethnicity, working full time, or with long commuting times to work, reported the lowest levels of satisfaction and experience of access. For people in work, the ability to take time off work to visit the GP effectively eliminated the disadvantage in access. The ethnic mix of the local area had an impact on a patient's reported satisfaction and experience over and above the patient's own ethnic identity. However, area deprivation had only low associations with patient ratings. Responses from patients in small practices were more positive for all aspects of access with the exception of satisfaction with practice opening hours. Positive reports of access to care were associated with higher scores on the Quality and Outcomes Framework and with slightly lower rates of emergency admission. Respondents in London were the least satisfied and had the worst experiences on almost all dimensions of access.ConclusionsThis study identifies a number of patient groups with lower satisfaction, and poorer experience, of gaining access to primary care. The finding that access is better in small practices is important given the increasing tendency for small practices to combine into larger units. Consideration needs to be given to ways of retaining these and other benefits of small practice size when primary care services are reconfigured. Differences between population groups (e.g. younger people, ethnic minorities) may be due to differences in actual care received or different response tendencies of different groups. Further analysis is needed to determine whether case-mix adjustment is required when comparing practices serving different populations.

Project description:ObjectivesTo provide an empirical examination of patient-provider relationships (PPR) and its association with organizational and individual factors.MethodsA national cross-sectional survey was conducted by stratified cluster sampling in 77 hospitals across seven provinces in China between July 2014 and April 2015, involving 3621 doctors, 5561 nurses, and 8022 patients with response rates of 62.93%, 61.16%, and 33.08%, respectively. Self-perceived PPR was the outcome variable. Organizational factors included hospital type (western medicine [WM] and traditional Chinese medicine [TCM] hospital); hospital level (tertiary and secondary hospital); area of specialization (internal medicine and surgery); ratio of doctors (nurses) to ward beds; doctors/nurses' concerns about performance assessment; and patients' perceptions of healthcare cost. Individual factors included consultation, listening to patients and socio-demographic factors.Results54.6% of doctors, 36.6% of nurses, and 10.2% of patients perceived PPR as poor. Organizational factors independently associated with providers' perception of poor PPR included hospital type (WM vs TCM: OR = 1.25 [95% CI: 1.06-1.47]) and concerns about performance assessment (high vs low levels: OR = 1.40 [95% CI: 1.14-1.72]) for doctors, and concerns about performance assessment (average vs low levels: OR = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.67-0.93]) for nurses. Those associated with patients' perception of poor PPR included hospital type (WM vs TCM: OR = 0.63 [95% CI: 0.53-0.74]) and hospital level (tertiary vs secondary: OR = 0.65 [95% CI: 0.51-0.82]). Doctors and nurses reporting listening to patients "frequently" had better perceptions of PPR (OR = 0.46 [95%CI: 0.38-0.56] and 0.49 [95% CI: 0.41-0.59] for doctors and nurses, respectively), as did their patients (OR = 0.24 [95% CI: 0.18-0.31] and 0.54 [95% CI: 0.35-0.84] for doctors and nurses, respectively).ConclusionsAlthough our findings require validation in different organizational settings given the likely variability of these associations across systems, our results suggest that implementing moderate levels promoting the level of medical treatment, and broadening doctors/nurses training regarding listening to patients, may benefit to enhance PPR.