Dataset Information

Patient Experience in an Era of Primary Care Transformation: Revisiting the PACIC.

ABSTRACT: RATIONALE:Aims and Objective: The validation study of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire suggested a 5-factor structure determined a priori, but subsequent analyses have questioned the validity of the original factor structure. This study analyzed the factor structure of the PACIC using a large and diverse patient sample, and evaluated the identified factors through the lens of recent transformational initiatives in primary care. METHODS:Convenience samples of adults completed surveys in waiting rooms during clinic visits. Primary care patients with 1 or more chronic illnesses with complete PACIC responses at baseline from 39 clinics (n=1,567) and at follow-up from 36 clinics (n=1,536) participated. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on baseline and follow-up patient questionnaire data from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Identified factors were evaluated in terms of item loadings, content, reliability, and the extent to which items reflected advances in the delivery of chronic illness care. RESULTS:Analyses supported the use of the PACIC summary score. Although a 5-factor model was retained, factor loadings were different from the original PACIC validation study. All factors had sufficient reliability, but findings suggested potential revisions to enhance the factor structure. CONCLUSIONS:It may be time to revise the PACIC to enhance the stability of the subscales (factors) and better reflect recent transformations in the delivery of chronic illness care.

SUBMITTER: Noel PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5060942 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Experience in an Era of Primary Care Transformation: Revisiting the PACIC.

Noël Polly Hitchcock PH Jones Salene S Parchman Michael L ML

European journal for person centered healthcare 20160101 3

<h4>Rationale</h4>Aims and Objective: The validation study of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire suggested a 5-factor structure determined a priori, but subsequent analyses have questioned the validity of the original factor structure. This study analyzed the factor structure of the PACIC using a large and diverse patient sample, and evaluated the identified factors through the lens of recent transformational initiatives in primary care.<h4>Methods</h4>Convenien ...[more]

PMID: 27746917

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:Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices' successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician burnout is associated with deleterious effects for physicians and their patients and might be exacerbated by practice transformation.ObjectiveAssess the effect of the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative on primary care physician experience.DesignProspective cohort study conducted with about 500 CPC and 900 matched comparison practices. Mail surveys of primary care physicians, selected using cross-sectional stratified random selection 11 months into CPC, and a longitudinal design with sample replacement 44 months into CPC.ParticipantsPrimary care physicians in study practices.InterventionA multipayer primary care transformation initiative (October 2012-December 2016) that required care delivery changes and provided enhanced payment, data feedback, and learning support.Main measuresBurnout, control over work, job satisfaction, likelihood of leaving current practice within 2 years.Key resultsMore than 1000 physicians responded (over 630 of these in CPC practices) in each round (response rates 70-81%, depending on round and research group). Physician experience outcomes were similar for physicians in CPC and comparison practices. About one third of physician respondents in CPC and comparison practices reported high levels of burnout in each round (32 and 29% in 2013 [P = 0.59], and 34 and 36% in 2016 [P = 0.63]). Physicians in CPC and comparison practices reported some to moderate control over work, with an average score from 0.50 to 0.55 out of 1 in 2013 and 2016 (CPC-comparison differences of - 0.04 in 2013 [95% CI - 0.08-0.00, P = 0.07], and - 0.03 in 2016 [95% CI - 0.03-0.02, P = 0.19]). In 2016, roughly three quarters of CPC and comparison physicians were satisfied with their current job (77 and 74%, P = 0.77) and about 15% planned to leave their practice within 2 years (14 and 15%, P = 0.17).ConclusionsDespite requiring substantial practice transformation, CPC did not affect physician experience. Research should track effects of other transformation initiatives on physicians and test new ways to address burnout.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.

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:Providing patient-centered care (PCC) during the last year of life (LYOL) can be challenging due to the complexity of the patients' medical, social and psychological needs, especially in case of chronic illnesses. Assessing PCC can be helpful in identifying areas for improvements. Since not all patients can be surveyed, a questionnaire for proxy informants was developed in order to retrospectively assess patient-centeredness in care during the whole LYOL. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and validity of an adapted version of the German Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) for surveying bereaved persons in order to assess PCC during the decedents' LYOL. METHODS:The German PACIC short form (11 items) was adapted to a nine-item version for surveying bereaved persons on the decedent's LYOL (PACIC-S9-Proxy). Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale. The PACIC adaptation and validation was part of a cross-sectional survey in the region of Cologne. Participants were recruited through self-selection and active recruitment by practice partners. Sociodemographic characteristics and missing data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in order to assess the structure of the PACIC-S9-Proxy. Internal consistency was estimated using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS:Of the 351 informants who participated in the survey, 230 (65.52%) considered their decedent to have suffered from chronic illness prior to death. 193 of these informants (83.91%) completed ?5 items of the questionnaire and were included in the analysis. The least answered item was item (74.09%) was item 4 (encouragement to group & classes for coping). The most frequently answered item (96.89%) was item 2 (satisfaction with care organization). Informants rated the item" Given a copy of their treatment plan" highest (mean 3.96), whereas "encouragement to get to a specific group or class to cope with the condition" (mean 1.74) was rated lowest. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84. A unidimensional structure of the questionnaire was found (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.86, Bartlett's test for sphericity p?<?0.001), with items' factor loadings ranging from 0.46 to 0.82. CONCLUSIONS:The nine-item questionnaire can be used as efficient tool for assessing PCC during the LYOL retrospectively and by proxies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00011925 ) on 13 June 2017.

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.

Dataset Information

Patient Experience in an Era of Primary Care Transformation: Revisiting the PACIC.

Publications

Patient Experience in an Era of Primary Care Transformation: Revisiting the PACIC.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets