Dataset Information

Do Work Condition Interventions Affect Quality and Errors in Primary Care? Results from the Healthy Work Place Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While primary care work conditions are associated with adverse clinician outcomes, little is known about the effect of work condition interventions on quality or safety.

Design

A cluster randomized controlled trial of 34 clinics in the upper Midwest and New York City.

Participants

Primary care clinicians and their diabetic and hypertensive patients.

Interventions

Quality improvement projects to improve communication between providers, workflow design, and chronic disease management. Intervention clinics received brief summaries of their clinician and patient outcome data at baseline.

Main measures

We measured work conditions and clinician and patient outcomes both at baseline and 6-12 months post-intervention. Multilevel regression analyses assessed the impact of work condition changes on outcomes. Subgroup analyses assessed impact by intervention category.

Key results

There were no significant differences in error reduction (19 % vs. 11 %, OR of improvement 1.84, 95 % CI 0.70, 4.82, p?=?0.21) or quality of care improvement (19 % improved vs. 44 %, OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.58, 1.21, p?=?0.42) between intervention and control clinics. The conceptual model linking work conditions, provider outcomes, and error reduction showed significant relationships between work conditions and provider outcomes (p???0.001) and a trend toward a reduced error rate in providers with lower burnout (OR 1.44, 95 % CI 0.94, 2.23, p?=?0.09).

Limitations

Few quality metrics, short time span, fewer clinicians recruited than anticipated.

Conclusions

Work-life interventions improving clinician satisfaction and well-being do not necessarily reduce errors or improve quality. Longer, more focused interventions may be needed to produce meaningful improvements in patient care.

Clinical trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT02542995.

SUBMITTER: Linzer M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5215160 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do Work Condition Interventions Affect Quality and Errors in Primary Care? Results from the Healthy Work Place Study.

Linzer Mark M Poplau Sara S Brown Roger R Grossman Ellie E Varkey Anita A Yale Steven S Williams Eric S ES Hicks Lanis L Wallock Jill J Kohnhorst Diane D Barbouche Michael M

Journal of general internal medicine 20160909 1

<h4>Background</h4>While primary care work conditions are associated with adverse clinician outcomes, little is known about the effect of work condition interventions on quality or safety.<h4>Design</h4>A cluster randomized controlled trial of 34 clinics in the upper Midwest and New York City.<h4>Participants</h4>Primary care clinicians and their diabetic and hypertensive patients.<h4>Interventions</h4>Quality improvement projects to improve communication between providers, workflow design, and ...[more]

PMID: 27612486

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere is new emphasis on clinician trust in health care organizations but little empirical data about the association of trust with clinician satisfaction and retention.ObjectiveTo examine organizational characteristics associated with trust.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective cohort study uses data collected from 2012 to 2014 from 34 primary care practices employing physicians (family medicine and general internal medicine) and advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in the upper Midwest and East Coast of the United States as part of the Healthy Work Place randomized clinical trial. Analyses were performed from 2015 to 2016.Main outcomes and measuresClinician trust was measured using a 5-item scale, including belonging, loyalty, safety focus, sense of trust, and responsibility to clinicians in need (range, 1-4, with 1 indicating low and 4 indicating high; Cronbach α = 0.77). Other metrics included work control, work atmosphere (calm to chaotic), organizational culture (cohesiveness, emphases on quality and communication, and values alignment; range, 1-4, with 1 indicating low and 4 indicating high), and clinician stress (range, 1-5, with 1 indicating low and 5 indicating high), satisfaction (range, 1-5, with 1 indicating low and 4 indicating high), burnout (range, 1-5, with 1 indicating no burnout and 5 indicating very high feeling of burnout), and intention to leave (range, 1-5, with 1 indicating no intention to leave and 5 indicating definite intention to leave). Analyses included 2-level hierarchical modeling controlling for age, sex, specialty, and clinician type. Cohen d effect sizes (ESs) were considered small at 0.20, moderate at 0.50, and large at 0.80 or more.ResultsThe study included 165 clinicians (mean [SD] age, 47.3 [9.2] years; 86 [52.1%] women). Of these, 143 (87.7%) were physicians and 22 (13.3%) were advanced practice clinicians; 105 clinicians (63.6%) worked in family medicine, and 60 clinicians (36.4%) worked in internal medicine. Compared with clinicians with low levels of trust, clinicians who reported high levels of trust had higher mean (SD) scores for work control (2.49 [0.52] vs 2.18 [0.45]; P < .001), cohesiveness (3.11 [0.46] vs 2.51 [0.51]; P < .001), emphasis on quality vs productivity (3.12 [0.48] vs 2.58 [0.41]; P < .001), emphasis on communication (3.39 [0.41] vs 3.01 [0.44]; P < .001), and values alignment (2.61 [0.59] vs 2.12 [0.52]; P < .001). Men were more likely than women to express loyalty (ES, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.05-0.66; P = .02) and high trust (ES, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.01-0.62; P = .04). Compared with clinicians with low trust at baseline, clinicians with high trust at baseline had a higher mean (SD) satisfaction score (3.99 [0.08] vs 3.51 [0.07]; P < .001; ES, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.02). Compared with clinicians in whom trust declined or remained low, clinicians with improved or stable high trust reported higher mean (SD) satisfaction (4.01 [0.07] vs 3.43 [0.06]; P < .001; ES, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.66-1.31) and lower stress (3.21 [0.09] vs 3.53 [0.09]; P = .02; ES, -0.39; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.08) scores and had approximately half the odds of intending to leave (odds ratio, 0.481; 95% CI, 0.241-0.957; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceAddressing low levels of trust by improving work control and emphasizing quality, cohesion, communication, and values may improve clinician satisfaction, stress, and retention.

Project description:BackgroundThe relationship between worklife factors, clinician outcomes, and time pressure during office visits is unclear.ObjectiveTo quantify associations between time pressure, workplace characteristics ,and clinician outcomes.DesignProspective analysis of data from the Healthy Work Place randomized trial.Participants168 physicians and advanced practice clinicians in 34 primary care practices in Upper Midwest and East Coast.Main measures and methodsTime pressure was present when clinicians needed more time than allotted to provide quality care. Other metrics included work control, work pace (calm to chaotic), organizational culture and clinician satisfaction, stress, burnout, and intent to leave the practice. Hierarchical analysis assessed relationships between time pressure, organizational characteristics, and clinician outcomes. Adjusted differences between clinicians with and without time pressure were expressed as effect sizes (ESs).Key resultsSixty-seven percent of clinicians needed more time for new patients and 53% needed additional time for follow-up appointments. Time pressure in new patient visits was more prevalent in general internists than in family physicians (74% vs 55%, p?<?0.05), women versus men (78% vs 55%, p?<?0.01), and clinicians with larger numbers of complex psychosocial (81% vs 59%, p?<?0.01) and Limited English Proficiency patients (95% vs 57%, p?<?0.001). Time pressure in new patient visits was associated with lack of control, clinician stress, and intent to leave (ESs small to moderate, p?<?0.05). Time pressure in follow-up visits was associated with chaotic workplaces and burnout (small to moderate ESs, p's?<?0.05). Time pressure improved over time in workplaces with values alignment and an emphasis on quality.ConclusionsTime pressure, more common in women and general internists, was related to chaos, control and culture, and stress, burnout, and intent to leave. Future studies should evaluate these findings in larger and more geographically diverse samples.

Project description:BackgroundQuality circles (QCs) are commonly used in primary health care in Europe to consider and improve standard practice over time. They represent a complex social intervention that occurs within the fast-changing system of primary health care. Numerous controlled trials, reviews, and studies have shown small but unpredictable positive effect sizes on behavior change. Although QCs seem to be effective, stakeholders have difficulty understanding how the results are achieved and in generalizing the results with confidence. They also lack understanding of the active components of QCs which result in changes in the behavior of health care professionals. This protocol for a realist synthesis will examine how configurations of components and the contextual features of QCs influence their performance.Methods/designStakeholder interviews and a scoping search revealed the processes of QCs and helped to describe their core components and underlying theories. After clarifying their historical and geographical distribution, a purposive and systematic search was developed to identify relevant papers to answer the research questions, which are: understanding why, how, and when QCs work, over what time frame, and in what circumstances. After selecting and abstracting appropriate data, configurations of contexts and mechanisms which influence the outcome of QCs within each study will be identified. Studies will be grouped by similar propositional statements in order to identify patterns and validation from stakeholders sought. Finally, theories will be explored in order to explain these patterns and to help stakeholders maintain and improve QC performance.DiscussionAnalyzing context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) patterns will reveal how QCs work and how contextual factors interact to influence their outcome. The aim is to investigate unique configurations that enable them to improve the performance of health care professionals. Using a standardized reporting system, this realist review will allow the research questions to be answered to the satisfaction of key stakeholders and enable on-going critical examination and dissemination of the findings.Study registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004826.

Dataset Information

Do Work Condition Interventions Affect Quality and Errors in Primary Care? Results from the Healthy Work Place Study.

Background

Design

Participants

Interventions

Main measures

Key results

Limitations

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration number

Publications

Do Work Condition Interventions Affect Quality and Errors in Primary Care? Results from the Healthy Work Place Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets