Dataset Information

Primary Care Doctors' Assessment of and Preferences on Their Remuneration.

ABSTRACT: Despite numerous studies on primary care doctors' remuneration and their job satisfaction, few of them have quantified their views and preferences on certain types of remuneration. This study aimed at reporting these views and preferences on behalf of Greek doctors employed at public primary care. We applied a 13-item questionnaire to a random sample of 212 doctors at National Health Service health centers and their satellite clinics. The results showed that most doctors deem their salary lower than work produced and lower than that of private sector colleagues. Younger respondents highlighted that salary favors dual employment and claim of informal fees from patients. Older respondents underlined the negative impact of salary on productivity and quality of services. Both incentives to work at border areas and choose general practice were deemed unsatisfactory by the vast majority of doctors. Most participants desire a combination of per capita fee with fee-for-service; however, 3 clusters with distinct preferences were formed: general practitioners (GPs) of higher medical grades, GPs of the lowest medical grade, residents and rural doctors. Across them, a descending tolerance to salary-free schemes was observed. Greek primary care doctors are dissatisfied with the current remuneration scheme, maybe more than in the past, but notably the younger doctors are not intended to leave it. However, Greek policy makers should experiment in capitation for more tolerable to risk GPs and introduce pay-for-performance to achieve enhanced access and quality. These interventions should be combined with others in primary care's new structure in an effort to converge with international standards.

SUBMITTER: Karakolias S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5798707 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary Care Doctors' Assessment of and Preferences on Their Remuneration.

Karakolias Stefanos S Kastanioti Catherine C Theodorou Mamas M Polyzos Nikolaos N

Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing 20170101

Despite numerous studies on primary care doctors' remuneration and their job satisfaction, few of them have quantified their views and preferences on certain types of remuneration. This study aimed at reporting these views and preferences on behalf of Greek doctors employed at public primary care. We applied a 13-item questionnaire to a random sample of 212 doctors at National Health Service health centers and their satellite clinics. The results showed that most doctors deem their salary lower ...[more]

PMID: 28240040

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReliance on interdisciplinary teams in the delivery of primary care is on the rise. Funding bodies strive to design financial environments that support collaboration between providers. At present, the design of financial arrangements has been fragmented and not based on evidence. The root of the problem is a lack of systematic evidence demonstrating the superiority of any particular financial arrangement, or a solid understanding of options. In this study we develop a framework for the conceptualization and analysis of financial arrangements in interdisciplinary primary care teams.MethodsWe use qualitative data from three sources: (i) interviews with 19 primary care decision makers representing 215 clinics in three Canadian provinces, (ii) a research roundtable with 14 primary care decision makers and/or researchers, and (iii) policy documents. Transcripts from interviews and the roundtable were coded thematically and a framework synthesis approach was applied.ResultsOur conceptual framework differentiates between team level funding and provider level remuneration, and characterizes the interplay and consonance between them. Particularly the notions of hierarchy, segregation, and dependence of provider incomes, and the link between funding and team activities are introduced as new clarifying concepts, and their implications explored. The framework is applied to the analysis of collaboration incentives, which appear strongest when provider incomes are interdependent, funding is linked to the team as a whole, and accountability does not have multiple lines. Emergent implementation issues discussed by respondents include: (i) centrality of budget negotiations; (ii) approaches to patient rostering; (iii) unclear funding sources for space and equipment; and (iv) challenges with community engagement. The creation of patient rosters is perceived as a surprisingly contentious issue, and the challenges of funding for space and equipment remain unresolved.ConclusionsThe development and application of a conceptual framework is an important step to the systematic study of the best performing financial models in the context of interdisciplinary primary care. The identification of optimal financial arrangements must be contextualized in terms of feasibility and the implementation environment. In general, financial hierarchy, both overt and covert, is considered a barrier to collaboration.

Project description:IntroductionInterprofessional teams and funding and payment provider arrangements are key attributes of high-performing primary care. Several Canadian jurisdictions have introduced team-based models with different payment models. Despite these investments, the evidence of impact is mixed. This has raised questions about whether team-based primary care models are being implemented to facilitate team collaboration and effectiveness. Thus, we present a protocol for a rapid scoping review to systematically map, synthesise and summarise the existing literature on the impact of provider remuneration mechanisms and extrinsic and intrinsic incentives in team-based primary care. This review will answer three research questions: (1) What is the impact of provider remuneration models on team, patient, provider and system outcomes in primary care?; (2) What extrinsic and intrinsic incentives have been used in interprofessional primary care teams?; and (3) What is the impact of extrinsic and intrinsic team-based incentives on team, patient, provider and system outcomes?Methods and analysisWe will conduct a rapid scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines. We will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, Google). This review will consider all empirical studies and full-text English-language articles published between 2000 and 2022. Reviewers will independently perform the literature search, data extraction and synthesis of included studies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to appraise the quality of evidence. The literature will be synthesised, summarised and mapped to themes that answer the research question of this review.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Findings from this study will be written for publication in an open-access peer-review journal and presented at national and international conferences. Knowledge users are part of the research team and will assist with disseminating findings to the public, clinicians, funders and professional associations.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly, consultations in health care settings are conducted remotely using a range of communication technologies. Email allows for 2-way text-based communication, occurring asynchronously. Studies have explored the content and nature of email consultations to understand the use, structure, and function of email consultations. Most previous content analyses of email consultations in primary care settings have been conducted in North America, and these have shown that concerns and assumptions about how email consultations work have not been realized. There has not been a UK-based content analysis of email consultations.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore and delineate the content of consultations conducted via email in English general practice by conducting a content analysis of email consultations between general practitioners (GPs) and patients.MethodsWe conducted a content analysis of anonymized email consultations between GPs and patients in 2 general practices in the United Kingdom. We examined the descriptive elements of the correspondence to ascertain when the emails were sent, the number of emails in an email consultation, and the nature of the content. We used a normative approach to analyze the content of the email consultations to explore the use and function of email consultation.ResultsWe obtained 100 email consultations from 85 patients, which totaled 262 individual emails. Most email users were older than 40 years, and over half of the users were male. The email consultations were mostly short and completed in a few days. Emails were mostly sent and received during the day. The emails were mostly clinical in content rather than administrative and covered a wide range of clinical presentations. There were 3 key themes to the use and function of the email consultations: the role of the GP and email consultation, the transactional nature of an email consultation, and the operationalization of an email consultation.ConclusionsMost cases where emails are used to have a consultation with a patient in general practice have a shorter consultation, are clinical in nature, and are resolved quickly. GPs approach email consultations using key elements similar to that of the face-to-face consultation; however, using email consultations has the potential to alter the role of the GP, leading them to engage in more administrative tasks than usual. Email consultations were not a replacement for face-to-face consultations.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine parental perspectives/rankings of the most important weight-management clinical practices and to determine whether preferences/rankings differ when parents disagree that their child is overweight.MethodsWe performed mixed-methods analysis of a 32-question survey of parents of 2- to 18-year-old overweight children assessing parental agreement that their child is overweight, the single most important thing providers can do to improve weight status, ranking American Academy of Pediatrics-recommended clinical practices, and preferred follow-up interval. Four independent reviewers analyzed open-response data to identify qualitative themes/subthemes. Multivariable analyses examined parental rankings, preferred follow-up interval, and differences by agreement with their child's overweight assessment.ResultsThirty-six percent of 219 children were overweight, 42% obese, and 22% severely obese; 16% of parents disagreed with their child's overweight assessment. Qualitative analysis of the most important practice to help overweight children yielded 10 themes; unique to parents disagreeing with their children's overweight assessments was "change weight-status assessments." After adjustment, the 3 highest-ranked clinical practices included, "check for weight-related problems," "review growth chart," and "recommend general dietary changes" (all P < .01); parents disagreeing with their children's overweight assessments ranked "review growth chart" as less important and ranked "reducing screen time" and "general activity changes" as more important. The mean preferred weight-management follow-up interval (10-12 weeks) did not differ by agreement with children's overweight assessments.ConclusionsParents prefer weight-management strategies that prioritize evaluating weight-related problems, growth-chart review, and regular follow-up. Parents who disagree that their child is overweight want changes in how overweight is assessed. Using parent-preferred weight-management strategies may prove useful in improving child weight status.

Dataset Information

Primary Care Doctors' Assessment of and Preferences on Their Remuneration.

Publications

Primary Care Doctors' Assessment of and Preferences on Their Remuneration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets