Directing Improvements in Primary Care Patient Experience through Analysis of Service Quality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hudson Smith M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6232513 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Directing Improvements in Primary Care Patient Experience through Analysis of Service Quality.
Hudson Smith Mel M Smith David D
Health services research 20180603 6
<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the influence of dimensions of service quality on patient experience of primary care.<h4>Data sources/study setting</h4>Data from the national GP Patient Survey in England 2014/15, with responses from 858,351 patients registered at 7,918 practices.<h4>Study design</h4>Expert panel and principal component analysis helped identify relevant dimensions of service quality. Regression was then used to examine the relationships between these dimensions and reported patient ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo engage critical care end-users (survivors and caregivers) to describe their emotions and experiences across their recovery trajectory, and elicit their ideas and solutions for health service improvements to improve the ICU recovery experience.DesignEnd-user engagement as part of a qualitative design using the Framework Analysis method.SettingThe Society of Critical Care Medicine's THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups).SubjectsPatients and caregivers following critical illness and identified through the collaboratives.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsEighty-six interviews were conducted. The following themes were identified: 1) Emotions and experiences of patients-"Loss of former self; Experiences of disability and adaptation"; 2) Emotions and experiences of caregivers-"Emotional impacts, adopting new roles, and caregiver burden; Influence of gender roles; Adaptation, adjustment, recalibration"; and 3) Patient and caregiver-generated solutions to improve recovery across the arc of care-"Family-targeted education; Expectation management; Rehabilitation for patients and caregivers; Peer support groups; Reconnecting with ICU post-discharge; Access to community-based supports post-discharge; Psychological support; Education of issues of ICU survivorship for health professionals; Support across recovery trajectory." Themes were mapped to a previously published recovery framework (Timing It Right) that captures patient and caregiver experiences and their support needs across the phases of care from the event/diagnosis to adaptation post-discharge home.ConclusionsPatients and caregivers reported a range of emotions and experiences across the recovery trajectory from ICU to home. Through end-user engagement strategies many potential solutions were identified that could be implemented by health services and tested to support the delivery of higher-quality care for ICU survivors and their caregivers that extend from tertiary to primary care settings.
| S-EPMC9671858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We lack knowledge on how patient-reported experience relates to both quality of care services and visit attendance in the primary care setting. Therefore, in a cross-sectional analysis of 8355 primary care patients from 22 primary care practices, we examined the associations between visit-triggered patient-reported experience measures and both (1) quality of care measures and (2) number of missed primary care appointment (no shows). Our independent variables included both overall patient experience and its subdomains. Our outcomes included the following measures: smoking cessation discussion, diabetes eye examination referral, mammography, colonoscopy screening, current smoking status (nonsmoker vs smoker), diabetes control Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c [<8]), blood pressure control, cholesterol control Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) among patients with diabetes (LDL < 100), and visit no shows 2 and 5 years after the index visit that triggered the completed patient-experience survey. We found that patient experience, while an important stand-alone metric of care quality, may not relate to clinical outcomes or process measures in the outpatient setting. However, patient-reported experiences with their primary care provider appear to influence their future visit attendance.
| S-EPMC7786755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePrimary care provider (PCP) turnover is common and can disrupt patient continuity of care. Little is known about the effect of PCP turnover on patient care experience and quality of care.ObjectiveTo measure the effect of PCP turnover on patient experiences of care and ambulatory care quality.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of a nationwide sample of primary care patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We included all patients enrolled in primary care at the VHA between 2010 and 2012 included in 1 of 2 national data sets used to measure our outcome variables: 326,374 patients in the Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP; used to measure patient experience of care) associated with 8441 PCPs and 184,501 patients in the External Peer Review Program (EPRP; used to measure ambulatory care quality) associated with 6973 PCPs.ExposuresWhether a patient experienced PCP turnover, defined as a patient whose provider (physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) had left the VHA (ie, had no patient encounters for 12 months).Main outcomes and measuresFive patient care experience measures (from SHEP) and 11 measures of quality of ambulatory care (from EPRP).ResultsNine percent of patients experienced a PCP turnover in our study sample. Primary care provider turnover was associated with a worse rating in each domain of patient care experience. Turnover was associated with a reduced likelihood of having a positive rating of their personal physician of 68.2% vs 74.6% (adjusted percentage point difference, -5.3; 95% CI, -6.0 to -4.7) and a reduced likelihood of getting care quickly of 36.5% vs 38.5% (adjusted percentage point difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1). In contrast, PCP turnover was not associated with lower quality of ambulatory care except for a lower likelihood of controlling blood pressure of 78.7% vs 80.4% (adjusted percentage point difference, -1.44; 95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7). In 9 measures of ambulatory care quality, the difference between patients who experienced no PCP turnover and those who had a PCP turnover was less than 1 percentage point. These effects were moderated by the patients' continuity with their PCP prior to turnover, with a larger detrimental effect of PCP turnover among those with higher continuity prior to the turnover.Conclusions and relevancePrimary care provider turnover was associated with worse patient experiences of care but did not have a major effect on ambulatory care quality.
| S-EPMC5561428 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8279669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the association between regional market factors and experience with patient-provider communication in primary care services of safety net hospitals.Study designA retrospective cohort study with 933,407 patient experience survey respondents from 128 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals between fiscal years 2013 and 2016.MethodsPatient responses on 5 patient-provider communication questions were used to evaluate quality of care. Six regional market factors were used to characterize veterans' health care insurance coverage and affluence. A logistic regression was used to examine changes in individual-level patient-provider communication experience when regional market factors increase or decrease the demand for VHA primary care services.ResultsOur findings supported our hypothesis that changes in regional market factors shift patient demand for VHA care and affect patient-provider communication measured by patient experience surveys. The adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of positive patient-provider communication was associated with a regional increase (first to third quartile) of employer-sponsored insurance (AOR, 1.028; 95% CI, 1.001-1.055) and a decrease (third to first quartile) in the veterans' unemployment rate (AOR, 0.966; 95% CI, 0.944-0.990). Higher primary care capacity (first to third quartile) was also associated with positive patient-provider communication (AOR, 1.050; 95% CI, 1.018-1.082).ConclusionsFindings from this study raise concerns that safety net hospitals could be unfairly penalized by value-based payment programs and Medicare Hospital Compare. Such policies and programs could improve resource allocation by accounting for regional market factors before acting on quality of care measures.
| S-EPMC8262995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLifting The Burden (LTB) and European Headache Federation (EHF) have developed a set of headache service quality indicators, successfully tested in specialist headache centres. Their intended application includes all levels of care. Here we assess their implementation in primary care.MethodsWe included 28 primary-care clinics in Germany (4), Turkey (4), Latvia (5) and Portugal (15). To implement the indicators, we interviewed 111 doctors, 92 nurses and medical assistants, 70 secretaries, 27 service managers and 493 patients, using the questionnaires developed by LTB and EHF. In addition, we evaluated 675 patients' records. Enquiries were in nine domains: diagnosis, individualized management, referral pathways, patient education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient satisfaction, equity and efficiency of headache care, outcome assessment and safety.ResultsThe principal finding was that Implementation proved feasible and practical in primary care. In the process, we identified significant quality deficits. Almost everywhere, histories of headache, especially temporal profiles, were captured and/or assessed inaccurately. A substantial proportion (20%) of patients received non-specific ICD codes such as R51 ("headache") rather than specific headache diagnoses. Headache-related disability and quality of life were not part of routine clinical enquiry. Headache diaries and calendars were not in use. Waiting times were long (e.g., about 60 min in Germany). Nevertheless, most patients (> 85%) expressed satisfaction with their care. Almost all the participating clinics provided equitable and easy access to treatment, and follow-up for most headache patients, without unnecessary barriers.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that headache service quality indicators can be used in primary care, proving both practical and fit for purpose. It also uncovered quality deficits leading to suboptimal treatment, often due to a lack of knowledge among the general practitioners. There were failures of process also. These findings signal the need for additional training in headache diagnosis and management in primary care, where most headache patients are necessarily treated. More generally, they underline the importance of headache service quality evaluation in primary care, not only to identify-quality failings but also to guide improvements. This study also demonstrated that patients' satisfaction is not, on its own, a good indicator of service quality.
| S-EPMC8080333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsIt has long been held that high-quality care has both technical and interpersonal aspects. The nature and strength of any association between both aspects remain poorly explored. This study investigated the associations between diabetes patients' reports of receiving recommended care (as measures of technical quality) and their experience and ratings (as measures of interpersonal care).MethodsUsing data from a cross section of 3096 patients with diabetes nested within 24 diabetes-care-networks, we conducted multilevel regression analysis of the relationships between nine indicators of receiving care recommended in practice guidelines and: six scales of patient experience and global ratings of general practitioner, nurses, and overall diabetes care.ResultsOn average, reporting having received recommended care was associated with reporting better patient experience and ratings. The extent and frequencies of these associations varied across the different care processes. Receiving foot examination, physical activity advice, smoking status check, eye examination, and HbA1c testing, but not nutritional advice, urine, cholesterol or blood pressure checks, were statistically associated with better patient experience and global ratings. Those who received HbA1c testing rated their overall care 1.002 points higher (95% confidence interval: 0.726-1.278) on a scale of 0-10 than those who did not.ConclusionsHigher self-reported technical quality of care in diabetes appears to be frequently but not always associated with better experiences and ratings. It is possible that the former leads to the latter and/or that both share a common cause within providers. Both care aspects do not seem interchangeable during performance assessment.
| S-EPMC5060680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The association between patient experience and the quality of hospital care is controversial. We assess the association between clinical outcomes and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Knowledge on this issue informs value-based health-care reforms. A retrospective observational study was conducted in 17 hospitals in Saudi Arabia during the period of 2019-22. Hospital data were collected on PREMs, mortality, readmission, length of stay (LOS), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), and surgical site infection. Descriptive analysis was used to describe hospital characteristics. Spearman's rho correlation tests were used to assess the correlation between these measures, and multivariate generalized linear mixed model regression analysis was used to study associations while controlling for hospital characteristics and year. Our analysis showed that PREMs were negatively correlated with hospital readmission rate (r = -0.332, P ≤ .01), LOS (r = -0.299, P ≤ .01), CLABSI (r = -0.297, P ≤ .01), CAUTI (r = -0.393, P ≤ .01), and surgical site infection (r = -0.298, P ≤ .01). The results indicated that CAUTI and LOS converged negatively with PREMs (β = -0.548, P = .005; β = -0.873, P = .008, respectively) and that larger hospitals tended to have better patient experience scores (β =0.009, P = .003). Our findings suggest that better performance in clinical outcomes is associated with higher PREM scores. PREMs are not a substitute or surrogate for clinical quality. Yet, PREMs are complementary to other objective measures of patient-reported outcomes, the process of care, and clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC10321378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveChronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM.DesignSecondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.SettingFive integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions.ParticipantsStaff and high-risk PC patients in the VA.InterventionA multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.Outcome measures(a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain.ResultsMost (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned.ConclusionsPain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.
| S-EPMC10773401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether neighbours who share the same family physicians have better cardiovascular and health care outcomes.DesignRetrospective cohort study using administrative health databases.SettingOntario.ParticipantsThe study population included 2,690,482 adult patients cared for by 1710 family physicians.InterventionsAdult residents of Ontario were linked to their family physicians and the geographic distance between patients in the same panel or list was calculated. Using distance between patients within a panel to stratify physicians into quintiles of panel proximity, physicians and patients from close-proximity practices were compared with those from more-distant-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized incidence rates and hazard ratios from cause-specific hazards regression models were determined.Main outcome measuresThe occurrence of a major cardiovascular event during a 5-year follow-up period (2008 to 2012).ResultsPatients of panels in the closest-proximity quintile lived an average of 3.9 km from the 10 closest patients in their panel compared with 12.4 km for the 10 closest patients of panels in the distant-proximity quintile. After adjusting for various patient and physician characteristics, patients in the most-distant-proximity practices had a 24% higher rate of cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio=1.24 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.28], P<.001) than patients in the closest-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized all-cause mortality and total per patient health care costs were also lowest in the closest-proximity quintile. In sensitivity analyses restricted to large urban communities and to White long-term residents, results were similar.ConclusionThe better cardiovascular outcomes observed in close-proximity panels may be related to a previously unrecognized mechanism of social connectedness that extends the effectiveness of primary care practitioners.
| S-EPMC9470188 | biostudies-literature