Dataset Information

Does Ownership Make a Difference in Primary Care Practice?

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:We assessed differences in structural characteristics, quality improvement processes, and cardiovascular preventive care by ownership type among 989 small to medium primary care practices. METHODS:This cross-sectional analysis used electronic health record and survey data collected between September 2015 and April 2017 as part of an evaluation of the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care Initiative by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. We compared physician-owned practices, health system or medical group practices, and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) by using 15 survey-based practice characteristic measures, 9 survey-based quality improvement process measures, and 4 electronic health record-based cardiovascular disease prevention quality measures, namely, aspirin prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation support (ABCS). RESULTS:Physician-owned practices were more likely to be solo (45.0% compared with 8.1%, P < .001 for health system practices and 12.8%, P = .009 for FQHCs) and less likely to have experienced a major change (eg, moved to a new location) in the last year (43.1% vs 65.4%, P = .01 and 72.1%, P = .001, respectively). FQHCs reported the highest use of quality improvement processes, followed by health system practices. ABCS performance was similar across ownership type, with the exception of smoking cessation support (51.0% for physician-owned practices vs 67.3%, P = .004 for health system practices and 69.3%, P = .004 for FQHCs). CONCLUSIONS:Primary care practice ownership was associated with differences in quality improvement process measures, with FQHCs reporting the highest use of such quality-improvement strategies. ABCS were mostly unrelated to ownership, suggesting a complex path between quality improvement strategies and outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Lindner S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6566859 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Ownership Make a Difference in Primary Care Practice?

Lindner Stephan S Solberg Leif I LI Miller William L WL Balasubramanian Bijal A BA Marino Miguel M McConnell K John KJ Edwards Samuel T ST Stange Kurt C KC Springer Rachel J RJ Cohen Deborah J DJ

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM 20190501 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>We assessed differences in structural characteristics, quality improvement processes, and cardiovascular preventive care by ownership type among 989 small to medium primary care practices.<h4>Methods</h4>This cross-sectional analysis used electronic health record and survey data collected between September 2015 and April 2017 as part of an evaluation of the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care Initiative by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. We compar ...[more]

PMID: 31068404

Similar Datasets

Project description:Primary care faces challenging times in many countries, mainly caused by an ageing population. The GPs' role to match patients' demand with medical need becomes increasingly complex with the growing multiple conditions population. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as ideal to the treatment decision making process. Understanding GPs' perception on SDM about patient referrals and whether patients' preferences are considered, becomes increasingly important for improving health outcomes and patient satisfaction. This study aims to 1) understand whether countries vary in how GPs perceive SDM, in patients' referral, 2) describe to what extent SDM in GPs' referrals differ between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems, and 3) identify what factors GPs consider when referring to specialists and describing how this differs between gatekeeping and non-gatekeeping systems. Data were collected between October 2011 and December 2013 in 32 countries through the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe). The first question was answered by assessing GPs' perception on who takes the referral decision. For the second question, a multilevel logistic model was applied. For the third question we analysed the GPs' responses on what patient logistics and need arguments they consider in the referral process. We found: 1) variation in GPs reported SDM- 90% to 35%, 2) a negative correlation between gatekeeper systems and SDM-however, some countries strongly deviate and 3) GPs in gatekeeper systems more often consider patient interests, whereas in non-gatekeeping countries the GP's value more own experience with specialists and benchmarking information. Our findings imply that GPs in gatekeeper systems seem to be less inclined to SDM than GPs in a non-gatekeeping system. The relation between gatekeeping/non-gatekeeping and SDM is not straightforward. A more contextualized approach is needed to understand the relation between gatekeeping as a system design feature and its relation with and/or impact on SDM.

Project description:Importance:Hospital-employed physicians provide primary care within the hospital or within community-based office practices. Yet, little is understood regarding the influence of hospital location and ownership on the delivery of low-value care. Objective:To assess the association of hospital location and hospital ownership with the provision of low-value health services. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study compared low-value service use after primary care visits at hospital-based outpatient practices from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2011, vs community-based office practices and at hospital-owned vs physician-owned community-based office practices from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2013. Logistic regression models adjusted for patient and health care professional characteristics and year, and weighted results were used to reflect population estimates. Results were also stratified by symptom acuity and whether a generalist physician (eg, general internist or family practitioner) was the patient's primary care provider. This study used nationally representative data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2013) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2011) on outpatient visits to generalist physicians. Participants were patients seen with 3 common primary care conditions, namely, upper respiratory tract infection, back pain, and headache. Main Outcomes and Measures:The use of antibiotics (for upper respiratory tract infection), computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (for back pain and headache), radiographs (for upper respiratory tract infection and back pain), and specialty referrals (for all 3 conditions). Results:This study identified 31?162 visits for upper respiratory tract infection, back pain, and headache, representing an estimated 739 million US primary care visits from 1997 to 2013. Compared with visits with community-based physicians, patients in visits to hospital-based physicians were younger (mean age, 44.5 vs 49.1 years; P?<?.001) and less frequently saw their primary care provider (52.7% vs 81.9%, P?<?.001). Although antibiotic use was similar in both settings, hospital-based visits had more orders for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (8.3% vs 6.3%, P?=?.01), radiographs (12.8% vs 9.9%, P?<?.001), and specialty referrals (19.0% vs 7.6%, P?<?.001) than community-based visits. Multivariable adjustment and symptom acuity stratification revealed similar findings. Visits with a generalist other than the patient's primary care provider were associated with greater provision of low-value care but mainly within hospital-based settings. Practice patterns were similar among hospital-owned vs physician-owned community-based practices with the exception of specialty referrals, which were more frequent in hospital-owned community-based practices. Conclusions and Relevance:Visits to US hospital-based practices are associated with greater use of low-value computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, radiographs, and specialty referrals than visits to community-based practices, and visits to hospital-owned community-based practices had more specialty referrals than visits to physician-owned community-based practices. These findings raise concerns about the provision of low-value care at hospital-associated primary care practices.

Project description:ImportanceWork environments and practice structural features are associated with both burnout and the ability of practices to enhance quality of care.ObjectiveTo characterize factors associated with primary care practices successfully improving quality scores without increasing clinician and staff burnout.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed small- to medium-sized primary care practices that participated in the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative using surveys that were administered at baseline (September 2015 to April 2017) and after the intervention (January 2017 to October 2018). Data were analyzed from February 2022 to January 2023.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of being a quality and well-being positive deviant practice was defined as a practice with a stable or improved percentage of clinicians and staff reporting burnout over the study period and with practice-level improvement in all 3 cardiovascular quality measures: aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling.ResultsOf 727 practices with complete burnout and aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling data, 18.3% (n = 133) met the criteria to be considered quality and well-being positive deviant practices. In analyses adjusted for practice location, accountable care organization and demonstration project participation, and practice specialty composition, clinician-owned practices had greater odds of being a positive deviant practice (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.16-3.54) than practices owned by a hospital or health system.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, clinician-owned practices were more likely to achieve improvements in cardiovascular quality outcomes without increasing staff member burnout than were practices owned by a hospital or health system. Given increasing health care consolidation, our findings suggest the value of studying cultural features of clinician-owned practices that may be associated with positive quality and experience outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is not known whether equity-oriented primary care investment that seeks to scale up the delivery of effective care in disadvantaged communities can reduce health inequality within high-income settings that have pre-existing universal primary care systems. We provide some non-randomised controlled evidence by comparing health inequality trends between two similar jurisdictions-one of which implemented equity-oriented primary care investment in the mid-to-late 2000s as part of a cross-government strategy for reducing health inequality (England), and one which invested in primary care without any explicit equity objective (Ontario, Canada). METHODS:We analysed whole-population data on 32,482 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 1,500 people) in England, and 18,961 neighbourhoods (with mean population size of approximately 700 people) in Ontario. We examined trends in mortality amenable to healthcare by decile groups of neighbourhood deprivation within each jurisdiction. We used linear models to estimate absolute and relative gaps in amenable mortality between most and least deprived groups, considering the gradient between these extremes, and evaluated difference-in-difference comparisons between the two jurisdictions. RESULTS:Inequality trends were comparable in both jurisdictions from 2004-6 but diverged from 2007-11. Compared with Ontario, the absolute gap in amenable mortality in England fell between 2004-6 and 2007-11 by 19.8 per 100,000 population (95% CI: 4.8 to 34.9); and the relative gap in amenable mortality fell by 10 percentage points (95% CI: 1 to 19). The biggest divergence occurred in the most deprived decile group of neighbourhoods. DISCUSSION:In comparison to Ontario, England succeeded in reducing absolute socioeconomic gaps in mortality amenable to healthcare from 2007 to 2011, and preventing them from growing in relative terms. Equity-oriented primary care reform in England in the mid-to-late 2000s may have helped to reduce socioeconomic inequality in health, though other explanations for this divergence are possible and further research is needed on the specific causal mechanisms.

Project description:BackgroundAs part of its ongoing healthcare reform, the Hong Kong Government introduced a voucher scheme, intended for encouraging older patients to use primary healthcare services in the private sector, thereby, reducing burden on the overwhelmed public sector. The voucher program is also considered one of the strategies to further develop the public private partnership in healthcare, a policy direction of high political priority as indicated in the Chief Executive Policy Address in 2008-09. This study assessed whether the voucher scheme, as implemented so far, has reached its intended goals, and how it might be further improved in the context of public-private partnership.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study using structured questionnaires by face-to-face interviews with older people aged 70 or above in Hong Kong, the target group of the demand-side voucher program.Results71.2% of 1,026 older people were aware of the new voucher scheme but only 35.0% had ever used it. The majority of the older people used the vouchers for acute curative services in the private sector (82.4%) and spent less on preventive services. Despite the provision of vouchers valued US$30 per year as an incentive to encourage the use of private primary care services, after 12-months of implementation, 66.2% of all respondents agreed with the statement that "the voucher scheme does not change their health seeking behaviours on seeing public or private healthcare professionals". The most common reasons for no change in their behaviours included "I am used to seeing doctors in the public system" and "The amount of the subsidy is too low". Those who usually used a mix of public and private doctors and those with better self-reported health condition compared to last year were more likely to perceive a change in their own health seeking behaviours.ConclusionsOur study showed that despite a reasonably high awareness of the voucher scheme, its usage was low. The voucher alone was not enough to realize the government's policy of greater use of the private primary care services. Greater publicity and more variety of media promotion would increase awareness but the effectiveness of vouchers in changing older people's behaviour needs to be revisited. Designating vouchers for use of preventive services with evidence-based practice could be considered. In addition to the demand-side subsidies, improving transparency and comparability of private services against the public sector might be necessary.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary aim of this study was to examine weight gain during pregnancy and associated adverse outcomes across different types of antenatal health care providers. Our research question examined whether type of antenatal health care provider (family physician, obstetrician, midwife, or family physician plus obstetrician) was associated with differing rates of excess or inadequate weight gain and associated adverse outcomes including being large for gestational age, being small for gestational age, cesarean delivery and preterm birth.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the Better Outcomes Registry & Network Information System, 2014-2016, for singleton hospital births at 20-42 weeks' gestation in Ontario. We calculated descriptive statistics to summarize patient characteristics and outcomes by antenatal health care provider. We calculated crude and adjusted relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the exposure (weight gain during pregnancy) relative to each secondary outcome by health care provider. We calculated population attributable fractions with 95% CIs to assess the proportion of secondary outcomes that could be prevented if inadequate or excess weight gain (according to the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines) were removed by health care provider.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 231 697 pregnancies, of which 26 043 (11.2%), 136 994 (59.1%), 32 262 (13.9%) and 36 298 (15.7%) were managed by a family physician, obstetrician, midwife, and family physician plus obstetrician, respectively. Rates of weight gain below, within or above recommended levels were 31 742 (13.7%), 71 826 (31.0%) and 128 128 (55.3%), respectively, and did not differ across health care provider groups. No difference was observed in rates of secondary outcomes according to weight gain across health care providers. Excess weight gain was associated with a significant risk of being large for gestational age and cesarean delivery, and inadequate weight gain was associated with an increased risk of being small for gestational age and preterm birth. The population attributable fractions indicated a pronounced contribution of excess weight gain to being large for gestational age across all health care provider groups.InterpretationWeight gain during pregnancy and rates of associated secondary outcomes did not differ according to antenatal health care provider. This suggests a need for further research exploring counselling techniques and strategies for all types of antenatal health care providers to use in order to promote optimal weight gain during pregnancy.

Project description:Little information is available about whether the use of self-assessment instruments in primary care affects depression course and outcome. The purpose was to evaluate whether using a depression self-rating scale in recurrent person-centred GP consultations affected depression severity, quality of life, medication use, and sick leave frequency.Patients in the intervention group met their GP regularly at least 4 times during the 3 months intervention. In addition to treatment as usual (TAU), patients completed a self-assessment instrument (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) on each occasion, and then GPs used the completed instrument as the basis for a person-centred discussion of changes in depression symptoms. The control group received TAU. Frequency of visits in the TAU arm was the result of the GPs' and patients' joint assessments of care need in each case. Depression severity was measured with Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), quality of life with EQ-5D, and psychological well-being with the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12). Data on sick leave, antidepressant and sedatives use, and care contacts were collected from electronic patient records. All variables were measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean intra-individual changes were compared between the intervention and TAU group.There were no significant differences between the intervention and control group in depression severity reduction or remission rate, change in quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative prescriptions, or sick leave during the whole 12-month follow-up. However, significantly more patients in the intervention group continued antidepressants until the 6 month follow-up (86/125 vs 78/133, p?<?0.05).When GPs used a depression self-rating scale in recurrent consultations, patients more often continued antidepressant medication according to guidelines, compared to TAU patients. However, reduction of depressive symptoms, remission rate, quality of life, psychological well-being, sedative use, sick leave, and health care use 4-12 months was not significantly different from the TAU group. These findings suggest that frequent use of depression rating scales in person-centred primary care consultations has no further additional effect on patients' depression or well-being, sick leave, or health care use.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01402206 . Registered June 27 2011(retrospectively registered).

Dataset Information

Does Ownership Make a Difference in Primary Care Practice?

Publications

Does Ownership Make a Difference in Primary Care Practice?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets