Dataset Information

Measuring individual physician clinical productivity in an era of consolidated group practices.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:As physician groups consolidate and value-based payment replaces traditional fee-for-service systems, physician practices have greater need to accurately measure individual physician clinical productivity within team-based systems. We compared methodologies to measure individual physician outpatient clinical productivity after adjustment for shared practice resources. METHODS:For cardiologists at our hospital between January 2015 and June 2016, we assessed productivity by examining completed patient visits per clinical session per week. Using mixed-effects models, we sequentially accounted for shared practice resources and underlying baseline characteristics. We compared mixed-effects and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) models using K-fold cross validation, and compared mixed-effect, GEE, and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models based on ranking of physicians by productivity. RESULTS:A mixed-effects model adjusting for shared practice resources reduced variation in productivity among providers by 63% compared to an unadjusted model. Mixed-effects productivity rankings correlated strongly with GEE rankings (Spearman 0.99), but outperformed GEE on K-fold cross validation (root mean squared error 2.66 vs 3.02; mean absolute error 1.89 vs 2.20, respectively). Mixed-effects model rankings had moderate correlation with DEA model rankings (Spearman 0.692), though this improved upon exclusion of outliers (Spearman 0.755). CONCLUSIONS:Mixed-effects modeling accounts for significant variation in productivity secondary to shared practice resources, outperforms GEE in predictive power, and is less vulnerable to outliers than DEA. IMPLICATIONS:With mixed-effects regression analysis using otherwise easily accessible administrative data, practices can evaluate physician clinical productivity more fairly and make more informed management decisions on physician compensation and resource allocation.

SUBMITTER: Butala NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6703949 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Measuring individual physician clinical productivity in an era of consolidated group practices.

Butala Neel M NM Hidrue Michael K MK Swersey Arthur J AJ Singh Jagmeet P JP Weilburg Jeffrey B JB Ferris Timothy G TG Armstrong Katrina A KA Wasfy Jason H JH

Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 20190208 4

<h4>Background</h4>As physician groups consolidate and value-based payment replaces traditional fee-for-service systems, physician practices have greater need to accurately measure individual physician clinical productivity within team-based systems. We compared methodologies to measure individual physician outpatient clinical productivity after adjustment for shared practice resources.<h4>Methods</h4>For cardiologists at our hospital between January 2015 and June 2016, we assessed productivity ...[more]

PMID: 30744992

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several prior studies have examined the impact of learners (medical students or residents) on overall emergency department (ED) flow as well as the impact of resident training level on the number of patients seen by residents per hour. No study to date has specifically examined the impact of learners on emergency medicine (EM) attending physician productivity, with regards to patients per hour (PPH). We sought to evaluate whether learners increase, decrease, or have no effect on the productivity of EM attending physicians in a teaching program with one student or resident per attending.This was a retrospective database review of an urban, academic tertiary care center with 3 separate teams on the acute care side of the ED. Each team was staffed with one attending physician paired with either one resident, one medical student or with no learners. All shifts from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2010 were reviewed using an electronic database. We predefined a shift as "Resident" if > 5 patients were seen by a resident, "Medical Student" if any patients were seen by a medical student, and "No Learners" if no patients were seen by a medical student or resident. Shifts were removed from analysis if more than one learner saw patients during the shift. We further stratified resident shifts by EM training level or off-service rotator. For each type of shift, the total number of patients seen by the attending physician was then divided by 8 hours (shift duration) to arrive at number of patients per hour.We analyzed a total of 7,360 shifts with 2,778 removed due to multiple learners on a team. For the 2,199 shifts with attending physicians with no learners, the average number of PPH was 1.87(95% confidence interval [CI] 1.86,1.89). For the 514 medical student shifts, the average PPH was 1.87(95% CI 1.84,1.90), p = 0.99 compared with attending with no learner. For the 1,935 resident shifts, the average PPH was 1.99(95% CI 1.97,2.00). Compared with attending physician with no learner, attending physicians with a resident saw more PPH (1.99 vs 1.87, p<0.005). There was no statistically significant difference found between EM1: 1.98PPH, EM2: 1.99PPH, EM3: 1.99PPH, and off-service rotators: 1.99PPH.EM attending physicians paired with a resident in a one-on-one teaching model saw statistically significantly more patients per hour (0.12 more patients per hour) than EM attending physicians alone. EM attending physicians paired with a medical student saw the same number of patients per hour compared with working alone.

Project description:BackgroundInterest in the well-being of physicians has increased because of their contributions to the healthcare system quality. There is growing recognition that physicians are exposed to workplace factors that increase the risk of work stress. Long-term exposure to high work stress can result in burnout. Reports from around the world suggest that about one-third to one-half of physicians experience burnout. Understanding the outcomes associated with burnout is critical to understanding its affects on the healthcare system. Productivity outcomes are among those that could have the most immediate effects on the healthcare system. This systematic literature review is one of the first to explore the evidence for the types of physician productivity outcomes associated with physician burnout. It answers the question, "How does burnout affect physician productivity?"MethodsA systematic search was performed of: Medline Current, Medline in process, PsycInfo, Embase and Web of Science. The search period covered 2002 to 2012. The searches identified articles about practicing physicians working in civilian settings. Articles that primarily looked only at residents or medical students were excluded. Productivity was captured by hours worked, patients seen, sick leave, leaving the profession, retirement, workload and presenteeism. Studies also were excluded if: (1) the study sample was not comprised of at least 50% physicians, (2) the study did not examine the relationship between burnout and productivity or (3) a validated measure of burnout was not used.ResultsThe search identified 870 unique citations; 5 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. This review indicates that globally there is recognition of the potential impact of physician burnout on productivity. Productivity was examined using: number of sick leave days, work ability, intent to either continue practicing or change jobs. The majority of the studies indicate there is a negative relationship between burnout and productivity. However, there is variation depending on the type of productivity outcome examined.ConclusionsThere is evidence that burnout is associated with decreased productivity. However, this line of inquiry is still developing. A number of gaps are yet to be filled including understanding how to quantify the changes in productivity related to burnout.

Project description:ImportancePhysician burnout disproportionately affects women physicians and begins in training. Professional coaching may improve well-being, but generalizable evidence is lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the generalizability of a coaching program (Better Together Physician Coaching) in a national sample of women physician trainees.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial involving trainees in 26 graduate medical education institutions in 19 states was conducted between September 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022. Eligible participants included physician trainees at included sites who self-identified as a woman (ie, self-reported their gender identity as woman, including those who reported woman if multiple genders were reported).InterventionA 4-month, web-based, group coaching program.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were change in burnout (measured using subscales for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal achievement from the Maslach Burnout Inventory). Secondary outcomes included changes in impostor syndrome, moral injury, self-compassion, and flourishing, which were assessed using standardized measures. A linear mixed model analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to account for the missing outcomes.ResultsAmong the 1017 women trainees in the study (mean [SD] age, 30.8 [4.0] years; 540 White participants [53.1%]; 186 surgical trainees [18.6%]), 502 were randomized to the intervention group and 515 were randomized to the control group. Emotional exhaustion decreased by an estimated mean (SE) -3.81 (0.73) points in the intervention group compared with a mean (SE) increase of 0.32 (0.57) points in the control group (absolute difference [SE], -4.13 [0.92] points; 95% CI, -5.94 to -2.32 points; P < .001). Depersonalization decreased by a mean (SE) of -1.66 (0.42) points in the intervention group compared with a mean (SE) increase of 0.20 (0.32) points in the control group (absolute difference [SE], -1.87 [0.53] points; 95%CI, -2.91 to -0.82 points; P < .001). Impostor syndrome decreased by a mean (SE) of -1.43 (0.14) points in the intervention group compared with -0.15 (0.11) points in the control group (absolute difference [SE], -1.28 (0.18) points; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.93 points; P < .001). Moral injury decreased by a mean (SE) of -5.60 (0.92) points in the intervention group compared with -0.92 (0.71) points in the control group (absolute difference [SE], -4.68 [1.16] points; 95% CI, -6.95 to -2.41 points; P < .001). Self-compassion increased by a mean (SE) of 5.27 (0.47) points in the intervention group and by 1.36 (0.36) points in the control group (absolute difference [SE], 3.91 [0.60] points; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.08 points; P < .001). Flourishing improved by a mean (SE) of 0.48 (0.09) points in the intervention group vs 0.09 (0.07) points in the control group (absolute difference [SE], 0.38 [0.11] points; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.60 points; P < .001). The sensitivity analysis found similar findings.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this randomized clinical trial suggest that web-based professional group-coaching can improve outcomes of well-being and mitigate symptoms of burnout for women physician trainees.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05222685.

Dataset Information

Measuring individual physician clinical productivity in an era of consolidated group practices.

Publications

Measuring individual physician clinical productivity in an era of consolidated group practices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets