Dataset Information

Variation in Patient Experience Across the Clinic Day: a Multilevel Assessment of Four Primary Care Practices.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patient satisfaction with healthcare is associated with clinical outcomes, provider satisfaction, and success of healthcare organizations. As the clinic day progresses, provider fatigue, deterioration with communication within the care team, and appointment spillover may decrease patient experience. OBJECTIVE:To understand the relationship between likelihood to recommend a primary care practice and scheduled appointment time across multiple practice settings. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort. PARTICIPANTS:A retrospective cohort was created of all patients seen within four primary care practices between July 1, 2016, and September 30, 2017. MAIN MEASURES:We looked at scheduled appointment time against patient likelihood to recommend a practice as a measure of overall patient experience collected routinely for clinical practice improvement by the Press Ganey Medical Practice Survey®. Adjusted mixed effects logistic regression models were created to understand the relationship between progressing appointment time on patient likelihood to recommend a practice. We constructed locally weighted smoothing (LOESS) curves to understand how reported patient experience varied over the clinic day. RESULTS:We had a response rate of 14.0% (n?=?3172), 80.2% of whom indicated they would recommend our practice to others. Appointment time scheduling during the last hour (4:00-4:59 PM) had a 45% lower odds of recommending our practice when compared to the first clinic hour (adjusted OR?=?0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.86) which is similar when controlling for patient-reported wait time (aOR?=?0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.95). LOESS plots demonstrated declining satisfaction with subsequent appointment times compared with the first session hour, with no effect just after the lunch hour break. CONCLUSIONS:In primary care, appointment time of day is associated with patient-reported experience.

SUBMITTER: Philpot LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6848585 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variation in Patient Experience Across the Clinic Day: a Multilevel Assessment of Four Primary Care Practices.

Philpot Lindsey M LM Khokhar Bushra A BA Rosedahl Jordan K JK Sinclair Tiffany A TA Chaudhry Rajeev R Ebbert Jon O JO

Journal of general internal medicine 20190913 11

<h4>Background</h4>Patient satisfaction with healthcare is associated with clinical outcomes, provider satisfaction, and success of healthcare organizations. As the clinic day progresses, provider fatigue, deterioration with communication within the care team, and appointment spillover may decrease patient experience.<h4>Objective</h4>To understand the relationship between likelihood to recommend a primary care practice and scheduled appointment time across multiple practice settings.<h4>Design< ...[more]

PMID: 31520229

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The growing movement toward more accountable care delivery and the increasing number of people with chronic illnesses underscores the need for primary care practices to engage patients in their own care. OBJECTIVE:For adult primary care practices seeing patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease, we examined the relationship between selected practice characteristics, patient engagement, and patient-reported outcomes of care. DESIGN:Cross-sectional multilevel observational study of 16 randomly selected practices in two large accountable care organizations (ACOs). PARTICIPANTS:Patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) who met study eligibility criteria (n?=?4368) and received care in 2014 were randomly selected to complete a patient activation and PRO survey (51% response rate; n?=?2176). Primary care team members of the 16 practices completed surveys that assessed practice culture, relational coordination, and teamwork (86% response rate; n?=?411). MAIN MEASURES:Patient-reported outcomes included depression (PHQ-4), physical functioning (PROMIS SF12a), and social functioning (PROMIS SF8a), the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument (PACIC-11), and the Patient Activation Measure instrument (PAM-13). Patient-level covariates included patient age, gender, education, insurance coverage, limited English language proficiency, blood pressure, HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, and disease comorbidity burden. For each of the 16 practices, patient-centered culture and the degree of relational coordination among team members were measured using a clinician and staff survey. The implementation of shared decision-making activities in each practice was assessed using an operational leader survey. KEY RESULTS:Having a patient-centered culture was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (odds ratio [OR]?=?1.51; confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 2.19) and better physical function scores (OR?=?1.85; CI 1.25, 2.73). Patient activation was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (OR?=?2.26; CI 1.79, 2.86), better physical health (OR?=?2.56; CI 2.00, 3.27), and better social health functioning (OR?=?4.12; CI 3.21, 5.29). Patient activation (PAM-13) mediated the positive association between patients' experience of chronic illness care and each of the three patient-reported outcome measures-fewer depression symptoms, better physical health, and better social health. Relational coordination and shared decision-making activities reported by practices were not significantly associated with higher patient-reported outcome scores. CONCLUSIONS:Diabetic and CVD patients who received care from ACO-affiliated practices with more developed patient-centered cultures reported lower PHQ-4 depression symptom scores and better physical functioning. Diabetic and CVD patients who were more highly activated to participate in their care reported lower PHQ-4 scores and better physical and social outcomes of care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore whether responses to questions in surveys of patients that purport to assess the performance of general practices or doctors reflect differences between practices, doctors, or the patients themselves.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a study of access to general practice, combining data from a survey of patients with information about practice organisation and doctors consulted, and using multilevel modelling at practice, doctor, and patient level.SettingNine primary care trusts in England.Participants4573 patients who consulted 150 different doctors in 27 practices.Main outcome measuresOverall satisfaction; experience of wait for an appointment; reported access to care; satisfaction with communication skills.ResultsThe experience based measure of wait for an appointment was more discriminating between practices (practice level accounted for 20.2% (95% confidence interval 9.1% to 31.3%) of variance) than was the overall satisfaction measure (practice level accounted for 4.6% (1.6% to 7.6%) of variance). Only 6.3% (3.8% to 8.9%) of the variance in the doctors' communication skills measure was due to differences between doctors; 92.4% (88.5% to 96.4%) of the variance occurred at the level of the patient (including differences between patients' perceptions and random variation). At least 79% of the variance on all measures occurred at the level of the patient, and patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and housing and employment status explained some of this variation. However, adjustment for patients' characteristics made very little difference to practices' scores or the ranking of individual practices.ConclusionsAnalyses of surveys of patients should take account of the hierarchical nature of the data by using multilevel models. Measures related to patients' experience discriminate more effectively between practices than do measures of general satisfaction. Surveys of patients' satisfaction fail to distinguish effectively between individual doctors because most of the variation in doctors' reported performance is due to differences between patients and random error rather than differences between doctors. Although patients' reports of satisfaction and experience are systematically related to patients' characteristics such as age and sex, the effect of adjusting practices' scores for the characteristics of their patients is small.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically and rigorously examined the quality of care provided in educational practice sites. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the patient population cared for by trainees in internal medicine residency clinics; (2) assess the quality of preventive cardiology care provided to these patients; (3) characterize the practice-based systems that currently exist in internal medicine residency clinics; and (4) examine the relationships between quality, practice-based systems, and features of the program: size, type of program, and presence of an electronic medical record. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: This study was conducted in 15 Internal Medicine residency programs (23 sites) throughout the USA. PARTICIPANTS: The participants included site champions at residency programs and 709 residents. MEASUREMENTS: Abstracted charts provided data about patient demographics, coronary heart disease risk factors, processes of care, and clinical outcomes. Patients completed surveys regarding satisfaction. Site teams completed a practice systems survey. RESULTS: Chart abstraction of 4,783 patients showed substantial variability across sites. On average, patients had between 3 and 4 of the 9 potential risk factors for coronary heart disease, and approximately 21% had at least 1 important barrier of care. Patients received an average of 57% (range, 30-77%) of the appropriate interventions. Reported satisfaction with care was high. Sites with an electronic medical record showed better overall information management (81% vs 27%) and better modes of communication (79% vs 43%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided insight into the current state of practice in residency sites including aspects of the practice environment and quality of preventive cardiology care delivered. Substantial heterogeneity among the training sites exists. Continuous measurement of the quality of care provided and a better understanding of the training environment in which this care is delivered are important goals for delivering high quality patient care.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians typically estimate heart failure health status using the New York Heart Association Class, which is often discordant with patient-reported health status. It is unknown whether collecting patient-reported health status improves the accuracy of clinician assessments.MethodsThe PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic) is a randomized, nonblinded trial evaluating routine Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) collection in heart failure clinic. Patients with a scheduled visit to Stanford heart failure clinic between August 30, 2021 and June 30, 2022 were enrolled and randomized to KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. In this prespecified substudy, we evaluated whether access to the KCCQ-12 improved the accuracy of clinicians' New York Heart Association assessment or patients' perspectives on their clinician interaction. We surveyed clinicians regarding their patients' New York Heart Association Class, quality of life, and symptom frequency. Clinician responses were compared with patients' KCCQ-12 responses. We surveyed patients regarding their clinician interactions.ResultsOf the 1248 enrolled patients, 1051 (84.2%) attended a visit during the substudy. KCCQ-12 results were given to the clinicians treating the 528 patients in the KCCQ-12 arm; the 523 patients in the usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 without the results being shared. The correlation between New York Heart Association Class and KCCQ-12 Overall Summary Score was stronger when clinicians had access to the KCCQ-12 (r=-0.73 versus r=-0.61, P<0.001). More patients in the KCCQ-12 arm strongly agreed that their clinician understood their symptoms (95.2% versus 89.7% of respondents [odds ratio' 2.27; 95% CI' 1.32-3.87]). However, patients in both arms reported similar quality of clinician communication and therapeutic alliance.ConclusionsCollecting the KCCQ-12 in heart failure clinic improved clinicians' accuracy of health status assessment; correspondingly, patients believed their clinicians better understood their symptoms.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

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.

Dataset Information

Variation in Patient Experience Across the Clinic Day: a Multilevel Assessment of Four Primary Care Practices.

Publications

Variation in Patient Experience Across the Clinic Day: a Multilevel Assessment of Four Primary Care Practices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets