Dataset Information

Association of Racial/Ethnic and Gender Concordance Between Patients and Physicians With Patient Experience Ratings.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey is used to measure the patient experience. An understanding of the patient- and physician-related determinants of the patient experience may help identify opportunities to improve health care delivery and physician ratings.

Objective

To evaluate the associations between the patient experience as measured by scores on the Press Ganey survey and patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional analysis of Press Ganey surveys returned for outpatient visits within the University of Pennsylvania Health System between 2014 and 2017 was performed. Participants included adult patient and physician dyads for whom surveys were returned. Data analysis was performed from January to June 2019.

Exposures

Patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was receipt of the maximum score for the "likelihood of your recommending this care provider to others" question in the Care Provider domain of the Press Ganey survey. Secondary outcomes included each of the remaining 9 questions in the Care Provider domain. Generalized estimating equations clustering on physicians with exchangeable intracluster correlations and cluster-robust standard errors were used to investigate associations between the outcomes and patient-physician racial/ethnic and gender concordance.

Results

In total, 117 589 surveys were evaluated, corresponding to 92 238 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 57.7 [15.6] years; 37 002 men [40.1%]; 75 307 White patients [81.6%]) and 747 unique physicians (mean [SD] age 45.5 [10.6] years; 472 men [63.2%]; 533 White physicians [71.4%]). Compared with racially/ethnically concordant patient-physician dyads, discordance was associated with a lower likelihood of physicians receiving the maximum score (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94; P < .001). Black (adjusted OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.78; P < .001) and Asian (adjusted OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.60; P < .001) patient race were both associated with lower patient experience ratings. Patient-physician gender concordance was not associated with Press Ganey scores (adjusted OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04; P = .90).

Conclusions and relevance

In this study, higher Press Ganey survey scores were associated with racial/ethnic concordance between patients and their physicians. Efforts to improve physician workforce diversity are imperative. Delivery of health care in a culturally mindful manner between racially/ethnically discordant patient-physician dyads is also essential. Furthermore, Press Ganey scores may differ by a physician's patient demographic mix; thus, care must be taken when publicly reporting or using Press Ganey scores to evaluate physicians on an individual level.

SUBMITTER: Takeshita J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7653497 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) plans, which disproportionately enroll racial/ethnic minorities and persons with socioeconomic disadvantage, receive bonus payments on the basis of overall performance on a 5-star rating scale. The association between plans' overall quality and disparities in quality is not well understood.ObjectiveTo examine the association between MA star ratings and disparities in care for racial/ethnic minorities and enrollees with lower income and educational attainment.Design setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study included 1 578 564 MA enrollees from 454 contracts across the 2015 and 2016 calendar years. Data analyses were conducted between June 2019 and June 2020.ExposuresSelf-reported race and ethnicity and low socioeconomic status (SES) (defined by low income or less than a high school education) vs high SES (neither low income nor low educational attainment).Main outcomes and measuresPerformance on 22 measures of quality and satisfaction determined at the individual enrollee level, aggregated into simulated star ratings (scale, 2-5) stratified by SES and race/ethnicity.ResultsA total of 1 578 564 enrollees were included in this analysis (55.8% female; mean [SD] age, 71.4 [11.3] years; 65.8% White; 12.3% Black; 14.6% Hispanic). Enrollees with low SES had simulated stratified star ratings 0.5 stars lower (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 stars) than individuals with high SES in the same contract. Black and Hispanic enrollees had simulated star ratings that were 0.3 stars (95% CI, 0.2-0.4 stars) and 0.1 stars (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.2 stars) lower than White enrollees within the same contracts. Black enrollees had a 0.4-star lower rating (95% CI, 0.1-0.7 stars) in 4.5- to 5-star contracts and a no statistical difference in 2.0- to 2.5-star-rated contracts (difference, 0.3 stars; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.7 stars). Hispanic enrollees had a 0.6-star lower simulated rating (95% CI, 0.2-1.0 stars) in 4.5- to 5-star contracts and no statistical difference in 2- to 2.5-star contracts (difference, -0.01 stars; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4 stars). There was low correlation between simulated ratings for enrollees of low SES and high SES (difference, 0.2 stars; 95% CI, 0.03-0.4 stars) and between simulated ratings for White and Black enrollees (difference, 0.4 stars; 95% CI, 0.3-0.5 stars) and White and Hispanic enrollees (difference, 0.3 stars; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4 stars). As the proportion of Black and Hispanic enrollees increased in a contract, racial/ethnic disparities in ratings decreased.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, simulated MA star ratings were only weakly correlated with those for enrollees of low SES in the same contract, and contracts with higher star ratings had larger disparities in quality. Measures of equity in MA plans' quality of care may be needed.

Project description:ImportancePatient reviews of health care experiences are increasingly used for public reporting and alternative payment models. Critics have argued that this incentivizes physicians to provide more care, including low-value care, undermining efforts to reduce wasteful practices.ObjectiveTo assess associations between rates of low-value service provision to a primary care professional (PCP) patient panel and patients' ratings of their health care experiences.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study used Medicare fee-for-service claims from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, for a random 20% sample of beneficiaries to identify beneficiaries for whom each of 8 low-value services could be ordered but would be considered unnecessary. The study also used health care experience reports from independently sampled beneficiaries who responded to the 2010-2015 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare fee-for-service survey. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2019, to December 9, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were health care experience ratings from Medicare beneficiaries who responded to the CAHPS survey from 2 domains, namely "Your Health Care in the Last 6 Months" (overall health care, office wait time, timely access to nonurgent care, and timely access to urgent care) and "Your Personal Doctor" (overall personal physician and a composite score for interactions with personal physician). Beneficiaries in both samples were attributed to the PCP with whom they had the most spending. For each PCP, a composite score of low-value service exposure was constructed using the 20% sample; this score represented the adjusted relative propensity of the PCP patient panel to receive low-value care. The association between low-value service exposure and health care experience ratings reported by the CAHPS respondents in the PCP patient panel was estimated using regression analysis.ResultsThe final sample had 100 743 PCPs, with a mean of approximately 258 patients per PCP. Only 1 notable association was found; more low-value care exposure was associated with more frequent reports of having to wait more than 15 minutes after the scheduled time of an appointment (a mean of 0.448 points lower CAHPS score on a 10-point scale for PCP patient panels who received the most low-value care vs the least low-value care). Although some other associations were statistically significant, their magnitudes were substantially smaller than those typically considered meaningful in other CAHPS literature and were inconsistent in direction across levels of low-value service exposure.Conclusions and relevanceThis quality improvement study found that more low-value care exposure for a PCP patient panel was not associated with more favorable patient ratings of their health care experiences.

Project description:ObjectivesSchool racial/ethnic segregation in U.S. schoolsDifferences in school racial/ethnic composition may increase health disparities by concentrating educational opportunities that confer long-term health benefits in schools serving predominantly wwhite students. For racial minority students, high concentrations of white students may increase exposure to racismis also associated with psychologicstress, which may ultimately reduceing the long-term health benefits from educational opportunities. Meanwhile associations of racial/ethnic academic tacking within schools and health have been mixed. We sought to test whether: 1) differences in racial/ethnic composition between schools and, 2) racial/ethnic distribution of students in academic tracks within schools are associated with long-term health benefits or risks for white, Black and Latinx students.MethodsWe analyzed the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (12,438 participants, collected 1994-2008), to test whether the school-level segregation (percent of non-Latinx white students at participants' school during adolescence) was associated with adult health outcomes at ages 18-26 & 24-32, controlling for contextual factorscomparing Black, Latinx, and white students, and controlling for contextualf factors. A secondary analysis explored whether racial/ethnic cohorting across levels of English courses was associated with each health outcome.ResultsAttending a school with a higher percent of white students was associated with higher adult depression scores, substance abuse, and worse self-rated health for black Black students; lower depression scores, better self-rated health, and alcohol abuse for white students; and no health differences for Latinx students. Greater within school racial/ethnic cohorting across English courses was associated with increased odds of alcohol abuse for white students; decreased odds of alcohol abuse for Black and Latinx students; and decreased odds of drug abuse for Black students.ConclusionAmong Bblack youth, attending a school with a higher percentage of white students is associated with worse behavioral health in adulthood. Understanding the potential impacts of school racial/ethnic composition on health is critical to designing policies that maximize access to opportunity and health.Education policies should comprehensively address school quality and racism to maximize adult health.