Dataset Information

Regional market factors and patient experience in primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To evaluate the association between regional market factors and experience with patient-provider communication in primary care services of safety net hospitals.

Study design

A retrospective cohort study with 933,407 patient experience survey respondents from 128 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals between fiscal years 2013 and 2016.

Methods

Patient 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.

Results

Our 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).

Conclusions

Findings 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.

SUBMITTER: Minegishi T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8262995 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient experience measures are widely used to compare performance at the individual physician level. OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of unmeasured patient characteristics on visit-level patient experience measures and the sample sizes required to reliably measure patient experience at the primary care physician (PCP) level. DESIGN:Repeated cross-sectional design. SETTING:Academic family medicine practice in California. PARTICIPANTS:One thousand one hundred forty-one adult patients attending 1319 visits with 56 PCPs (including 45 resident and 11 faculty physicians). MEASUREMENTS:Post-visit patient experience surveys including patient measures used for standard adjustment as recommend by the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Consortium and additional patient characteristics used for expanded adjustment (including attitudes toward healthcare, global life satisfaction, patient personality, current symptom bother, and marital status). RESULTS:The amount of variance in patient experience explained doubled with expanded adjustment for patient characteristics compared with standard adjustment (R2 = 20.0% vs. 9.6%, respectively). With expanded adjustment, the amount of variance attributable to the PCP dropped from 6.1% to 3.4% and the required sample size to achieve a reliability of 0.90 in the physician-level patient experience measure increased from 138 to 255 patients per physician. After ranking of the 56 PCPs by average patient experience, 8 were reclassified into or out of the top or bottom quartiles of average experience with expanded as compared to standard adjustment [14.3% (95% CI: 7.0-25.2%)]. CONCLUSIONS:Widely used methods for measuring PCP-level patient experience may not account sufficiently for influential patient characteristics. If methods were adapted to account for these characteristics, patient sample sizes for reliable between-physician comparisons may be too large for most practices to obtain.

Project description:BackgroundThe 2007/8 GP Access Survey in England measured experience with five dimensions of access: getting through on the phone to a practice, getting an early appointment, getting an advance appointment, making an appointment with a particular doctor, and surgery opening hours. Our aim was to identify predictors of patient satisfaction and experience with access to English primary care.Methods8,307 English general practices were included in the survey (of 8,403 identified). 4,922,080 patients were randomly selected and contacted by post and 1,999,523 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 40.6%. We used multi-level logistic regressions to identify patient, practice and regional predictors of patient satisfaction and experience.ResultsAfter controlling for all other factors, younger people, and people of Asian ethnicity, working full time, or with long commuting times to work, reported the lowest levels of satisfaction and experience of access. For people in work, the ability to take time off work to visit the GP effectively eliminated the disadvantage in access. The ethnic mix of the local area had an impact on a patient's reported satisfaction and experience over and above the patient's own ethnic identity. However, area deprivation had only low associations with patient ratings. Responses from patients in small practices were more positive for all aspects of access with the exception of satisfaction with practice opening hours. Positive reports of access to care were associated with higher scores on the Quality and Outcomes Framework and with slightly lower rates of emergency admission. Respondents in London were the least satisfied and had the worst experiences on almost all dimensions of access.ConclusionsThis study identifies a number of patient groups with lower satisfaction, and poorer experience, of gaining access to primary care. The finding that access is better in small practices is important given the increasing tendency for small practices to combine into larger units. Consideration needs to be given to ways of retaining these and other benefits of small practice size when primary care services are reconfigured. Differences between population groups (e.g. younger people, ethnic minorities) may be due to differences in actual care received or different response tendencies of different groups. Further analysis is needed to determine whether case-mix adjustment is required when comparing practices serving different populations.

Project description:Primary 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.To measure the effect of PCP turnover on patient experiences of care and ambulatory care quality.Observational, 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.Whether 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).Five patient care experience measures (from SHEP) and 11 measures of quality of ambulatory care (from EPRP).Nine 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.Primary care provider turnover was associated with worse patient experiences of care but did not have a major effect on ambulatory care quality.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the extent to which medical group and market factors are related to individual primary care physician (PCP) performance on patient experience measures.Data sourcesThis study employs Clinician and Group CAHPS survey data (n=105,663) from 2,099 adult PCPs belonging to 34 diverse medical groups across California. Medical group directors were interviewed to assess the magnitude and nature of financial incentives directed at individual physicians and the adoption of patient experience improvement strategies. Primary care services area (PCSA) data were used to characterize the market environment of physician practices.Study designWe used multilevel models to estimate the relationship between medical group and market factors and physician performance on each Clinician and Group CAHPS measure. Models statistically controlled for respondent characteristics and accounted for the clustering of respondents within physicians, physicians within medical groups, and medical groups within PCSAs using random effects.Principal findingsCompared with physicians belonging to independent practice associations, physicians belonging to integrated medical groups had better performance on the communication ( p=.007) and care coordination ( p=.03) measures. Physicians belonging to medical groups with greater numbers of PCPs had better performance on all measures. The use of patient experience improvement strategies was not associated with performance. Greater emphasis on productivity and efficiency criteria in individual physician financial incentive formulae was associated with worse access to care ( p=.04). Physicians located in PCSAs with higher area-level deprivation had worse performance on the access to care ( p=.04) and care coordination ( p<.001) measures.ConclusionsPhysicians from integrated medical groups and groups with greater numbers of PCPs performed better on several patient experience measures, suggesting that organized care processes adopted by these groups may enhance patients' experiences. Physicians practicing in markets with high concentrations of vulnerable populations may be disadvantaged by constraints that affect performance. Future studies should clarify the extent to which performance deficits associated with area-level deprivation are modifiable.

Project description:ImportanceWidespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in medical care has resulted in increased physician documentation workload and decreased interaction with patients. Despite the increasing use of medical scribes for EHR documentation assistance, few methodologically rigorous studies have examined the use of medical scribes in primary care.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of use of medical scribes with primary care physician (PCP) workflow and patient experience.Design, setting, and participantsThis 12-month crossover study with 2 sequences and 4 periods was conducted from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, in 2 medical center facilities within an integrated health care system and included 18 of 24 eligible PCPs.InterventionsThe PCPs were randomly assigned to start the first 3-month period with or without scribes and then alternated exposure status every 3 months for 1 year, thereby serving as their own controls. The PCPs completed a 6-question survey at the end of each study period. Patients of participating PCPs were surveyed after scribed clinic visits.Main outcomes and measuresPCP-reported perceptions of documentation burden and visit interactions, objective measures of time spent on EHR activity and required for closing encounters, and patient-reported perceptions of visit quality.ResultsOf the 18 participating PCPs, 10 were women, 12 were internal medicine physicians, and 6 were family practice physicians. The PCPs graduated from medical school a mean (SD) of 13.7 (6.5) years before the study start date. Compared with nonscribed periods, scribed periods were associated with less self-reported after-hours EHR documentation (<1 hour daily during week: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 18.0 [95% CI, 4.7-69.0]; <1 hour daily during weekend: aOR, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.7-28.7). Scribed periods were also associated with higher likelihood of PCP-reported spending more than 75% of the visit interacting with the patient (aOR, 295.0; 95% CI, 19.7 to >900) and less than 25% of the visit on a computer (aOR, 31.5; 95% CI, 7.3-136.4). Encounter documentation was more likely to be completed by the end of the next business day during scribed periods (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1). A total of 450 of 735 patients (61.2%) reported that scribes had a positive bearing on their visits; only 2.4% reported a negative bearing.Conclusions and relevanceMedical scribes were associated with decreased physician EHR documentation burden, improved work efficiency, and improved visit interactions. Our results support the use of medical scribes as one strategy for improving physician workflow and visit quality in primary care.