Dataset Information

Primary care bonus payments and patient-reported access in urban Ontario: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rurality strongly correlates with higher pay-for-performance access bonuses, despite higher emergency department use and fewer primary care services than in urban settings. We sought to evaluate the relation between patient-reported access to primary care and access bonus payments in urban settings.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis using Ontario survey and health administrative data from 2013 to 2017. We used administrative data to calculate annual access bonuses for eligible urban family physicians. We linked this payment data to adult (≥ 16 yr) patient data from the Health Care Experiences Survey to examine the relation between access bonus achievement (in quintiles of the proportion of bonus achieved, from lowest [Q1, reference category] to highest [Q5]) and 4 patient-reported access outcomes. The average survey response rate to the patient survey during the study period was 51%. We stratified urban geography into large, medium and small settings. In a multilevel regression model, we adjusted for patient-, physician- and practice-level covariates. We tested linear trends, adjusted for clustering, for each outcome.

Results

We linked 18 893 respondents to 3940 physicians in 414 bonus-eligible practices. Physicians in small urban settings earned the highest proportion of their maximum potential access bonuses. Access bonus achievement was positively associated with telephone access (Q2 odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.42; Q3 OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.63; Q4 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79; Q5 OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50-2.33), after hours access (Q2 OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.47; Q3 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.74; Q4 OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.46-2.15; Q5 OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.52-2.32), wait time for care (Q2 OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85-1.20; Q3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41; Q4 OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.55; Q5 OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32-2.00) and timeliness (Q2 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.98-1.69; Q3 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94-1.77; Q4 OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16-2.13; Q5 OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.38-2.82). When stratified by geography, we observed several of these associations in large urban settings, but not in small urban settings. Trend tests were statistically significant for all 4 outcomes.

Interpretation

Although the access bonus correlated with access in larger urban settings, it did not in smaller settings, aligning with previous research questioning its utility in smaller geographies. The access bonus may benefit from a redesign that considers geography and patient experience.

SUBMITTER: Premji K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8648352 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHaving to pay out-of-pocket for health care can be prohibitive and even cause financial catastrophe for patients, especially those with low and irregular incomes. Health services at Government-owned hospitals in Malawi are provided free of charge but patients do incur costs when they access facilities and some of them forego income. This research paper presents findings on the direct and indirect expenditure incurred by patients who underwent hernia surgery at district and central hospitals in Malawi. It reports the main cost drivers, how costs relate to patients' household incomes, the financial burden of undergoing surgery and the extent to which hernia patients had recovered and restored their capacity to work and earn an income.Materials and methodsUsing a cross-sectional study design, surveys were held with patients who had undergone hernia surgery in four district and two central hospitals in Malawi. Interviews were conducted by surgically trained clinical officers, trained in survey administration, and included, inter alia, questions about patients' hospital stay, the direct and indirect cost they incurred in accessing surgery, and how they financed the expenditure. Follow-up interviews by telephone were held 8-10 weeks after discharge.ResultsThe sample included 137 patients from district and 86 patients from central hospitals. The main direct cost drivers were transport and food & groceries. More than three quarters of patients who had their surgery at a district hospital incurred indirect costs, because of income lost due to hospital admission, compared with just over a third among central hospital patients. Median reported income losses were US$ 90 and US$ 71, respectively. Catastrophic expenditure for surgery occurred in 94% of district and 87% of central hospital patients. When indirect costs are added to the out-of-pocket expenditure, it constituted more than 10% of the monthly per capita income for 97% and 90% of the district and central hospital patients, respectively.ConclusionOut-of-pocket household expenditure associated with essential surgery in Malawi is high and in many instances catastrophic, putting households, especially those who are already poor, at risk of further impoverishment. The much needed scaling-up of surgical services in rural areas of Malawi needs to be accompanied by financial risk protection measures.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care physician (PCP) burnout is prevalent and on the rise. Physician burnout may negatively affect patient experience of care.ObjectiveTo identify the direct impact of PCP burnout on patient experience in various domains of care.DesignA cross-sectional observational study using physician well-being (PWB) surveys collected in 2016-2017, linked to responses from patient experience of care surveys. Patient demographics and practice characteristics were derived from the electronic health record. Linked data were analyzed at the physician level.SettingA large non-profit multi-specialty ambulatory healthcare organization in northern California.ParticipantsA total of 244 physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine who responded to the PWB survey (response rate 72%), and 30,701 completed experience surveys from patients seeing these physicians.MeasurementsBurnout was measured with a validated single-item question with a 5-point scale ranging from (1) enjoy work to (5) completely burned out and seeking help. Patient experience of patient-provider communication, access, and overall rating of provider was measured with Clinician & Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey. Patient experience scores (0-100 scale) were adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and English proficiency.ResultsPhysician burnout had a negative impact on patient-reported experience of patient-provider communication but not on access or overall rating of providers. A one-level increase in burnout was associated with 0.43 decrease in adjusted patient-provider communication experience score (P < 0.01).LimitationsData came from a single large healthcare organization. Patterns may differ for small- and mid-sized practices.ConclusionPhysician burnout adversely affects patient-provider communication in primary care visits. Efforts to improve physician work environments could have a meaningful positive impact on patient experience as well as physician well-being.

Project description:BackgroundChallenges in timely access to one's usual primary care physician and the ongoing use of walk-in clinics have been major health policy issues in Ontario for over a decade. We sought to determine the association between patient-reported timely access to their usual primary care physician or clinic and their use of walk-in clinics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of Ontario residents who had a primary care physician by linking population-based administrative data to Ontario's Health Care Experience Survey, collected between 2013 and 2020. We described sociodemographic characteristics and health care use for users of walk-in clinics and nonusers. We measured the adjusted association between self-reported same-day or next-day access and after-hours access to usual primary care physicians or clinics and the use of walk-in clinics in the previous 12 months.ResultsOf the 60 935 total responses from people who had a primary care physician, 16 166 (weighted 28.6%, unweighted 26.5%) reported visiting a walk-in clinic in the previous 12 months. Compared with nonusers, those who used walk-in clinics were predominantly younger, lived in large and medium-sized urban areas and reported a tight, very tight or poor financial situation. Respondents who reported poor same-day or next-day access to their primary care physician or clinic were more likely to report having attended a walk-in clinic in the previous 12 months than those with better access (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 1.13-1.34). Those who reported being unaware that their primary care physician offered after-hours care had a higher likelihood of going to a walk-in clinic (adjusted OR 1.14, 95% Cl 1.07-1.21).InterpretationIn this population-based health survey, patient-reported use of walk-in clinics was associated with a reported lack of access to same-day or next-day care and unawareness of after-hours care by respondents' usual primary care physicians. These findings could inform policies to improve access to primary care, while preserving care continuity.

Project description:BackgroundWith advancements in and the evolution of the medical field, several methods and surgical techniques have been developed for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Generally, we can categorize these strategies into two broad groups: autologous reconstruction and implant-based reconstruction. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction rate between these groups, considering age, timing of breast reconstruction, body mass index (BMI), major complications, and the need for radiotherapy or chemotherapy.Materials and methodsAll the patients who underwent a mastectomy and subsequent breast reconstruction surgery at our institution between August 1, 2013, and August 31, 2017, were invited to complete a BREAST-Q questionnaire. To compare the quality of life and complication rate between the autologous and implant-based reconstruction groups, data were collected from specific patients. All participants completed the Arabic version of the postoperative reconstruction module.ResultsAmong 61 patients, 43 (70.5%) completed the two domains of the BREAST-Q questionnaire, about the satisfaction with the implanted breast and satisfaction with the surgical outcome. These patients were divided into two groups: autologous (n = 21) and implant-based (n = 22) groups. The mean score of satisfaction with the implanted breast was 43.5 for the autologous group and 39.6 for the implant-based group. For the surgical outcome, the scores for the autologous and implant-based groups were 45.4 and 56.0, respectively. However, there was neither a statistical significance in the satisfaction with the implanted breast nor the surgical outcome between the two groups.ConclusionAlthough there are many different surgical techniques to reconstruct a breast after mastectomy, there is still no specific surgical method that is perfect or well-suited for all patients undergoing breast reconstruction surgery. In our study, we found that there was no significant difference in satisfaction between the ABR and IBR group.

Project description:BackgroundPatient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of two cross sectional studies.ParticipantsAdult patients from Australian and English primary care settings.MeasuresPatients' self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented.ResultsA total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent.ConclusionsThe nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.