Dataset Information

Setting a fair performance standard for physicians' quality of patient care.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Assessing physicians' clinical performance using statistically sound, evidence-based measures is challenging. Little research has focused on methodological approaches to setting performance standards to which physicians are being held accountable. OBJECTIVE: Determine if a rigorous approach for setting an objective, credible standard of minimally-acceptable performance could be used for practicing physicians caring for diabetic patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred and fifty-seven physicians from the United States with time-limited certification in internal medicine or a subspecialty. MAIN MEASURES: The ABIM Diabetes Practice Improvement Module was used to collect data on ten clinical and two patient experience measures. A panel of eight internists/subspecialists representing essential perspectives of clinical practice applied an adaptation of the Angoff method to judge how physicians who provide minimally-acceptable care would perform on individual measures to establish performance thresholds. Panelists then rated each measure's relative importance and the Dunn-Rankin method was applied to establish scoring weights for the composite measure. Physician characteristics were used to support the standard-setting outcome. KEY RESULTS: Physicians abstracted 20,131 patient charts and 18,974 patient surveys were completed. The panel established reasonable performance thresholds and importance weights, yielding a standard of 48.51 (out of 100 possible points) on the composite measure with high classification accuracy (0.98). The 38 (4%) outlier physicians who did not meet the standard had lower ratings of overall clinical competence and professional behavior/attitude from former residency program directors (p = 0.01 and p = 0.006, respectively), lower Internal Medicine certification and maintenance of certification examination scores (p = 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively), and primarily worked as solo practitioners (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The standard-setting method yielded a credible, defensible performance standard for diabetes care based on informed judgment that resulted in a reasonable, reproducible outcome. Our method represents one approach to identifying outlier physicians for intervention to protect patients.

SUBMITTER: Hess BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3077491 | biostudies-other | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Setting a fair performance standard for physicians' quality of patient care.

Hess Brian J BJ Weng Weifeng W Lynn Lorna A LA Holmboe Eric S ES Lipner Rebecca S RS

Journal of general internal medicine 20101123 5

<h4>Background</h4>Assessing physicians' clinical performance using statistically sound, evidence-based measures is challenging. Little research has focused on methodological approaches to setting performance standards to which physicians are being held accountable.<h4>Objective</h4>Determine if a rigorous approach for setting an objective, credible standard of minimally-acceptable performance could be used for practicing physicians caring for diabetic patients.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohor ...[more]

PMID: 21104453

Similar Datasets

Project description:Several studies document disparities in access to care and quality of care for depression for African Americans. Research suggests that patient attitudes and clinician communication behaviors may contribute to these disparities. Evidence links patient-centered care to improvements in mental health outcomes; therefore, quality improvement interventions that enhance this dimension of care are promising strategies to improve treatment and outcomes of depression among African Americans. This paper describes the design of the BRIDGE (Blacks Receiving Interventions for Depression and Gaining Empowerment) Study. The goal of the study is to compare the effectiveness of two interventions for African-American patients with depression--a standard quality improvement program and a patient-centered quality improvement program. The main hypothesis is that patients in the patient-centered group will have a greater reduction in their depression symptoms, higher rates of depression remission, and greater improvements in mental health functioning at six, twelve, and eighteen months than patients in the standard group. The study also examines patient ratings of care and receipt of guideline-concordant treatment for depression.A total of 36 primary care clinicians and 132 of their African-American patients with major depressive disorder were recruited into a cluster randomized trial. The study uses intent-to-treat analyses to compare the effectiveness of standard quality improvement interventions (academic detailing about depression guidelines for clinicians and disease-oriented care management for their patients) and patient-centered quality improvement interventions (communication skills training to enhance participatory decision-making for clinicians and care management focused on explanatory models, socio-cultural barriers, and treatment preferences for their patients) for improving outcomes over 12 months of follow-up.The BRIDGE Study includes clinicians and African-American patients in under-resourced community-based practices who have not been well-represented in clinical trials to improve depression care. The patient-centered and culturally targeted approach to depression care is a relatively new one that has not been tested in most previous studies. The study will provide evidence about whether patient-centered accommodations improve quality of care and outcomes to a greater extent than standard quality improvement strategies for African Americans with depression.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00243425.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the impact of physicians' patient base composition on all-cause mortality among people living with HIV (PLHIV) who initiated highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in British Columbia (BC), Canada.DesignObservational cohort study from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2013.SettingBC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS' (BC-CfE) Drug Treatment Program, where HAART is available at no cost.ParticipantsPLHIV aged ≥ 19 who initiated HAART in BC in the HAART Observational Medical Evaluation and Research (HOMER) Study.Outcome measuresAll-cause mortality as determined through monthly linkages to the BC Vital Statistics Agency.Statistical analysisWe examined the relationships between patient characteristics, physicians' patient base composition, the location of the practice, and physicians' experience with PLHIV and all-cause mortality using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsA total of 4 445 PLHIV (median age = 42, Q1, Q3 = 34-49; 80% male) were eligible for our study. Patients were seen by 683 prescribing physicians with a median experience of 77 previously treated PLHIV in the past 2 years (Q1, Q3 = 23-170). A multivariable Cox model indicated that the following factors were associated with all-cause mortality: age (aHR = 1.05 per 1-year increase, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.06), year of HAART initiation (2004-2007: aHR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.81, 2008-2011: aHR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.61, Ref: 2000-2003), CD4 cell count at baseline (aHR = 0.88 per 100-unit increase in cells/mm3, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.94), and < 95% adherence in first year on HAART (aHR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.88 to 2.76). In addition, physicians' patient base composition, specifically, the proportion of patients who have a history of injection drug use (aHR = 1.11 per 10% increase in the proportion of patients, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.15) or Indigenous ancestry (aHR = 1.07 per 10% increase , 95% CI = 1.03-1.11) and being a patient of a physician who primarily serves individuals outside of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority region (aHR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.47) were associated with mortality.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that physicians with a higher proportion of individuals who face potential barriers to care may need additional supports to decrease mortality among their patients. Future research is required to examine these relationships in other settings and to determine strategies that may mitigate the associations between the composition of physicians' patient bases and survival.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2000, Israel has had a national program for ongoing monitoring of the quality of the primary care services provided by the country's four competing non-profit health plans. Previous research has demonstrated that quality of care has improved substantially since the program's inception and that the program enjoys wide support among health plan managers. However, prior to this study there were anecdotal and journalistic reports of opposition to the program among primary care physicians engaged in direct service delivery; these raised serious questions about the extent of support among physicians nationally.GoalsTo assess how Israeli primary care physicians experience and rate health plan efforts to track and improve the quality of care.MethodThe study population consisted of primary care physicians employed by the health plans who have responsibility for the quality of care of a panel of adult patients. The study team randomly sampled 250 primary-care physicians from each of the four health plans. Of the 1,000 physicians sampled, 884 met the study criteria. Every physician could choose whether to participate in the survey by mail, e-mail, or telephone. The anonymous questionnaire was completed by 605 physicians - 69% of those eligible. The data were weighted to reflect differences in sampling and response rates across health plans.Main findingsThe vast majority of respondents (87%) felt that the monitoring of quality was important and two-thirds (66%) felt that the feedback and subsequent remedial interventions improved medical care to a great extent. Almost three-quarters (71%) supported continuation of the program in an unqualified manner. The physicians with the most positive attitudes to the program were over age 44, independent contract physicians, and either board-certified in internal medicine or without any board-certification (i.e., residents or general practitioners). At the same time, support for the program was widespread even among physicians who are young, board-certified in family medicine, and salaried.Many physicians also reported that various problems had emerged to a great or very great extent: a heavier workload (65%), over-competitiveness (60%), excessive managerial pressure (48%), and distraction from other clinical issues (35%). In addition, there was some criticism of the quality of the measures themselves. Respondents also identified approaches to addressing these problems.ConclusionsThe findings provide perspective on the anecdotal reports of physician opposition to the monitoring program; they may well accurately reflect the views of the small number of physicians directly involved, but they do not reflect the views of primary care physicians as a whole, who are generally quite supportive of the program. At the same time, the study confirms the existence of several perceived problems. Some of these problems, such as excess managerial pressure, can probably best be addressed by the health plans themselves; while others, such as the need to refine the quality indicators, are probably best addressed at the national level. Cooperation between primary care physicians and health plan managers, which has been an essential component of the program's success thus far, can also play an important role in addressing the problems identified.

Project description:BackgroundReligiously affiliated hospitals provide nearly 20% of US beds, and many prohibit certain end-of-life and reproductive health treatments. Little is known about physician experiences in religious institutions.ObjectiveAssess primary care physicians' experiences and beliefs regarding conflict with religious hospital policies for patient care.DesignCross-sectional survey.ParticipantsGeneral internists, family physicians, and general practitioners from the AMA Masterfile.Main measuresIn a questionnaire mailed in 2007, we asked physicians whether they had worked in a religiously affiliated hospital or practice, whether they had experienced conflict with the institution over religiously based patient care policies and how they believed physicians should respond to such conflicts. We used chi-square and multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between physicians' demographic and religious characteristics and their responses.Key resultsOf 879 eligible physicians, 446 (51%) responded. In analyses adjusting for survey design, 43% had worked in a religiously affiliated institution. Among these, 19% had experienced conflict over religiously based policies. Most physicians (86%) believed when clinical judgment conflicts with religious hospital policy, physicians should refer patients to another institution. Compared with physicians ages 26-29 years, older physicians were less likely to have experienced conflict with religiously based policies [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) compared with 30-34 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.11); 35-46 years: 0.07 (0.01-0.72); 47-60 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.10)]. Compared with those who never attend religious services, those who do attend were less likely to have experienced conflict [attend once a month or less: odds ratio 0.06 (0.01-0.29); attend twice a month or more: 0.22 (0.05-0.98)]. Respondents with no religious affiliation were more likely than others to believe doctors should disregard religiously based policies that conflict with clinical judgment (13% vs. 3%; p = 0.005).ConclusionsHospitals and policy-makers may need to balance the competing claims of physician autonomy and religiously based institutional policies.

Dataset Information

Setting a fair performance standard for physicians' quality of patient care.

Publications

Setting a fair performance standard for physicians' quality of patient care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets