Dataset Information

Process and Outcome Measures among COPD Patients with a Hospitalization Cared for by an Advance Practice Provider or Primary Care Physician.

ABSTRACT: To examine the process and outcomes of care of COPD patients by Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) and primary care physicians.We conducted a cross sectional retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with COPD who had at least one hospitalization in 2010. We examined the process measures of receipt of spirometry evaluation, influenza and pneumococcal vaccine, use of COPD medications, and referral to a pulmonary specialist visit. Outcome measures were emergency department (ER) visit, number of hospitalizations and 30-day readmission in 2010.A total of 7,257 Medicare beneficiaries with COPD were included. Of these, 1,999 and 5,258 received primary care from APPs and primary care physicians, respectively. Patients in the APP group were more likely to be white, younger, male, residing in non-metropolitan areas and have fewer comorbidities. In terms of process of care measures, APPs were more likely to prescribe short acting bronchodilators (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.18, 95%Confidence Interval [CI] 1.05-1.32), oxygen therapy (aOR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.12-1.40) and consult a pulmonary specialist (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.23-1.56), but less likely to give influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. Patients receiving care from APPs had lower rates of ER visits for COPD (aOR = 0.84, 95%CI 0.71-0.98) and had a higher follow-up rate with pulmonary specialist within 30 days of hospitalization for COPD (aOR = 1.25, 95%CI 1.07-1.48) than those cared for by physicians.Compared to patients cared for by physicians, patients cared for by APPs were more likely to receive short acting bronchodilator, oxygen therapy and been referred to pulmonologist, however they had lower rates of vaccination probably due to lower age group. Patients cared for by APPs were less like to visit an ER for COPD compared to patients care for by physicians, conversely there was no differences in hospitalization or readmission for COPD between MDs and APPs.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4765888 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide.ObjectiveTo examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019.ExposuresMIPS score.Main outcomes and measuresThe association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure.ResultsThe study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceAmong US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Low rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance are primarily due to provider-related process failures. However, few studies have evaluated primary care provider (PCP) practice patterns, attitudes, and barriers to HCC surveillance at academic tertiary care referral centers. METHODS:We conducted a web-based survey of PCPs at 2 tertiary care referral centers (133 providers) from June 2017 through December 2017. The survey was adapted from pretested surveys and included questions about practice patterns, attitudes, and barriers to HCC surveillance. We used the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests to identify factors associated with adherence to HCC surveillance recommendations, for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS:We obtained a provider-level response rate of 75% and clinic-level response rate of 100% (133 providers). Whereas most PCPs performed HCC surveillance themselves, one-third deferred surveillance to subspecialists and referred patients to a hepatology clinic. Providers believed the combination of ultrasound and ?-fetoprotein analysis to be highly effective for early stage tumor detection and reported using the combination for assessment of most patients. However, PCPs were more likely to use computed tomography- or magnetic resonance imaging-based surveillance for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or decompensated cirrhosis. Most providers believed HCC surveillance to be efficacious for early tumor detection and increasing survival. However, they desired increased high-quality evidence to characterize screening benefits and harms. Providers expressed notable misconceptions about HCC surveillance, including the role for measurement of liver enzyme levels in HCC surveillance and cost effectiveness of surveillance in patients without cirrhosis. They also reported barriers, including not being up to date on HCC surveillance recommendations, limited time in the clinic, and competing clinical concerns. CONCLUSIONS:In a web-based survey, PCPs reported misconceptions and barriers to HCC surveillance. This indicates the need for interventions, including provider education, to improve HCC surveillance effectiveness in clinical practice.

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:Background and objectivesIn the general population, the quality of the patient experience with their primary care physician may influence health outcomes but this has not been evaluated in CKD. This is relevant for the growing Hispanic CKD population, which potentially faces challenges to the quality of the patient experience related to language or cultural factors. We evaluated the association between the patient experience with their primary care physician and outcomes in Hispanics with CKD.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis prospective observational study included 252 English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanics with entry eGFR of 20-70 ml/min per 1.73 m2, enrolled in the Hispanic Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study between 2005 and 2008. Patient experience with their primary care physician was assessed by the Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey subscales: communication quality, whole-person orientation, health promotion, interpersonal treatment, and trust. Poisson and proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between the patient experience and outcomes, which included hospitalization, ESKD, and all-cause death.ResultsParticipants had a mean age of 56 years, 38% were women, 80% were primary Spanish speakers, and had a mean eGFR of 38 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Over 4.8 years (median) follow-up, there were 619 hospitalizations, 103 ESKD events, and 56 deaths. As compared with higher subscale scores, lower scores on four of the five subscales were associated with a higher adjusted rate ratio (RR) for all-cause hospitalization (communication quality: RR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.25 to 1.90; health promotion: RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.62; interpersonal treatment: RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.85; and trust: RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.93). There was no significant association of subscales with incident ESKD or all-cause death.ConclusionsLower perceived quality of the patient experience with their primary care physician was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization.

Dataset Information

Process and Outcome Measures among COPD Patients with a Hospitalization Cared for by an Advance Practice Provider or Primary Care Physician.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets