Article

The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes.

Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
The Journal of family practice (Impact Factor: 0.67). 10/2000; 49(9):796-804.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We designed this observational cohort study to assess the association between patient-centered communication in primary care visits and subsequent health and medical care utilization.
We selected 39 family physicians at random, and 315 of their patients participated. Office visits were audiotaped and scored for patient-centered communication. In addition, patients were asked for their perceptions of the patient-centeredness of the visit. The outcomes were: (1) patients' health, assessed by a visual analogue scale on symptom discomfort and concern; (2) self-report of health, using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36; and (3) medical care utilization variables of diagnostic tests, referrals, and visits to the family physician, assessed by chart review. The 2 measures of patient-centeredness were correlated with the outcomes of visits, adjusting for the clustering of patients by physician and controlling for confounding variables.
Patient-centered communication was correlated with the patients' perceptions of finding common ground. In addition, positive perceptions (both the total score and the subscore on finding common ground) were associated with better recovery from their discomfort and concern, better emotional health 2 months later, and fewer diagnostic tests and referrals.
Patient-centered communication influences patients' health through perceptions that their visit was patient centered, and especially through perceptions that common ground was achieved with the physician. Patient-centered practice improved health status and increased the efficiency of care by reducing diagnostic tests and referrals.

3 Bookmarks
 · 
558 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study assessed the validity of the Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire-9 (PDRQ-9) in a primary care sample (N = 180). Convergent validity was assessed through a correlation between the patient-rated PDRQ-9 and the physician-rated Difficult Doctor Patient Relationship Questionnaire-10 (DDPRQ-10). Discriminant validity was assessed through correlations between the PDRQ-9 and patient age, patient- and physician-reported health and psychological distress. To determine if the PDRQ-9 could discriminate between groups, patient PDRQ-9 ratings were compared between patients who were treated by faculty physicians versus those who were treated by residents. An exploratory factor analysis confirmed that the PDRQ-9 was made up of a single factor. The PDRQ-9 scale was internally consistent (α = .96) and significantly and negatively correlated with the DDPRQ-10 (r = -.22, p = .003) and was not significantly correlated with patient age, health, or psychological distress. PDRQ-9 ratings were statistically greater in patients who were treated by faculty physicians than those who were treated by residents (p = .01). This study provides additional support for the reliability and validity of the PDRQ-9 as a measure of the doctor-patient relationship in a primary care sample.
    Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings 08/2014; · 1.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Delivering improvements in quality is a key objective within most healthcare systems, and a view which has been widely embraced within the NHS in the United Kingdom. Within the NHS, quality is evaluated across three key dimensions: clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience, with the latter modelled on the Picker Principles of Patient-Centred Care. Quality improvement is an important feature of the current dental contract reforms in England, with "patient experience" likely to have a central role in the evaluation of quality. An understanding and appreciation of the evidence underpinning PCC within dentistry is highly relevant if we are to use this as a measure of quality in general dental practice.
    BMC Oral Health 06/2014; 14(1):64. · 1.34 Impact Factor
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
3,458 Downloads
Available from
May 28, 2014