Article

Attributing sources of variation in patients' experiences of ambulatory care.

Department of Health Services, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095-1772, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 09/2009; 47(8):835-41. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318197b1e1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Public reporting and pay-for-performance programs increasingly rely on patient experience data to evaluate individual physicians and guide quality improvement efforts. The extent to which performance variation is attributable to physicians versus other system-level units, however, remains unclear.
Using ambulatory care experience survey data from 61,839 patients of 1729 primary care physicians in California (response rate = 39.1%), this study assesses the proportion of explainable performance variation attributable to various organizational units in composite measures of physician-patient interaction, organizational features of care, and global assessments of care. For each measure, multilevel regression models that controlled for respondent characteristics and used random effects to account for the clustering of patients within physicians, physicians within care sites, care sites within medical groups, and medical groups within primary care service areas, estimated the proportion of explainable performance variation attributable to each system-level unit.
System-level factors explained between 27.9% to 47.7% of variation, with the highest proportion explained for the access to care composite and the lowest explained for the quality of chronic care composite. Physicians accounted for the largest proportion of explainable variance for all measures (range: 35.1%-49.0%). Care sites and primary care service areas explained substantial proportions of variance (>20% each) for the access to care and care coordination measures. Medical groups explained the largest proportions of variation (>20%) for global assessments of care.
Individual physicians and their care sites are the most important foci for patient experience improvement efforts. Because markets contribute substantially to performance variation on organizational features of care, future research should clarify the extent to which associated performance deficits are modifiable.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Hector P Rodriguez, Jul 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
127 Views
  • Source
    • "Previous studies have used patient survey data to describe and explore possible reasons for sociodemographic disparities in patient experience of primary and hospital care (Rodriguez et al, 2009; Elliott et al, 2010; Lyratzopoulos et al, 2012a). Until recently, however, few large national surveys of sufficient quality had been conducted to enable a robust analysis of the experiences of cancer patients, and previous relevant evidence is constrained in relation to sample size and number of studied cancers (Hubbard et al, 2008; Ayanian et al, 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Exploring variation in patients' experiences of involvement in treatment decision making can identify groups needing extra support, such as additional consultation time, when considering treatment options. Methods: We analysed data from the 2010 English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey, a national survey of all patients attending hospitals in England for cancer treatment over a 3-month period, to examine how experience of involvement in decisions about treatment varied between patients with 38 different primary cancers using logistic regression. We analysed responses from 41 411 patients to a single question examining patient experience of involvement in treatment decision making. We calculated unadjusted odds ratios of reporting the most positive experience between patients of different sociodemographic and tumour characteristics and explored the effects of adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation, cancer type and hospital of treatment. Results: Of the 41 441 respondents, 29 776 (72%) reported positive experiences of decision-making involvement. Younger patients reported substantially less positive experiences of involvement in decision making (adjusted OR=0.49 16–24 vs 65–74; P<0.001), as did ethnic minorities (adjusted ORs=0.52, 0.62 and 0.73 for Black, Chinese and Asian vs White patients, respectively; P<0.001). Experience varied considerably between patients with different cancers ( e.g., OR=0.52 for anal and 1.37 for melanoma vs colon cancer; P<0.001), with ovarian, myeloma, bladder and rectal cancer patients reporting substantially worse experiences compared with other patients with gynaecological, haematological, urological and colorectal cancers, respectively. Clustering of different patient groups within hospitals with outlying performance report scores could not account for observed differences. Conclusion: Efforts to improve involvement in treatment decision making can focus on those who report the worst experience, in particular younger patients, ethnic minorities and patients with rectal, ovarian, multiple myeloma and bladder cancer.
    British Journal of Cancer 06/2013; 109(3). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.316 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "also have been promoted as a means of improving the appropriateness of referrals (Bodenheimer 2008). Surveys of patients' experiences, which are used for pay-for-performance incentives, now ask patients to evaluate the coordination of care between PCPs and specialists (Rodriguez et al. 2009). Among the advantages of electronic medical records and bundled ( " episode-based " ) payments is that they might improve communication and care coordination related to referrals (RAND 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the United States, more than a third of patients are referred to a specialist each year, and specialist visits constitute more than half of outpatient visits. Despite the frequency of referrals and the importance of the specialty-referral process, the process itself has been a long-standing source of frustration among both primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. These frustrations, along with a desire to lower costs, have led to numerous strategies to improve the specialty-referral process, such as using gatekeepers and referral guidelines. This article reviews the literature on the specialty-referral process in order to better understand what is known about current problems with the referral process and what solutions have been proposed. The article first provides a conceptual framework and then reviews prior literature on the referral decision, care coordination including information transfer, and access to specialty care. PCPs vary in their threshold for referring a patient, which results in both the underuse and the overuse of specialists. Many referrals do not include a transfer of information, either to or from the specialist; and when they do, it often contains insufficient data for medical decision making. Care across the primary-specialty interface is poorly integrated; PCPs often do not know whether a patient actually went to the specialist, or what the specialist recommended. PCPs and specialists also frequently disagree on the specialist's role during the referral episode (e.g., single consultation or continuing co-management). There are breakdowns and inefficiencies in all components of the specialty-referral process. Despite many promising mechanisms to improve the referral process, rigorous evaluations of these improvements are needed.
    Milbank Quarterly 03/2011; 89(1):39-68. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00619.x · 5.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUNDPatient experience measures are central to many pay-for-performance (P4P) programs nationally, but the effect of performance-based financial incentives on improving patient care experiences has not been assessed. METHODSThe study uses Clinician & Group CAHPS data from commercially insured adult patients (n = 124,021) who had visits with 1,444 primary care physicians from 25 California medical groups between 2003 and 2006. Medical directors were interviewed to assess the magnitude and nature of financial incentives directed at individual physicians and the patient experience improvement activities adopted by groups. Multilevel regression models were used to assess the relationship between performance change on patient care experience measures and medical group characteristics, financial incentives, and performance improvement activities. RESULTSOver the course of the study period, physicians improved performance on the physician-patient communication (0.62 point annual increase, p < 0.001), care coordination (0.48 point annual increase, p < 0.001), and office staff interaction (0.22 point annual increase, p = 0.02) measures. Physicians with lower baseline performance on patient experience measures experienced larger improvements (p < 0.001). Greater emphasis on clinical quality and patient experience criteria in individual physician incentive formulas was associated with larger improvements on the care coordination (p < 0.01) and office staff interaction (p < 0.01) measures. By contrast, greater emphasis on productivity and efficiency criteria was associated with declines in performance on the physician communication (p < 0.01) and office staff interaction (p < 0.001) composites. CONCLUSIONSIn the context of statewide measurement, reporting, and performance-based financial incentives, patient care experiences significantly improved. In order to promote patient-centered care in pay for performance and public reporting programs, the mechanisms by which program features influence performance improvement should be clarified.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2009; 24(12):1281-1288. DOI:10.1007/s11606-009-1122-6 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more