Article

Measuring patients' experiences with individual primary care physicians - Results of a statewide demonstration project

Tufts University, Бостон, Georgia, United States
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 02/2006; 21(1):13-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00311.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Measuring and reporting patients' experiences with health plans has been routine for several years. There is now substantial interest in measuring patients' experiences with individual physicians, but numerous concerns remain.
The Massachusetts Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey Project was a statewide demonstration project designed to test the feasibility and value of measuring patients' experiences with individual primary care physicians and their practices.
Cross-sectional survey administered to a statewide sample by mail and telephone (May-August 2002).
Adult patients from 5 commerical health plans and Medicaid sampled from the panels of 215 generalist physicians at 67 practice sites (n=9,625).
Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey produces 11 summary measures of patients' experiences across 2 domains: quality of physician-patient interactions and organizational features of care. Physician-level reliability was computed for all measures, and variance components analysis was used to determine the influence of each level of the system (physician, site, network organization, plan) on each measure. Risk of misclassifying individual physicians was evaluated under varying reporting frameworks.
All measures except 2 achieved physician-level reliability of at least 0.70 with samples of 45 patients per physician, and several exceeded 0.80. Physicians and sites accounted for the majority of system-related variance on all measures, with physicians accounting for the majority on all "interaction quality" measures (range: 61.7% to 83.9%) and sites accounting for the largest share on "organizational" measures (range: 44.8% to 81.1%). Health plans accounted for neglible variance (<3%) on all measures. Reporting frameworks and principles for assuring misclassification risk < or =2.5% were identified.
With considerable national attention on the importance of patient-centered care, this project demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining highly reliable measures of patients' experiences with individual physicians and practices. The analytic findings underscore the validity and importance of looking beyond health plans to individual physicians and sites as we seek to improve health care quality.

0 Followers
 · 
99 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inviting patients to read their primary care visit notes may improve communication and help them engage more actively in their health care. Little is known about how patients will use the opportunity to share their visit notes with family members or caregivers, or what the benefits might be. Our goal was to evaluate the characteristics of patients who reported sharing their visit notes during the course of the study, including their views on associated benefits and risks. The OpenNotes study invited patients to access their primary care providers' visit notes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Pre- and post-intervention surveys assessed patient demographics, standardized measures of patient-doctor communication, sharing of visit notes with others during the study, and specific health behaviors reflecting the potential benefits and risks of offering patients easy access to their visit notes. More than half (55.43%, 2503/4516) of the participants who reported viewing at least one visit note would like the option of letting family members or friends have their own Web access to their visit notes, and 21.70% (980/4516) reported sharing their visit notes with someone during the study year. Men, and those retired or unable to work, were significantly more likely to share visit notes, and those sharing were neither more nor less concerned about their privacy than were non-sharers. Compared to participants who did not share clinic notes, those who shared were more likely to report taking better care of themselves and taking their medications as prescribed, after adjustment for age, gender, employment status, and study site. One in five OpenNotes patients shared a visit note with someone, and those sharing Web access to their visit notes reported better adherence to self-care and medications. As health information technology systems increase patients' ability to access their medical records, facilitating access to caregivers may improve perceived health behaviors and outcomes.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2014; 16(11):e247. DOI:10.2196/jmir.3363 · 4.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to determine the reliability of surgeon-specific postoperative complication rates after colectomy. Conventional measures of surgeon-specific performance fail to acknowledge variation attributed to statistical noise, risking unreliable assessment of quality. We examined all patients who underwent segmental colectomy with anastomosis from 2008 through 2010 participating in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative Colectomy Project. Surgeon-specific complication rates were risk-adjusted according to patient characteristics with multiple logistic regression. Hierarchical modeling techniques were used to determine the reliability of surgeon-specific risk-adjusted complication rates. We then adjusted these rates for reliability. To evaluate the extent to which surgeon-level variation was reduced, surgeons were placed into quartiles based on performance and complication rates were compared before and after reliability adjustment. A total of 5033 patients (n = 345 surgeons) undergoing partial colectomy reported a risk-adjusted complication rate of 24.5%. Approximately 86% of the variability of complication rates across surgeons was explained by measurement noise, whereas the remaining 14% represented true signal. Risk-adjusted complication rates varied from 0% to 55.1% across quartiles before adjusting for reliability. Reliability adjustment greatly diminished this variation, generating a 1.2-fold difference (21.4%-25.6%). A caseload of 168 colectomies across 3 years was required to achieve a reliability of more than 0.7, which is considered a proficient level. Only 1 surgeon surpassed this volume threshold. The vast majority of surgeons do not perform enough colectomies to generate a reliable surgeon-specific complication rate. Risk-adjusted complication rates should be viewed with caution when evaluating surgeons with low operative volume, as statistical noise is a large determinant in estimating their surgeon-specific complication rates.
    Annals of Surgery 05/2015; 261(5). DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001032 · 7.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice. Design Analysis of postal survey of patients’ experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. Setting Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey. Participants 7721 of 15 172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013. Main outcome measure Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models. Results After control for differences in patients’ age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores. Conclusions Aggregating patients’ ratings of doctors’ communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to “screen” for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.
    BMJ British medical journal 11/2014; 349:g6034. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g6034 · 16.30 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
11 Downloads
Available from
Feb 7, 2015