Search

Objective To assess the relationship between clinical care metrics and patient experiences of care among patients with chronic disease. Design Cross-sectional survey and clinical performance data. Setting Eighty-nine medical groups across California caring for patients with chronic disease. Participants Using patient surveys, we identified 51 129 patients with a chronic disease. Main Outcome Measures Using patient surveys, we produced five composite measures of patient experiences of care and self-management support (scale 0–100). Using Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set data, we analyzed care for asthma, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, producing one composite summarizing clinical processes of care and one composite summarizing outcomes of care. We calculated adjusted Spearman's correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between patient experiences of care, clinical processes and clinical outcomes. Results Clinical performance was higher for process measures compared with outcomes measures, ranging from 91% for appropriate asthma medication use to 59% for controlling low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the presence of diabetes. Performance on patient experiences of care measures was the highest for the quality of clinical interactions (88.5) and the lowest for delivery of self-management support (68.8). Three of the 10 patient experience–clinical performance composite correlations were statistically significant. These three correlations involved composites summarizing integration of care and quality of clinical interactions, and ranged from a low of 0.30 to a high of 0.39. Conclusions Chronic care delivery is variable across diseases and domains of care. Improving care integration processes and communication between health-care providers and their patients may lead to improved clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient 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.Methods: The 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.Results: Over 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.Conclusions: In 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient 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., Methods: The 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., Results: Over 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., Conclusions: In 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.

Background: Self-management support is an important component of improving chronic care delivery., Objective: To validate a new measure of self-management support and to characterize performance, including comparisons across chronic conditions., Design, Setting, Participants: We incorporated a new question module for self-management support within an existing annual statewide patient survey process in 2007., Measurements: The survey identified 80,597 patients with a chronic illness on whom the new measure could be evaluated and compared with patients' experiences on four existing measures (quality of clinical interactions, coordination of care, organizational access, and office staff). We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients for self-management support scores for individual chronic conditions within each medical group. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to identify predictors of more favorable performance on self-management support., Results: Composite scores of patient care experiences, including quality of clinical interactions (89.2), coordination of care (77.6), organizational access (76.3), and office staff (85.8) were higher than for the self-management support composite score (69.9). Self-management support scores were highest for patients with cancer (73.0) and lowest for patients with hypertension (67.5). The minimum sample size required for medical groups to provide a reliable estimate of self-management support was 199. There was no consistent correlation between self-management support scores for individual chronic conditions within medical groups. Increased involvement of additional members of the healthcare team was associated with higher self-management support scores across all chronic conditions., Conclusion: Measurement of self-management support is feasible and can identify gaps in care not currently included in standard measures of patient care experiences.

Objective: To examine the extent to which medical group and market factors are related to individual primary care physician (PCP) performance on patient experience measures., Data Sources: This study employs Clinician and Group CAHPS survey data (n=105,663) from 2,099 adult PCPs belonging to 34 diverse medical groups across California. Medical group directors were interviewed to assess the magnitude and nature of financial incentives directed at individual physicians and the adoption of patient experience improvement strategies. Primary care services area (PCSA) data were used to characterize the market environment of physician practices., Study Design: We used multilevel models to estimate the relationship between medical group and market factors and physician performance on each Clinician and Group CAHPS measure. Models statistically controlled for respondent characteristics and accounted for the clustering of respondents within physicians, physicians within medical groups, and medical groups within PCSAs using random effects., Principal Findings: Compared with physicians belonging to independent practice associations, physicians belonging to integrated medical groups had better performance on the communication ( p=.007) and care coordination ( p=.03) measures. Physicians belonging to medical groups with greater numbers of PCPs had better performance on all measures. The use of patient experience improvement strategies was not associated with performance. Greater emphasis on productivity and efficiency criteria in individual physician financial incentive formulae was associated with worse access to care ( p=.04). Physicians located in PCSAs with higher area-level deprivation had worse performance on the access to care ( p=.04) and care coordination ( p<.001) measures., Conclusions: Physicians from integrated medical groups and groups with greater numbers of PCPs performed better on several patient experience measures, suggesting that organized care processes adopted by these groups may enhance patients' experiences. Physicians practicing in markets with high concentrations of vulnerable populations may be disadvantaged by constraints that affect performance. Future studies should clarify the extent to which performance deficits associated with area-level deprivation are modifiable.

This study assesses the reliability of patient-reported information about care received by individual specialist physicians. A patient questionnaire that included core composites from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician & Group survey was administered to random samples of patients visiting 1315 physicians from 14 specialties in California during 2005-2006 (n = 68 406 respondents). The quality of specialist-patient interaction and organizational access composites achieved adequate physician-level reliability (alpha(MD) = 0.70) with 30 or fewer patients per specialist, but the care coordination and health promotion support composites were generally less reliable. Patients reporting consult-based relationships with specialists reported worse care experiences across measures (P < .001). The results indicate that reliable patient-reported information can be obtained about specialist physicians with patient sample size requirements comparable to primary care physicians. In order to promote equitable performance measurement in specialty care, future research should clarify the contribution of consult-based specialist-patient relationships to performance differences.

Background: Physicians and medical educators have repeatedly acknowledged the inadequacy of communication skills training in the medical school curriculum and opportunities to improve these skills in practice. This study of a controlled intervention evaluates the effect of teaching practicing physicians the skill of "agenda-setting" on patients' experiences with care. The agenda-setting intervention aimed to engage clinicians in the practice of initiating patient encounters by eliciting the full set of concerns from the patient's perspective and using that information to prioritize and negotiate which clinical issues should most appropriately be dealt with and which (if any) should be deferred to a subsequent visit., Methods: Ten physicians from a large physician organization in California with baseline patient survey scores below the statewide 25th percentile participated in the agenda-setting intervention. Eleven physicians matched on baseline scores, geography, specialty, and practice size were selected as controls. Changes in survey summary scores from pre- and post-intervention surveys were compared between the two groups. Multilevel regression models that accounted for the clustering of patients within physicians and controlled for respondent characteristics were used to examine the effect of the intervention on survey scale scores., Results: There was statistically significant improvement in intervention physicians' ability to "explain things in a way that was easy to understand" (p = 0.02) and marginally significant improvement in the overall quality of physician-patient interactions (p = 0.08) compared to control group physicians. Changes in patients' experiences with organizational access, care coordination, and office staff interactions did not differ by experimental group., Conclusion: A simple and modest behavioral training for practicing physicians has potential to positively affect physician-patient relationship interaction quality. It will be important to evaluate the effect of more extensive trainings, including those that work with physicians on a broader set of communication techniques.