Search

PURPOSE Medical assistants (MAs) have seen their roles expand as a result of team-based primary care models. Unlike their physician counterparts, MAs rarely receive financial incentives as a part of their compensation. This exploratory study aims to understand MA acceptability of financial incentives and perceived MA control over common population health measures. METHODS We conducted semistructured focus groups between August and December of 2019 across 10 clinics affiliated with 3 institutions in California and Utah. MAs' perceptions of experienced and hypothetical financial incentives, their potential influence on workflow processes, and perceived levels of control over population health measures were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed for emerging themes. Perceived levels of control were further quantified using a Likert survey; measures were grouped into factors representing vaccinations, and workflow completed in the same day or multiple days (multiday). Mean scores for each factor were compared using repeated 1-way ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustment. RESULTS MAs reported little direct experience with financial incentives. They indicated that a hypothetical bonus representing 2% to 3% of their average annual base pay would be acceptable and influential in improving consistent performance during patient rooming workflow. MAs reported having greater perceived control over vaccinations (P CONCLUSIONS MAs perceived that relatively small financial incentives would increase their motivation and quality of care. Our findings suggests target measures should focus on MA work processes that are completed in the same day as the patient encounter, particularly vaccinations. Future investigation is needed to understand the effectiveness of MA financial incentives in practice. Key words: behavior change; medical assistants; financial incentives; team-based care; population health measures, INTRODUCTION Given ongoing nationwide shortcomings in clinical services to improve population health, (1) primary care practices are under increasing financial and regulatory pressure to efficiently deliver high-quality health care. (2,3) [...]

New care delivery models call for integrating health services to coordinate care and improve patient-centeredness. Such models have been embraced to coordinate care with evidence-based strategies to prevent obesity. Both the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program and pediatricians are considered credible sources of preventive guidance, and coordinating these independent siloes would benefit a vulnerable population. Using semistructured focus groups and interviews, we evaluated practices, messaging, and the prospect of integrating and coordinating care. Across Pennsylvania, WIC nutritionists (n = 35), pediatricians (n = 15), and parents (N = 28) of an infant or toddler participated in 2016. Three themes were identified: health assessment data sharing (e.g., iron, growth measures), benefits and barriers to integrated health services, and coordinating care to reduce conflicting educational messages (e.g., breastfeeding, juice, introduction of solids). Stakeholders supported sharing health assessment data and integrating health services as strategies to enhance the quality of care, but were concerned about security and confidentiality. Overall, integrated, coordinated care was perceived to be an acceptable strategy to facilitate consistent, preventive education and improve patient-centeredness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]