Measuring patients’ experiences with individual primary care physicians

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey administered to a statewide sample by mail and telephone (May-August 2002). PATIENTS: Adult patients from 5 commerical health plans and Medicaid sampled from the panels of 215 generalist physicians at 67 practice sites (n=9,625). MEASUREMENTS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.     

The craft of writing: A physician-writer’s workshop for resident physicians

INTRODUCTION: How can residency programs help trainees address conflicting emotions about their professional roles and cultivate a curiosity about their patients’ lives beyond their diseases? We drew on the medical humanities to address these challenges by creating an intensive writing workshop for internal medicine residents. AIM: To help participants become better physicians by reflecting on their experiences and on what gives meaning to work and life. This paper describes the workshop and how residents were affected by the focus on the craft of writing. SETTING: A group of 15 residents from 3 training programs affiliated with 1 institution. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We engaged the expertise of physician-writer Abraham Verghese in planning and facilitating the 2 and one-half day workshop. Residents’ submissions were discussed with a focus on the effectiveness of the writing. We also conducted a focus group with participants to evaluate the workshop. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Themes in the writing included dysphoria, impotence of the physician, and the healing power of compassion. Our focus group data suggested that this workshop served as a creative outlet from the rigors of medicine, created a sense of community among participants, enhanced both self-awareness and awareness of their patients’ lives, and increased intra-institutional and extra-institutional interest in writing and the residency program. DISCUSSION: Teaching creative writing to residents in an intensive workshop may deepen interactions with peers and patients, improve writing skills, and increase interest in writing and the residency program.     

Primary care physicians’ use of lumbar spine imaging tests

Objective

To reduce variability in primary care physicians’ use of procedures for imaging the lumbar spine.

Design

Controlled intervention using clinical practice guideline and practice pattern feedback.

Study Sample

Sixty-seven internists and 28 family practitioners in a large, group-model HMO.

Measurements and Main Results

Intervention group physicians received the clinical practice guideline for low back pain, followed after 4 months by three bim onthly feedback reports on their current use rates for lumber spine x-rays and computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans of the lumbar spine. Control group physicians received neither the guideline nor the feedback reports. Automated radiology utilization data were used to compare intervention and control group physicians’ changes in use rates and variability in use rates over the course of the study period. Neither the guideline alone nor the guideline plus feedback was associated with a significant decrease in use rates or in the variability in use rates for the lumbar spine imaging procedures under study.

Conclusions

Clinical practice guidelines and practice pattern feedback fall to achieve their goals when features of the practice setting and patient expetations and behavior are not identified and addressed.     

Physician, heal Thyself? Regular source of care and use of preventive health services among physicians

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the regular source of care (RSOC) among physicians, a group whose self-care may reflect the attitudes and recommendations they convey to their patients. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of physicians who graduated from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine from 1948 through 1964 to identify predictors of not having an RSOC, and to determine whether not having an RSOC was associated with subsequent receipt of preventive services. The RSOC was assessed in a 1991 survey; use of cancer screening tests and the influenza vaccine was assessed in 1997. RESULTS: The response rate in 1991 was 77% (915 respondents); 35% (312) had no RSOC. Internists (odds ratio [OR], 3.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-6.74), surgeons (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.17-5.02), and pathologists (OR, 5.46; 95% CI, 2.09-14.29) were significantly more likely to not have an RSOC than pediatricians. Not having an RSOC was inversely related to the belief that health is determined by health professionals (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.68) and directly related to the belief that chance (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.28-2.82) determines health. Not having an RSOC in 1991 predicted not being screened for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, as well as not receiving an influenza vaccine at 6 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A large percentage of physicians in our sample had no RSOC, and this was associated with both medical specialty and beliefs about control of health outcomes. Not having an RSOC was significantly associated with failure to use preventive services several years later. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3209-3214.     

Specialists’ and primary care physicians’ participation in medicaid managed care

OBJECTIVE: To compare specialist and primary care physician participation in California's Medicaid fee-for-service and managed care programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: A probability sample stratified by county and by race of 962 specialist physicians and 713 primary care physicians practicing in the 13 largest counties in California in 1998. MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS: We used physician self-report from mailed questionnaires to compare acceptance of new Medicaid and new Medicaid managed care patients by specialists versus primary care physicians and by physician demographics, practice setting, attitudes toward Medicaid patients, and attitudes toward Medicaid managed care. We analyzed results using logistic regression with data weighted to represent the total population of primary care and specialist physicians in the 13 counties. MAIN RESULTS: Specialists were as likely as primary care physicians to have any Medicaid patients in their practices (56% vs 56%; P=.9). Among physicians accepting any new patients, specialists were more likely than primary care physicians to be taking new Medicaid patients but were significantly more likely to limit their acceptance to only Medicaid fee-for-service patients. Thus, specialists were much less likely than primary care physicians to accept new Medicaid managed care patients. After controlling for physician demographics, practice settings, and attitudes toward Medicaid patients and Medicaid managed care, specialists remained much less likely to accept new Medicaid managed care patients. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of Medicaid managed care may decrease access to specialists as specialists were less likely to accept new Medicaid managed care patients compared to Medicaid fee-for-service patients. Any decrease in access may be mitigated if states are able to contract with group model HMOs and to recruit minority physicians.     

Primary care physicians’ experience with disease management programs

OBJECTIVE: To examine primary care physicians' perceptions of how disease management programs affect their practices, their relationships with their patients, and overall patient care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: The 13 largest urban counties in California. PARTICIPANTS: General internists, general pediatricians, and family physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physicians' self-report of the effects of disease management programs on quality of patient care and their own practices. Respondents included 538 (76%) of 708 physicians: 183 (34%) internists, 199 (38%) family practitioners, and 156 (29%) pediatricians. Disease management programs were available 285 to (53%) physicians; 178 had direct experience with the programs. Three quarters of the 178 physicians believed that disease management programs increased the overall quality of patient care and the quality of care for the targeted disease. Eighty-seven percent continued to provide primary care for their patients in these programs, and 70% reported participating in major patient care decisions. Ninety-one percent reported that the programs had no effect on their income, decreased (38%) or had no effect (48%) on their workload, and increased (48%)) their practice satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing primary care physicians have generally favorable perceptions of the effect of voluntary, primary care-inclusive, disease management programs on their patients and on their own practice satisfaction.     

Primary care physicians’ decisions to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to identify factors that influence primary care physicians' willingness to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: Using a mailed questionnaire, we surveyed all 161 primary care physicians participating in a large health care system. We obtained information on training, current practice patterns, beliefs about screening for colorectal cancer, and the influence of various factors on their decision whether or not to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in practice. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 131 physicians included in the analysis, 68 (52%) reported training in flexible sigmoidoscopy, of whom 36 (53%) were currently performing flexible sigmoidoscopy in practice. Time required to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy, availability of adequately trained staff, and availability of flexible sigmoidoscopy services provided by other clinicians were identified most often as reasons not to perform the procedure in practice. Male physicians were more likely than female physicians to report either performing flexible sigmoidoscopy or desiring to train to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy (odds ratio 2.61; 95% confidence interval 1.10, 6.23). This observed difference appears to be mediated through different weighting of decision criteria by male and female physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of these primary care physicians trained in flexible sigmoidoscopy chose not to perform this procedure in practice. Self-perceived inefficiency in performing office-based flexible sigmoidoscopy deterred many of these physicians from providing this service for their patients.     

Does patient-centered care improve provision of preventive services?

OBJECTIVES: While patient-centered care (PCC) is desirable for many reasons, its relationship to treatment outcomes is controversial. We evaluated the relationship between PCC and the provision of preventive services. METHODS: We obtained facility-level estimates of how well each VA hospital provided PCC from the 1999 ambulatory Veterans Satisfaction Survey. PCC delivery was measured by the average percentage of responses per facility indicating satisfactory performance from items in 8 PCC domains: access, incorporating patient preferences, patient education, emotional support, visit coordination, overall coordination of care, continuity, and courtesy. Additional predictors included patient population and facility characteristics. Our outcome was a previously validated hospital-level benchmarking score describing facility-level performance across 12 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-recommended interventions, using the 1999 Veterans Health Survey. RESULTS: Facility-level delivery of preventive services ranged from an overall mean of 90% compliance for influenza vaccinations to 18% for screening for seat belt use. Mean overall PCC scores ranged from excellent (>90% for the continuity of care and courtesy of care PCC domains) to modest (<70% for patient education). Correlates of better preventive service delivery included how often patients were able to discuss their concerns with their provider, the percent of visits at which patients saw their usual provider, and the percent of patients receiving >90% of care from a VA hospital. CONCLUSION: Improved communication between patients and providers, and continuity of care are associated with increased provision of preventive services, while other aspects of PCC are not strongly related to delivery of preventive services.     

Patients’ perceptions of physicians’ recommendations for comfort care differ by patient age and gender

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient characteristics associated with patient and proxy perceptions of physicians’ recommendations for life-prolonging care versus comfort care, and with acceptance of such recommendations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals in Denver, Colo. PATIENTS: We studied 239 hospitalized adults believed by physicians to have a high likelihood of dying within 6 months. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Interviews with patients or proxies were conducted to determine perceptions of physicians’ recommended goal of care and roles in decision making. RESULTS: Patients’ mean age was 66.6 years; 44% were women. In adjusted analysis, age greater than 70 years and female gender were associated with a higher likelihood of believing that comfort care had been recommended by the physician (odds ratio [OR], 3.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89 to 7.24; OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.84, respectively). Patients and proxies gave substantial decision-making authority to physicians: 29% responded that physicians dominate decision making, 55% that decision making is equally shared by physicians and patients, and only 16% that patients make decisions, Increasing age was associated with an increased likelihood of believing that physicians should dominate decision making (P<.005). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced illness, perceived comfort care recommendations were related to patient age and gender, raising concern about possible gender and age bias in physicians’ recommendations. Although all patients and proxies gave significant decision-making authority to physicians, older individuals were more likely to give physicians decision-making authority, making them more vulnerable to possible physician bias. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society, May 19, 1999. Financial support for this work was received from the Hartford/Jahnigen Center of Excellence in Geriatrics at the University of Colorado and the Colorado Collective for Medical Decisions, a nonprofit organization to improve care of the dying in the state of Colorado.     

The doctor-patient relationship and HIV-infected patients’ satisfaction with primary care physicians

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which perceptions of specific aspects of the doctor-patient relationship are related to overall satisfaction with primary care physicians among HIV-infected patients. DESIGN: Longitudinal, observational study of HIV-infected persons new to primary HIV care. Data were collected at enrollment and approximately 6 months later by in-person interview. SETTING: Two urban medical centers in the northeastern United States. PARTICIPANTS: Patients seeking primary HIV care for the first time. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome measure was patient-reported satisfaction with a primary care physician measured 6 months after initiating primary HIV care. Patients who were more comfortable discussing personal issues with their physicians (P=.021), who perceived their primary care physicians as more empathetic (P=.001), and who perceived their primary care physicians as more knowledgeble with respect to HIV (P=.002) were significantly more satisfied with their primary care physicians, adjusted for characteristics of the patient and characteristics of primary care. Collectively, specific aspects of the doctor-patient relationship explained 56% of the variation in overall satisfaction with the primary care physician. CONCLUSIONS: Patients’ perceptions of their primary care physician’s HIV knowledge and empathy were highly related to their satisfaction with this physician. Satisfaction among HIV-infected patients was not associated with patients’ sociodemographic characteristics, HIV risk characteristics, alcohol and drug use, health status, quality of life, or concordant patient-physician gender and racial matching. This research was conducted in part in the General Clinical Research Center at Boston University School of Medicine, USPHS grant M01 RR00533.     

Understanding African Americans’ views of the trustworthiness of physicians

BACKGROUND: Many scholars have written about the historical underpinnings and likely consequences of African Americans distrust in health care, yet little research has been done to understand if and how this distrust affects African Americans' current views of the trustworthiness of physicians. OBJECTIVE: To better understand what trust and distrust in physicians means to African Americans. DESIGN: Focus-group study, using an open-ended discussion guide. SETTING: Large public hospital and community organization in Chicago, IL. PATIENTS: Convenience sample of African-American adult men and women. MEASUREMENTS: Each focus group was systematically coded using grounded theory analysis. The research team then identified themes that commonly arose across the 9 focus groups. RESULTS: Participants indicated that trust is determined by the interpersonal and technical competence of physicians. Contributing factors to distrust in physicians include a lack of interpersonal and technical competence, perceived quest for profit and expectations of racism and experimentation during routine provision of health care. Trust appears to facilitate care-seeking behavior and promotes patient honesty and adherence. Distrust inhibits care-seeking, can result in a change in physician and may lead to nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Unique factors contribute to trust and distrust in physicians among African-American patients. These factors should be considered in clinical practice to facilitate trust building and improve health care provided to African Americans.     

Impact of new guidelines on physicians’ ordering of preoperative tests

OBJECTIVE: To compare the number of preoperative tests ordered for elective ambulatory surgery patients during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the establishment of new hospital testing guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: The patterns of preoperative testing by surgeons and a medical consultant during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the establishment of new guidelines at one orthopedic hospital were reviewed. All tests ordered preoperatively were determined by review of medical records. Preoperative medical histories, physical examinations, and comorbidities were obtained according to a protocol by the medical consultant (author). Perioperative complications were determined by review of intraoperative and postoperative events, which also were recorded according to a protocol. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 640 patients were enrolled, 361 before and 279 after the new guidelines. The mean number of tests decreased from 8.0 before to 5.6 after the new guidelines ( p =.0001) and the percentage decrease for individual tests varied from 23% to 44%. Except for patients with more comorbidity and patients receiving general anesthesia, there were decreases across all patient groups. In multivariate analyses only time of surgery (before or after new guidelines), age, and type of surgery remained statistically significant ( p =.0001 for all comparisons). Despite decreases in surgeons' ordering of tests, the medical consultant did not order more tests after the new guidelines ( p =.60) The majority of patients had no untoward events intraoperatively and postoperatively throughout the study period, with only 6% overall requiring admission to the hospital after surgery, mainly for reasons not related to abnormal tests. Savings from charges totaled $34,000 for the patients in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was variable compliance among physicians, new hospital guidelines were effective in reducing preoperative testing and did not result in increases in untoward perioperative events or in test ordering by the medical consultant.     

A comparison of the preventive health care provided by women’s health centers and general internal medicine practices

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate women’s health centers as alternatives to traditional internal medicine practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: A women’s health center and an internal medicine practice at each of three university-affiliated teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: There were 3,035 female patients randomly selected to receive a mailed survey after their office visits. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The survey asked for patient characteristics, patient satisfaction, and rates of gender-specific preventive health services. The survey response rate was 64% (1,942/3,035). Patients at women’s health centers were younger, more educated, had higher physical functioning but lower mental health functioning, and more of them were single and employed. Patient satisfaction was similar at the two types of practices, although patients at women’s health centers were more satisfied with certain aspects of the patient-provider interaction. After adjusting for measured differences in patient characteristics and site, patients at women’s health centers were more likely to receive discussions on hormone replacement therapy (odds ratio [OR] 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1, 2.2) and dietary calcium (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1, 1.6). They were also more likely to receive their gender-specific preventive health services from their primary care provider: breast examination (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5, 2.6), Pap smear (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.9, 3.1), hormone replacement therapy discussion (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5, 3.3), and dietary calcium discussion (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.7, 3.9). These findings remained when the analyses were limited to patients of female providers only. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients at women’s health centers were more likely to receive gender-specific health prevention counseling than patients at internal medicine practices. Moreover, patients were more likely to receive their gender-specific preventive health services from their primary care providers. Dr. Harpole was supported by a National Research Service Award (PE-11001). Presented in part at the Society of General Internal Medicine meeting, Washington, DC, May 1996.     

Effect of a patient’s psychiatric history on physicians’ estimation of probability of disease

A questionnaire was mailed to 300 Iowa family physicians to determine the influence of a prior psychiatric history on decision making. The response rate was 77%. Respondents were less likely to believe that a patient had serious illness when presenting with a severe headache or abdominal pain if the patient had a prior history of depression (P<.05) or prior history of somatic complaints (P<.05), compared with a patient with no past history. Respondents were less likely to report that they would order testing for a patient with headache or abdominal pain if the patient had a history of depression (P<.05, P=.08, respectively) or somatic complaints (P<.01). Differences in likelihood of ordering tests were not significant after adjusting for differences in estimated probability of disease. We conclude that physicians respond differently to patients with psychiatric illness because of their estimation of pretest probability of disease rather than bias. We conclude that past psychiatric history influences physicians’ estimation of disease presence and willingness to order tests. Presented at the Society of Medical Decision Making annual meeting, October 1998. This work was supported by a predoctoral grant from the Department of Health and Human Services (5DO5 PE87007-18).