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 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.     

Influence of body weight on patients’ satisfaction with ambulatory care

Patients with obesity experience psychosocial consequences because of their weight and report physician bias. We examined whether obesity is associated with lower patient satisfaction with ambulatory care among 2,858 patients seen at 11 academically affiliated primary care practices in Boston. Compared with normal weight patients (body mass index [BMI], 19.0 to 24.9 kg/M 2), overweight (BMI, 25.0 to 29.9 kg/M 2) and obese patients (BMI > or =30 kg/M 2) reported lower overall satisfaction scores at their most recent visit; the scores were 85.5, 85.0, and 82.6 out a possible 100, respectively (P =.05). After adjustment for potential confounders including illness burden, obese patients reported lower scores but the difference was not statistically significant (mean difference, 1.23 [95% confidence interval -0.67 to 3.12]). Patient satisfaction with their usual provider and their practice did not vary by BMI group. Obesity is associated with only modest decreases in satisfaction scores with the most recent visit, which were explained largely by higher illness burden among obese patients.     

How are biomarkers related to physical and mental well-being?

We investigate how biological markers of individual responses to stressful experiences are associated with profiles of physical and mental functioning in a national sample of middle-aged and elderly Taiwanese. Data come from a population-based sample of middle-aged and elderly Taiwanese in 2000. The data combine rich biological measures with self-reported information on physical and mental health. Grade of membership methods are used to summarize functional status, and multinomial logit models provide information on the association between biological measures and function. The analysis identifies significant associations between biomarkers of stressful experience and profiles of physical and mental functioning. The estimates reveal the potential importance for health of both low and high values of biological parameters. The findings point to directions for future research regarding development of aggregate measures of cumulative dysregulation across multiple physiological systems.     

How do precepting physicians select patients for teaching medical students in the ambulatory primary care setting?

OBJECTIVE: To study how clinical preceptors select patients for medical student teaching in ambulatory care and to explore key factors they consider in the selection process. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of transcribed interviews. SETTING: Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen physicians (14 general internists and 5 general pediatricians) who serve as clinical preceptors. MEASUREMENTS: Responses to in-depth open-ended interview regarding selection of patients for participation in medical student teaching. MAIN RESULTS: Preceptors consider the competing needs of the patient, the student, and the practice the most important factors in selecting patients for medical student teaching. Three dominant themes emerged: time and efficiency, educational value, and the influence of teaching on the doctor-patient relationship. These physicians consciously attempt to select patients whose participation in medical student teaching maximizes the efficiency of the clinical practice and optimizes the students' educational experiences, while minimizing any potential for harming the relationship between preceptor and patient. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may help validate the frustration preceptors frequently feel in their efforts to teach in the outpatient setting. Becoming more cognizant of the competing interests-the needs of the patient, the student, and the practice-may help physicians to select patients to enhance the educational experience without compromising efficiency or the doctor-patient relationship. For educators, this study suggests an opportunity for faculty development programs to assist the clinical preceptor both in selecting patients for medical student teaching and in finding ways to maximize the efficiency and educational quality of the outpatient teaching environment.     

Do unmet expectations for specific tests,referrals, and new medications reduce patients’ satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care requires clinicians to recognize and act on patients' expectations. However, relatively little is known about the specific expectations patients bring to the primary care visit. OBJECTIVE: To describe the nature and prevalence of patients' specific expectations for tests, referrals, and new medications, and to examine the relationship between fulfillment of these expectations and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: VA general medicine clinic. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-three adult male outpatients seeing their primary care provider for a scheduled visit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of patients reported at least 1 expectation for a test, referral, or new medication. Thirty-one percent had 1 expectation, while 25% had 2 or more expectations. Expectations were evenly distributed among tests, referrals, and new medications (37%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Half of the patients who expressed an expectation did not receive one or more of the desired tests, referrals, or new medications. Nevertheless, satisfaction was very high (median of 1.5 for visit-specific satisfaction on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 representing "excellent"). Satisfaction was not related to whether expectations were met or unmet, except that patients who did not receive desired medications reported lower satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' expectations are varied and often vague. Clinicians trying to implement the values of patient-centered care must be prepared to elicit, identify, and address many expectations.     

Insulin and atherosclerosis: How are they related?

The relationship between insulin and atherosclerosis is complex. People with type 2 diabetes are affected by three main glycaemic disorders: chronic hyperglycaemia; glycaemic variability; and iatrogenic hypoglycaemia. In addition to this triumvirate, the diabetic condition is characterized by lipid disorders, chronic low-grade inflammation and activation of oxidative stress. All these associated disorders reflect the insulin-resistant nature of type 2 diabetes and contribute to the development and progression of cardiovascular (CV) diseases. By both lowering plasma glucose and improving the lipid profile, insulin exerts beneficial effects on CV outcomes. In addition, insulin has several pleiotropic effects such as anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic and antioxidant properties. Insulin per se exerts an inhibitory effect on the activation of oxidative stress and seems able to counteract the pro-oxidant effects of ambient hyperglycaemia and glycaemic variability. However, insulin actions remain a subject of debate with respect to the risk of adverse CV events, which can increase in individuals exposed to high insulin doses. Evidence from the large-scale, long-term ORIGIN trial suggests that early implementation of insulin supplementation therapy in the course of glycaemic disorders, including type 2 diabetes, has a neutral impact on CV outcomes compared with standard management. Thus, the answer to the question “What impact does insulin have on atherosclerosis?” remains unclear, even though it is logical to deduce that insulin should be initiated as soon as possible and that small doses of insulin early on are better than higher doses later in the disease process.     

Why don't patients and physicians talk about end-of-life care? Barriers to communication for patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and their primary care clinicians

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic and terminal disease frequently do not talk to their physicians about end-of-life care. Interventions to improve this communication have generally been unsuccessful, suggesting that important barriers to this communication must exist. OBJECTIVES: To determine the barriers to and facilitators of patient-clinician communication about end-of-life care and to identify barriers and facilitators that are more common among those patients who are least likely to discuss end-of-life care: minorities and injection drug users. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 57 patients with advanced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and their primary care clinicians who were recruited from university and private clinics. Barriers to and facilitators of end-of-life communication were identified from a prior qualitative study and assessed for frequency and importance and for an association with the occurrence and quality of end-of-life communication. RESULTS: Clinicians identified more barriers than patients. Barriers identified by patients and clinicians fell into 3 categories of potential interventions: education about end-of-life care, counseling to help address end-of-life concerns, and health care system changes to facilitate patient-clinician communication. Although none of the patient-identified barriers was associated with the occurrence of communication, 2 clinician-identified barriers were associated with less communication: "the patient has not been very sick yet" and "the patient isn't ready to talk about end-of-life care." Nonwhite patients were more likely to identify the following 2 barriers than white patients: "I feel that if I talk about death, it could bring death closer" and "I don't like to talk about the care I want if I get very sick." CONCLUSIONS: The diversity of barriers and facilitators relevant to patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and their clinicians suggests that interventions to improve communication about end-of-life care must be focused on individual needs and must involve counseling interventions and health system changes in addition to education. Clinician barriers are more common and more strongly associated with the occurrence of end-of-life communication than patient barriers, suggesting that clinicians are an important target group for improving this communication.     

Organizational and financial characteristics of health plans: are they related to primary care performance?

BACKGROUND: Primary care performance has been shown to differ under different models of health care delivery, even among various models of managed care. Pervasive changes in our nation's health care delivery systems, including the emergence of new forms of managed care, compel more current data. OBJECTIVE: To compare the primary care received by patients in each of 5 models of managed care (managed indemnity, point of service, network-model health maintenance organization [HMO], group-model HMO, and staff-model HMO) and identify specific characteristics of health plans associated with performance differences. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of Massachusetts adults who reported having a regular personal physician and for whom plan-type was known (n = 6018). Participants completed a validated questionnaire measuring 7 defining characteristics of primary care. Senior health plan executives provided information about financial and nonfinancial features of the plan's contractual arrangements with physicians. RESULTS: The managed indemnity system performed most favorably, with the highest adjusted mean scores for 8 of 10 measures (P<.05). Point of service and network-model HMO performance equaled the indemnity system on many measures. Staff-model HMOs performed least favorably, with adjusted mean scores that were lowest or statistically equivalent to the lowest score on all 10 scales. Among network-model HMOs, several features of the plan's contractual arrangement with physicians (ie, capitated physician payment, extensive use of clinical practice guidelines, financial incentives concerning patient satisfaction) were significantly associated with performance (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: With US employers and purchasers having largely rejected traditional indemnity insurance as unaffordable, the results suggest that the current momentum toward open-model managed care plans is consistent with goals for high-quality primary care, but that the effects of specific financial and nonfinancial incentives used by plans must continue to be examined.     

Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease — How relevant is this to primary care physicians and diabetologists?

Metabolic-dysfunction associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is a newly introduced entity hoping to more precisely define fatty liver disease. Despite the controversies surrounding MAFLD, the definition is getting more widely accepted by the global liver-health community. MAFLD represents a cohort of patients enriched with more advanced liver disease, cardio-renal and metabolic complications with increased mortality. This review aims to provide all primary care physicians and diabetologists with a clinical management update from a non-hepatologist’s perspective, and a summary of important findings from recent studies to raise disease awareness and highlight the relevance of MAFLD to their daily clinical practice.     

Patients’ trust in physicians: Many theories, few measures, and little data

Trust is one of the central features of patient-physician relationships. Rapid changes in the health care system are feared by many to be threatening patients’ trust in their physicians. Yet, despite its acknowledged importance and potential fragility, rigorous efforts to conceptualize and measure patient trust have been relatively few. This article presents a synopsis of theories about patient trust and the evolution of methods to measure it. Clinicians, educators, and researchers interested in this area may find this information useful in practice and teaching. The gaps identified in our knowledge about trust can help target new efforts to strengthen the methodological basis of work to understand this vital element of medical relationships.     

Hematologist and transplant physicians: How and where to meet for the best of sickle cell disease patients?

Despite huge progress in the fields of newborn screening, encapsulated bacterial infection prophylaxis, immunization, and supportive care in general, people suffering from sickle cell anemia still continue to have a shorter life expectancy and a poorer quality of life due to painful vaso-occlusive events and strokes during childhood, and later, cardiac, pulmonary, and renal injuries, including in Western and high-income countries.From the 2000s, allogeneic stem cell transplantation for severe sickle cell disease from a sibling donor provided the best results—overall as well as disease-free survival—never obtained for any other disease. Nevertheless, this only curative option is proposed to few patient numbers, including in Western countries with high-level medical equipment development, with discrepancies between (i) patients and family, (ii) physicians and care centers dedicated to sickle cell disease, and (iii) hematopoietic stem cell transplant teams.Due to these discrepancies and in order to provide the same quality of discussion and treatment choice for every sickle cell disease patient, we developed a National French multidisciplinary pluri-annual meeting dedicated to sickle cell disease patients and transplantation. We report here our experience of such a meeting.     

Dimensions of care for dementia sufferers in long-term care institutions: are they related to outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: This study empirically examined whether dimensions of care cluster in special care units (SCUs) compared with non-SCUs. The relationship between SCU status plus separate measures of the dimensions of care and outcomes for dementia sufferers was then investigated. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Intermediate Care Facility Project. The sample (N = 510) included residents with dementia, aged 65 and older, in intermediate care facilities throughout the province of British Columbia. Canada. Longitudinal data included 6 outcomes: cognitive function, behavioral problems of agitation and social skills, physical functioning, and quality of life measured through affect and expressive language skills. Separate multiple linear regression equations were estimated, relating each of these outcomes to 5 dimensions of care: preadmission and admission procedures. staff training and education, nonuse of physical and chemical restraints, flexible care routines and resident-relevant activities, and the environment. RESULTS: The results showed there is virtually no clustering of dimensions along SCU/non-SCU lines. Neither SCU status nor the individual dimensions were highly predictive of outcomes. Residents' affect at t1 emerged as a characteristic that was significantly correlated with other outcomes. DISCUSSION: This Canadian research can be added to the few but growing number of rigorous studies that suggest SCUs are not homogeneous and do not necessarily provide better care than non-SCUs. Moreover, it raises questions about the benefits of "best practice" dimensions of care, regardless of SCU status.     

Do subspecialists working outside of their specialty provide less efficient and lower-quality care to hospitalized patients than do primary care physicians?

BACKGROUND: Studies show that subspecialists can provide better quality care than primary care physicians when working within their subspecialty for patients with some medical conditions. However, many subspecialists care for patients outside of their chosen subspecialty. The present study compared the quality of care provided by subspecialists practicing outside of their specialty, general internists, and subspecialists practicing within their specialty. METHODS: The severity-adjusted mortality rate and the severity-adjusted length of stay were used as indexes of quality of care. Data from 5112 hospital admissions (301 different physicians) for community-acquired pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage at 6 hospitals in the greater Cleveland, Ohio, area were used in this study. The data were severity adjusted with the CHOICE Severity of Illness System. RESULTS: Subspecialists working outside of their subspecialty cared for 25% of hospitalized patients. When comparing patients cared for by subspecialists practicing outside of their subspecialty, severity-adjusted lengths of stay were longer for patients with congestive heart failure (23% longer; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15%-32%), upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (22% longer; 95% CI, 7%-39%), and community-acquired pneumonia (14% longer; 95% CI, 5%-24%) than for patients cared for by subspecialists practicing within their subspecialty. Patients also had a slightly higher hospital mortality rate when cared for by subspecialists practicing outside of their specialty than by subspecialists practicing within their subspecialty (mortality rate odds ratio, 1.46; P =.047). In addition, patients cared for by subspecialists practicing outside of their subspecialty had longer lengths of stay, and prolongations of stay were observed for patients with congestive heart failure (16% longer; 95% CI, 8%-26%), upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (15% longer; 95% CI, 2%-30%), and community-acquired pneumonia (18% longer; 95% CI, 9%-28%) than patients cared for by general internists. CONCLUSIONS: Subspecialists commonly care for patients outside of their subspecialty, despite the fact that their patients may have longer lengths of stay than those cared for by subspecialists practicing within their specialty or by general internists. In addition, such patients may have slightly higher mortality rates than those cared for by subspecialists practicing within their subspecialty.