Access intervention in an integrated, prepaid group practice: effects on primary care physician productivity

Analysis of Variation in Organizational Definitions of Primary Care Panels: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Primary care panel size plays an increasing role in measuring primary care provider (ie, physicians and advanced practice providers, which include nurse practitioners and physician assistants) workload, setting practice capacity, and determining pay and can influence quality of care, access, and burnout. However, reported panel sizes vary widely.

OBJECTIVE

To identify how panels are defined, the degree of variation in these definitions, the consequences of different definitions of panel size, and research on strengths of different approaches.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Dissertations and Theses Global databases were searched from inception to April 28, 2021, for subject headings and text words to capture concepts of primary care panel size. Article review and data abstraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Main outcomes reported included rules for adding or removing patients from panels, rules for measuring primary care provider resources, consequences of different rules on reported panel size, and research on advantages and disadvantages of different rules.

FINDINGS

The literature search yielded 1687 articles, with 294 potentially relevant articles and 74 containing relevant data. Specific practices were identified from 29 health care systems and 5 empanelment implementation guides. Patients were most commonly empaneled after 1 primary care visit (24 of 34 [70.6%]), but some were empaneled only after several visits (5 [14.8%]), enrollment in a health plan (4 [11.8%]) or any visit to the health care system (1 [3.0%]). Patients were removed when no visit had occurred in a specified look-back period, which varied from 12 to 42 months. Regarding primary care provider resources, half of organizations assigned advanced practice providers independent panels and half had them share panels with a physician, increasing the physician's panel by 50% to 100%. Analyses demonstrated that changes in individual rules for adding patients, removing patients, or estimating primary care provider resources could increase reported panel size from 20% to 100%, without change in actual primary care provider workload. No research was found investigating advantages of different definitions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Much variation exists in how panels are defined, and this variation can have substantial consequences on reported panel size. Research is needed on how to define primary care panels to best identify active patients, which could contribute to a widely accepted standard approach to panel definition.

A study of the development path of key disciplines in the Guang'an hospital based on construction of west China's compact medical consortium hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the development path of key disciplines in Guang'an Hospital based on the construction of West China's compact medical consortium hospitals.

METHODS

The urological medical staff and facilities in Guang'an Hospital were selected as the study subjects. The urological medical staff were interviewed, and a detailed investigation and analysis of the current development of urology and the allocation of experts and medical equipment and resources were performed, so as to promote the development of key disciplines in Guang'an Hospital.

RESULTS

We aim to focus on the operational targets of the compact medical consortium while remaining committed to the construction of disciplines of urology. Meanwhile, the relationship between patients and health care providers was coordinated in regard to health care services. The mean of compactness of the dimensions involved in the targets of the operational body of patients was 4.71, while that of the improvement of the medical and health environment was 4.88. The allocated proportion of healthcare resources was optimized, and the operational efficiency was improved. If an excellent medical service experience was provided, the obtained data are statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Based on the medical consortium, the assessment model of scientific experimental methods, and with the goal of improving the quality of medical treatment regarding urology, the responsibilities of urologists are further defined. A standardized training plan was conducted, with assessment systems of disciplines and better access systems of urologists are formulated and improved, and therefore the construction of key disciplines is promoted, thereby providing more references for the construction and development of key disciplines of urology.

The Role of Health Technologies in Multicomponent Primary Care Interventions: Systematic Review

Background

Several countries around the world have implemented multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care, as a way of strengthening their health systems to cope with an aging chronically ill population and rising costs. Some of these efforts have included technology-based enhancements as one of the features to support the overall intervention, but their details and impacts have not been explored.

Objective

This study aimed to identify the role of digital/health technologies within wider multifeature interventions that are aimed at enhancing primary care, and to describe their aims and stakeholders, types of technologies used, and potential impacts.

Methods

A systematic review was performed following Cochrane guidelines. An electronic search, conducted on May 30, 2019, was supplemented with manual and grey literature searches in December 2019, to identify multicomponent interventions that included at least one technology-based enhancement. After title/abstract and full text screening, selected articles were assessed for quality based on their study design. A descriptive narrative synthesis was used for analysis and presentation of the results.

Results

Of 37 articles, 14 (38%) described the inclusion of a technology-based innovation as part of their multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care. The most commonly identified technologies were the use of electronic health records, data monitoring technologies, and online portals with messaging platforms. The most common aim of these technologies was to improve continuity of care and comprehensiveness, which resulted in increased patient satisfaction, increased primary care visits compared to specialist visits, and the provision of more health prevention education and improved prescribing practices. Technologies seem also to increase costs and utilization for some parameters, such as increased consultation costs and increased number of drugs prescribed.

Conclusions

Technologies and digital health have not played a major role within comprehensive innovation efforts aimed at enhancing primary care, reflecting that these technologies have not yet reached maturity or wider acceptance as a means for improving primary care. Stronger policy and financial support, and advocacy of key stakeholders are needed to encourage the introduction of efficient technological innovations, which are backed by evidence-based research, so that digital technologies can fulfill the promise of supporting strong sustainable primary care.

Multicomponent interventions for enhancing primary care: a systematic review

Background

Many countries have implemented interventions to enhance primary care to strengthen their health systems. These programmes vary widely in features included and their impact on outcomes.

Aim

To identify multiple-feature interventions aimed at enhancing primary care and their effects on measures of system success — that is, population health, healthcare costs and utilisation, patient satisfaction, and provider satisfaction (quadruple-aim outcomes).

Design and setting

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Method

Electronic, manual, and grey-literature searches were performed for articles describing multicomponent primary care interventions, providing details of their innovation features, relationship to the ‘4Cs’ (first contact, comprehensiveness, coordination, and continuity), and impact on quadruple-aim outcomes. After abstract and full-text screening, articles were selected and their quality appraised. Results were synthesised in a narrative form.

Results

From 37 included articles, most interventions aimed to improve access, enhance incentives for providers, provide team-based care, and introduce technologies. The most consistent improvements related to increased primary care visits and screening/preventive services, and improved patient and provider satisfaction; mixed results were found for hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and expenditures. The available data were not sufficient to link interventions, achievement of the 4Cs, and outcomes.

Conclusion

Most analysed interventions improved some aspects of primary care while, simultaneously, producing non-statistically significant impacts, depending on the features of the interventions, the measured outcome(s), and the populations being studied. A critical research gap was revealed, namely, in terms of which intervention features to enhance primary care (alone or in combination) produce the most consistent benefits.

Measuring individual physician clinical productivity in an era of consolidated group practices

BACKGROUND

As physician groups consolidate and value-based payment replaces traditional fee-for-service systems, physician practices have greater need to accurately measure individual physician clinical productivity within team-based systems. We compared methodologies to measure individual physician outpatient clinical productivity after adjustment for shared practice resources.

METHODS

For cardiologists at our hospital between January 2015 and June 2016, we assessed productivity by examining completed patient visits per clinical session per week. Using mixed-effects models, we sequentially accounted for shared practice resources and underlying baseline characteristics. We compared mixed-effects and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) models using K-fold cross validation, and compared mixed-effect, GEE, and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) models based on ranking of physicians by productivity.

RESULTS

A mixed-effects model adjusting for shared practice resources reduced variation in productivity among providers by 63% compared to an unadjusted model. Mixed-effects productivity rankings correlated strongly with GEE rankings (Spearman 0.99), but outperformed GEE on K-fold cross validation (root mean squared error 2.66 vs 3.02; mean absolute error 1.89 vs 2.20, respectively). Mixed-effects model rankings had moderate correlation with DEA model rankings (Spearman 0.692), though this improved upon exclusion of outliers (Spearman 0.755).

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed-effects modeling accounts for significant variation in productivity secondary to shared practice resources, outperforms GEE in predictive power, and is less vulnerable to outliers than DEA.

IMPLICATIONS

With mixed-effects regression analysis using otherwise easily accessible administrative data, practices can evaluate physician clinical productivity more fairly and make more informed management decisions on physician compensation and resource allocation.

The Empirical Foundations of Telemedicine Interventions in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

This article presents the scientific evidence for the merits of telemedicine interventions in primary care. Although there is no uniform and consistent definition of primary care, most agree that it occupies a central role in the healthcare system as first contact for patients seeking care, as well as gatekeeper and coordinator of care. It enables and supports patient-centered care, the medical home, managed care, accountable care, and population health. Increasing concerns about sustainability and the anticipated shortages of primary care physicians have sparked interest in exploring the potential of telemedicine in addressing many of the challenges facing primary care in the United States and the world.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The findings are based on a systematic review of scientific studies published from 2005 through 2015. The initial search yielded 2,308 articles, with 86 meeting the inclusion criteria. Evidence is organized and evaluated according to feasibility/acceptance, intermediate outcomes, health outcomes, and cost.

RESULTS

The majority of studies support the feasibility/acceptance of telemedicine for use in primary care, although it varies significantly by demographic variables, such as gender, age, and socioeconomic status, and telemedicine has often been found more acceptable by patients than healthcare providers. Outcomes data are limited but overall suggest that telemedicine interventions are generally at least as effective as traditional care. Cost analyses vary, but telemedicine in primary care is increasingly demonstrated to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine has significant potential to address many of the challenges facing primary care in today's healthcare environment. Challenges still remain in validating its impact on clinical outcomes with scientific rigor, as well as in standardizing methods to assess cost, but patient and provider acceptance is increasingly making telemedicine a viable and integral component of primary care around the world.

Primary Care Physician Panel Size and Quality of Care: A Population-Based Study in Ontario, Canada

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the number of patients under a primary care physician's care (panel size) and primary care quality indicators.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, population-based study of fee-for-service and capitated interprofessional and non-interprofessional primary health care practices in Ontario, Canada between April 2008 and March 2010, encompassing 4,195 physicians with panel sizes ≥1,200 serving 8.3 million patients. Data was extracted from multiple linked, health-related administrative databases and covered 16 quality indicators spanning 5 dimensions of care: access, continuity, comprehensiveness, and evidence-based indicators of cancer screening and chronic disease management.

RESULTS

The likelihood of being up-to-date on cervical, colorectal, and breast cancer screening showed relative decreases of 7.9% (P <.001), 5.9% (P = .01), and 4.6% (P <.001), respectively, with increasing panel size (from 1,200 to 3,900). Eight chronic care indicators (4 medication-based and 4 screening-based) showed no significant association with panel size. The likelihood of individuals with a new diagnosis of congestive heart failure having an echocardiogram, however, increased by a relative 8.1% (P <.001) with higher panel size. Increasing panel size was also associated with a 10.8% relative increase in hospitalization rates for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions (P = .04) and a 10.8% decrease in non-urgent emergency department visits (P = .004). Continuity was highest with medium panel sizes (P <.001), and comprehensiveness had a small decrease (P = .03) with increasing panel size.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing panel size was associated with small decreases in cancer screening, continuity, and comprehensiveness, but showed no consistent relationships with chronic disease management or access indicators. We found no panel size threshold above which quality of care suffered.

Measuring Changes in the Economics of Medical Practice

For the latter third of the twentieth century, researchers have estimated production and cost functions for physician practices. Today, those attempting to measure the inputs and outputs of physician practice must account for many recent changes in models of care delivery. In this paper, we review practice inputs and outputs as typically described in research on the economics of medical practice, and consider the implications of the changing organization of medical practice and nature of physician work. This evolving environment has created conceptual challenges in what are the appropriate measures of output from physician work, as well as what inputs should be measured. Likewise, the increasing complexity of physician practice organizations has introduced challenges to finding the appropriate data sources for measuring these constructs. Both these conceptual and data challenges pose measurement issues that must be overcome to study the economics of modern medical practice. Despite these challenges, there are several promising initiatives involving data sharing at the organizational level that could provide a starting point for developing the needed new data sources and metrics for physician inputs and outputs. However, additional efforts will be required to establish data collection approaches and measurements applicable to smaller and single specialty practices. Overcoming these measurement and data challenges will be key to supporting policy-relevant research on the changing economics of medical practice.

The Group Health medical home at year two: cost savings, higher patient satisfaction, and less burnout for providers

As the patient-centered medical home model emerges as a key vehicle to improve the quality of health care and to control costs, the experience of Seattle-based Group Health Cooperative with its medical home pilot takes on added importance. This paper examines the effects of the medical home prototype on patients' experiences, quality, burnout of clinicians, and total costs at twenty-one to twenty-four months after implementation. The results show improvements in patients' experiences, quality, and clinician burnout through two years. Compared to other Group Health clinics, patients in the medical home experienced 29 percent fewer emergency visits and 6 percent fewer hospitalizations. We estimate total savings of $10.3 per patient per month twenty-one months into the pilot. We offer an operational blueprint and policy recommendations for adoption in other health care settings.

Does a large-scale organizational transformation toward patient-centered access change the utilization and costs of care for patients with diabetes?

The authors examined whether Group Health's Access Initiative changed the utilization and costs of care among enrollees with diabetes. Using a single (one-group) interrupted time series design, repeated-measures generalized estimating equation models were used to estimate changes in utilization and costs during the Initiative rollout (2002-2003) and to compare the slopes (annual rates of change) for utilization and costs during the Pre-Initiative period (1998-2002) to the slopes during Full-Implementation (2003-2006) among 9,871 members continuously enrolled from 1997 to 2006 with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Total costs increased in Full-Implementation, but the annual change in total costs did not change. Primary care visits declined, but primary care contacts grew, largely from the Initiative's introduction of secure messaging. Specialty visits did not change; however, the Initiative may have increased emergency visits. To reduce emergency visits, future access initiatives should include proactive and comprehensive outpatient care for patients with diabetes.

The effect of physician panel size on health care outcomes

An inadequate supply of primary care providers is leading to a crisis in access. Pressures are being placed on primary care practices to increase panel sizes. The impact of these pressures on clinical processes, patient satisfaction and waiting times is largely unknown, although evidence from recent literature shows that longer waiting time results in higher mortality rates and other adverse outcomes. FY2004, Department of Veterans Affairs primary care patient data are used. GLIMMIX and other generalized linear model models illustrate how expanded panel sizes are correlated with clinical process indicators, patient satisfaction and waiting times, controlling for practice, provider and patient characteristics. We generally find that larger panel sizes are related to statistically significant increases in waiting time. However, larger panel sizes appear to have generally small effects on patient process indicators and satisfaction. Panels with more support staff have lower waiting times and small, improved outcomes. We find panels with older and clinically riskier patients have, on average, slightly lower waiting times and increased likelihoods of positive outcomes than panels with younger, healthier veterans. Female veterans appear to have reduced likelihoods of positive outcomes. Higher priority and female veterans also have lower satisfaction. Further study is needed to analyse the impact of potential panel size endogeneity in this system.

The potency of team-based care interventions for hypertension: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Team-based care is the strategy that has had the greatest effect on improving blood pressure (BP). The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the potency of interventions for BP involving nurses or pharmacists.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search for controlled clinical trials that involved a nurse or pharmacist intervention was conducted. Mean reductions in systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP were determined by 2 reviewers who independently abstracted data and classified the different intervention components.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. Education about BP medications was significantly associated with a reduction in mean BP (-8.75/-3.60 mm Hg). Other strategies that had large effect sizes on SBP include pharmacist treatment recommendations (-9.30 mm Hg), intervention by nurses (-4.80 mm Hg), and use of a treatment algorithm (-4.00 mm Hg). The odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for controlled BP were: nurses, 1.69 (1.48-1.93); pharmacists within primary care clinics, 2.17 (1.75-2.68); and community pharmacists, 2.89 (1.83-4.55). Mean (SD) reductions in SBP were: nursing studies, 5.84 (8.05) mm Hg; pharmacists in clinics, 7.76 (7.81) mm Hg; and community pharmacists, 9.31 (5.00) mm Hg. There were no significant differences between the nursing and pharmacy studies (P > or = .19).

CONCLUSIONS

Team-based care was associated with improved BP control, and individual components of the intervention appeared to predict potency. Implementation of new hypertension guidelines should consider changes in health care organizational structure to include important components of team-based care.

Assigning resources to health care use for health services research: options and consequences

AIMS

Our goals are 3-fold: (1) to review the leading options for assigning resource coefficients to health services utilization; (2) to discuss the relative advantages of each option; and (3) to provide examples where the research question had marked implications for the choice of which resource measure to employ.

METHODS

Three approaches have been used to establish relative resource weights in health services research: (a) direct estimation of production costs through microcosting or step down allocation methods; (b) macrocosting/regression analysis; and (c) standardized resource assignment. We describe each of these methods and provide examples of how the study question drove the choice of resource-use measure.

FINDINGS

All empirical resource-intensity weighting systems contain distortions that limit their universal application. Hence, users must select the weighting system that matches the needs of their specific analysis. All systems require significant data resources and data processing. However, inattention to the distortions contained in a complex resource weighting system may undermine the validity and generalizability of an economic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct estimation of production costs are useful for empirical analyses, but they contain distortions that undermine optimal resource allocation decisions. Researchers must ensure that the data being used meets both the study design and the question being addressed. They also should ensure that the choice of resource measure is the best fit for the analysis. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY: Researchers should consider which of the available measures is the most appropriate for the question being addressed rather than take "cost " or utilization as a variable over which they have no control.

Group health cooperative's transformation toward patient-centered access

The Institute of Medicine suggests redesigning health care to ensure safe, effective, timely, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care. The concept of patient-centered access supports these goals. Group Health, a mixed-model health care system, attempted to improve patients' access to care through the following changes: (a) offering a patient Web site with patient access to patient-physician secure e-mail, electronic medical records, and health promotion information; (b) offering advanced access to primary physicians; (c) redesigning primary care services to enhance care efficiency; (d) offering direct access to physician specialists; and (e) aligning primary physician compensation through incentives for patient satisfaction, productivity, and secure messaging with patients. In the 2 years following the redesign, patients reported higher satisfaction with certain aspects of access to care, providers reported improvements in the quality of service given to patients, and enrollment in Group Health stayed aligned with statewide trends in health care coverage.