CONTEXT: Although few data are available, many believe that part-time primary care physicians (PCPs) are less productive and provide lower quality care than full-time PCPs. Some insurers exclude part-time PCPs from their provider networks. OBJECTIVE: To compare productivity, quality of preventive care, patient satisfaction, and risk-adjusted resource utilization of part-time and full-time PCPs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Boston. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs affiliated with 2 academic outpatient primary care networks. MEASUREMENTS: PCP productivity, patient satisfaction, resource utilization, and compliance with screening guidelines. RESULTS: Part-time PCP productivity was greater than that of full-time PCPs (2.1 work relative value units (RVUs)/bookable clinical hour versus 1.3 work RVUs/bookable clinical hour, P< .01). A similar proportion of part-time PCPs (80%) and full-time PCPs (75%) met targets for mammography, Pap smears, and cholesterol screening (P = .67). After adjusting for clinical case mix, practice location, gender, board certification status, and years in practice, resource utilization of part-time PCPs (138 dollars [95% confidence interval (CI), 108 dollars to 167 dollars]) was similar to that of full-time PCPs (139 dollars [95% CI, 108 dollars to 170 dollars], P = .92). Patient satisfaction was similar for part-time and full-time PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: In these academic primary care practices, rates of patient satisfaction, compliance with screening guidelines, and resource utilization were similar for part-time PCPs compared to full-time PCPs. Productivity per clinical hour was markedly higher for part-time PCPs. Despite study limitations, these data suggest that academic part-time PCPs are at least as efficient as full-time PCPs and that the quality of their work is similar.
CONTEXT: Although few data are available, many believe that part-time primary care physicians (PCPs) are less productive and provide lower quality care than full-time PCPs. Some insurers exclude part-time PCPs from their provider networks. OBJECTIVE: To compare productivity, quality of preventive care, patient satisfaction, and risk-adjusted resource utilization of part-time and full-time PCPs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Boston. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs affiliated with 2 academic outpatient primary care networks. MEASUREMENTS: PCP productivity, patient satisfaction, resource utilization, and compliance with screening guidelines. RESULTS: Part-time PCP productivity was greater than that of full-time PCPs (2.1 work relative value units (RVUs)/bookable clinical hour versus 1.3 work RVUs/bookable clinical hour, P< .01). A similar proportion of part-time PCPs (80%) and full-time PCPs (75%) met targets for mammography, Pap smears, and cholesterol screening (P = .67). After adjusting for clinical case mix, practice location, gender, board certification status, and years in practice, resource utilization of part-time PCPs (138 dollars [95% confidence interval (CI), 108 dollars to 167 dollars]) was similar to that of full-time PCPs (139 dollars [95% CI, 108 dollars to 170 dollars], P = .92). Patient satisfaction was similar for part-time and full-time PCPs. CONCLUSIONS: In these academic primary care practices, rates of patient satisfaction, compliance with screening guidelines, and resource utilization were similar for part-time PCPs compared to full-time PCPs. Productivity per clinical hour was markedly higher for part-time PCPs. Despite study limitations, these data suggest that academic part-time PCPs are at least as efficient as full-time PCPs and that the quality of their work is similar.
Authors: J G Jollis; E R DeLong; E D Peterson; L H Muhlbaier; D F Fortin; R M Califf; D B Mark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lillian C Min; David B Reuben; Emmett Keeler; David A Ganz; Constance H Fung; Paul Shekelle; Carol P Roth; Neil S Wenger Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Neel M Butala; Michael K Hidrue; Arthur J Swersey; Jagmeet P Singh; Jeffrey B Weilburg; Timothy G Ferris; Katrina A Armstrong; Jason H Wasfy Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2019-02-08
Authors: Elizabeth Trowbridge; Christie M Bartels; Steven Koslov; Sandra Kamnetz; Nancy Pandhi Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrew R Hoellein; Christopher A Feddock; Charles H Griffith; John F Wilson; Donald R Barnett; Pat F Bass; Shawn T Caudill Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hilit F Mechaber; Rachel B Levine; Linda Baier Manwell; Marlon P Mundt; Mark Linzer; Mark Schwartz; Deborah Dowell; Perry An; Karla Felix; Julia McMurray; James Bobula; Mary Beth Plane; William Scheckler; John Frey; Jessica Sherrieb; Jessica Grettie; Barbara Horner-Ibler; Ann Maguire; Laura Paluch; Bernice Man; Anita Varkey; Elizabeth Arce; Joseph Rabatin; Elianne Riska; JudyAnn Bigby; Thomas R Konrad; Peggy Leatt; Stewart Babbott; Eric Williams Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-01-23 Impact factor: 5.128