BACKGROUND: Studies find that primary care physician (PCP) visit continuity is positively associated with care quality. Some of the evidence base, however, relies on patient-reported continuity measures, which may be subject to response bias. OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance of patient-reported and administratively derived visit continuity measures. DESIGN: Random samples of patients (n = 15,126) visiting 1 of 145 PCPs from a physician organization in Massachusetts were surveyed. Respondents reported their experienced visit continuity over the preceding 6 months. Usual Provider Continuity (UPC), an administratively derived measure, was calculated for each respondent. The concordance of patient reports and UPC was examined. Associations with patient-reported physician-patient interaction quality were assessed for both measures. RESULTS: Patient-reported and administratively derived visit continuity measures were moderately correlated for overall (r = 0.30) and urgent (r = 0.30) measures and modestly correlated for the routine (r = 0.17) measure. Although patient reports and UPC were significantly associated with the physician-patient interaction quality (p < 0.001), the effect size for patient-reports was approximately five times larger than the effect size for UPC. CONCLUSIONS: Studies and quality initiatives seeking to evaluate visit continuity should rely on administratively derived measures whenever possible. Patient-reported measures appear to be subject to biases that can overestimate the relationship between visit continuity and some patient-reported outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Studies find that primary care physician (PCP) visit continuity is positively associated with care quality. Some of the evidence base, however, relies on patient-reported continuity measures, which may be subject to response bias. OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance of patient-reported and administratively derived visit continuity measures. DESIGN: Random samples of patients (n = 15,126) visiting 1 of 145 PCPs from a physician organization in Massachusetts were surveyed. Respondents reported their experienced visit continuity over the preceding 6 months. Usual Provider Continuity (UPC), an administratively derived measure, was calculated for each respondent. The concordance of patient reports and UPC was examined. Associations with patient-reported physician-patient interaction quality were assessed for both measures. RESULTS:Patient-reported and administratively derived visit continuity measures were moderately correlated for overall (r = 0.30) and urgent (r = 0.30) measures and modestly correlated for the routine (r = 0.17) measure. Although patient reports and UPC were significantly associated with the physician-patient interaction quality (p < 0.001), the effect size for patient-reports was approximately five times larger than the effect size for UPC. CONCLUSIONS: Studies and quality initiatives seeking to evaluate visit continuity should rely on administratively derived measures whenever possible. Patient-reported measures appear to be subject to biases that can overestimate the relationship between visit continuity and some patient-reported outcomes.
Authors: Benjamin G Druss; Steven C Marcus; Mark Olfson; Terri Tanielian; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hector P Rodriguez; Karleen F Giannitrapani; Susan Stockdale; Alison B Hamilton; Elizabeth M Yano; Lisa V Rubenstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebecca S Etz; Stephen J Zyzanski; Martha M Gonzalez; Sarah R Reves; Jonathan P O'Neal; Kurt C Stange Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Samuel A Silver; Sarah E Bota; Eric McArthur; Kristin K Clemens; Ziv Harel; Kyla L Naylor; Manish M Sood; Amit X Garg; Ron Wald Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: David J Nyweide; Denise L Anthony; Julie P W Bynum; Robert L Strawderman; William B Weeks; Lawrence P Casalino; Elliott S Fisher Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Rachel Kimerling; Katherine M Iverson; Melissa E Dichter; Allison L Rodriguez; Ava Wong; Joanne Pavao Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Gulshan Sharma; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Dong Zhang; Yong-Fang Kuo; Jean L Freeman; James S Goodwin Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 56.272