BACKGROUND: Physicians are increasingly asked to improve the delivery of clinical services and patient experiences of care. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between clinical performance and patient experiences in a statewide sample of physician practice sites and a sample of physicians within a large physician group. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We separately identified 373 practice sites and 119 individual primary care physicians in Massachusetts. MEASUREMENTS: Using Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set data, we produced two composites addressing processes of care (prevention, disease management) and one composite addressing outcomes. Using Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey data, we produced seven composite measures summarizing the quality of clinical interactions and organizational features of care. For each sample (practice site and individual physician), we calculated adjusted Spearman correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between the composites summarizing patient experiences of care and those summarizing clinical performance. RESULTS: Among 42 possible correlations (21 correlations involving practice sites and 21 involving individual physicians), the majority were positive in site level (71%) and physician level (67%) analyses. For the 28 possible correlations involving patient experiences and clinical process composites, 8 (29%) were significant and positive, and only 2 (7%) were significant and negative. The magnitude of the significant positive correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.19 at the site level and from 0.28 to 0.51 at the physician level. There were no significant correlations between patient experiences and the clinical outcome composite. CONCLUSIONS: The modest correlations suggest that clinical quality and patient experience are distinct, but related domains that may require separate measurement and improvement initiatives.
BACKGROUND: Physicians are increasingly asked to improve the delivery of clinical services and patient experiences of care. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association between clinical performance and patient experiences in a statewide sample of physician practice sites and a sample of physicians within a large physician group. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We separately identified 373 practice sites and 119 individual primary care physicians in Massachusetts. MEASUREMENTS: Using Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set data, we produced two composites addressing processes of care (prevention, disease management) and one composite addressing outcomes. Using Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey data, we produced seven composite measures summarizing the quality of clinical interactions and organizational features of care. For each sample (practice site and individual physician), we calculated adjusted Spearman correlation coefficients to assess the relationship between the composites summarizing patient experiences of care and those summarizing clinical performance. RESULTS: Among 42 possible correlations (21 correlations involving practice sites and 21 involving individual physicians), the majority were positive in site level (71%) and physician level (67%) analyses. For the 28 possible correlations involving patient experiences and clinical process composites, 8 (29%) were significant and positive, and only 2 (7%) were significant and negative. The magnitude of the significant positive correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.19 at the site level and from 0.28 to 0.51 at the physician level. There were no significant correlations between patient experiences and the clinical outcome composite. CONCLUSIONS: The modest correlations suggest that clinical quality and patient experience are distinct, but related domains that may require separate measurement and improvement initiatives.
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jana E Montgomery; Julie T Irish; Ira B Wilson; Hong Chang; Angela C Li; William H Rogers; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: M R DiMatteo; C D Sherbourne; R D Hays; L Ordway; R L Kravitz; E A McGlynn; S Kaplan; W H Rogers Journal: Health Psychol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Barbara Guerard; Vincent Omachonu; Raymond A Harvey; S Robert Hernandez; Bisakha Sen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Susan L Zickmund; Kelly H Burkitt; Shasha Gao; Roslyn A Stone; Audrey L Jones; Leslie R M Hausmann; Galen E Switzer; Sonya Borrero; Keri L Rodriguez; Michael J Fine Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays; William G Lehrman; Lise Rybowski; Susan Edgman-Levitan; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Alyna T Chien; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Laura A Hatfield; Kate E Koplan; Carter R Petty; Anna D Sinaiko; Meredith B Rosenthal; Thomas D Sequist Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Byron C Wallace; Michael J Paul; Urmimala Sarkar; Thomas A Trikalinos; Mark Dredze Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Audrey L Jones; Maria K Mor; Gretchen L Haas; Adam J Gordon; John P Cashy; James H Schaefer; Leslie R M Hausmann Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kurt C Stange; Paul A Nutting; William L Miller; Carlos R Jaén; Benjamin F Crabtree; Susan A Flocke; James M Gill Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.128