Literature DB >> 21673219

Pay-for-performance incentives for preventive care: views of family physicians before and after participation in a reminder and recall project (P-PROMPT).

Janusz Kaczorowski1, Orli Goldberg, Verna Mai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Provider and Patient Reminders in Ontario: Multi-Strategy Prevention Tools (P-PROMPT) project was designed to increase the rates of delivery of 4 targeted preventive care services to eligible patients in primary care network and family health network practices eligible for pay-for-performance incentives.
DESIGN: Self-administered fax-back surveys completed before and after participation in the P-PROMPT project.
SETTING: Southwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 246 physicians from 24 primary care network or family health network practices across 110 different sites.
INTERVENTIONS: The P-PROMPT project provided several tools and services, including physician and patient reminders, office management tools, and administrative database integration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' views about the delivery of preventive health services and pay-for-performance incentives before and after participation in the P-PROMPT project.
RESULTS: The preintervention survey was completed by 86.2% (212 of 246) of physicians and the postintervention survey was completed by 53.3% (131 of 246) of physicians; 46.7% (114 of 246) of the physicians completed both surveys. Overall, 80.5% of physicians indicated that the P-PROMPT project was useful (scores of 5 or higher on a 7-point Likert scale). Patient reminder letters (89.1%), physician approval lists of eligible patients (75.6%), administrative assistance with management fees (79.8%), and annual bonus calculations (75.2%) were rated as the most useful features of the program. Compared with the preintervention survey, there were statistically significant increases in the mean agreement scores that the established target levels and bonuses provided appropriate financial incentive to substantially increase the uptake of mammography (P=.012) and Papanicolaou tests (P=.003) but not to increase uptake of annual influenza vaccination or childhood immunizations. There were statistically significant changes in the mean ratings of relying on an opportunistic approach (P<.001), increased agreement about the effectiveness of the current approach to delivery of preventive care (P<.001), and increased use of preventive management fees to recall patients (P<.001).
CONCLUSION: The preventive care management program and P-PROMPT were viewed favourably by most respondents and were perceived to be useful in improving delivery of preventive health care services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21673219      PMCID: PMC3114679     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  12 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to implement prevention in primary care.

Authors:  M E Hulscher; M Wensing; T van Der Weijden; R Grol
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2001

2.  Views of Irish general practitioners on screening for cervical cancer.

Authors:  P McDonald; B Herity; Z Johnson; F O'Kelly
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2001 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  Primary care practice and facility quality orientation: influence on breast and cervical cancer screening rates.

Authors:  Caroline Lubick Goldzweig; Patricia H Parkerton; Donna L Washington; Andrew B Lanto; Elizabeth M Yano
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Views of family physicians in southwestern Ontario on preventive care services and performance incentives.

Authors:  Kelly K Anderson; Rolf J Sebaldt; Lynne Lohfeld; Ken Burgess; Faith C Donald; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2006-04-04       Impact factor: 2.267

5.  A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting.

Authors:  S Shea; W DuMouchel; L Bahamonde
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-05-07       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Practice and physician characteristics associated with influenza vaccination delivery rates following a patient reminder letter intervention.

Authors:  Kelly K Anderson; Rolf J Sebaldt; Lynne Lohfeld; Ron Goeree; Faith C Donald; Ken Burgess; Janusz Kaczorowski
Journal:  J Prim Prev       Date:  2008-01-19

8.  Acceptability of reminder letters for Papanicolaou tests: a survey of women from 23 Family Health Networks in Ontario.

Authors:  Tina Karwalajtys; Janusz Kaczorowski; Lynne Lohfeld; Stephanie Laryea; Kelly Anderson; Stefanie Roder; Rolf J Sebaldt
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2007-10

9.  Women's views on reminder letters for screening mammography: Mixed methods study of women from 23 family health networks.

Authors:  Janusz Kaczorowski; Tina Karwalajtys; Lynne Lohfeld; Stephanie Laryea; Kelly Anderson; Stefanie Roder; Rolf J Sebaldt
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 10.  Patient reminder and patient recall systems to improve immunization rates.

Authors:  Julie C Jacobson Vann; Peter Szilagyi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2005-07-20
View more
  4 in total

1.  Practice organization for preventive screening.

Authors:  Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Roland Grad; Guylène Thériault; James A Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Stéphane Groulx; Olga Szafran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.275

2. 

Authors:  Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Roland Grad; Guylène Thériault; James A Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Stéphane Groulx; Olga Szafran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Effect of provider and patient reminders, deployment of nurse practitioners, and financial incentives on cervical and breast cancer screening rates.

Authors:  Janusz Kaczorowski; Stephen J C Hearps; Lynne Lohfeld; Ron Goeree; Faith Donald; Ken Burgess; Rolf J Sebaldt
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 4.  Lessons from healthcare providers' attitudes toward pay-for-performance: what should purchasers consider in designing and implementing a successful program?

Authors:  Jin Yong Lee; Sang-Il Lee; Min-Woo Jo
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2012-05-31
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.