Literature DB >> 22797644

Variation in patient-sharing networks of physicians across the United States.

Bruce E Landon1, Nancy L Keating, Michael L Barnett, Jukka-Pekka Onnela, Sudeshna Paul, A James O'Malley, Thomas Keegan, Nicholas A Christakis.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Physicians are embedded in informal networks that result from their sharing of patients, information, and behaviors.
OBJECTIVES: To identify professional networks among physicians, examine how such networks vary across geographic regions, and determine factors associated with physician connections. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using methods adopted from social network analysis, Medicare administrative data from 2006 were used to study 4,586,044 Medicare beneficiaries seen by 68,288 physicians practicing in 51 hospital referral regions (HRRs). Distinct networks depicting connections between physicians (defined based on shared patients) were constructed for each of the 51 HRRs. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Variation in network characteristics across HRRs and factors associated with physicians being connected.
RESULTS: The number of physicians per HRR ranged from 135 in Minot, North Dakota, to 8197 in Boston, Massachusetts. There was substantial variation in network characteristics across HRRs. For example, the mean (SD) adjusted degree (number of other physicians each physician was connected to per 100 Medicare beneficiaries) across all HRRs was 27.3 (range, 11.7-54.4); also, primary care physician relative centrality (how central primary care physicians were in the network relative to other physicians) ranged from 0.19 to 1.06, suggesting that primary care physicians were more than 5 times more central in some markets than in others. Physicians with ties to each other were far more likely to be based at the same hospital (69.2% of unconnected physician pairs vs 96.0% of connected physician pairs; adjusted rate ratio, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.12-0.12]; P < .001), and were in closer geographic proximity (mean office distance of 21.1 km for those with connections vs 38.7 km for those without connections, P < .001). Connected physicians also had more similar patient panels in terms of the race or illness burden than unconnected physicians. For instance, connected physician pairs had an average difference of 8.8 points in the percentage of black patients in their 2 patient panels compared with a difference of 14.0 percentage points for unconnected physician pairs (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Network characteristics vary across geographic areas. Physicians tend to share patients with other physicians with similar physician-level and patient-panel characteristics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22797644      PMCID: PMC3528342          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.7615

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  20 in total

1.  Electronic health records in ambulatory care--a national survey of physicians.

Authors:  Catherine M DesRoches; Eric G Campbell; Sowmya R Rao; Karen Donelan; Timothy G Ferris; Ashish Jha; Rainu Kaushal; Douglas E Levy; Sara Rosenbaum; Alexandra E Shields; David Blumenthal
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Physicians' experiences and beliefs regarding informal consultation.

Authors:  N L Keating; A M Zaslavsky; J Z Ayanian
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-09       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Physician patient-sharing networks and the cost and intensity of care in US hospitals.

Authors:  Michael L Barnett; Nicholas A Christakis; James O'Malley; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Nancy L Keating; Bruce E Landon
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Physician cost profiling--reliability and risk of misclassification.

Authors:  John L Adams; Ateev Mehrotra; J William Thomas; Elizabeth A McGlynn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans.

Authors:  David G Rand; Samuel Arbesman; Nicholas A Christakis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Assigning ambulatory patients and their physicians to hospitals: a method for obtaining population-based provider performance measurements.

Authors:  Julie P W Bynum; Enrique Bernal-Delgado; Daniel Gottlieb; Elliott Fisher
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Physician social networks and variation in prostate cancer treatment in three cities.

Authors:  Craig Evan Pollack; Gary Weissman; Justin Bekelman; Kaijun Liao; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Mapping physician networks with self-reported and administrative data.

Authors:  Michael L Barnett; Bruce E Landon; A James O'Malley; Nancy L Keating; Nicholas A Christakis
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-26       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Primary care physicians' links to other physicians through Medicare patients: the scope of care coordination.

Authors:  Hoangmai H Pham; Ann S O'Malley; Peter B Bach; Cynthia Saiontz-Martinez; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Uncharted paths: hospital networks in critical care.

Authors:  Theodore J Iwashyna; Jason D Christie; Jeremy M Kahn; David A Asch
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.410

View more
  102 in total

1.  Association Between Physician Teamwork and Health System Outcomes After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Authors:  John M Hollingsworth; Russell J Funk; Spencer A Garrison; Jason Owen-Smith; Samuel A Kaufman; Francis D Pagani; Brahmajee K Nallamothu
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-11-08

2.  The Future of Social Network Analysis of Health Care System Data: Promise and Concerns.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Oliva
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Physician network position and patient outcomes following implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

Authors:  Erika L Moen; Julie P Bynum; Jonathan S Skinner; Alistair J O'Malley
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Physician's peer exposure and the adoption of a new cancer treatment modality.

Authors:  Craig Evan Pollack; Pamela R Soulos; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Validating a vignette-based instrument to study physician decision making in trauma triage.

Authors:  Deepika Mohan; Baruch Fischhoff; Coreen Farris; Galen E Switzer; Matthew R Rosengart; Donald M Yealy; Melissa Saul; Derek C Angus; Amber E Barnato
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Patient-Sharing Networks of Physicians and Health Care Utilization and Spending Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Authors:  Bruce E Landon; Nancy L Keating; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Alan M Zaslavsky; Nicholas A Christakis; A James O'Malley
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Provider collaboration: cohesion, constellations, and shared patients.

Authors:  Kenneth D Mandl; Karen L Olson; Daniel Mines; Chunfu Liu; Fang Tian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Physician visits and 30-day hospital readmissions in patients receiving hemodialysis.

Authors:  Kevin F Erickson; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Jay Bhattacharya
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 10.121

9.  Potential value of health information exchange for people with epilepsy: crossover patterns and missing clinical data.

Authors:  Zachary M Grinspan; Erika L Abramson; Samprit Banerjee; Lisa M Kern; Rainu Kaushal; Jason S Shapiro
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

10.  An empiric approach to identifying physician peer groups from claims data: An example from breast cancer care.

Authors:  Jeph Herrin; Pamela R Soulos; Xiao Xu; Cary P Gross; Craig Evan Pollack
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.