Literature DB >> 27390375

Family Medicine Panel Size with Care Teams: Impact on Quality.

Kurt B Angstman1, Jennifer L Horn2, Matthew E Bernard2, Molly M Kresin2, Eric W Klavetter2, Julie Maxson2, Floyd B Willis2, Michael L Grover2, Michael J Bryan2, Tom D Thacher2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The demand for comprehensive primary health care continues to expand. The development of team-based practice allows for improved capacity within a collective, collaborative environment. Our hypothesis was to determine the relationship between panel size and access, quality, patient satisfaction, and cost in a large family medicine group practice using a team-based care model.
METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from 36 family physicians and included total panel size of patients, percentage of time spent on patient care, cost of care, access metrics, diabetic quality metrics, patient satisfaction surveys, and patient care complexity scores. We used linear regression analysis to assess the relationship between adjusted physician panel size, panel complexity, and outcomes.
RESULTS: The third available appointments (P < .01) and diabetic quality (P = .03) were negatively affected by increased panel size. Patient satisfaction, cost, and percentage fill rate were not affected by panel size. A physician-adjusted panel size larger than the current mean (2959 patients) was associated with a greater likelihood of poor-quality rankings (≤25th percentile) compared with those with a less than average panel size (odds ratio [OR], 7.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-51.46). Increased panel size was associated with a longer time to the third available appointment (OR, 10.9; 95% CI, 1.36-87.26) compared with physicians with panel sizes smaller than the mean.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a negative impact of larger panel size on diabetic quality results and available appointment access. Evaluation of a family medicine practice parameters while controlling for panel size and patient complexity may help determine the optimal panel size for a practice. © Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diabetes Mellitus; Family Physicians; Family Practice; Group Practice; Patient Care; Patient Satisfaction; Primary Health Care; Regression Analysis; Retrospective Studies

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27390375     DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.04.150364

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med        ISSN: 1557-2625            Impact factor:   2.657


  10 in total

1.  Workload and patterns of care in the Timmins Family Health Team in Ontario.

Authors:  Robert Farmer; Rishi Patel
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Panel Size, Clinician Time in Clinic, and Access to Appointments.

Authors:  David Margolius; Douglas Gunzler; Michael Hopkins; Kathryn Teng
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 5.166

Review 3.  The Role of Physician and Practice Characteristics in the Quality of Diabetes Management in Primary Care: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  F Riordan; S M McHugh; Clodagh O'Donovan; Mavis N Mtshede; P M Kearney
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Workforce Configurations to Provide High-Quality, Comprehensive Primary Care: a Mixed-Method Exploration of Staffing for Four Types of Primary Care Practices.

Authors:  David Meyers; Lisa LeRoy; Michael Bailit; Judith Schaefer; Edward Wagner; Chunliu Zhan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Revisiting the Time Needed to Provide Adult Primary Care.

Authors:  Justin Porter; Cynthia Boyd; M Reza Skandari; Neda Laiteerapong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Revitalizing Primary Care, Part 1: Root Causes of Primary Care's Problems.

Authors:  Thomas Bodenheimer
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2022 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.707

7.  A Simple Framework for Weighting Panels Across Primary Care Disciplines: Findings From a Large US Multidisciplinary Group Practice.

Authors:  Sandra Kamnetz; Elizabeth Trowbridge; Jennifer Lochner; Steven Koslov; Nancy Pandhi
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2018 Oct/Dec       Impact factor: 0.926

8.  Analysis of Variation in Organizational Definitions of Primary Care Panels: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Michael F Mayo-Smith; Rebecca A Robbins; Mark Murray; Rachel Weber; Pamela J Bagley; Elaina J Vitale; Neil M Paige
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-04-01

9.  The Association Between Panel Size and Health Outcomes of Patients with Hypertension in Urban China: a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Rize Jing; Elham Mahmoudi; Xiaozhen Lai; Haijun Zhang; Hai Fang
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  A game theoretic setting of capitation versus fee-for-service payment systems.

Authors:  Allison Koenecke
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.