Jaya Aysola1,2, Marilyn M Schapira1,2,3, Hairong Huo1, Rachel M Werner1,2,3. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine. 2. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania. 3. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing emphasis on the use of patient-reported experience data to assess practice performance, particularly in the setting of patient-centered medical homes. Yet we lack understanding of what organizational processes relate to patient experiences. OBJECTIVE: Examine associations between organizational processes practices adopt to become PCMH and patient experiences with care. RESEARCH DESIGN: We analyzed visit data from patients (n=8356) at adult primary care practices (n=22) in a large health system. We evaluated the associations between practice organizational processes and patient experience using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for patient clustering by practice in multivariate models, adjusting for several practice-level and patient-level characteristics. We evaluated if these associations varied by race/ethnicity, insurance type, and the degree of patient comorbidity MEASURES:: Predictors include overall PCMH adoption and adoption of six organizational processes: access and communications, patient tracking and registry, care management, test referral tracking, quality improvement and external coordination. Primary outcome was overall patient experience. RESULTS: In our full sample, overall PCMH adoption score was not significantly associated with patient experience outcomes. However, among subpopulations with higher comorbidities, the overall PCMH adoption score was positively associated with overall patient experience measures [0.2 (0.06, 0.4); P=0.006]. Differences by race/ethnicity and insurance type in associations between specific organizational processes and patient experience were noted. CONCLUSION: Although some organizational processes relate to patients' experiences with care irrespective of the background of the patient, further efforts are needed to align practice efforts with patient experience.
BACKGROUND: There is increasing emphasis on the use of patient-reported experience data to assess practice performance, particularly in the setting of patient-centered medical homes. Yet we lack understanding of what organizational processes relate to patient experiences. OBJECTIVE: Examine associations between organizational processes practices adopt to become PCMH and patient experiences with care. RESEARCH DESIGN: We analyzed visit data from patients (n=8356) at adult primary care practices (n=22) in a large health system. We evaluated the associations between practice organizational processes and patient experience using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for patient clustering by practice in multivariate models, adjusting for several practice-level and patient-level characteristics. We evaluated if these associations varied by race/ethnicity, insurance type, and the degree of patient comorbidity MEASURES:: Predictors include overall PCMH adoption and adoption of six organizational processes: access and communications, patient tracking and registry, care management, test referral tracking, quality improvement and external coordination. Primary outcome was overall patient experience. RESULTS: In our full sample, overall PCMH adoption score was not significantly associated with patient experience outcomes. However, among subpopulations with higher comorbidities, the overall PCMH adoption score was positively associated with overall patient experience measures [0.2 (0.06, 0.4); P=0.006]. Differences by race/ethnicity and insurance type in associations between specific organizational processes and patient experience were noted. CONCLUSION: Although some organizational processes relate to patients' experiences with care irrespective of the background of the patient, further efforts are needed to align practice efforts with patient experience.
Authors: Jonathan M Birnberg; Melinda L Drum; Elbert S Huang; Lawrence P Casalino; Sarah E Lewis; Anusha M Vable; Hui Tang; Michael T Quinn; Deborah L Burnet; Thomas Summerfelt; Marshall H Chin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Steven C Martino; Marc N Elliott; Katrin Hambarsoomian; Robert Weech-Maldonado; Sarah Gaillot; Samuel C Haffer; Ron D Hays Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jesse M Pines; A Russell Localio; Judd E Hollander; William G Baxt; Hoi Lee; Carolyn Phillips; Joshua P Metlay Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2007-10-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Daniel D Maeng; Duane E Davis; Janet Tomcavage; Thomas R Graf; Kristen M Procopio Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Mimaika Luluina Ginting; Chek Hooi Wong; Zoe Zon Be Lim; Robin Wai Munn Choo; Sheena Camilla Hirose Carlsen; Grace Sum; Hubertus Johannes Maria Vrijhoef Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.614