Kathryn M McDonald1, Hector P Rodriguez2, Stephen M Shortell3. 1. Center for Health Policy/Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research (CHP/PCOR), Stanford University, Stanford. 2. School of Public Health, University of California. 3. School of Public Health and Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care teams face daily time pressures both during patient encounters and outside of appointments. OBJECTIVES: We theorize 2 types of time pressure, and test hypotheses about organizational determinants and patient consequences of time pressure. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational analysis of data from concurrent surveys of care team members and their patients. SUBJECTS: Patients (n=1291 respondents, 73.5% response rate) with diabetes and/or coronary artery disease established with practice teams (n=353 respondents, 84% response rate) at 16 primary care sites, randomly selected from 2 Accountable Care Organizations. MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: We measured team member perceptions of 2 potentially distinct time pressure constructs: (1) encounter-level, from 7 questions about likelihood that time pressure results in missing patient management opportunities; and (2) practice-level, using practice atmosphere rating from calm to chaotic. The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-11) instrument measured patient-reported experience. Multivariate logistic regression models examined organizational predictors of each time pressure type, and hierarchical models examined time pressure predictors of patient-reported experiences. RESULTS: Encounter-level and practice-level time pressure measures were not correlated, nor predicted by the same organizational variables, supporting the hypothesis of two distinct time pressure constructs. More encounter-level time pressure was most strongly associated with less health information technology capability (odds ratio, 0.33; P<0.01). Greater practice-level time pressure (chaos) was associated with lower PACIC-11 scores (odds ratio, 0.74; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Different organizational factors are associated with each forms of time pressure. Potential consequences for patients are missed opportunities in patient care and inadequate chronic care support.
BACKGROUND: Primary care teams face daily time pressures both during patient encounters and outside of appointments. OBJECTIVES: We theorize 2 types of time pressure, and test hypotheses about organizational determinants and patient consequences of time pressure. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational analysis of data from concurrent surveys of care team members and their patients. SUBJECTS: Patients (n=1291 respondents, 73.5% response rate) with diabetes and/or coronary artery disease established with practice teams (n=353 respondents, 84% response rate) at 16 primary care sites, randomly selected from 2 Accountable Care Organizations. MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: We measured team member perceptions of 2 potentially distinct time pressure constructs: (1) encounter-level, from 7 questions about likelihood that time pressure results in missing patient management opportunities; and (2) practice-level, using practice atmosphere rating from calm to chaotic. The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-11) instrument measured patient-reported experience. Multivariate logistic regression models examined organizational predictors of each time pressure type, and hierarchical models examined time pressure predictors of patient-reported experiences. RESULTS: Encounter-level and practice-level time pressure measures were not correlated, nor predicted by the same organizational variables, supporting the hypothesis of two distinct time pressure constructs. More encounter-level time pressure was most strongly associated with less health information technology capability (odds ratio, 0.33; P<0.01). Greater practice-level time pressure (chaos) was associated with lower PACIC-11 scores (odds ratio, 0.74; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Different organizational factors are associated with each forms of time pressure. Potential consequences for patients are missed opportunities in patient care and inadequate chronic care support.
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Omar Hasan; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: James A Wiley; Diane R Rittenhouse; Stephen M Shortell; Lawrence P Casalino; Patricia P Ramsay; Salma Bibi; Andrew M Ryan; Kennon R Copeland; Jeffrey A Alexander Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Stephen M Shortell; Bing Ying Poon; Patricia P Ramsay; Hector P Rodriguez; Susan L Ivey; Thomas Huber; Jeremy Rich; Tom Summerfelt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: M Linzer; T R Konrad; J Douglas; J E McMurray; D E Pathman; E S Williams; M D Schwartz; M Gerrity; W Scheckler; J A Bigby; E Rhodes Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hector R Perez; Matthew Beyrouty; Katelyn Bennett; Linda Baier Manwell; Roger L Brown; Mark Linzer; Mark D Schwartz Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2017 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 1.095
Authors: Mark Linzer; Linda Baier Manwell; Eric S Williams; James A Bobula; Roger L Brown; Anita B Varkey; Bernice Man; Julia E McMurray; Ann Maguire; Barbara Horner-Ibler; Mark D Schwartz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sukhmeet Singh Panesar; Debra deSilva; Andrew Carson-Stevens; Kathrin M Cresswell; Sarah Angostora Salvilla; Sarah Patricia Slight; Sundas Javad; Gopalakrishnan Netuveli; Itziar Larizgoitia; Liam J Donaldson; David W Bates; Aziz Sheikh Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Emilie M Blair; Darin B Zahuranec; Jane Forman; Bailey K Reale; Kenneth M Langa; Bruno Giordani; Angela Fagerlin; Colleen Kollman; Rachael T Whitney; Deborah A Levine Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Linnaea Schuttner; Stacey Hockett Sherlock; Carol E Simons; Nicole L Johnson; Elizabeth Wirtz; James D Ralston; Ann-Marie Rosland; Karin Nelson; George Sayre Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Denise D Quigley; Nabeel Qureshi; Mary E Slaughter; Scott Kim; Efrain Talamantes; Ron D Hays Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 2.431