Utibe R Essien1,2, Wei He3, Alaka Ray4,5, Yuchiao Chang3,5, Jonathan R Abraham3, Daniel E Singer3,5, Steven J Atlas3,5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3609 Forbes Avenue, Suite 2, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. uessien@pitt.edu. 2. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. uessien@pitt.edu. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outpatient primary care experience is vital to internal medicine resident training but may impact quality and equity of care delivered in practices that include resident physicians. Understanding whether quality differences exist among resident and staff primary care physicians (PCPs) may present an opportunity to address health disparities within academic medical centers. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in the quality of primary care provided by resident PCPs compared to staff PCPs. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with a propensity-matched analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 143,274 patients, including 10,870 patients managed by resident PCPs, seen in 16 primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center. MAIN MEASURES: Guideline-concordant chronic disease management of diabetes (HbA1c, LDL) and coronary artery disease (LDL), preventive breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening, and resource utilization measures including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, high-cost imaging, and patient-reported health experience. KEY RESULTS: At baseline, there were significant differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between resident and staff physician patients. Resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcome measures including LDL at goal (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.65, 0.92]) for patients with coronary artery disease; HbA1c at goal (aOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62, 0.85]) for patients with diabetes; breast (aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.49, 0.63]), cervical (aOR 0.66 [95% CI 0.60, 0.74]), and colorectal (aOR 0.72 [95% CI 0.65, 0.79] cancer screening. Additionally, resident patients had higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations but lower rates of high-cost imaging. Resident patients reported lower rates of satisfaction with certain access to care and communication measures. Similar outcomes were noted in propensity-matched sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: After controlling for differences in sociodemographic and clinical factors, resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcomes compared to staff patients. Further efforts to address ambulatory trainee education and primary care quality along with novel approaches to the management of the disproportionately disadvantaged resident patient panels are needed.
BACKGROUND:Outpatient primary care experience is vital to internal medicine resident training but may impact quality and equity of care delivered in practices that include resident physicians. Understanding whether quality differences exist among resident and staff primary care physicians (PCPs) may present an opportunity to address health disparities within academic medical centers. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in the quality of primary care provided by resident PCPs compared to staff PCPs. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with a propensity-matched analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 143,274 patients, including 10,870 patients managed by resident PCPs, seen in 16 primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center. MAIN MEASURES: Guideline-concordant chronic disease management of diabetes (HbA1c, LDL) and coronary artery disease (LDL), preventive breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening, and resource utilization measures including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, high-cost imaging, and patient-reported health experience. KEY RESULTS: At baseline, there were significant differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between resident and staff physician patients. Resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcome measures including LDL at goal (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.65, 0.92]) for patients with coronary artery disease; HbA1c at goal (aOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62, 0.85]) for patients with diabetes; breast (aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.49, 0.63]), cervical (aOR 0.66 [95% CI 0.60, 0.74]), and colorectal (aOR 0.72 [95% CI 0.65, 0.79] cancer screening. Additionally, resident patients had higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations but lower rates of high-cost imaging. Resident patients reported lower rates of satisfaction with certain access to care and communication measures. Similar outcomes were noted in propensity-matched sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: After controlling for differences in sociodemographic and clinical factors, resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcomes compared to staff patients. Further efforts to address ambulatory trainee education and primary care quality along with novel approaches to the management of the disproportionately disadvantaged resident patient panels are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
medical education; primary care; quality; racial and ethnic disparities; resident
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven J Atlas; Yuchiao Chang; Thomas A Lasko; Henry C Chueh; Richard W Grant; Michael J Barry Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: W S Yancy; D S Macpherson; B H Hanusa; G E Switzer; R M Arnold; R A Buranosky; W N Kapoor Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mary E Charlson; Jwala Karnik; Mitchell Wong; Charles E McCulloch; James P Hollenberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Richard W Grant; Enrico Cagliero; Christine M Sullivan; Anil K Dubey; Greg A Estey; Eric M Weil; Joseph Gesmundo; David M Nathan; Daniel E Singer; Henry C Chueh; James B Meigs Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Takahiro Higashi; Neil S Wenger; John L Adams; Constance Fung; Martin Roland; Elizabeth A McGlynn; David Reeves; Steven M Asch; Eve A Kerr; Paul G Shekelle Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-06-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Maelys Amat; Erin Duralde; Rebecca Masutani; Rebecca Glassman; Changyu Shen; Kelly L Graham Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Maelys Amat; Rebecca Glassman; Nisha Basu; Jim Doolin; Lydia Flier; Mariana R Gonzalez; Jeanne Gosselin; Sarah Knapp; Phillip Yun; Kelly L Graham Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Lillian Gelberg; Samuel T Edwards; Elizabeth R Hooker; Meike Niederhausen; Andrew Shaner; Brianna J Cowan; Carole M Warde Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Erin Yildirim Rieger; Josef N S Kushner; Veena Sriram; Abbie Klein; Lauren O Wiklund; David O Meltzer; Joyce W Tang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dena P Blanding; William P Moran; John Bian; Jingwen Zhang; Justin Marsden; Patrick D Mauldin; Don C Rockey; Andrew D Schreiner Journal: J Investig Med Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 2.895