Measuring physician practice site characteristics: A comparison of data from SK&A and a practice site survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate the comparability of commercially available practice site data from SK&A with survey data to understand the implications of using SK&A data for health services research.Data sources
Responses to the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Practice Survey and SK&A data.Study design
Comparison of CPC + Practice Survey responses to SK&A information for 2698 primary care practice sites.Data collection
CPC + Practice Survey data collected through a web-only survey from April through September 2017, and SK&A data purchased in November 2016.Principal findings
Information was similar across data sources, although some discrepancies were common. For example, 56% of practice sites had differences in the reported number of practitioners, and larger sites tended to have larger differences. Among practice sites with 1 practitioner in the survey, only 1.3% had a difference of 3 or more practitioners between the data sources, whereas 63% of practice sites with 11 or more practitioners had a difference of 3 or more practitioners.Conclusions
Discrepancies between data sources could reflect differences of interpretation when defining practice site characteristics, changes over time in those characteristics, or data errors in either SK&A or the survey. Researchers using SK&A data should consider possible ramifications for their studies.
SUBMITTER: Maurer KA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7969202 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Measuring physician practice site characteristics: A comparison of data from SK&A and a practice site survey.
Maurer Kristin A KA Blue Laura L Orzol Sean S Morrison Hensleigh Nikkilyn N Peikes Deborah D
Health services research 20201116 2
<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the comparability of commercially available practice site data from SK&A with survey data to understand the implications of using SK&A data for health services research.<h4>Data sources</h4>Responses to the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Practice Survey and SK&A data.<h4>Study design</h4>Comparison of CPC + Practice Survey responses to SK&A information for 2698 primary care practice sites.<h4>Data collection</h4>CPC + Practice Survey data collected through a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveEven as genomic medicine is implemented globally, there remains a lack of rigorous, national assessments of physicians' current genomic practice and continuing genomics education needs. The aim of this study was to address this gap.DesignA cross-sectional survey, informed by qualitative data and behaviour change theory, to assess the current landscape of Australian physicians' genomic medicine practice, perceptions of proximity and individual preparedness, and preferred models of practice and continuing education. The survey was advertised nationally through 10 medical colleges, 24 societies, 62 hospitals, social media, professional networks and snowballing.Results409 medical specialists across Australia responded, representing 30 specialties (majority paediatricians, 20%), from mainly public hospitals (70%) in metropolitan areas (75%). Half (53%) had contacted their local genetics services and half (54%) had ordered or referred for a gene panel or exome/genome sequencing test in the last year. Two-thirds (67%) think genomics will soon impact their practice, with a significant preference for models that involved genetics services (p<0.0001). Currently, respondents mainly perform tasks associated with pretest family history taking and counselling, but more respondents expect to perform tasks at all stages of testing in the future, including tasks related to the test itself, and reporting results. While one-third (34%) recently completed education in genomics, only a quarter (25%) felt prepared to practise. Specialists would like (more) education, particularly on genomic technologies and clinical utility, and prefer this to be through varied educational strategies.ConclusionsThis survey provides data from a breadth of physician specialties that can inform models of genetic service delivery and genomics education. The findings support education providers designing and delivering education that best meet learner needs to build a competent, genomic-literate workforce. Further analyses are underway to characterise early adopters of genomic medicine to inform strategies to increase engagement.
| S-EPMC8273463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of comprehensively assessing physician-level performance in ambulatory practice. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Ambulatory-based general internists in 13 states participated in the assessment. STUDY DESIGN: We assessed physician-level performance, adjusted for patient factors, on 46 individual measures, an overall composite measure, and composite measures for chronic, acute, and preventive care. Between- versus within-physician variation was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). External validity was assessed by correlating performance on a certification exam. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Medical records for 236 physicians were audited for seven chronic and four acute care conditions, and six age- and gender-appropriate preventive services. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Performance on the individual and composite measures varied substantially within (range 5-86 percent compliance on 46 measures) and between physicians (ICC range 0.12-0.88). Reliabilities for the composite measures were robust: 0.88 for chronic care and 0.87 for preventive services. Higher certification exam scores were associated with better performance on the overall (r = 0.19; p<.01), chronic care (r = 0.14, p = .04), and preventive services composites (r = 0.17, p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that reliable and valid comprehensive assessment of the quality of chronic and preventive care can be achieved by creating composite measures and by sampling feasible numbers of patients for each condition.
| S-EPMC3029848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality of cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care is suboptimal. Recent data correlated increasing years in practice for physicians with lower-quality health care.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess physician awareness/adherence to national blood pressure, cholesterol, and CVD prevention guidelines for women according to physician/practice characteristics.DesignStandardized online survey and experimental case studies were administered to 500 randomly selected U.S. physicians. Multivariable regression models tested physician age, gender, specialty, and practice type as independent predictors of guideline awareness/adherence.ResultsCompared with older physicians (50+ years), younger physicians (<50 years) reported a lower level of awareness of cholesterol guidelines (P=.04) and lower incorporation of women's guidelines (P=.02). Yet, older physicians were less likely to recommend weight management for high-risk cases (P=.03) and less confident in helping patients manage weight (P=.045) than younger physicians. Older physicians were also less likely to identify a low-density lipoprotein<100 mg/dL as optimal versus younger physicians (P=.01), as were solo versus nonsolo practitioners (P=.02). Solo practitioners were less aware of cholesterol guidelines (P=.04) and were more likely to prescribe aspirin for low-risk female patients than nonsolo practitioners (P<.01). Solo practitioners rated their clinical judgment as more effective than guidelines in improving patient health outcomes (P<.01) and more frequently rated the patient as the greatest barrier to CVD prevention versus nonsolo practitioners (P<.01).ConclusionsThough guideline awareness is high, efforts to promote their utilization are needed and may improve quality outcomes. Targeted education and support for CVD prevention may be helpful to older and solo physicians.
| S-EPMC1828095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Telemedicine expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, as key policy changes, financial support, and pandemic fears tipped the balance toward internet-based care. Despite this increased support and benefits to patients and clinicians, telemedicine uptake was variable across clinicians and practices. Little is known regarding physician and institutional characteristics underlying this variability.Objective This study aimed to evaluate factors influencing telemedicine uptake among frontline physicians in the early pandemic response.Methods We surveyed a national stratified sample of frontline clinicians drawn from the American Medical Association Physician Professional Data in June or July 2020. The survey inquired about the first month and most recent month (June 2020) of pandemic telemedicine use; sample data included clinician gender, specialty, census region, and years in practice. Local pandemic conditions were estimated from county-level data on COVID-19 rates at the time of survey response. Data were analyzed in a weighted logistic regression, controlling for county-specific pandemic data, and weighted to account for survey data stratification and nonresponse.Results Over the first 3-4 months of the pandemic, the proportion of physicians reporting use of telemedicine in >30% of visits increased from 29.2% (70/239) to 35.7% (85/238). Relative to primary care, odds of substantial telemedicine use (>30%) both during the first month of the pandemic and in June 2020 were increased among infectious disease and critical care physicians and decreased among hospitalists and emergency medicine physicians. At least minimal prepandemic telemedicine use (odds ratio [OR] 11.41, 95% CI 1.34-97.04) and a high 2-week moving average of local COVID-19 cases (OR 10.16, 95% CI 2.07-49.97) were also associated with substantial telemedicine use in June 2020. There were no significant differences according to clinician gender, census region, or years in practice.Conclusions Prepandemic telemedicine use, high local COVID-19 case counts, and clinician specialty were associated with higher levels of substantial telemedicine use during the early pandemic response. These results suggest that telemedicine uptake in the face of the pandemic may have been heavily influenced by the level of perceived threat and the resources available for implementation. Such understanding has important implications for reducing burnout and preparation for future public health emergencies.
| S-EPMC11292149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBiosimilars, or highly similar versions of complex biologic drugs, have the potential to slow drug spending growth; however, biosimilar uptake in the United States has been slow. Little is known about barriers to biosimilar uptake following drug launch.ObjectiveTo examine the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with biosimilar use in the Medicare population.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used regression analysis to estimate the association between biosimilar use and various characteristics. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a filgrastim product or an infliximab product between the launch of a class's first biosimilar (quarter 3 2015 for filgrastim-sndz and quarter 4 2016 for infliximab-dyyb) and December 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March to November 2020.ExposuresPatient demographic characteristics and product clinical indications; physician demographic characteristics, specialty, and volume of filgrastim or infliximab biologic administration; hospital size, ownership, 340B status, academic medical center status, and system affiliation; physician office size and multispecialty status.Main outcomes and measuresAdministration of a filgrastim or infliximab biosimilar.ResultsThe final filgrastim sample included 25 870 patients (11 857 [45.8%] men; 14 224 [55.0%] aged 65-74 years; 22 617 [87.4%] White individuals) who had 259 178 administrations (79 017 [30.5%] biosimilar administrations), and the final infliximab sample included 14 786 patients (4765 [32.2%] men; 8773 [59.3%] aged 65-74 years; 13 467 [91.1%] White individuals) who had 174 973 administrations (9012 [5.2%] biosimilar administrations). In adjusted analyses, no patient demographic characteristics and 2 of 9 clinical indications (22.2%) were associated with biosimilar use (filgrastim, neutropenia: adjusted difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.2] percentage points; P = .03; infliximab, Crohn disease: adjusted difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8] percentage points; P = .001). Several physician characteristics were associated with biosimilar administrations, including high filgrastim or infliximab prescribing volume (high vs low volume, filgrastim: adjusted difference, 3.6 [95% CI, 1.5 to 5.8] percentage points; P = .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.3 to 2.2] percentage points; P = .007) and specialty (eg, hematologist-oncologists vs primary care, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.5] percentage points; P = .02). Numerous practice characteristics were associated with biosimilar use, including practice setting (outpatient hospital department vs office practice, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -16.1 [95% CI, -18.1 to -14.1] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 3.0 [95% CI, 2.2 to 3.7] percentage points; P < .001) and hospital outpatient department ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -17.4 [95% CI, -21.6 to -13.3] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 10.8 [95% CI, 6.7 to 14.9] percentage points; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, practice setting and hospital ownership status had the largest associations with biosimilar usage, suggesting practices play a role in steering physicians toward certain medications. However, the types of practices with high biosimilar use differed by drug class. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for these differences across drug classes.
| S-EPMC7841457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical group practices are central to many of the proposals for health care reform, but little is known about the relationship between practice-level characteristics and the quality and cost of care.MethodsPractice characteristics from a 2009 national survey of 211 group practices were linked to Medicare claims data for beneficiaries attributed to the practices. Multivariate regression was used to examine the relationship between practice characteristics and claims-computable measures of screening and monitoring, avoidable utilization, risk-adjusted per-beneficiary per-year (PBPY) costs, and the practice's net revenue.ResultsSeveral characteristics of group practices are predictive of screening and monitoring measures. Those measures, in turn, are predictive of lower values of avoidable utilization measures that contribute to higher PBPY costs. The effects of group practice characteristics on avoidable utilization, cost, and practice net revenue appear to work primarily through improved screening and monitoring.ConclusionsPractice characteristics influence costs indirectly through a set of statistically significant relationships among screening and monitoring measures and avoidable utilization. However, these relationships are not the only pathways connecting practice characteristics to cost and those additional pathways contain substantial "noise" adding uncertainty to the estimated direct effects. Some of the attributes thought to be important characteristics of accountable care organizations and medical homes appear to be associated with lower quality and no improvement in cost.
| S-EPMC4450926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine characteristics of beneficiaries, physicians, and their practice sites associated with greater use of low-value services (LVS) using LVS measures that reflect current care practices.Data sourcesThis study was conducted in the context of a large, nationwide primary care redesign initiative (Comprehensive Primary Care Plus), using Medicare claims data in 2018.Study designWe examined beneficiary-level total counts of LVS based on the existing 31 claims-based measures updated by excluding three services provided with diminishing frequency to Medicare beneficiaries and by replacing these with more recently identified LVS. We estimated hierarchical linear models with an extensive list of beneficiary, physician, and practice site characteristics to examine the contribution of characteristics at each level in predicting greater use of LVS. We also examined the proportion of variation in LVS use attributable to the set of characteristics at each level.Data collection/extraction methodsThe study included 5,074,642 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 32,406 primary care physicians in 11,009 primary care practice sites.Principal findingsPatients with disabilities, end-stage renal disease, and those in regions with higher poverty rates receive 10 (standard error [SE] = 3.0), 80 (SE = 14.0), and 10 (SE = 1.0) more LVS per 1000 beneficiaries across all 31 measures combined than patients without such attributes, respectively. Greater physician comprehensiveness and an increase in the number of primary care practitioners at a practice were associated with 40 (SE = 20.0) and 20 (SE = 6.0) fewer LVS per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. Yet, the explanatory variables we examined only account for 11 percent of the variation in LVS use, with most of the variation (87 percent) being due to unobserved differences at the beneficiary level.ConclusionsUnexplained residual variation, from underlying patient preferences and behavior of non-primary care providers, could be important determinants of LVS use.
| S-EPMC9643094 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysicians play a key role in mitigating and managing costs in healthcare which are rising.ObjectiveConduct a cross-sectional survey in 2017, comparing results to a 2012 survey to understand US physicians' evolving attitudes and strategies concerning healthcare costs.ParticipantsRandom sample of 1200 US physicians from the AMA Masterfile.MeasuresPhysician views on responsibility for costs of care, enthusiasm for cost-saving strategies, cost-consciousness scale, and practice strategies on addressing cost.Key resultsAmong 1200 physicians surveyed in 2017, 489 responded (41%). In 2017, slightly more physicians reported that physicians have a major responsibility for addressing healthcare costs (32% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). In 2017, more physicians attributed "major responsibility" for addressing healthcare costs to pharmaceutical companies (68% vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and hospital and health systems (63% vs. 56%%, p = 0.008) in contrast to 2012. Fewer respondents in 2017 attributed major responsibility for addressing costs to trial lawyers (53% vs. 59%, p = 0.007) and patients (42% vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) as compared to 2012. Physician enthusiasm for patient-focused cost-containment strategies like high deductible health plans and higher co-pays (62% vs. 42%, p < 0.0001 and 62% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001, not enthusiastic, respectively) declined. Physicians reported that when they discussed cost, it resulted in a change in disease management 56% of the time. Cost-consciousness within surveyed physicians had not changed meaningfully in 2017 since 2012 (31.7 vs. 31.2). Most physicians continued to agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful in their practice (> 70%). After adjusting for specialty, political affiliation, practice setting, age, and gender, only democratic/independent affiliation remained a significant predictor of cost-consciousness.Conclusions and relevanceUS physicians increasingly attribute responsibility for rising healthcare costs to organizations and express less enthusiasm for strategies that increase patient out-of-pocket cost. Interventions that focus on physician knowledge and communication strategies regarding cost of care may be helpful.
| S-EPMC7351917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOpioid-induced constipation (OIC) is the most common adverse effect of opioid therapy, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Last year, a survey among Italian healthcare providers revealed important differences in the clinical management of OIC across physician specialties, the need of standardization of diagnosis and treatment, and the urgency of further education. Herein, we submitted an updated version of the survey to the same cohort of experts to evaluate potential progress.MethodsThe online survey included 15 questions about OIC. Responses were analyzed descriptively and aggregated by physician specialty.ResultsA total of 190 physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (65%) did not feel adequately educated about OIC despite general consensus regarding interest in the topic and acknowledgement of OIC impact on patients' QoL and adherence to opioid therapy. Overall, 55-77% of physicians regularly evaluated intestinal function or OIC symptoms in patients receiving opioid therapy, with one-third of respondents implementing it in the past year. Even though the most common method for assessment was still patient diary, the use of specific scales underwent a small but significant increase compared to the previous year, with major implementation in the use of Rome IV criteria. As regards first-line treatment, most respondents (49%) preferred macrogol prophylaxis followed by macrogol plus another laxative. For second-line treatment, we revealed a growth in the prescription of peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs), with 46% of all the respondents having increased their use during the past year.ConclusionsDespite some limitations, our study demonstrated a slow but important step closer to standardization of diagnosis and treatment of OIC. Further educational and training efforts should be put in place to favor best evidence-based clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9098716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo use an empirical Bayesian approach, blending practice, and group quality data with physician results to increase the accuracy of quality of care measures.Data sourcesPerformance data on diabetes glycemic screening for 8,357 physicians collected from multiple payers as part of a statewide physician performance reporting initiative.Study designA variance components analysis assessed the strength of group, practice, and physician effects compared with random error. We derived formulas to describe reliability and measurement error variances and calculated the optimal blend of physician, practice, and group data. We constructed a simulation to show what various methods can achieve. The value of blending strategies was assessed by simulating a common pay-for-performance criterion-performance in the top 25 percent. We estimated the proportion of physicians whose true percentage would place them in the top 20 percent but who would not receive payment based on the observed success rate.Principal findingsBlending reduced the error rate from 29.7 to 22.7 percent. Simpler empirical Bayes estimates using shrinkage alone produced no gains over simple doctor percentages.ConclusionsWhen good structural data about physician groups and practices exist, gains from blending can be substantial.
| S-EPMC3922469 | biostudies-literature