Dataset Information

Physician-Peer Relationships and Patient Experiences With Specialist Care.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Peer relationships may motivate physicians to aspire to high professional standards but have not been a major focus of quality improvement efforts.

Objective

To determine whether peer relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists formed during training motivate improved specialist care for patients.

Design, setting, and participants

In this quasi-experimental study, difference-in-differences analysis was used to estimate differences in experiences with specialist care reported by patients of the same PCP for specialists who did vs did not co-train with the PCP, controlling for any differences in patient ratings of the same specialists in the absence of co-training ties. Specialist visits resulting from PCP referrals from 2016 to 2019 in a large health system were analyzed, including a subset of undirected referrals in which PCPs did not specify a specialist. Data were collected from January 2016 to December 2019 and analyzed from March 2020 to October 2022.

Exposure

The exposure was PCP-specialist overlap in training (medical school or postgraduate medical) at the same institution for at least 1 year (co-training).

Main outcomes and measures

Composite patient experience rating of specialist care constructed from Press Ganey's Medical Practice Survey.

Results

Of 9920 specialist visits for 8655 patients (62.9% female; mean age, 57.4 years) with 502 specialists in 13 specialties, 3.1% (306) involved PCP-specialist dyads with a co-training tie. Co-training ties between PCPs and specialists were associated with a 9.0 percentage point higher adjusted composite patient rating of specialist care (95% CI, 5.6-12.4 percentage points; P < .001), analogous to improvement from the median to the 91st percentile of specialist performance. This association was stronger for PCP-specialist dyads with full temporal overlap in training (same class or cohort) and consistently strong for 9 of 10 patient experience items, including clarity of communication and engagement in shared decision-making. In secondary analyses of objective markers of altered specialist practice in an expanded sample of visits not limited by the availability of patient experience data, co-training was associated with changes in medication prescribing, suggesting behavioral changes beyond interpersonal communication. Patient characteristics varied minimally by co-training status of PCP-specialist dyads. Results were similar in analyses restricted to undirected referrals (in which PCPs did not specify a specialist). Concordance between PCPs and specialists in physician age, sex, medical school graduation year, and training institution (without requiring temporal overlap) was not associated with better care experiences.

Conclusions and relevance

In this quasi-experimental study, PCP-specialist co-training elicited changes in specialist care that substantially improved patient experiences, suggesting potential gains from strategies encouraging the formation of stronger physician-peer relationships.

SUBMITTER: Pany MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9857606 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physician-Peer Relationships and Patient Experiences With Specialist Care.

Pany Maximilian J MJ McWilliams J Michael JM

JAMA internal medicine 20230201 2

<h4>Importance</h4>Peer relationships may motivate physicians to aspire to high professional standards but have not been a major focus of quality improvement efforts.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether peer relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists formed during training motivate improved specialist care for patients.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>In this quasi-experimental study, difference-in-differences analysis was used to estimate differences in expe ...[more]

PMID: 36595288

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTiered physician network (TPN) health plans sort physicians into tiers based on their cost and quality, and patients pay lower copays for visits with physicians in the lower-cost and better-quality tiers. When the plans are first introduced, they lead patients to seek care from higher-value physicians.ObjectivesTo examine whether TPNs are associated with patient choice of physician when the plans have been in place for 8 to 12 years and whether there are inequities in patient out-of-pocket costs associated with inequities in access to physicians in lower-copay tiers.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study comprising 46 645 physicians and 585 399 patients in TPNs, including 54 683 patients who had a new patient visit with a physician in a TPN, used health insurance claims data from a large employer purchaser from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2020 to August 2023.ExposureEvaluation and management visit with a physician in a TPN.Main outcomes and measuresMain outcomes were new patient market share per physician-carrier-zip code-year, distance from centroid of patient zip code to centroid of zip code of nearest low- or medium-copay physician, and mean TPN physician office visit copay per patient. A regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the association of a physician's tier ranking, and a difference-in-differences analysis was used to estimate the association of copayment differences across tiers with market share among new patients. Equity in access was measured by comparing travel distance to the nearest physician in a low-copay or medium-copay tier and mean copayments across patient incomes.ResultsThe main analysis sample included 46 645 physician-carrier-zip code-year observations, 9506 (20.4%) of which were in the low-copay tier, 31 798 (68.2%) in the medium-copay tier, and 5341 (11.5%) in the high-copay tier. The 54 683 new patients in the sample had a mean (SD) age of 46.4 (16.7) years and included 33 542 women (61.3%). There was no association of having a worse tier ranking (0.045 percentage points [95% CI, -0.058 to 0.148 percentage points]) or of copayment differences between tiers (0.001 percentage points [95% CI, -0.002 to 0.004 percentage points]) with physician market share among new patients. The patients with the lowest income paid slightly lower mean (SD) copayments for office visits to a TPN physician than the patients with high income ($48.08 [$16.42] vs $51.59 [$16.79], a 6.8% difference).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of TPN health plans, there was no association between physician tier ranking and physician market share among any group of patients. These findings suggest there are limitations in TPNs' steering of patients toward high-value physicians. These plans were not associated with exacerbated health inequity in this setting.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care physician (PCP) burnout is prevalent and on the rise. Physician burnout may negatively affect patient experience of care.ObjectiveTo identify the direct impact of PCP burnout on patient experience in various domains of care.DesignA cross-sectional observational study using physician well-being (PWB) surveys collected in 2016-2017, linked to responses from patient experience of care surveys. Patient demographics and practice characteristics were derived from the electronic health record. Linked data were analyzed at the physician level.SettingA large non-profit multi-specialty ambulatory healthcare organization in northern California.ParticipantsA total of 244 physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine who responded to the PWB survey (response rate 72%), and 30,701 completed experience surveys from patients seeing these physicians.MeasurementsBurnout was measured with a validated single-item question with a 5-point scale ranging from (1) enjoy work to (5) completely burned out and seeking help. Patient experience of patient-provider communication, access, and overall rating of provider was measured with Clinician & Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey. Patient experience scores (0-100 scale) were adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and English proficiency.ResultsPhysician burnout had a negative impact on patient-reported experience of patient-provider communication but not on access or overall rating of providers. A one-level increase in burnout was associated with 0.43 decrease in adjusted patient-provider communication experience score (P < 0.01).LimitationsData came from a single large healthcare organization. Patterns may differ for small- and mid-sized practices.ConclusionPhysician burnout adversely affects patient-provider communication in primary care visits. Efforts to improve physician work environments could have a meaningful positive impact on patient experience as well as physician well-being.

Project description:ImportanceAs the clinical workforce becomes more diverse, physicians encounter patients who demean them based on social characteristics. Little is known about physicians' perspectives on these encounters and their effects. This knowledge would help develop policies and best practices for institutions and training programs.ObjectiveTo describe the range and importance of encounters with biased patients and the barriers and facilitators to effective responses.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study recruited convenience samples of hospitalist attending physicians, internal medicine residents, and medical students from 3 campuses affiliated with 1 academic medical center. Data were collected from 50 individuals within 13 focus groups from May 9 through October 15, 2018. Focus groups were conducted using open-ended probes, audiotaped, and transcribed. Participants used their own definition of biased patient behavior. Each transcript was independently coded by at least 2 investigators. Data were analyzed from May 2018 through February 2019.Main outcomes and measuresMajor themes associated with types of encounter, importance to the participant, and barriers and facilitators to effective responses were abstracted through the constant comparative approach.ResultsOverall, 50 individuals (11 hospitalists, 26 residents, and 13 students) participated; 24 (48%) were nonwhite. At total of 26 participants (52%) identified as women; 22 (44%), as men; and 2 (4%), as gender nonconforming. Reports of biased behavior ranged from patient refusal of care and explicit racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks to belittling compliments or jokes. Targeted physicians reported an emotional toll that included exhaustion, self-doubt, and cynicism. Nontargeted bystanders reported moral distress and uncertainty about how to respond. Participant responses ranged from withdrawal from clinical role to a heightened determination to provide standard of care. Barriers to effective responses included lack of skills, insufficient support from senior colleagues and the institution, and perception of lack of utility associated with responding. Participants expressed a need for training on dealing with biased patients and for clear institutional policies to guide responses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study of physicians and medical students, encounters with demeaning patients ranged from refusal of care to belittling jokes and were highly challenging and painful. Addressing biased patient behavior will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospitals to create policies and trainings conducive to a clinical environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike.

Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify shared patient relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists and oncologists and the degree to which those relationships were captured within insurance networks.Data sourcesSecondary analysis of Vericred data on physician networks, CareSet data on physicians' shared Medicare patients, and insurance plan attributes from Health Insurance Compare. Data validation exercises used data from Physician Compare and IQVIA.Study designCross-sectional study of the PCP-to-specialist in-network shared patient percentage (primary outcome). We also categorized networks by insurance market segment (Medicare Advantage [MA], Medicaid managed care, small-group or individually purchased), insurance plan type, and network breadth.Data extractionWe analyzed data on 219,982 PCPs, 29,400 cardiologists, and 22,745 oncologists who, in 2021, accepted MA (n = 941 networks), Medicaid managed care (n = 293), and individually-purchased (n = 332) and small-group (n = 501) plans.Principal findingsNetworks captured, on average, 64.6% of PCP-cardiology shared patient ties, and 61.8% of PCP-oncologist ties. Less than half of in-network ties (44.5% and 38.9%, respectively) were among physicians with a common organizational affiliation. After adjustment for network breadth, we found no evidence of differences in the shared patient percentage across insurance market segments or networks of different types (p-value >0.05 for all comparisons). An exception was among national versus local and regional networks, where we found that national plans captured fewer shared patient ties, particularly among the narrowest networks (58.4% for national networksvs. 64.7% for local and regional networks for PCP-cardiology).ConclusionsGiven recent trends toward narrower networks, our findings underscore the importance of incorporating additional and nuanced measures of network composition to aid plan selection (for patients) and to guide regulatory oversight.

Project description:BackgroundOver 1100 Veterans work in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as peer specialists (PSs). PSs are Veterans with formal training who provide support to other Veterans with similar diagnoses, primarily in mental health settings. A White House Executive Action mandated the pilot reassignment of VHA PSs from mental health to 25 primary care Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) in order to broaden the provision of wellness services that can address many chronic illnesses. An evaluation of this initiative was undertaken to assess the impact of outside assistance on the deployment of PS in PACT, as implementation support is often needed to prevent challenges commonly experienced when first deploying PSs in VHA settings. We present the protocol for this cluster-randomized hybrid type II trial to test the impact of standard implementation (receive minimal assistance) vs. facilitated implementation (receive outside assistance) on the deployment of VHA PSs in PACT.MethodsA VHA Office of Mental Health Services work group is recruiting 25 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers to reassign a mental health PSs to provide wellness-oriented care in PACT. Sites in three successive cohorts (n = 8, 8, 9) beginning over 6-month blocks will be matched and randomized to either standard or facilitated implementation. In facilitated implementation, an outside expert works with site stakeholders through a site visit, regular calls, and performance data to guide the planning and address challenges. Standard implementation sites will receive a webinar and access the Office of Mental Health Services work group. The two conditions will be compared on PS workload data, fidelity to the PS model of service delivery, team functioning, and Veteran measures of activation, satisfaction, and functioning. Qualitative interviews will collect information on implementation barriers and facilitators.DiscussionThis evaluation will provide critical data to guide administrators and VHA policy makers on future deployment of PSs, as their role has been expanding beyond mental health. In addition, development of novel implementation strategies (facilitation tailored to PSs) and the use of new tools (peer fidelity) can be models for monitoring and supporting deployment of PSs throughout VHA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02732600 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02732600 ).

Project description:ImportanceWhile a gender pay gap in medicine has been well documented, relatively little research has addressed mechanisms that mediate gender differences in referral income for specialists.ObjectiveTo examine gender-based disparities in medical and surgical specialist referrals in Ontario, Canada.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included referrals for specialist care ascertained from Ontario Health Insurance Plan physician billings for fiscal year 2018 to 2019. Participants were specialist physicians who received new patient consultations from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, and the associated referring physicians. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to March 2020, including a 12-month follow-up period.ExposuresSpecialist and referring physician gender (female or male).Main outcomes and measuresRevenue per referral was defined based on an episode-of-care approach as total billings for a 12-month period from the initial consultation. Mean total billings for female and male specialists were compared and the differential divided into the portion owing to referral volume vs referral revenue. Difference-in-differences multivariable regression analysis was used to estimate gender-based differences in revenue per referral. For each referring physician, gender-based differences in referral patterns were examined using case-control analysis, in which specialists who received a referral were compared with matched control specialists who did not receive a referral. This analysis considered the gender of the specialist and concordance between the gender of the referring physician and specialist, among other characteristics.ResultsOf 7 621 365 new referrals, 32 824 referring physicians, of whom 13 512 (41.2%) were female (mean [SD] age, 46.3 [11.6] years) and 19 312 (58.8%) were male (mean [SD] age, 52.9 [13.5] years), made referrals to 13 582 specialists, of whom 4890 (36.0%) were female (mean [SD] age, 45.6 [11.0] years) and 8692 (64.0%) were male (mean [SD] age, 51.8 [13.0] years). Male specialists received more mean (SD) referrals than did female specialists (633 [666] vs 433 [515]), and the mean (SD) revenue per referral was higher for males ($350 [$474]) compared with females ($316 [$393]). Adjusted analysis demonstrated a -4.7% (95% CI, -4.9% to -4.5%) difference in the revenue per referral between male and female specialists. Multivariable regression analysis found that physicians referred more often to specialists of the same gender (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.04) but had higher odds of referring to male specialists (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.11).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of the gender pay gap in specialist referral income, the number and revenue from referrals received differed by gender, as did the odds of receiving a referral from a physician of the same gender. Future research should examine the effectiveness of different policies to address this gap, such as a centralized, gender-blinded referral system.

Project description:Although previous studies suggest an association between provider burnout and suboptimal self-reported communication, no studies relate physician burnout to observed patient-physician communication behaviors.To investigate the relationship between physician burnout and observed patient-physician communication outcomes in patient-physician encounters.Longitudinal study of enrollment data from a trial of interventions to improve patient adherence to hypertension treatment.Fifteen urban community-based clinics in Baltimore, MD.Forty physicians and 235 of their adult hypertensive patients, with oversampling of ethnic minorities and poor persons. Fifty-three percent of physicians were women, and the average practice experience was 11.2 years. Among the 235 patients, 66% were women, 60% were African-American, and 90% were insured.Audiotape analysis of communication during outpatient encounters (one per patient) using the Roter Interaction Analysis System and patients' ratings of satisfaction with and trust and confidence in the physician.The median time between the physician burnout assessment and the patient encounter was 15.1 months (range 5.6-30). Multivariate analyses revealed no significant differences in physician communication based on physician burnout. However, compared with patients of low-burnout physicians, patients of high-burnout physicians gave twice as many negative rapport-building statements (incident risk ratio 2.06, 95% CI 1.58-2.86, p < 0.001). Physician burnout was not significantly associated with physician or patient affect, patient-centeredness, verbal dominance, or length of the encounter. Physician burnout was also not significantly associated with patients' ratings of their satisfaction, confidence, or trust.Physician burnout was not associated with physician communication behaviors nor with most measures of patient-centered communication. However, patients engaged in more rapport-building behaviors. These findings suggest a complex relationship between physician burnout and patient-physician communication, which should be investigated and linked to patient outcomes in future research.

Dataset Information

Physician-Peer Relationships and Patient Experiences With Specialist Care.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposure

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Physician-Peer Relationships and Patient Experiences With Specialist Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets