Search

To determine if patient assessments (reports and ratings) of primary care differ by patient ethnicity.A self-administered patient survey of 6,092 Massachusetts employees measured seven defining characteristics of primary care: (1) access (financial, organizational); (2) continuity (longitudinal, visit based); (3) comprehensiveness (knowledge of patient, preventive counseling); (4) integration; (5) clinical interaction (communication, thoroughness of physical examinations); (6) interpersonal treatment; and (7) trust. The study employed a cross-sectional observational design.Asians had the lowest primary care performance assessments of any ethnic group after adjustment for socioeconomic and other factors. For example, compared to whites, Asians had lower scores for communication (69 vs. 79, p = .001) and comprehensive knowledge of patient (56 vs. 48, p = .002), African Americans and Latinos had less access to care, and African Americans had less longitudinal continuity than whites.We do not know what accounts for the observed differences in patient assessments of primary care. The fact that patient reports as well as the more subjective ratings of care differed by ethnicity suggests that quality differences might exist that need to be addressed.

Our objective was to examine how patients of primary care physicians are responding to a changing health care environment. The quality of their relationship with their primary care physicians and their experience with organizational features of care were monitored over a 3-year period.This was a longitudinal observational study (1996-1999). Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire at baseline and at follow-up. The questionnaires included measures of primary care quality from the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS). We included insured adults employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who remained with one primary care physician throughout the study period (n=2383). The outcomes were unadjusted mean scale score changes in each of the 8 PCAS over the 3 years and associated standardized difference scores (effect sizes). The 8 PCAS scales measured relationship quality (4 scales: communication, interpersonal treatment, physician's knowledge of the patient, patient trust) and organizational features of care (4 scales: financial access, organizational access, visit-based continuity, integration of care).There were significant declines in 3 of the 4 relationship scales: communication (effect size [ES] = -0.095), interpersonal treatment (ES = -0.115), and trust (ES = -0.046). Improvement was observed in physician's knowledge of the patient (ES = 0.051). There was a significant decline in organizational access (ES = -0.165) and an increase in visit-based continuity (ES = 0.060). There were no significant changes in financial access and integration of care indexes.The declines in access and 3 of the 4 indexes of physician-patient relationship quality are of concern, especially if they signify a trend.

Substantial research links many of the defining characteristics of primary care to important outcomes; yet little is known about the relative importance of each characteristic, and several characteristics have not been examined. These analyses evaluate the relationship between seven defining elements of primary care (accessibility, continuity, comprehensiveness, integration, clinical interaction, interpersonal treatment, and trust) and three outcomes (adherence to physician's advice, patient satisfaction, and improved health status).Data were derived from a cross-sectional observational study of adults employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (N = 7204). All patients completed a validated questionnaire, the Primary Care Assessment Survey. Regression methods were used to examine the association between each primary care characteristic (11 summary scales measuring 7 elements of care) and each outcome.Physicians' comprehensive ("whole person") knowledge of patients and patients' trust in their physician were the variables most strongly associated with adherence, and trust was the variable most strongly associated with patients' satisfaction with their physician. With other factors equal, adherence rates were 2.6 times higher among patients with whole-person knowledge scores in the 95th percentile compared with the 5th percentile (44.0% adherence vs 16.8% adherence, P.001). The likelihood of complete satisfaction was 87.5% for those with 95th percentile trust scores compared with 0.4% for patients with 5th percentile trust scores (P.001). The leading correlates of self-reported health improvements were integration of care, thoroughness of physical examinations, communication, comprehensive knowledge of patients, and trust (P.001).Patients' trust in their physician and physicians' knowledge of patients are leading correlates of three important outcomes of care. The results are noteworthy in the context of pervasive changes in our nation's health care system that are widely viewed as threatening to the quality of physician-patient relationships.

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that physicians assess patients' health risk behaviors, addressing those needing modification.To examine the relationship between patient income, health risk behaviors, the prevalence of physician discussion of these behaviors, and the receptiveness of patients to their physicians' advice.Employee survey.A random sample of 6549 Massachusetts state employees in 12 health plans.Data were obtained using a patient-completed mail survey. Trend tests were used to discern differences in the prevalence of health risk behaviors, physician discussion of these behaviors, and patient receptiveness to discussions by patient income.Although unhealthy behaviors were common among all income groups, physician discussion of health risk behaviors fell far short of the universal risk assessment recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Low-income patients were more likely to be obese and smoke than high-income patients and were less likely to wear seat belts and exercise. In contrast, stress and alcohol consumption increased with income, while the proportion of heavy drinkers did not vary significantly. Physicians were more likely to discuss diet and exercise with high-income patients in need of these discussions than with low-income patients, but were more likely to discuss smoking with low-income patients who smoked than with high-income patients who smoked. Among patients with whom discussions occurred, low-income patients were much more likely to report attempting to change their behavior based on physician advice.Physician counseling of patients regarding health risk behaviors should be greatly improved if the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations are to be fulfilled. Improvement is especially needed in regard to alcohol consumption, safe sex, and seat belt use. Physicians also need to be more vigilant in properly identifying and counseling low-income patients at risk in regard to diet and exercise and high-income patients who smoke.

To examine how Asian-American patients' ratings of primary care performance differ from those of whites. Latinos, and African-Americans.Retrospective analyses of data collected in a cross-sectional study using patient questionnaires.University hospital primary care group practice.In phase 1, successive patients who visited the study site for appointments were asked to complete the survey. In phase 2, successive patients were selected who had most recently visited each physician, going back as far as necessary to obtain 20 patients for each physician. In total, 502 patients were surveyed, 5% of whom were Asian-American.After adjusting for potential confounders, Asian-Americans rated overall satisfaction and 10 of 11 scales assessing primary care significantly lower than whites did. Dimensions of primary care that were assessed include access, comprehensiveness of care, integration, continuity, clinical quality, interpersonal treatment, and trust. There were no differences for the scale of longitudinal continuity. On average, the rating scale scores of Asian-Americans were 12 points lower than those of whites (on 100-point scales).We conclude that Asian-American patients rate physicians primary care performance lower than do whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. Future research needs to focus on Asian-Americans to determine the generalizability of these findings and the extent to which they reflect differences in survey response tendencies or actual quality differences.

To examine differences in the quality of primary care delivered in prepaid and fee-for-service (FFS) health care systems.Longitudinal study of 1208 adult patients with chronic disease whose health insurance was through a traditional indemnity (FFS) plan, an independent practice association (IPA), or a health maintenance organization (HMO). Both IPA and HMO represent prepaid care systems. Patient- and physician-provided information was obtained by self-administered questionnaires.A total of 303 physician offices (family medicine, general internal medicine, endocrinology, or cardiology) in solo and group practices in three US cities.Seven indicators of primary care quality--accessibility (financial and organizational), continuity, comprehensiveness, coordination, and accountability (interpersonal and technical) of care. Performance on each was evaluated in FFS, IPA, and HMO settings. Analyses controlled for patient and physician characteristics.Financial access was highest in prepaid systems. Organizational access, continuity, and accountability were highest in the FFS system. Coordination was highest and comprehensiveness was lowest in HMOs.The results mark notable differences in core dimensions of primary care quality in each of three payment systems and raise questions regarding the associated cost inefficiencies and outcomes of care. In the current health care delivery reform climate, these findings call for consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. We suggest strategies for elevating performance in each.