Measuring Trust in Primary Care.

Policy Points Trust in primary care clinicians is essential for effective patient care and is associated with better health outcomes, but it is rarely assessed, and existing measures have not been thoroughly evaluated. This scoping review reveals that research assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians largely stopped more than a decade ago but offers candidate measures for future testing, implementation, and policy applications. CONTEXT: Trust is a fundamental aspect of any human relationship, and medical care is no exception. An ongoing, trusting relationship between clinicians and patients has shown demonstrable value to primary care. However, there is currently no measure of trust in general use, and none endorsed for use by most value-based payment programs. This review searched the literature for any existing measures of patient trust in primary care clinicians and assessed their potential to be implemented as a patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: A keyword search on PubMed along with scanning references was conducted to find any trust measures in health care. Measures that did not address primary care clinicians were eliminated and the remaining measures were then assessed for their utility to primary care. RESULTS: This purposeful, scoping review found four tested measures for assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians that are candidates for general use. Of these four, the revised Trust in Physicians Scale and Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale are the most tested and viable options. CONCLUSION: Renewed national interest in trust in health care should focus on the capacity to measure it. This review informs the effort to test trust measures for use in research, practice improvement, and value-based payment. Measuring trust, how it relates to outcomes, and learning how it is produced or lost are key to assisting practices and health systems toward earning it.

Measuring the Value Functions of Primary Care: Physician-Level Continuity of Care Quality Measure.

PURPOSE: Care continuity is foundational to the clinician/patient relationship; however, little has been done to operationalize continuity of care (CoC) as a clinical quality measure. The American Board of Family Medicine developed the Primary Care CoC clinical quality measure as part of the Measures That Matter to Primary Care initiative. METHODS: Using 12-month Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data, we calculated the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index for each patient, which we rolled up to create an aggregate, physician-level CoC score. The physician quality score is the percent of patients with a Bice-Boxerman Index ≥0.7 (70%). We tested validity in 2 ways. First, we explored the validity of using 0.7 as a threshold for patient CoC within the Optum claims database to validate its use for reflecting patient-level continuity. Second, we explored the validity of the physician CoC measure by examining its association with patient outcomes. We assessed reliability using signal-to-noise methodology. RESULTS: Mean performance on the measure was 27.6%; performance ranged from 0% to 100% (n = 555,213 primary care physicians). Higher levels of CoC were associated with lower levels of care utilization. The measure indicated acceptable levels of validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity is associated with desirable health and cost outcomes as well as patient preference. The CoC clinical quality measure meets validity and reliability requirements for implementation in primary care payment and accountability. Care continuity is important and complementary to access to care, and prioritizing this measure could help shift physician and health system behavior to support continuity.

Physician- versus practice-level primary care continuity and association with outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare physician-level versus practice-level primary care continuity and their association with expenditure and acute care utilization among Medicare beneficiaries and evaluate whether continuity of outpatient primary care at either/both physician or/and practice level could be useful quality measures. DATA SOURCE: Medicare Fee-For-Service claims data for community dwelling beneficiaries without end-stage renal disease who were attributed to a national random sample of primary care practices billing Medicare (2011-2017). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective secondary data analysis at per Medicare beneficiary per year level. We used multivariable linear regression with practice-level fixed effects to estimate continuity of care score at physician versus practice level and their associations with outcomes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD: We calculated clinician- and practice-level Bice-Boxerman continuity of care index scores, ranging from 0 to 1, using primary care outpatient claims. Medicare expenditures, hospital admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and readmissions were obtained from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File: Cost and Utilization Segment. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) were defined using diagnosis codes on inpatient claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We studied 2,359,400 beneficiaries who sought care from 13,926 physicians. Every 0.1 increase in physician continuity score was associated with a $151 reduction in expenditure per beneficiary per year (p < 0.01), and every 0.1 increase in practice continuity score was associated with $282 decrease (p < 0.01) per beneficiary per year. Both physician- and practice-level continuity were associated with lower Medicare expenditures among small, medium, and large practices. Both physician- and practice-level continuity were associated with lower probabilities of hospitalization, ED visit, admissions for ACSC, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care continuity of care could serve as a potent value-based care quality metric. Physician-level continuity is a unique value center that cannot be supplanted by practice-level continuity.