Comparison of Work Patterns Between Physicians and Advanced Practice Practitioners in Primary Care and Specialty Practice Settings.

Importance: Despite the increasing involvement of advanced practice practitioners (APPs; ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in care delivery across specialties, the work patterns of APPs compared with physicians and how they are integrated into care teams have not been well characterized. Objective: To characterize differences between physicians and APPs across specialty types related to days with appointments, visit types seen, and time spent using the electronic health record (EHR). Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide, cross-sectional study used EHR data from physicians and APPs (ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) at all US institutions that used Epic Systems' EHR between January and May 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appointment scheduling patterns, percentage of new and established and level of evaluation and management (E/M) visits, and EHR use metrics per day and week. Results: The sample consisted of 217 924 clinicians across 389 organizations, including 174 939 physicians and 42 985 APPs. Although primary care physicians were more likely than APPs to have more than 3 days per week with appointments (50 921 physicians [79.5%] vs 17 095 APPs [77.9%]), this trend was reversed for medical (38 645 physicians [64.8%] vs 8124 APPs [74.0%]) and surgical (24 155 physicians [47.1%] vs 5198 APPs [51.7%]) specialties. Medical and surgical specialty physicians saw 6.7 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively, more new patient visits than did their APP counterparts, whereas primary care physicians saw 2.8 percentage points fewer new patient visits than did APPs. Physicians saw a greater percentage of level 4 or 5 visits across all specialties. Medical and surgical physicians spent 34.3 and 45.8 fewer minutes per day, respectively, using the EHR than did APPs in their specialties, whereas primary care physicians spent 17.7 minutes per day more. These differences translated to primary care physicians spending 96.3 minutes more per week using the EHR than APPs, whereas medical and surgical physicians spent 149.9 and 140.7 fewer minutes, respectively, than did their APP counterparts. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional, national study of clinicians found significant differences in visit and EHR patterns for physicians compared with APPs across specialty types. By underscoring the different current usage of physicians vs APPs across specialty types, this study helps place into context the work and visit patterns of physicians compared with APPs and serves as a foundation for evaluations of clinical outcomes and quality.

Quality Frameworks for Virtual Care: Expert Panel Recommendations.

Given the significant advance of virtual care in the past year and half, it seems timely to focus on quality frameworks and how they have evolved collaboratively across health care organizations. Massachusetts General Hospital's (MGH) Center for TeleHealth and Mass General Brigham's (MGB) Virtual Care Program are committed to hosting annual symposia on key topics related to virtual care. Subject matter experts across the country, health care organizations, and academic medical centers are invited to participate. The inaugural MGH/MGB Virtual Care Symposium, which focused on rethinking curriculum, competency, and culture in the virtual care era, was held on September 2, 2020. The second MGH/MGB Virtual Care Symposium was held on November 2, 2021, and focused on virtual care quality frameworks. Resultant topics were (1) guiding principles necessary for the future of virtual care measurement; (2) best practices deployed to measure quality of virtual care and how they compare and align with in-person frameworks; (3) evolution of quality frameworks over time; (4) how increased adoption of virtual care has impacted patient access and experience and how it has been measured; (5) the pitfalls and barriers which have been encountered by organizations in developing virtual care quality frameworks; and (6) examples of how quality frameworks have been applied in various use cases. Common elements of a quality framework for virtual care programs among symposium participants included improving the patient and provider experience, a focus on achieving health equity, monitoring success rates and uptime of the technical elements of virtual care, financial stewardship, and clinical outcomes. Virtual care represents an evolution in the access to care paradigm that helps keep health care aligned with other modern industries in digital technology and systems adoption. With advances in health care delivery models, it is vitally important that the quality measurement systems be adapted to include virtual care encounters. New methods may be necessary for asynchronous transactions, but synchronous virtual visits and consults can likely be accommodated in traditional quality frameworks with minimal adjustments. Ultimately, quality frameworks for health care will adapt to hybrid in-person and virtual care practices.

Summary of the 2020 AHRQ research meeting on 'advancing methods of implementing and evaluating patient experience improvement using consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (CAHPS®) surveys'.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality held a research meeting on using Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) data for quality improvement (QI) and evaluating such efforts. TOPICS COVERED.: Meeting addressed: 1)What has been learned about organizational factors/environment needed to improve patient experience? 2)How have organizations used data to improve patient experience? 3)What can evaluations using CAHPS data teach us about implementing successful programs to improve patient experience? KEY THEMES: Providers and stakeholders need to be engaged early and often, standardize QI processes, complement CAHPS data with other data, and compile dashboards of CAHPS scores to identify and track improvement. Rigorous study designs are valuable, but much can be learned and accomplished through practical organization-level studies.

Patient-centered care: achieving higher quality by designing care through the patient's eyes.

Patient centered care requires that health care organizations and health care professionals actively understand what patients value. Fortunately, there are methods for gaining that understanding. But, they need to be adopted much more widely, and patients need to be treated as full partners in their care.

Correlation of Provider Burnout With Patient Experience.

Initiatives to mitigate physician burnout and improve patient experience occur largely in isolation. At the level of the department/division, we found lower physician burnout was associated with a more positive patient experience. Physician Maslach Burnout Inventory data and patient Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group experience scores were significantly correlated with 5 of 12 patient experience questions: "Got Routine Care Appointment" (-0.632, P = .001), "Recommend Provider" (-0.561, P = .005), "Provider Knew Medical History" (-0.532, P = .009), "Got Urgent Care Appointment" (-0.518, P = .014), and "Overall Rating" (-0.419, P = .047). These correlations suggest burnout and experience might be better addressed in tandem. Principles to guide an integrated approach are suggested.

The effect of administration mode on CAHPS survey response rates and results: A comparison of mail and web-based approaches.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare response rates, respondents' characteristics, and substantive results for CAHPS surveys administered using web and mail protocols. DATA SOURCES: Patients who had one or more primary care visits in the preceding 6 months. STUDY DESIGN/DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Patients for whom primary care practices had email addresses were randomized to one of four survey administration protocols: web via a portal invitation; web via an email invitation; combination of web and mail; and mail only. Another sample of patients without known email addresses was surveyed by mail. Samples of nonrespondents to the Internet and mail protocols were surveyed by telephone. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Response rates to surveys administered using the Internet protocols were lower than for the surveys administered by mail (20 percent vs over 40 percent). However, characteristics of respondents and survey answers were very similar across protocols. Respondents without email addresses were older, less educated, and more likely to be male than those with email addresses, and there were a few differences in their responses. There was little evidence of nonresponse bias in either the mail or web protocols. CONCLUSION: In this well-educated patient population, web protocols had lower response rates, but substantive results very similar to those from mail protocols.

Evaluating the use of a modified CAHPS survey to support improvements in patient-centred care: lessons from a quality improvement collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of a modified Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey to support quality improvement in a collaborative focused on patient-centred care, assess subsequent changes in patient experiences, and identify factors that promoted or impeded data use. BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly using surveys to assess patients' experiences of care but little is established about how to use these data in quality improvement. DESIGN: Process evaluation of a quality improvement collaborative. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The CAHPS team from Harvard Medical School and the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement organized a learning collaborative including eight medical groups in Minnesota. INTERVENTION: Samples of patients recently visiting each group completed a modified CAHPS survey before, after and continuously over a 12-month project. Teams were encouraged to set goals for improvement using baseline data and supported as they made interventions with bi-monthly collaborative meetings, an online tool reporting the monthly data, a resource manual called The CAHPS Improvement Guide, and conference calls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in patient experiences. Interviews with team leaders assessed the usefulness of the collaborative resources, lessons and barriers to using data. RESULTS: Seven teams set goals and six made interventions. Small improvements in patient experience were observed in some groups, but in others changes were mixed and not consistently related to the team actions. Two successful groups appeared to have strong quality improvement structures and had focussed on relatively simple interventions. Team leaders reported that frequent survey reports were a powerful stimulus to improvement, but that they needed more time and support to engage staff and clinicians in changing their behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Small measurable improvements in patient experience may be achieved over short projects. Sustaining more substantial change is likely to require organizational strategies, engaged leadership, cultural change, regular measurement and performance feedback and experience of interpreting and using survey data.

Transforming concepts in patient safety: a progress report.

In 2009, the National Patient Safety Foundation's Lucian Leape Institute (LLI) published a paper identifying five areas of healthcare that require system-level attention and action to advance patient safety.The authors argued that to truly transform the safety of healthcare, there was a need to address medical education reform; care integration; restoring joy and meaning in work and ensuring the safety of the healthcare workforce; consumer engagement in healthcare and transparency across the continuum of care. In the ensuing years, the LLI convened a series of expert roundtables to address each concept, look at obstacles to implementation, assess potential for improvement, identify potential implementation partners and issue recommendations for action. Reports of these activities were published between 2010 and 2015. While all five areas have seen encouraging developments, multiple challenges remain. In this paper, the current members of the LLI (now based at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement) assess progress made in the USA since 2009 and identify ongoing challenges.

Ten Years, Forty Decision Aids, And Thousands Of Patient Uses: Shared Decision Making At Massachusetts General Hospital.

Shared decision making is a core component of population health strategies aimed at improving patient engagement. Massachusetts General Hospital's integration of shared decision making into practice has focused on the following three elements: developing a culture receptive to, and health care providers skilled in, shared decision making conversations; using patient decision aids to help inform and engage patients; and providing infrastructure and resources to support the implementation of shared decision making in practice. In the period 2005-15, more than 900 clinicians and other staff members were trained in shared decision making, and more than 28,000 orders for one of about forty patient decision aids were placed to support informed patient-centered decisions. We profile two different implementation initiatives that increased the use of patient decision aids at the hospital's eighteen adult primary care practices, and we summarize key elements of the shared decision making program.

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Point-of-Care Technology Research Network: Advancing Precision Medicine.

To advance the development of point-of-care technology (POCT), the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering established the POCT Research Network (POCTRN), comprised of Centers that emphasize multidisciplinary partnerships and close facilitation to move technologies from an early stage of development into clinical testing and patient use. This paper describes the POCTRN and the three currently funded Centers as examples of academic-based organizations that support collaborations across disciplines, institutions, and geographic regions to successfully drive innovative solutions from concept to patient care.

Improving the care of patients who have treatment-resistant depression: the promise of the PCORnet Mood Network.

In this issue of JCP, Zhou and colleagues review and integrate placebo-controlled efficacy trials of medications for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) to compare efficacy in a meta-analysis. They conclude that, among 11 augmentation options for TRD, aripiprazole and quetiapine have the most robust evidence for efficacy, with the caveats that these treatments carry substantial risks of adverse events and no long-term data are available. In the absence of direct comparisons, this exercise highlights the formidable challenges that clinicians face when making decisions.

Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality.

Patient care experience surveys evaluate the degree to which care is patient-centered. This article reviews the literature on the association between patient experiences and other measures of health care quality. Research indicates that better patient care experiences are associated with higher levels of adherence to recommended prevention and treatment processes, better clinical outcomes, better patient safety within hospitals, and less health care utilization. Patient experience measures that are collected using psychometrically sound instruments, employing recommended sample sizes and adjustment procedures, and implemented according to standard protocols are intrinsically meaningful and are appropriate complements for clinical process and outcome measures in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

Patient engagement: four case studies that highlight the potential for improved health outcomes and reduced costs.

The energy of patients and members of the public worldwide who care about improving health is a huge, but still largely unrecognized and untapped, resource. The aim of patient engagement is to shift the clinical paradigm from determining "what is the matter?" to discovering "what matters to you?" This article presents four case studies from around the world that highlight the proven and potential abilities of increased patient engagement to improve health outcomes and reduce costs, while extending the reach of treatment and diagnostic programs into the community. The cases are an online mental health community in the United Kingdom, a genetic screening program in the United Arab Emirates, a World Health Organization checklist for new mothers, and a hospital-based patient engagement initiative in the United States. Evidence from these and similar endeavors suggests that closer collaboration on the part of patients, families, health care providers, health care systems, and policy makers at multiple levels could help diverse nations provide more effective and population-appropriate health care with fewer resources.

Patient experience of care in the safety net: current efforts and challenges.

Measuring patient experience of care fosters the delivery of patient-centered services and increases health care quality. Most pay-for-performance and public reporting programs focus on care provided to insured populations, excluding the uninsured. Using qualitative research methods, we interviewed leaders of California safety-net practices to assess how they measure patient experience of care and the measurement barriers they encounter. Most had unmet needs for assistance with data collection and quality improvement strategies for their patient population. Tailored measurement and quality improvement resources, coupled with policy mandates to give all patients a voice, would improve the quality of patient-centered care in safety-net organizations.

Perspective: a culture of respect, part 1: the nature and causes of disrespectful behavior by physicians.

A substantial barrier to progress in patient safety is a dysfunctional culture rooted in widespread disrespect. The authors identify a broad range of disrespectful conduct, suggesting six categories for classifying disrespectful behavior in the health care setting: disruptive behavior; humiliating, demeaning treatment of nurses, residents, and students; passive-aggressive behavior; passive disrespect; dismissive treatment of patients; and systemic disrespect.At one end of the spectrum, a single disruptive physician can poison the atmosphere of an entire unit. More common are everyday humiliations of nurses and physicians in training, as well as passive resistance to collaboration and change. Even more common are lesser degrees of disrespectful conduct toward patients that are taken for granted and not recognized by health workers as disrespectful.Disrespect is a threat to patient safety because it inhibits collegiality and cooperation essential to teamwork, cuts off communication, undermines morale, and inhibits compliance with and implementation of new practices. Nurses and students are particularly at risk, but disrespectful treatment is also devastating for patients. Disrespect underlies the tensions and dissatisfactions that diminish joy and fulfillment in work for all health care workers and contributes to turnover of highly qualified staff. Disrespectful behavior is rooted, in part, in characteristics of the individual, such as insecurity or aggressiveness, but it is also learned, tolerated, and reinforced in the hierarchical hospital culture. A major contributor to disrespectful behavior is the stressful health care environment, particularly the presence of "production pressure," such as the requirement to see a high volume of patients.

Perspective: a culture of respect, part 2: creating a culture of respect.

Creating a culture of respect is the essential first step in a health care organization's journey to becoming a safe, high-reliability organization that provides a supportive and nurturing environment and a workplace that enables staff to engage wholeheartedly in their work. A culture of respect requires that the institution develop effective methods for responding to episodes of disrespectful behavior while also initiating the cultural changes needed to prevent such episodes from occurring. Both responding to and preventing disrespect are major challenges for the organization's leader, who must create the preconditions for change, lead in establishing and enforcing policies, enable frontline worker engagement, and facilitate the creation of a safe learning environment.When disrespectful behavior occurs, it must be addressed consistently and transparently. Central to an effective response is a code of conduct that establishes unequivocally the expectation that everyone is entitled to be treated with courtesy, honesty, respect, and dignity. The code must be enforced fairly through a clear and explicit process and applied consistently regardless of rank or station.Creating a culture of respect requires action on many fronts: modeling respectful conduct; educating students, physicians, and nonphysicians on appropriate behavior; conducting performance evaluations to identify those in need of help; providing counseling and training when needed; and supporting frontline changes that increase the sense of fairness, transparency, collaboration, and individual responsibility.

The crimson care collaborative: a student-faculty initiative to increase medical students' early exposure to primary care.

The current shortage of primary care physicians (PCPs), particularly as more individuals obtain health insurance and seek primary care services, is a growing national concern. The Crimson Care Collaborative (CCC) is a joint student-faculty initiative in post-health-care-reform Massachusetts that was started with the explicit goal of attracting medical students to primary care careers. It fills a niche for student-run clinics, providing evening access to primary care services for patients without a PCP and urgent care services for patients of a Massachusetts General Hospital-affiliated internal medicine clinic, with the aim of decreasing emergency department use in both groups. Unlike other student-run clinics, CCC is integrated into the mainstream health care structure of an existing primary care clinic and, because of universal health insurance coverage in Massachusetts, can bill for its services. In addition to the clinical services offered, the student-run research team evaluates the quality of care and the patients' experiences at the clinic. This article describes the creation and development of CCC, including a brief overview of clinic operations, social services, research, laboratory services, student and patient education programs, and finance. In the wake of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, CCC is an example of how students can aid the transition to universal health care in the United States and how medical schools can expose students early in their training to primary care and clinic operations.

Analysis & commentary. Measuring patient experience as a strategy for improving primary care.

Patients value the interpersonal aspects of their health care experiences. However, faced with multiple resource demands, primary care practices may question the value of collecting and acting upon survey data that measure patients' experiences of care. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) suite of surveys and quality improvement tools supports the systematic collection of data on patient experience. Collecting and reporting CAHPS data can improve patients' experiences, along with producing tangible benefits to primary care practices and the health care system. We also argue that the use of patient experience information can be an important strategy for transforming practices as well as to drive overall system transformation.