High-Performing Teamlets in Primary Care: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis.

PURPOSE: In efforts to improve patient care, collaborative approaches to care have been highlighted. The teamlet model is one such approach, in which a primary care clinician works consistently with the same clinical staff member. The purpose of this study is to identify the characteristics of high-performing primary care teamlets, defined as teamlets with low rates of ambulatory care sensitive emergency department (ACSED) visits and ambulatory care sensitive hospital admissions (ACSAs). METHODS: Twenty-six individual qualitative interviews were performed with physicians and their teamlet staff member across 13 teamlets. Potentially important characteristics related to high-performing primary care teamlets were identified, calibrated, and analyzed using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). RESULTS: Key characteristics identified by the QCA that were often present in teamlets with low rates of ACSED visits and, to a lesser extent, ACSAs were staff proactiveness in anticipating physician needs and physician-reported trust in their staff member. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that physician trust in their staff and proactiveness of staff in anticipating physician needs are important in promoting high-performing teamlets in primary care. Additional studies are indicated to further explore the relationship between these characteristics and high-performing teamlets, and to identify other characteristics that may be important.

The Association of Teamlets and Teams with Physician Burnout and Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Primary care "teamlets" in which a staff member and physician consistently work together might provide a simple, cost-effective way to improve care, with or without insertion within a team. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and performance of teamlets and teams. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study linking survey responses to Medicare claims. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred eighty-eight general internists and family physicians. INTERVENTIONS: Based on survey responses, physicians were assigned to one of four teamlet/team categories (e.g., teamlet/no team) and, in secondary analyses, to one of eight teamlet/team categories that classified teamlets into high, medium, and low collaboration as perceived by the physician (e.g., teamlet perceived-high collaboration/no team). MAIN MEASURES: Descriptive: percentage of physicians in teamlet/team categories. OUTCOME MEASURES: physician burnout; ambulatory care sensitive emergency department and hospital admissions; Medicare spending. KEY RESULTS: 77.4% of physicians practiced in teamlets; 36.7% in teams. Of the four categories, 49.1% practiced in the teamlet/no team category; 28.3% in the teamlet/team category; 8.4% in no teamlet/team; 14.1% in no teamlet/no team. 15.7%, 47.4%, and 14.4% of physicians practiced in perceived high-, medium-, and low-collaboration teamlets. Physicians who practiced neither in a teamlet nor in a team had significantly lower rates of burnout compared to the three teamlet/team categories. There were no consistent, significant differences in outcomes or Medicare spending by teamlet/team or teamlet perceived-collaboration/team categories compared to no teamlet/no team, for Medicare beneficiaries in general or for dual-eligible beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Most general internists and family physicians practice in teamlets, and some practice in teams, but neither practicing in a teamlet, in a team, or in the two together was associated with lower physician burnout, better outcomes for patients, or lower Medicare spending. Further study is indicated to investigate whether certain types of teamlet, teams, or teamlets within teams can achieve higher performance.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of a Shared Panel Management Program for Small Practices.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a shared panel management program was effective at improving quality of care for patients with uncontrolled chronic disease. DATA SOURCES: Data were extracted from electronic health records. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial of a panel management program initiated by New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Patients from 20 practices with an uncontrolled chronic disease and a lapse in care were assigned to the intervention (a phone call requesting that the patient schedule a physician appointment) or usual care. Outcomes were visits to physician practices, body mass index measurement, blood pressure measurement and control, use of antithrombotics, and low-density lipoprotein measurement and control. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Panel managers were able to successfully speak with 1,676 patients (14.7 percent of the intervention group). There were no significant differences in outcomes between the intervention and usual care groups. Successfully contacted patients were more likely to have an office visit within 1 year of randomization (45.6 percent [95 percent CI: 22.8, 26.9] vs. 38.1 percent [95 percent CI: 36.8, 39.3]) and more likely to be on antithrombotics (24.4 percent [95 percent CI: 17.7, 31.0]) versus those in the usual care group (17.0 percent [95 percent CI: 13.9, 20.0]) but had no other difference in quality. CONCLUSIONS: A shared, low-intensity panel management program run by a city health department did not improve quality of care for patients with chronic illnesses and lapses in care.

Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups.

PURPOSE: In the turbulent US health care environment, many primary care physicians seek hospital employment. Large physician-owned primary care groups are an alternative, but few physicians or policy makers realize that such groups exist. We wanted to describe these groups, their advantages, and their challenges. METHODS: We identified 21 groups and studied 5 that varied in size and location. We conducted interviews with group leaders, surveyed randomly selected group physicians, and interviewed external observers-leaders of a health plan, hospital, and specialty medical group that shared patients with the group. We triangulated responses from group leaders, group physicians, and external observers to identify key themes. RESULTS: The groups' physicians work in small practices, with the group providing economies of scale necessary to develop laboratory and imaging services, health information technology, and quality improvement infrastructure. The groups differ in their size and the extent to which they engage in value-based contracting, though all are moving to increase the amount of financial risk they take for their quality and cost performance. Unlike hospital-employed and multispecialty groups, independent primary care groups can aim to reduce health care costs without conflicting incentives to fill hospital beds and keep specialist incomes high. Each group was positively regarded by external observers. The groups are under pressure, however, to sell to organizations that can provide capital for additional infrastructure to engage in value-based contracting, as well as provide substantial income to physicians from the sale. CONCLUSIONS: Large, independent primary care groups have the potential to make primary care attractive to physicians and to improve patient care by combining human scale advantages of physician autonomy and the small practice setting with resources that are important to succeed in value-based contracting.

Patient care outside of office visits: a primary care physician time study.

BACKGROUND: Patient care provided by primary care physicians outside of office visits is important for care coordination and may serve as a substitute for office visits. OBJECTIVES: To describe primary care physicians' ambulatory patient care activities outside of office visits ("AOVs") and their perceptions of the extent to which AOVs substitute for visits and may be performed by support staff. DESIGN: Cross-sectional direct observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three general internists in 20 practices in two health care systems (one public, one private) in the New York metropolitan area. MAIN MEASURES: Duration of AOVs by type of activity and whether they pertain to a patient visit on the study day (visit specific) or not (non-visit specific). Physician perceptions of the: (1) extent that non-visit-specific AOVs substitute for visits that would have otherwise occurred, (2) extent that visits that occurred could have been substituted for by AOVs, and (3) potential role of support staff in AOVs. KEY RESULTS: Physicians spent 20% of their workday performing AOVs, 62% of which was for non-visit specific AOVs. They perceived that a median of 37% of non-visit-specific AOV time substituted for visits, representing a potential five visits saved per day. They also perceived that 15% of total AOV time (excluding charting) could be performed by support staff. Forty-two percent of physicians indicated that one or more visits during the study day could be substituted for by AOVs. CONCLUSIONS: Though time spent on AOVs is generally not reimbursed, primary care general internists spent significant time performing AOVs, much of which they perceived to substitute for visits that would otherwise have occurred. Policies supporting physician and staff time spent on AOVs may reduce health care costs, save time for patients and physicians, and improve care coordination.