Impact of team-based community healthcare on preventable hospitalisation: a population-based cohort study in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore the impact of Taiwan's Family Practice Integrated Care Project (FPICP) on hospitalisation. DESIGN: A population-based cohort study compared the hospitalisation rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) among FPICP participating and non-participating patients during 2011-2015. SETTING: The study accessed the FPICP reimbursement database of Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) administration containing all NHI administration-selected patients for FPICP enrolment. PARTICIPANTS: The NHI administration-selected candidates from 2011 to 2015 became FPICP participants if their primary care physicians joined the project, otherwise they became non-participants. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention of interest was enrolment in the FPICP or not. The follow-up time interval for calculating the rate of hospitalisation was the year in which the patient was selected for FPICP enrolment or not. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The study's primary outcome measures were hospitalisation rates for ACSC, including asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes or its complications and heart failure. Logistic regression was used to calculate the ORs concerning the influence of FPICP participation on the rate of hospitalisation for ACSC. RESULTS: The enrolled population for data analysis was between 3.94 and 5.34 million from 2011 to 2015. Compared to non-participants, FPICP participants had lower hospitalisation for COPD/asthma (28.6‰-35.9‰ vs 37.9‰-42.3‰) and for diabetes or its complications (10.8‰-14.9‰ vs 12.7‰-18.1‰) but not for congestive heart failure. After adjusting for age, sex and level of comorbidities by logistic regression, participation in the FPICP was associated with lower hospitalisation for COPD/asthma (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94 in 2015) and for diabetes or its complications (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92 in 2015). CONCLUSION: Participation in the FPICP is an independent protective factor for preventable ACSC hospitalisation. Team-based community healthcare programs such as the FPICP can strengthen primary healthcare capacity.

Team-based care improves quality of diabetes care -Family Practice Integrated Care Project in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: The Family Practice Integrated Care Project (FPICP) is a team-based program in Taiwan initiated in 2003. This study investigates the influence of FPICP on the quality of diabetes care. METHODS: This population-based cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration data on FPICP (fiscal year 2015-2016, with follow-up duration of one year). Participants included diabetic patients aged ≥30 in primary care clinics. We used conditional logistic regression modeling of patient characteristics and annual diabetes examinations and compared FPICP participants with non-participating candidates. Main outcome measures included completion of annual diabetes examinations, including glycated hemoglobin (A1c), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), urine microalbumin (MAU), routine urinalysis (UR), and fundus examination (FE). RESULTS: The sample included 298,208 FPICP participants and 478,778 non-participating candidates. After 1:1 propensity score matching, the examination completion rates for FPICP participants and non-participants, respectively, were 94.4% versus 93.6% in A1c, 84.2% versus 83.8% in LDL, 61.9% versus 60.1% in MAU, 59.2% versus 58.0% in UR, and 30.1% versus 32.4% in FE. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that a program like FPICP helps improve the quality of diabetes care through regular examinations of Alc, LDL, MAU, and UR.

Awareness of, attitude toward, and willingness to participate in pay for performance programs among family physicians: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Insurance Administration of Taiwan has introduced several pay-for-performance programs to improve the quality of healthcare. This study aimed to provide government with evidence-based research findings to help primary care physicians to actively engage in pay-for-performance programs. METHODS: We conducted a questionnaire survey among family physicians with age-stratified sampling from September 2016 to December 2017. The structured questionnaire consisted of items including the basic demographics of the surveyee and their awareness of and attitudes toward the strengths and/or weaknesses of the pay-for-performance programs, as well as their subjective norms, and the willingness to participate in the pay-for-performance programs. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to compare the differences between family physicians who participate in the pay-for-performance programs versus those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 543 family physicians completed the questionnaire. Among family physicians who participated in the pay-for-performance programs, more had joined the Family Practice Integrated Care Project [Odds ratio (OR): 2.70; 95% Confidence interval (CI): 1.78 ~ 4.09], had a greater awareness of pay-for-performance programs (OR: 2.37; 95% CI: 1.50 ~ 3.83), and a less negative attitude to pay-for-performance programs (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.31 ~ 0.80) after adjusting for age and gender. The major reasons for family physicians who decided to join the pay-for-performance programs included believing the programs help enhance the quality of healthcare (80.8%) and recognizing the benefit of saving health expenditure (63.4%). The causes of unwillingness to join in a pay-for-performance program among non-participants were increased load of administrative works (79.6%) and inadequate understanding of the contents of the pay-for-performance programs (62.9%). CONCLUSIONS: To better motivate family physicians into P4P participation, hosting effective training programs, developing a more transparent formula for assessing financial risk, providing sufficient budget for healthcare quality improvement, and designing a reasonable profit-sharing plan to promote collaboration between different levels of medical institutions are all imperative.

Family physician system in Taiwan.

Following economic development and increasing healthcare demand, Taiwan has not only built a universal healthcare coverage payment system in 1995, but has also developed an accountable family physician system, called the Family Practice Integrated Care Project (FPICP), to deal with the pressures of an ageing society, since 2003. The community healthcare group-based family physician system is not only an important milestone for the development of family medicine in Taiwan but may also even serve as a global example for future family doctor systems. In this review, we aim to review the development of family medicine in Taiwan, the implementation and achievement of the FPICP, as well as the future prospects of system-based healthcare system. We firmly believe that only when the family physician system is well developed and put into practice with person-centered, family as a care unit, and community-oriented holistic care, can the objective of "everyone has their own family doctor" and sustainable operation of National Health Insurance be achieved.