Alek Sripipatana

Temporal and subjective work demands in office-based patient care: an exploration of the dimensions of physician work intensity.

Background:Physician work intensity (WI) during office-based patient care affects quality of care and patient safety as well as physician job-satisfaction and reimbursement. Existing, brief work intensity measures have been used in physician studies, but their validity in clinical settings has not been established. Objectives:Document and describe subjective and temporal WI dimensions for physicians in office-based clinical settings. Examine these in relation to the measurement procedures and dimensions of the SWAT and NASA-TLX intensity measures. Design:A focused ethnographic study using interviews and direct observations. Participants:Five family physicians, 5 general internists, 5 neurologists, and 4 surgeons. Methods:Through interviews, each physician was asked to describe low and high intensity work responsibilities, patients, and events. To document time and task allotments, physicians were observed during a routine workday. Notes and transcripts were analyzed using the editing method in which categories are obtained from the data. Results:WI factors identified by physicians matched dimensions assessed by standard, generic instruments of work intensity. Physicians also reported WI factors outside of the direct patient encounter. Across specialties, physician time spent in direct contact with patients averaged 61% for office-based services. Conclusions:Brief work intensity measures such as the SWAT and NASA-TLX can be used to assess WI in the office-based clinical setting. However, because these measures define the physician work “task” in terms of effort in the presence of the patient (ie, intraservice time), substantial physician effort dedicated to pre- and postservice activities is not captured.BACKGROUND Asian Americans (AA) have the lowest rates of cancer screening of all ethnic groups. Reasons for these low rates of screening frequently include low acculturation levels. However, screening rates remain low for most AA populations despite differences in acculturation levels, suggesting presence of other important modifiers such as access barriers. OBJECTIVES To compare the relative impact of access versus acculturation on breast and cervical cancer screening for AA subgroups. RESEARCH DESIGN Multiple regressions models, controlling for sociodemographics, were developed for each AA subgroup. SUBJECTS Women ages 18 and older from the 2003 California Health Interview Survey were included in this study. We included women with Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, and Vietnamese origins. MEASURES The dependent variables included clinical breast examination in the past year, mammogram in the past 2 years, and Pap test in the past 3 years. Independent variables included AA subgroup, access indicators, acculturation indicators, and other sociodemographics. RESULTS Access explained more variation that acculturation alone in cancer screening for most AA women. The exceptions were in mammograms for Japanese, Koreans and South Asians and Pap test among Japanese. No insurance reduced the likelihood of clinical breast examination for immigrant Chinese and Filipinos, and no usual source of care reduced likelihood of Pap test for Japanese and South Asians compared with US born. CONCLUSIONS Access indicators represent the ability to navigate the US health care system but have a differential impact on AA groups. These differences should be integrated into interventions designed to improve cancer screening rates.

Reducing Disparities in Access to Primary Care and Patient Satisfaction with Care: The Role of Health Centers

This paper examined disparities in access to and satisfaction with primary care among patients of different racial/ethnic groups and insurance coverage, in health centers and the nation overall. Data came from the 2009 Health Center Patient Survey and 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Study outcomes included usual source of care, type of usual source of care, satisfaction with provider office hours, and satisfaction with overall care. Health center patients were more racially and ethnically diverse than national patients, and health center patients were more likely than national patients to be uninsured or publicly insured. No significant health care disparities in access to care existed among patients from different racial/ethnic and insurance groups among health centers, unlike low-income patients nationwide or the U.S. population in general. Additional focus on the uninsured, in health centers and other health care settings nationwide, is needed to enhance satisfaction with care among these patients.

Patient-centered Medical Home Capability and Clinical Performance in HRSA-supported Health Centers

Objectives:To evaluate the relationship between Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) model adoption in health centers (HCs) and clinical performance measures and to determine if adoption of PCMH characteristics is associated with better clinical performance. Research Design:Data came from the Health Resources and Services Administration’s 2009 Uniform Data System and the 2009 Commonwealth Fund National Survey of Federally Qualified Health Centers. Clinical performance measures included 2 process measures (childhood immunization and cervical cancer screening) and 2 outcome measures (hypertension control and diabetes control). Total and subscale PCMH scores were regressed on the clinical performance measures, adjusting for patient, provider, financial, and institutional characteristics. Results:The findings showed different directional relationships, with some PCMH domains (care management, test/referral tracking, quality improvement, and external coordination) showing little or no effect on outcome measures of interest, 1 domain (access/communication) associated with improved outcomes, and 1 domain (patient tracking/registry) associated with worse outcomes. Conclusions:This study is among the first to examine the association between PCMH transformation and clinical performance in HCs, providing an understanding of the impact of PCMH adoption within safety-net settings. The mixed results highlight the importance of examining relationships between specific PCMH domains and specific clinical quality measures, in addition to analyzing overall PCMH scores which could yield distorted findings.

Effects of patient-centered medical home attributes on patients' perceptions of quality in federally supported health centers.

PURPOSE We sought to assess patients’ ratings of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) attributes and overall quality of care within federally supported health centers. METHODS Data were collected through the 2009 Health Center Patient Survey (n = 4,562), which consisted of in-person interviews and included a nationally representative sample of patients seen in health centers. Quality measures included patients’ perceptions of overall quality of services, perceptions of quality of clinician advice/treatment, and likelihood of referring friends and relatives to the health center. PCMH attributes included (1) access to care getting to health center, (2) access to care during visit, (3) patient-centered communication with health care clinicians, (4) patient-centered communication with support staff, (5) self-management support for chronic conditions, (6) self-management support for behavioral risks, and (7) comprehensive preventive care. Bivariate analysis and logistic regressions were used to examine associations between patients’ perceptions of PCMH attributes and patient-reported quality of care. RESULTS Eighty-four percent of patients reported excellent/very good overall quality of services, 81% reported excellent/very good quality of clinician care, and 84% were very likely to refer friends and relatives. Higher patient ratings on the access to care and patient-centered communication attributes were associated with higher odds of patient-reported high quality of care on the 3 outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS More than 80% of patients perceived high quality of care in health centers. PCMH attributes related to access to care and communication were associated with greater likelihood of patients reporting high-quality care.

Overweight/obesity and weight-related treatment among patients in U.S. federally supported health centers

BACKGROUND We obtained the prevalence of overweight/obesity, weight-loss attempts, and weight-related counseling and treatment among U.S. adults who sought care in federally funded community health centers. We investigated whether racial/ethnic and gender disparities existed for these measures. METHODS Data came from the 2009 Health Center Patient Survey. Measures included body mass index (BMI), self-perceived weight, weight-loss attempts, being told of a weight problem, receipt of weight-related counseling, nutritionist referrals, weight-loss prescriptions, and cholesterol checks. We conducted bivariate analyses to determine distributions by race/ethnicity and gender, then ran logistic regressions to examine the effects of several sociodemographic factors on weight-loss attempts and on being told of a weight problem. RESULTS Overall, 76% of adult patients seen in health centers were overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 25.0 kg/m(2)); 55% of overweight patients, and 87% of obese patients correctly perceived themselves as overweight. There were no racial/ethnic differences in BMI categories or self-perceptions of weight. Females were more likely than males to be obese and also more likely to perceive themselves as overweight. About 60% of overweight/obese patients reported trying to lose weight in the past year. There were no racial/ethnic disparities favoring non-Hispanic White patients in weight-related treatment. Women were more likely than men to receive referrals to a nutritionist or weight-loss prescriptions. Overweight/obese patients had higher adjusted odds of a past-year weight-loss attempt if they perceived themselves as overweight (OR = 3.30, p < 0.0001), were female (OR = 1.95, p < 0.05), African American (OR = 3.34, p < 0.05), or Hispanic/Latino (OR = 2.14, p < 0.05). Overweight/obese patients had higher odds of being told they had a weight problem if they were Hispanic/Latino (OR = 2.56, p < 0.05) or if they had two or more chronic conditions (OR = 2.77, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Patients seen in community health centers have high rates of overweight and obesity, even higher than the general U.S. population. Efforts to address weight problems during primary care visits are needed to reduce the burden of obesity and its sequellae among health center patients.

Access to Mental Health Services Among Patients at Health Centers and Factors Associated with Unmet Needs

Cross-sectional 2009 Health Center Patient Survey data describe the mental health status of health center patients, utilization of mental health services, and factors associated with unmet need for mental health treatment. One in five health center patients accessed mental health services in the past year, and over half of the patients who received counseling received this treatment at a health center. Patients who were unable to access mental health care cited affordability as a concern. Unmet need for mental health treatment was reported by one in three patients. Multivariate analysis found that the odds of reporting unmet need were higher for patients who lacked a usual source of care and patients with serious mental illness.

Primary Care and Public Health Activities in Select US Health Centers: Documenting Successes, Barriers, and Lessons Learned

OBJECTIVES We examined primary care and public health activities among federally funded health centers, to better understand their successes, the barriers encountered, and the lessons learned. METHODS We used qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data from 9 health centers, stratified by administrative division, urban-rural location, and race/ethnicity of patients served. Descriptive data on patient and institutional characteristics came from the Uniform Data System, which collects data from all health centers annually. We administered questionnaires and conducted phone interviews with key informants. RESULTS Health centers performed well on primary care coordination and community orientation scales and reported conducting many essential public health activities. We identified specific needs for integrating primary care and public health: (1) more funding for collaborations and for addressing the social determinants of health, (2) strong leadership to champion collaborations, (3) trust building among partners, with shared missions and clear expectations of responsibilities, and (4) alignment and standardization of data collection, analysis, and exchange. CONCLUSIONS Lessons learned from health centers should inform strategies to better integrate public health with primary care.

Racial/ethnic differences in clinical quality performance among health centers.

More than 1100 federally funded health centers provide primary and preventive care to about 20 million underserved patients in the United States. Since 2008, the Health Resources and Services Administration has implemented a clinical quality improvement initiative to measure and evaluate the quality of care across all health centers. We assessed racial/ethnic disparities in clinical quality among US health centers, and examined whether performance on quality measures varied across 3 health center characteristics. National data came from the 2009 Uniform Data System. We examined performance across 3 indicators of clinical quality: poorly controlled hypertension among adult patients, poorly controlled diabetes among adult patients, and low birth weight among newborns. We compared results for each measure across racial/ethnic groups, as well as across 3 health center characteristics: health center patient volume, duration of health center funding, and extent of managed care penetration. Non-Hispanic Asian patients had the best results among racial/ethnic groups for 2 of the 3 measures examined: lowest rates of poorly controlled diabetes (26%) and hypertension (34%). Hispanics/Latinos had similar rates of poor hypertension control compared with non-Hispanic whites (38% for both), and lower rates of low birth weight (8% vs 10%). Poor diabetes control was more prevalent among Hispanic/Latino patients than non-Hispanic white patients, but the absolute difference was small (5 percentage points). Non-Hispanic black/African American patients had statistically worse outcomes than non-Hispanic white patients, but the absolute differences were also small (2–6 percentage points, depending on outcome). Health centers with larger patient volume fared better than their counterparts with smaller volume for all racial/ethnic groups. For Hispanic/Latino patients, more established health centers compared favorably to new health centers for all 3 outcomes. Health centers with some managed care penetration did better for diabetes and hypertension control relative to health centers without managed care penetration. Compared with national rates, health centers report minimal racial/ethnic disparities in clinical outcomes. Health center characteristics are also associated with clinical outcomes. More research is needed to determine the nature of disparities after accounting for health center patient, provider, and institutional characteristics.

Primary care and public health activities in select U.S. health centers: documenting successes, barriers, and lessons learned.

PURPOSE The goal of the current study was to examine primary care and public health activities among federally funded health centers, to better understand their successes, barriers encountered, and lessons learned. METHODS Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect data from nine health centers, stratified by administrative division, urban-rural location, and race/ethnicity of patients served. Descriptive data on patient and institutional characteristics came from the Uniform Data System, which collects data from all health centers annually. Questionnaires were administered and phone interviews were conducted with key informants. RESULTS Health centers performed well on primary care coordination and community orientation scales and reported conducting many essential public health activities. Specific needs were identified for integrating primary care and public health: (1) more funding for collaborations and for addressing the social determinants of health, (2) strong leadership to champion collaborations, (3) trust-building among partners, with shared missions and clear expectations of responsibilities, and (4) alignment and standardization of data collection, analysis, and exchange. CONCLUSIONS Lessons learned from health centers should inform strategies to better integrate public health with primary care.

The Association of Patient-centered Medical Home Designation With Quality of Care of HRSA-funded Health Centers: A Longitudinal Analysis of 2012–2015

Objectives: (1) To evaluate the relationship between Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) recognition and quality of clinical care among health centers, and (2) to determine whether the duration of recognition is positively associated with cumulative quality improvement over time. Methods: Data came from the 2012 to 2015 Uniform Data System, health centers’ PCMH recognition status, and the Area Resource File. Health center was the unit of observation. The outcome variables included 11 measures of clinical quality. We pooled all years of data and modeled longitudinal data with generalized estimating equations to examine the degree of improvement in health care quality in health centers with and without PCMH recognition over the years 2012–2015. Results: Health centers with PCMH recognition generally performed better on clinical quality measures than health centers that did not have PCMH recognition for all years studied. After accounting for health center and county-level potential confounders, health centers with longer periods of PCMH recognition were more likely to have improved their clinical quality on 9 of 11 measures, than health centers with fewer years of PCMH recognition. Conclusions: Health centers’ length of time with PCMH recognition was positively associated with additive quality improvement. Adoption of the PCMH model of care may serve as a strategy to enhance quality of primary care services.