Charlotte Paddison

Better management of patients with multimorbidity

Martin Roland and Charlotte Paddison call for greater emphasis on continuity of care and clinical judgment to improve the experience of patients with multiple conditions

Understanding ethnic and other socio-demographic differences in patient experience of primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey

Background Ethnic minorities and some other patient groups consistently report lower scores on patient surveys, but the reasons for this are unclear. This study examined whether low scores of ethnic minority and other socio-demographic groups reflect their concentration in poorly performing primary care practices, and whether any remaining differences are consistent across practices. Methods Using data from the 2009 English General Practice Patient Survey (2u2008163u2008456 respondents from 8267 general practices) this study examined associations between patient socio-demographic characteristics and 11 measures of patient-reported experience. Findings South Asian and Chinese patients, younger patients, and those in poor health reported a less positive primary care experience than White patients, older patients and those in better health. For doctor communication, about half of the overall difference associated with South Asian patients (ranging from −6 to −9 percentage points) could be explained by their concentration in practices with low scores, but the other half arose because they reported less positive experiences than White patients in the same practices. Practices varied considerably in the direction and extent of ethnic differences. In some practices ethnic minority patients reported better experience than White patients. Differences associated with gender, Black ethnicity and deprivation were small and inconsistent. Conclusion Substantial ethnic differences in patient experience exist in a national healthcare system providing universal coverage. Improving the experience of patients in low-scoring practices would not only improve the quality of care provided to their White patients but it would also substantially reduce ethnic group differences in patient experience. There were large variations in the experiences reported by ethnic minority patients in different practices: practices with high patient experience scores from ethnic minority patients could be studied as models for quality improvement.

Should measures of patient experience in primary care be adjusted for case mix? Evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey

Objectives Uncertainties exist about when and how best to adjust performance measures for case mix. Our aims are to quantify the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level scores in a national survey of patient experience, to identify why and when it may be useful to adjust for case mix, and to discuss unresolved policy issues regarding the use of case-mix adjustment in performance measurement in health care. Design/setting Secondary analysis of the 2009 English General Practice Patient Survey. Responses from 2u2008163u2008456 patients registered with 8267 primary care practices. Linear mixed effects models were used with practice included as a random effect and five case-mix variables (gender, age, race/ethnicity, deprivation, and self-reported health) as fixed effects. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the impact of case-mix adjustment on practice-level means (adjusted minus unadjusted) and changes in practice percentile ranks for questions measuring patient experience in three domains of primary care: access; interpersonal care; anticipatory care planning, and overall satisfaction with primary care services. Results Depending on the survey measure selected, case-mix adjustment changed the rank of between 0.4% and 29.8% of practices by more than 10 percentile points. Adjusting for case-mix resulted in large increases in score for a small number of practices and small decreases in score for a larger number of practices. Practices with younger patients, more ethnic minority patients and patients living in more socio-economically deprived areas were more likely to gain from case-mix adjustment. Age and race/ethnicity were the most influential adjustors. Conclusions While its effect is modest for most practices, case-mix adjustment corrects significant underestimation of scores for a small proportion of practices serving vulnerable patients and may reduce the risk that providers would ‘cream-skim’ by not enrolling patients from vulnerable socio-demographic groups.

How can health care organizations be reliably compared?: Lessons from a national survey of patient experience.

BackgroundPatient experience is increasingly used to assess organizational performance, for example in public reporting or pay-for-performance schemes. Conventional approaches using 95% confidence intervals are commonly used to determine required survey samples or to report performance but these may result in unreliable organizational comparisons. MethodsWe analyzed data from 2.2 million patients who responded to the English 2009 General Practice Patient Survey, which included 45 patient experience questions nested within 6 different care domains (access, continuity of care, communication, anticipatory care planning, out-of-hours care, and overall care satisfaction). For each question, unadjusted and case-mix adjusted (for age, sex, and ethnicity) organization-level reliability, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated. ResultsMean responses per organization ranged from 23 to 256 for questions evaluating primary care practices, and from 1454 to 2758 for questions evaluating out-of-hours care organizations. Adjusted and unadjusted reliability values were similar. Twenty-six questions had excellent reliability (≥0.90). Seven nurse communication questions had very good reliability (≥0.85), but 3 anticipatory care planning questions had lower reliability (<0.70). Reliability was typically <0.70 for questions with <100 mean responses per practice, usually indicating questions which only a subset of patients were eligible to answer. Nine questions had both excellent reliability and high intraclass correlation coefficients (≥0.10) indicating both reliable measurement and substantial performance variability. ConclusionsHigh reliability is a necessary property of indicators used to compare health care organizations. Using the English General Practice Patient Survey as a case study, we show how reliability and intraclass correlation coefficients can be used to select measures to support robust organizational comparisons, and to design surveys that will both provide high-quality measurement and optimize survey costs.

Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey

To determine which aspects of primary care matter most to patients, we aim to identify those aspects of patient experience that show the strongest relationship with overall satisfaction and examine the extent to which these relationships vary by socio‐demographic and health characteristics.

Relationship Between Clinical Quality and Patient Experience: Analysis of Data From the English Quality and Outcomes Framework and the National GP Patient Survey

PURPOSE Clinical quality and patient experience are both widely used to evaluate the quality of health care, but the relationship between these 2 domains remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine this relationship using data from 2 established measures of quality in primary care in England. METHODS Practice-level analyses (N = 7,759 practices in England) were conducted on measures of patient experience from the national General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS), and measures of clinical quality from the national pay-for-performance scheme (Quality and Outcomes Framework). Spearman’s rank correlation and multiple linear regression were used on practice-level estimates. RESULTS Although all the correlations between clinical quality summary scores and patient survey scores are positive, and most are statistically significant, the strength of the associations was weak, with the highest correlation coefficient reaching 0.18, and more than one-half were 0.11 or less. Correlations with clinical quality were highest for patient-reported access scores (telephone access 0.16, availability of urgent appointments 0.15, ability to book ahead 0.18, ability to see preferred doctor 0.17) and overall satisfaction (0.15). CONCLUSION Although there are associations between clinical quality and measures of patient experience, the 2 domains of care quality remain predominantly distinct. The strongest correlations are observed between practice clinical quality and practice access, with very low correlations between clinical quality and interpersonal aspects of care. The quality of clinical care and the quality of interpersonal care should be considered separately to give an overall assessment of medical care.

Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial

Objective To assess whether receiving a negative test result at primary care based stepwise diabetes screening results in false reassurance. Design Parallel group cohort study embedded in a randomised controlled trial. Setting 15 practices (10 screening, 5 control) in the ADDITION (Cambridge) trial. Participants 5334 adults (aged 40-69) in the top quarter for risk of having undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (964 controls and 4370 screening attenders). Main outcome measures Perceived personal and comparative risk of diabetes, intentions for behavioural change, and self rated health measured after an initial random blood glucose test and at 3-6 and 12-15 months later (equivalent time points for controls). Results A linear mixed effects model with control for clustering by practice found no significant differences between controls and people who screened negative for diabetes in perceived personal risk, behavioural intentions, or self rated health after the first appointment or at 3-6 months or 12-15 months later. After the initial test, people who screened negative reported significantly (but slightly) lower perceived comparative risk (mean difference −0.16, 95% confidence interval −0.30 to −0.02; P=0.04) than the control group at the equivalent time point; no differences were evident at 3-6 and 12-15 months. Conclusions A negative test result at diabetes screening does not seem to promote false reassurance, whether this is expressed as lower perceived risk, lower intentions for health related behavioural change, or higher self rated health. Implementing a widespread programme of primary care based stepwise screening for type 2 diabetes is unlikely to cause an adverse shift in the population distribution of plasma glucose and cardiovascular risk resulting from an increase in unhealthy behaviours arising from false reassurance among people who screen negative. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN99175498.

Prevalence and benefits of care plans and care planning for people with long-term conditions in England

Objectives Among patients with long-term conditions, to determine the prevalence and benefits of care planning discussions and of care plans. Methods Data from the 2009/10 General Practice Patient Survey, a cross sectional survey of 5.5 million patients in England. Outcomes were patient reports of: care planning discussions; perceived benefit from care planning discussions and resultant care plans. Patient and practice variables were included in multilevel logistic regression to investigate predictors of each outcome. Results Half the respondents (49%) reported a long-term condition and were eligible to answer the care planning questions. Of these, 84% reported having a care planning discussion during the last 12 months and most reported some benefit. Only 12% who reported a care planning discussion also reported being told they had a care plan. Patients who reported having a care plan were more likely to report benefits from care planning discussions. Several factors predicted the reporting of care planning and care plans of which the most important was patients reports of the quality of interpersonal care. Conclusions There is a gap between policy and current practice which might reflect uncertainty as to the benefits of care plans. There is, therefore, a need for rigorous evaluation of care plans.

Impact of Community Based Peer Support in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial of Individual and/or Group Approaches

Background Diabetes peer support, where one person with diabetes helps guide and support others, has been proposed as a way to improve diabetes management. We have tested whether different diabetes peer support strategies can improve metabolic and/or psychological outcomes. Methods People with type 2 diabetes (n = 1,299) were invited to participate as either ‘peer’ or ‘peer support facilitator’ (PSF) in a 2x2 factorial randomised cluster controlled trial across rural communities (130 clusters) in England. Peer support was delivered over 8–12 months by trained PSFs, supported by monthly meetings with a diabetes educator. Primary end point was HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, diabetes distress, blood pressure, waist, total cholesterol and weight. Outcome assessors and investigators were masked to arm allocation. Main factors were 1:1 or group intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat adjusting for baseline. Results The 4 arms were well matched (Group n = 330, 1:1(individual) n = 325, combined n = 322, control n = 322); 1035 (79•7%) completed the mid-point postal questionnaire and 1064 (81•9%) had a final HbA1c. A limitation was that although 92.6% PSFs and peers were in telephone contact, only 61.4% of intervention participants attended a face to face session. Mean baseline HbA1c was 57 mmol/mol (7•4%), with no significant change across arms. Follow up systolic blood pressure was 2•3mm Hg (0.6 to 4.0) lower among those allocated group peer-support and 3•0mm Hg (1.1 to 5.0) lower if the group support was attended at least once. There was no impact on other outcomes by intention to treat or significant differences between arms in self-reported adherence or medication. Conclusions Group diabetes peer support over 8–12 months was associated with a small improvement in blood pressure but no other significant outcomes. Long term benefits should be investigated. Trial Registration ISRCTN.com ISRCTN6696362166963621

Experiences of Care Among Medicare Beneficiaries With ESRD: Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey Results

BACKGROUNDnPatients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have special health needs; little is known about their care experiences.nnnSTUDY DESIGNnSecondary analysis of 2009-2010 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) data, using representative random samples of Medicare beneficiaries. Description of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD and investigation of differences in patient experiences by sociodemographic characteristics and coverage type.nnnSETTING & PARTICIPANTSnData were collected from 823,564 Medicare beneficiaries (3,794 with ESRD) as part of the Medicare CAHPS survey, administered by mail with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents.nnnPREDICTORnESRD status, age, education, self-reported general and mental health status, race/ethnicity, sex, Medicare coverage type, state of residence, and other demographic measures.nnnOUTCOMESn6 composite measures of patient experience in 4 care domains (access to care, physician communication, customer service, and access to prescription drugs and drug information) and 4 ratings (overall care, personal physician, specialist physician, and prescription drug plan).nnnRESULTSnPatients with ESRD reported better care experiences than non-ESRD beneficiaries for 7 of 10 measures (P < 0.05) after adjustment for patient characteristics, geography, and coverage type, although to only a small extent (adjusted mean difference, <3 points [scale, 0-100]). Black patients with ESRD and less educated patients were more likely than other patients with ESRD to report poor experiences.nnnLIMITATIONSnInability to distinguish patient experiences of care for different treatment modalities.nnnCONCLUSIONSnOn average, beneficiaries with ESRD report patient experiences that are at least as positive as non-ESRD beneficiaries. However, black and less educated patients with ESRD reported worse experiences than other ESRD patients. Stratified reporting of patient experience by race/ethnicity or education in patients with ESRD can be used to monitor this disparity. Physician choice and confidence and trust in physicians may be particularly important for patients with ESRD.