Do primary care patient experiences vary by teaching versus nonteaching facility?

Diana N. Carvajal, Arthur E. Blank, Claudia Lechuga, Clyde B. Schechter, Melissa D. McKee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Patient experiences are important components of the patient-centered medical home. Competing demands of primary care and resident education contribute to inefficiencies at teaching sites, which may contribute to poor patient experiences. Educational commitments of residencies may also produce positive experiences. The objective of this study was to compare patient experiences in teaching versus nonteaching sites. Methods: Patients across 6 primary care sites (3 teaching and 3 nonteaching) completed surveys. Patient experiences assessed using (1) Consumer Assessment of Health care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) across 3 domains: access to care, communication, clerk/receptionist courtesy (scores range from 1 [worst] to 6 [best]) and (2) Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care, measuring chronic care experiences (scores range from 1 [worst] to 5 [best]). Results: Approximately 70% of participants were female and >40% were Latino. The adjusted mean score for patient-reported access at teaching sites was 4.35; at nonteaching sites it was 5.14 (P = .01). The total mean score for chronic disease was 4.02 for teaching sites and 3.79 for nonteaching sites (P = .01). Four of the 5 Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care subscale scores were better at teaching sites. Conclusions: Worse access scores among teaching sites may reflect the complexities of residencies. Better chronic care scores are encouraging and potentially indicate focused training. Residencies might continue chronic disease training while considering efforts to improve access.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)239-248
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Volume27
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2014

Fingerprint

Primary Health Care
Teaching
Chronic Disease
Internship and Residency
Patient-Centered Care
Hispanic Americans
Health Personnel
Communication
Delivery of Health Care
Education

Keywords

  • Health services research
  • Medical home
  • Medical residency
  • Patient satisfaction
  • Patient-Centered care
  • Quality of health care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Family Practice

Cite this

Do primary care patient experiences vary by teaching versus nonteaching facility? / Carvajal, Diana N.; Blank, Arthur E.; Lechuga, Claudia; Schechter, Clyde B.; McKee, Melissa D.

In: Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Vol. 27, No. 2, 03.2014, p. 239-248.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{75c1ed9588a445258f9a2084b492e5f9,
title = "Do primary care patient experiences vary by teaching versus nonteaching facility?",
abstract = "Background: Patient experiences are important components of the patient-centered medical home. Competing demands of primary care and resident education contribute to inefficiencies at teaching sites, which may contribute to poor patient experiences. Educational commitments of residencies may also produce positive experiences. The objective of this study was to compare patient experiences in teaching versus nonteaching sites. Methods: Patients across 6 primary care sites (3 teaching and 3 nonteaching) completed surveys. Patient experiences assessed using (1) Consumer Assessment of Health care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) across 3 domains: access to care, communication, clerk/receptionist courtesy (scores range from 1 [worst] to 6 [best]) and (2) Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care, measuring chronic care experiences (scores range from 1 [worst] to 5 [best]). Results: Approximately 70{\%} of participants were female and >40{\%} were Latino. The adjusted mean score for patient-reported access at teaching sites was 4.35; at nonteaching sites it was 5.14 (P = .01). The total mean score for chronic disease was 4.02 for teaching sites and 3.79 for nonteaching sites (P = .01). Four of the 5 Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care subscale scores were better at teaching sites. Conclusions: Worse access scores among teaching sites may reflect the complexities of residencies. Better chronic care scores are encouraging and potentially indicate focused training. Residencies might continue chronic disease training while considering efforts to improve access.",
keywords = "Health services research, Medical home, Medical residency, Patient satisfaction, Patient-Centered care, Quality of health care",
author = "Carvajal, {Diana N.} and Blank, {Arthur E.} and Claudia Lechuga and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and McKee, {Melissa D.}",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
doi = "10.3122/jabfm.2014.02.130222",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "239--248",
journal = "Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine",
issn = "1557-2625",
publisher = "American Board of Family Medicine",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do primary care patient experiences vary by teaching versus nonteaching facility?

AU - Carvajal, Diana N.

AU - Blank, Arthur E.

AU - Lechuga, Claudia

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - McKee, Melissa D.

PY - 2014/3

Y1 - 2014/3

N2 - Background: Patient experiences are important components of the patient-centered medical home. Competing demands of primary care and resident education contribute to inefficiencies at teaching sites, which may contribute to poor patient experiences. Educational commitments of residencies may also produce positive experiences. The objective of this study was to compare patient experiences in teaching versus nonteaching sites. Methods: Patients across 6 primary care sites (3 teaching and 3 nonteaching) completed surveys. Patient experiences assessed using (1) Consumer Assessment of Health care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) across 3 domains: access to care, communication, clerk/receptionist courtesy (scores range from 1 [worst] to 6 [best]) and (2) Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care, measuring chronic care experiences (scores range from 1 [worst] to 5 [best]). Results: Approximately 70% of participants were female and >40% were Latino. The adjusted mean score for patient-reported access at teaching sites was 4.35; at nonteaching sites it was 5.14 (P = .01). The total mean score for chronic disease was 4.02 for teaching sites and 3.79 for nonteaching sites (P = .01). Four of the 5 Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care subscale scores were better at teaching sites. Conclusions: Worse access scores among teaching sites may reflect the complexities of residencies. Better chronic care scores are encouraging and potentially indicate focused training. Residencies might continue chronic disease training while considering efforts to improve access.

AB - Background: Patient experiences are important components of the patient-centered medical home. Competing demands of primary care and resident education contribute to inefficiencies at teaching sites, which may contribute to poor patient experiences. Educational commitments of residencies may also produce positive experiences. The objective of this study was to compare patient experiences in teaching versus nonteaching sites. Methods: Patients across 6 primary care sites (3 teaching and 3 nonteaching) completed surveys. Patient experiences assessed using (1) Consumer Assessment of Health care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) across 3 domains: access to care, communication, clerk/receptionist courtesy (scores range from 1 [worst] to 6 [best]) and (2) Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care, measuring chronic care experiences (scores range from 1 [worst] to 5 [best]). Results: Approximately 70% of participants were female and >40% were Latino. The adjusted mean score for patient-reported access at teaching sites was 4.35; at nonteaching sites it was 5.14 (P = .01). The total mean score for chronic disease was 4.02 for teaching sites and 3.79 for nonteaching sites (P = .01). Four of the 5 Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care subscale scores were better at teaching sites. Conclusions: Worse access scores among teaching sites may reflect the complexities of residencies. Better chronic care scores are encouraging and potentially indicate focused training. Residencies might continue chronic disease training while considering efforts to improve access.

KW - Health services research

KW - Medical home

KW - Medical residency

KW - Patient satisfaction

KW - Patient-Centered care

KW - Quality of health care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896782583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896782583&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3122/jabfm.2014.02.130222

DO - 10.3122/jabfm.2014.02.130222

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 239

EP - 248

JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

SN - 1557-2625

IS - 2

ER -