Panel Workload Assessment in US Primary Care: Accounting for Non–Face-to-Face Panel Management Activities

Purpose: An. understanding of primary care provider (PCP) workload is an important consideration in establishing optimal PCP panel size. However, no widely acceptable measure of PCP workload exists that incorporates the effort involved with both non–face-to-face patient care activities and face-to-face encounters. Accounting for this gap is critical given the increase in non–face-to-face PCP activities that has accompanied electronic health records (EHRs) (eg, electronic messaging). Our goal was to provide a comprehensive assessment of perceived PCP workload, accounting for aspects of both face-to-face and non–face-to-face encounters. Methods: Internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatric PCPs completed a self-administered survey about the perceived workload involved with face-to-face and non–face-to-face panel management activities as well as the perceived challenge associated with caring for patients with particular biomedical, demographic, and psychosocial characteristics (n = 185). Survey results were combined with EHR data at the individual patient and PCP service levels to assess PCP panel workload, accounting for face-to-face and non–face-to-face utilization. Results: Of the multiple face-to-face and non–face-to-face activities associated with routine primary care, PCPs considered hospital admissions, obstetric care, hospital discharges, and new patient preventive health visits to be greater workload than non–face-to-face activities such as telephone calls, electronic communication, generating letters, and medication refills. Total workload within PCP panels at the individual patient level varied by overall health status, and the total workload of non–face-to-face panel management activities associated with routine primary care was greater than the total workload associated with face-to-face encounters regardless of health status. Conclusions: We used PCP survey results coupled with EHR data to assess PCP workload associated with both face-to-face as well as non–face-to-face panel management activities in primary care. The non–face-to-face workload was an important contributor to overall PCP workload for all patients regardless of overall health status. This is an important consideration for PCP workload assessment given the changing nature of primary care that requires more non–face-to-face effort, resulting in an overall increase in PCP workload.

[1]  J. Szaflarski,et al.  Clinical Work Intensity Among Physician Specialties: How Might We Assess It?: What Do We Find? , 2011, Medical care.

[2]  E H Wagner,et al.  A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  Simone Dahrouge,et al.  Patient poverty and workload in primary care: study of prescription drug benefit recipients in community health centres. , 2013, Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien.

[4]  H. Luft,et al.  Standardizing primary care physician panels: is age and sex good enough? , 2012, The American journal of managed care.

[5]  C. Tse,et al.  The Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI) for measurement of severity and comorbidity. , 1993, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  A. Bindman,et al.  Medicare payment for chronic care delivered in a patient-centered medical home. , 2013, JAMA.

[7]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[8]  Amy K. Rosen,et al.  Applying a Risk-Adjustment Framework to Primary Care: Can We Improve on Existing Measures? , 2003, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[9]  Jiali Ye,et al.  E-mail in patient-provider communication: a systematic review. , 2010, Patient education and counseling.

[10]  Sati Mazumdar,et al.  Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: Application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale , 1992, Psychiatry Research.

[11]  W. E. Hammond,et al.  Characteristics of Adult Primary Care Patients as Predictors of Future Health Services Charges , 2001, Medical care.

[12]  Dimitrios Stefanidis,et al.  Higher Mental Workload is Associated With Poorer Laparoscopic Performance as Measured by the NASA-TLX Tool , 2010, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[13]  K Magruder-Habib,et al.  Associations among family support, family stress, and personal functional health status. , 1989, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  Carlos Roberto Jaén,et al.  A Method for Estimating Relative Complexity of Ambulatory Care , 2010, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[15]  C. Salisbury,et al.  Measures of Multimorbidity and Morbidity Burden for Use in Primary Care and Community Settings: A Systematic Review and Guide , 2012, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[16]  B. Linn,et al.  CUMULATIVE ILLNESS RATING SCALE , 1968, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[17]  A. Byrne,et al.  Novel method of measuring the mental workload of anaesthetists during clinical practice. , 2009, British journal of anaesthesia.

[18]  Gregory E. Simon,et al.  A Chronic Disease Score with Empirically Derived Weights , 1995, Medical care.

[19]  P. Hancock,et al.  Human Mental Workload , 1988 .

[20]  B Starfield,et al.  Ambulatory care groups: a categorization of diagnoses for research and management. , 1991, Health services research.

[21]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.