Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients’ survey data for general practices and individual doctors

Objectives To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice. Design Analysis of postal survey of patients’ experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. Setting Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey. Participants 7721 of 15 172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013. Main outcome measure Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models. Results After control for differences in patients’ age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores. Conclusions Aggregating patients’ ratings of doctors’ communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to “screen” for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

[1]  P. Streets,et al.  Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board , 2009 .

[2]  A. Jha,et al.  Patients' perception of hospital care in the United States. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  J. Gurwitz,et al.  A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys. , 2002, Health services research.

[4]  Georgios Lyratzopoulos,et al.  Should measures of patient experience in primary care be adjusted for case mix? Evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey , 2012, BMJ quality & safety.

[5]  M. Roland,et al.  GPAQ-R: development and psychometric properties of a version of the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire for use for revalidation by general practitioners in the UK , 2013, BMC Family Practice.

[6]  J. Billeter The NHS Outcomes Framework 2013/14 , 2013 .

[7]  Donald M. Berwick,et al.  Connections Between Quality Measurement and Improvement , 2003, Medical care.

[8]  E. Örücü What to Compare , 2004 .

[9]  Steven M Downing,et al.  Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data , 2004, Medical education.

[10]  A. Zaslavsky,et al.  Attributing Sources of Variation in Patients’ Experiences of Ambulatory Care , 2009, Medical care.

[11]  John L. Campbell,et al.  Multisource Feedback in Evaluating the Performance of Doctors: The Example of the UK General Medical Council Patient and Colleague Questionnaires , 2012, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[12]  C. Salisbury,et al.  Patients’ experience and satisfaction in primary care: secondary analysis using multilevel modelling , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: The Evidence That Publishing Patient Care Performance Data Improves Quality of Care , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  J. Denis,et al.  The Multiple Causal Pathways Between Performance Measures’ Use and Effects , 2014, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[15]  P. Spreeuwenberg,et al.  Patient satisfaction with the general practitioner: a two-level analysis. , 1998, Medical care.

[16]  Georgios Lyratzopoulos,et al.  Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey , 2015, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[17]  G. Robinson That BLUP is a Good Thing: The Estimation of Random Effects , 1991 .

[18]  Hong Chang,et al.  Measuring patients’ experiences with individual primary care physicians , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[19]  Jocelyn Lockyer,et al.  Multisource feedback in the assessment of physician competencies. , 2003, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[20]  Steven C Martino,et al.  Reporting CAHPS and HEDIS data by race/ethnicity for Medicare beneficiaries. , 2013, Health Services Research.

[21]  Marie-Dominique Beaulieu,et al.  Practice Features Associated With Patient-Reported Accessibility, Continuity, and Coordination of Primary Health Care , 2008, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[22]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2006 .

[23]  C. Oliver Developing and maintaining an assessment system: A PMETB guide to good practice , 2007 .

[24]  M. Elliott,et al.  Understanding ethnic and other socio-demographic differences in patient experience of primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey , 2011, BMJ quality & safety.

[25]  G. Freeman,et al.  Developing a 'consultation quality index' (CQI) for use in general practice. , 2000, Family practice.

[26]  D. Bates,et al.  Patient-centred healthcare, social media and the internet: the perfect storm? , 2013, BMJ quality & safety.

[27]  Marc N. Elliott,et al.  How can Health Care Organizations be Reliably Compared?: Lessons From a National Survey of Patient Experience , 2011, Medical care.