BACKGROUND: Physician compensation incentives may have positive or negative effects on clinical quality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between various physician compensation incentives on technical indicators of primary care quality. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, nationally representative retrospective analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Visits by adults to primary care physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012-2016. We analyzed 49,580 sampled visits, representing 1.45 billion primary care visits. MAIN MEASURES:We assessed the association between 5 compensation incentivesquality measure performance, patient experience scores, individual productivity, practice financial performance, or practice efficiencyand 10 high-value and 7 low-value care measures as well as high-value and low-value care composites. KEY RESULTS: Quality measure performance was an incentive in 22% of visits; patient experience scores, 17%; individual productivity, 57%; practice financial performance, 63%; and practice efficiency, 12%. In adjusted models, none of the compensation incentives were consistently associated with individual high-and low-value measures. None of the compensation incentives were associated with high-or low-value care composites. For example, quality measure performance compensation was not significantly associated with high-value care (visits with quality incentive, 47% of eligible measures met; without quality incentive, 43%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.15) or low-value care (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19). Physician compensation incentives that might be expected to increase low-value care did not: patient experience (aOR for low-value care composite, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05), individual productivity (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), and practice financial performance (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.36). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective, cross-sectional, nationally representative analysis of care in the United States, physician compensation incentives were not generally associated with more or less high-or low-value care.
Background Physicians’ interest in the health and well-being of their patients is a tenet of medical practice. Physicians’ ability to act upon this interest by caring for and about their patients is central to high-quality clinical medicine and may affect burnout. To date, a strong theoretical and empirical understanding of physician caring does not exist. To establish a practical, evidence-based approach to improve health care delivery and potentially address physician burnout, we sought to identify and synthesize existing conceptual models, frameworks, and definitions of physician caring. Methods We performed a scoping review on physician caring. In November 2019 and September 2020, we searched PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials to identify conceptual models, frameworks, and definitions of physician caring. Eligible articles involved discussion or study of care or caring among medical practitioners. We created a content summary and performed thematic analysis of extracted data. Results Of 11,776 articles, we reviewed the full text of 297 articles; 61 articles met inclusion criteria. Commonly identified concepts referenced Peabody’s “secret of care” and the ethics of care. In bioethics, caring is described as a virtue. Contradictions exist among concepts of caring, such as whether caring is an attitude, emotion, or behavior, and the role of relationship development. Thematic analysis of all concepts and definitions identified six aspects of physician caring: (1) relational aspects, (2) technical aspects, (3) physician attitudes and characteristics, (4) agency, (5) reciprocity, and (6) physician self-care. Discussion Caring is instrumental to clinical medicine. However, scientific understanding of what constitutes caring from physicians is limited by contradictions across concepts. A unifying concept of physician caring does not yet exist. This review proposes six aspects of physician caring which can be used to develop evidence-based approaches to improve health care delivery and potentially mitigate physician burnout. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07382-4.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.