Cargando…
Comparison of Ambulatory Quality Measures Between Shared Practice Panels and Independent Practice Panels
OBJECTIVE: To assess for differences in patient care outcomes in the primary care setting for patients assigned to an independent practice panel (IPP) or a shared practice panel (SPP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of patients of 2 Mayo Clinic family...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10300043/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37388418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.05.005 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To assess for differences in patient care outcomes in the primary care setting for patients assigned to an independent practice panel (IPP) or a shared practice panel (SPP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of patients of 2 Mayo Clinic family medicine primary care clinics from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Patients were assigned to either an IPP (physician or advanced practice provider [APP]) or an SPP (physician and ≥1 APP). We assessed 6 measures of quality care and compared them between IPP and SPP groups: diabetes optimal care, hypertension control, depression remission at 6 months, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and colon cancer screening. RESULTS: The study included 114,438 patients assigned to 140 family medicine panels during the study period: 87 IPPs and 53 SPPs. The IPP clinicians showed improved quality metrics compared with the SPP clinicians for the percentage of assigned patients achieving depression remission (16.6% vs 11.1%; P<.01). The SPP clinicians showed improved quality metrics compared with that of the IPP clinicians for the percentage of patients with cervical cancer screening (79.1% vs 74.2%; P<.01). The mean percentage of the panels achieving optimal diabetes control, hypertension control, colon cancer screening, and breast cancer screening were not significantly different between IPP and SPP panels. CONCLUSION: This study shows a considerable improvement in depression remission among IPP panels and in cervical cancer screening rates among SPP panels. This information may help to inform primary care team configuration. |
---|