Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
63,734
result(s) for
"Group practice"
Sort by:
Architectural invention in Renaissance Rome : artists, humanists, and the planning of Raphael's Villa Madama
\"Humanist collaborators also contributed to the development of visual projects in many ways. That they served as advisors and propagandists is well known, but we have scant knowledge of exactly how they worked with artists, and especially with architects. How did their ideas make their way into form? The role of the humanist advisor has been studied primarily in respect to the representational media of painting and sculpture, focusing on so-called iconographic programs or inventions; but their role in architectural projects is much less understood\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Higher Health Care Quality And Bigger Savings Found At Large Multispecialty Medical Groups
The belief that integrated delivery systems offer better care at lower cost has contributed to growing interest in accountable care organizations. These provider-led delivery systems would accept responsibility for their primary care populations and would have financial incentives for improving care and reducing costs. We investigated this belief by comparing the costs and quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries in twenty-two health care markets by physicians who did and did not work within large multispecialty group practices affiliated with the Council of Accountable Physician Practices. In most markets, and after adjustment for patient factors, group physicians affiliated with the council provided higher-quality care at a 3.6 percent lower annual cost ($272 per patient). [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Journal Article
The Value Of Electronic Health Records In Solo Or Small Group Practices
We conducted case studies of fourteen solo or small-group primary care practices using electronic health record (EHR) software from two vendors. Initial EHR costs averaged$44,000 per full-time-equivalent (FTE) provider, and ongoing costs averaged $ 8,500 per provider per year. The average practice paid for its EHR costs in 2.5 years and profited handsomely after that; however, some practices could not cover costs quickly, most providers spent more time at work initially, and some practices experienced substantial financial risks. Policies should be designed to provide incentives and support services to help practices improve the quality of their care by using EHRs. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Journal Article
Electronic Communication Improves Access, But Barriers To Its Widespread Adoption Remain
Because electronic communication is quick, convenient, and inexpensive for most patients, care that is truly patient centered should promote the use of such communication between patients and providers, even using it as a substitute for office visits when clinically appropriate. Despite the potential benefits of electronic communication, fewer than 7 percent of providers used it in 2008. To learn from the experiences of providers that have widely incorporated electronic communication into patient care, we interviewed leaders of twenty-one medical groups that use it extensively with patients. We also interviewed staff in six of those groups. Electronic communication was widely perceived to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of communication that improves patient satisfaction and saves patients time but that increases the volume of physician work unless office visits are reduced. Practice redesign and new payment methods are likely necessary for electronic communication to be more widely used in patient care. Adapted from the source document.
Journal Article
Physician Groups’ Use of Data from Patient Experience Surveys
Background
In Massachusetts, physician groups’ performance on validated surveys of patient experience has been publicly reported since 2006. Groups also receive detailed reports of their own performance, but little is known about how physician groups have responded to these reports.
Objective
To examine whether and how physician groups are using patient experience data to improve patient care.
Design and Participants
During 2008, we conducted semi-structured interviews with the leaders of 72 participating physician groups (out of 117 groups receiving patient experience reports). Based on leaders’ responses, we identified three levels of engagement with patient experience reporting: no efforts to improve (level 1), efforts to improve only the performance of low-scoring physicians or practice sites (level 2), and efforts to improve group-wide performance (level 3).
Main Measures
Groups’ level of engagement and specific efforts to improve patient care.
Key Results
Forty-four group leaders (61%) reported group-wide improvement efforts (level 3), 16 (22%) reported efforts to improve only the performance of low-scoring physicians or practice sites (level 2), and 12 (17%) reported no performance improvement efforts (level 1). Level 3 groups were more likely than others to have an integrated medical group organizational model (84% vs. 31% at level 2 and 33% at level 1; P < 0.005) and to employ the majority of their physicians (69% vs. 25% and 20%; P < 0.05). Among level 3 groups, the most common targets for improvement were access, communication with patients, and customer service. The most commonly reported improvement initiatives were changing office workflow, providing additional training for nonclinical staff, and adopting or enhancing an electronic health record.
Conclusions
Despite statewide public reporting, physician groups’ use of patient experience data varied widely. Integrated organizational models were associated with greater engagement, and efforts to enhance clinicians’ interpersonal skills were uncommon, with groups predominantly focusing on office workflow and support staff.
Journal Article
Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes
Background
In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care.
Methods
We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'.
Results
Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time ‘low risk’ mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care.
Conclusions
Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia.
Journal Article
The role of medical group practice administrators in the adoption and implementation of Medicare’s physician quality reporting system
Although there are numerous studies of the factors influencing the adoption of quality assurance (QA) programs by medical group practices, few have focused on the role of group practice administrators.
To gain insights into the role these administrators play in QA programs, we analyzed how medical practices adopted and implemented the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the largest physician quality reporting system in the United States.
We conducted focus group interviews in 2011 with a national convenience sample of 76 medical group practice administrators. Responses were organized and analyzed using the innovation decision framework of Van de Ven and colleagues.
Administrators conducted due diligence on PQRS, influenced how the issue was presented to physicians for adoption, and managed implementation thereafter. Administrators' recommendations were heavily influenced by practice characteristics, financial incentives, and practice commitments to early adoption of quality improvement innovations. Virtually, all who attempted it agreed that PQRS was straightforward to implement. However, the complexities of Medicare's PQRS reports impeded use of the data by administrators to support quality management.
Group practice administrators are playing a prominent role in activities related to the quality of patient care--they are not limited to the business side of the practice. Especially, as PQRS becomes more nearly universal after 2014, Medicare should take account of the role that administrators play, by more actively engaging administrators in shaping these programs and making it easier for administrators to use the results.
More research is needed on the rapidly evolving role of nonphysician administration in medical group practices. Practice administrators have a larger role than commonly understood in how quality reporting initiatives are adopted and used and are in an exceptional position to influence the more appropriate use of these resources if supported by more useful forms of quality reporting.
Journal Article
Practice characteristics and prior authorization costs: secondary analysis of data collected by SALT-Net in 9 central New York primary care practices
Background
An increase in prior authorization (PA) requirements from health insurance companies is placing administrative and financial burdens on primary care offices across the United States. As time allocation for these cases continues to grow, physicians are concerned with additional workload and inefficiency in the workplace. The objective is to estimate the effects of practice characteristics on time spent per prior authorization request in primary care practices.
Methods
Secondary analysis was performed using data on nine primary care practices in Central New York. Practice characteristics and demographics were collected at the onset of the study. In addition, participants were instructed to complete an \"event form\" (EF) to document each prior authorization event during a 4–6 week period; prior authorizations included requests for medication as well as other health care services. Stepwise Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression was used to model Time in Minutes of each event as an outcome of various factors.
Results
Prior authorization events (N = 435) took roughly 20 minutes to complete (beta = 20.017, p < .001); Medicaid requests took less time (beta = −6.085, p < .001), and Electronic Health Record (EHR) system use reduced prior authorization time by about 5 minutes (beta = −5.086, p = .002).
Conclusions
While prior authorization events impose substantial costs to primary care offices, it appears that Medicaid requests take less time than private payer requests. Results from the study provide support that Electronic Health Record usage may also reduce time required to complete prior authorization requests.
Journal Article
Group Visits: Promoting Adherence to Diabetes Guidelines
Current diabetes management guidelines offer blueprints for providers, yet type 2 diabetes control is often poor in disadvantaged populations. The group visit is a new treatment modality originating in managed care for efficient service delivery to patients with chronic health problems. Group visits offer promise for delivering care to diabetic patients, as visits are lengthier and can be more frequent, more organized, and more educational.
To evaluate the effect of group visits on clinical outcomes, concordance with 10 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines [American Diabetes Association, Diabetes Care, 28:S4-36, 2004] and 3 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cancer screens [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/resource.htm, 2003].
A 12-month randomized controlled trial of 186 diabetic patients comparing care in group visits with care in the traditional patient-physician dyad. Clinical outcomes (HbA1c, blood pressure [BP], lipid profiles) were assessed at 6 and 12 months and quality of care measures (adherence to 10 ADA guidelines and 3 USPSTF cancer screens) at 12 months.
At both measurement points, HbA1c, BP, and lipid levels did not differ significantly for patients attending group visits versus those in usual care. At 12 months, however, patients receiving care in group visits exhibited greater concordance with ADA process-of-care indicators (p < .0001) and higher screening rates for cancers of the breast (80 vs. 68%, p = .006) and cervix (80 vs 68%, p = .019).
Group visits can improve the quality of care for diabetic patients, but modifications to the content and style of group visits may be necessary to achieve improved clinical outcomes.
Journal Article
Public Reporting Helped Drive Quality Improvement In Outpatient Diabetes Care Among Wisconsin Physician Groups
Public reporting on the quality of ambulatory health care is growing, but knowledge of how physician groups respond to such reporting has not kept pace. We examined responses to public reporting on the quality of diabetes care in 409 primary care clinics within seventeen large, multispecialty physician groups. We determined that a focus on publicly reported metrics, along with participation in large or externally sponsored projects, increased a clinic's implementation of diabetes improvement interventions. Clinics were also more likely to implement interventions in more recent years. Public reporting helped drive both early implementation of a single intervention and ongoing implementation of multiple simultaneous interventions. To fully engage physician groups, accountability metrics should be structured to capture incremental improvements in quality, thereby rewarding both early and ongoing improvement activities.
Journal Article