Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleMethodology

Relationship Quality and Patient-Assessed Quality of Care in VA Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of the Work Relationships Scale

Erin P. Finley, Jacqueline A. Pugh, Holly Jordan Lanham, Luci K. Leykum, John Cornell, Poornachand Veerapaneni and Michael L. Parchman
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2013, 11 (6) 543-549; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1554
Erin P. Finley
1South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
2Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: finleye@uthscsa.edu
Jacqueline A. Pugh
1South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
2Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Holly Jordan Lanham
1South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
2Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
3McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
4Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luci K. Leykum
1South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
2Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Cornell
5Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Poornachand Veerapaneni
4Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael L. Parchman
6MacColl Center for Health Care Innovation, Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Person-item map for 15-item Work Relationships Scale.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Final Item-Fit Statistics for the Work Relationships Scale

    Itemχ2dfP ValueOut-fit Mean SquareIn-fit Mean Square
    1. This clinic encourages nursing staff (ie, RN, LVN, MA, CMA) input for making changes.459.6353<.0011.301.02
    2. Most people in this clinic are willing to change how they do things in response to feedback from others.351.9353.5070.991.03
    3. Most people in this clinic actively seek new ways to improve how we do things.335.3353.7430.950.97
    4. Most people in this clinic are comfortable voicing their opinion even though it may be unpopular.487.4353<.0011.381.33
    5. Most people in this clinic pay attention to how their actions affect others in the clinic.376.5353.1861.061.10
    6. After making a change, we usually discuss what worked and what didn’t.268.7353>.9990.760.76
    7. Most people in this clinic get together to talk about their work.339.8353.6840.960.96
    8. This clinic values people who have different points of view.327.7353.8290.930.83
    9. Difficult problems in this clinic are usually solved through face-to-face discussion.303.7353.9730.860.79
    10. We regularly take time to consider ways to improve how we do things.367.8353.2831.040.84
    11. When there is a conflict in this clinic, the people involved are encouraged to talk about it.249.0353>.9990.700.71
    12. Most people in this clinic understand how their job fits into the rest of the clinic.451.9353<.0011.281.34
    13. This clinic usually encourages everybody’s input for making changes.250.7353>.9990.710.67
    14. My opinion is valued by others in this clinic.271.3353>.9990.770.84
    15. The leadership in this clinic usually makes sure that we have the time and space necessary to discuss changes to improve care.409.1353.0211.161.02
    • CMA = certified medical assistant; LVN = licensed vocational nurse; MA = medical assistant; RN = registered nurse.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Work Relationships Scale Scores by Clinic

    ClinicNo.aMean Score (SD)bRange
    1c4139.2 (11.0)19.0–58.0
    2c4441.7 (10.0)15.0–58.0
    3c2043.6 (12.4)19.0–61.0
    41344.3 (10.8)29.0–60.0
    51945.4 (11.7)28.0–71.0
    61946.2 (11.1)21.0–62.5
    74146.4 (12.1)20.0–75.0
    81048.7(11.6)31.0–66.0
    93250.8 (7.6)34.0–72.0
    105850.9 (11.6)18.0–75.0
    113251.3 (12.16)20.0–75.0
    122051.5 (10.0)28.5–65.0
    133651.9 (9.7)32.0–72.0
    141153.4 (11.6)27.0–72.0
    15c2557.1 (7.5)38.0–72.0
    16c1557.5 (4.2)51.0–68.0
    17c960.1 (6.09)48.0–67.0
    • ↵a Number of respondents from each clinic.

    • ↵b Scored on a range from 15 to 90, with higher scores indicating higher quality relastionships.

    • ↵c Selected as representing high-scoring and low-scoring clinics.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Survey of Health Care Experiences of Patients Variable Data for Participating Clinics, FY2010–2011, and Mean Work Relationships Scale Scores by Clinic

    VariableOverall Rating of Health Care, r2Overall Rating of Doctor/Nurse, r2Getting Care Quickly, r2Clinician Wait Time, r2Mean Clinic WRS, r2
    Overall rating of health care1.000.81a0.280.55b0.50b
    Overall rating of personal doctor/nurse…1.000.71a0.450.53b
    Getting care quickly……1.000.240.19
    Clinician wait time………1.000.08
    • SHEP = Survey of Health Care Experiences of Patients; WRS = Work Relationships Scale.

    • Note: Data are based on information for 17 clinics, with the exception of the variable getting care quickly (n=15), for which 2 clinics were missing from the FY2010–2011 SHEP data set.

    • ↵a P <.01, based on Spearman rank-order correlations.

    • ↵b P <.05, based on Spearman rank-order correlations.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Quotes Related to Lanham et al’s Relationship Characteristics in Clinics with High and Low WRS Scores

    Rich communication
    Communication through face-to-face conversation; most effective when messages are unclear or ambiguous
    Low WRS score clinics“I think that some days we should just sit down and say, ‘Okay, this is what’s going on. What do you know—how do you perceive this is supposed to be done?’ …[S]ometimes the hurdles that we run into are just, they could have been easily avoided if there had been a little bit better communication.”
    High WRS score clinics“Well, you know we have what’s called huddle every morning and any problems from the day before are discussed in huddle with all the team members and the clerical staff, social workers, the pharmacist. So we all get to know anything that’s going on at that time.”
    Heedful interrelating
    Individuals are attentive to their work tasks and sensitive to how their roles and actions affect and intersect with those around them
    Low WRS score clinics“…[T]here’s a whole lot of tension and a lot of it has to do with, ‘That ain’t my job and you’re messing in my area and you don’t belong in my area and you need to back out and just stay in your own business.’”
    High WRS score clinics“I think the teamwork here is just excellent. You know we really pitch in and try and help. Everyone’s attitude basically is that if one person’s working hard, we’re all working hard.”
    Trust
    Individuals feel safe in making themselves vulnerable to others
    Low WRS score clinics“Some people are probably not going to verbalize a lot, because they’re afraid it might get back to their boss or… because they don’t want to rock the boat.”
    High WRS score clinics“So, I have learned so much about medicine itself from these people; they’re wonderful…I’m not afraid to approach them for whatever the patient needs, because the goal is to provide the best and safest patient care.”
    Respectful interaction
    Honest, appreciative, and self-confident interaction between individuals
    Low WRS score clinics“That’s one of the things that kind of has me down on the clinic, just lack of communication, for coordination, lack of respect in my opinion, professionalism, and so, and your opinion about things, how things should run.”
    High WRS score clinics“The camaraderie among the team members, among the teams, among the different disciplines, that we work so cohesively together. So, ideal.”
    Mindfulness
    Demonstrating openness to diverse ideas and perspectives
    Low WRS score clinics“…I don’t even make suggestions anymore. I mean, you get tired after a while. I mean, you know, you really want to make a difference, but it doesn’t go anywhere and people get tired and frustrated….”
    High WRS score clinics“We have a really great chain of command that empowers us to make decisions and then also when we have problems to voice those concerns and tell them what our hurdles are and so they can help us on their end or help us with ideas about how to overcome the hurdles that we’re encountering.”
    • WRS=Work Relationships Scale.

    • Note: Relationship characteristics from Lanham HJ, McDaniel RR Jr, Crabtree BF, et al.7

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendix, Figure, & Table

    Supplemental Appendix. Sample Questions From Semistructured Clinic Member Interviews; Supplemental Figure. Person-Item map for original 19-item Work Relationship Scale; Supplemental Table. Initial Item-Fit Statistics for the Work Relationship Scale (WRS) (n = 457)

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendix - PDF file, 1 page, 79 KB
    • Supplemental data: Figure - PDF file, 1 page, 984 KB
    • Supplemental data: Table - PDF file, 2 pages, 131KB
  • The Article in Brief

    Relationship Quality and Patient-Assessed Quality of Care in VA Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of the Work Relationships Scale

    Erin P. Finley , and colleagues

    Background High-quality relationships among clinicians and staff is an essential component of improving delivery of primary care. This study set out to develop and validate a scale to assess staff and clinician relationships in primary care settings.

    What This Study Found A 15-item Work Relationships Scale (WRS) was developed. The WRS has excellent internal reliability and identified significant variation in relationship quality across participating practices. Practices with lower WRS scores received poorer patient quality ratings for both individual clinicians and overall healthcare.

    Implications

    • This is one of the first studies to demonstrate that relationships within a care organization affect patient satisfaction.
    • Relationships between primary care staff and clinicians appear to have a significant impact on patient perceptions of care and should be assessed in efforts to improve health care delivery.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 11 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 11 (6)
Vol. 11, Issue 6
November/December 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Relationship Quality and Patient-Assessed Quality of Care in VA Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of the Work Relationships Scale
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 12 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Relationship Quality and Patient-Assessed Quality of Care in VA Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of the Work Relationships Scale
Erin P. Finley, Jacqueline A. Pugh, Holly Jordan Lanham, Luci K. Leykum, John Cornell, Poornachand Veerapaneni, Michael L. Parchman
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2013, 11 (6) 543-549; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1554

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Relationship Quality and Patient-Assessed Quality of Care in VA Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of the Work Relationships Scale
Erin P. Finley, Jacqueline A. Pugh, Holly Jordan Lanham, Luci K. Leykum, John Cornell, Poornachand Veerapaneni, Michael L. Parchman
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2013, 11 (6) 543-549; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1554
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Protocol for a mixed methods study of hospital readmissions: sensemaking in Veterans Health Administration healthcare system in the USA
  • Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Results in Health Science Mixed Methods Research Through Joint Displays
  • Effects of Primary Care Team Social Networks on Quality of Care and Costs for Patients With Cardiovascular Disease
  • In This Issue: Working in Community and Improving Health Care Quality
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services
  • Designing and Implementing an Electronic Health Record–Embedded Card Study in Primary Care: Methods and Considerations
  • Considerations Before Selecting a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design for a Practice Improvement Study
Show more Methodology

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Mixed methods
  • Other research types:
    • Professional practice
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Relationship
  • Other topics:
    • Organizational / practice change
    • Communication / decision making

Keywords

  • relationships
  • primary care
  • quality of care
  • patient satisfaction
  • Veteran’s Administration

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine