Abstract
Background
Studies find that primary care physician (PCP) visit continuity is positively associated with care quality. Some of the evidence base, however, relies on patient-reported continuity measures, which may be subject to response bias.
Objective
To assess the concordance of patient-reported and administratively derived visit continuity measures.
Design
Random samples of patients (n = 15,126) visiting 1 of 145 PCPs from a physician organization in Massachusetts were surveyed. Respondents reported their experienced visit continuity over the preceding 6 months. Usual Provider Continuity (UPC), an administratively derived measure, was calculated for each respondent. The concordance of patient reports and UPC was examined. Associations with patient-reported physician-patient interaction quality were assessed for both measures.
Results
Patient-reported and administratively derived visit continuity measures were moderately correlated for overall (r = 0.30) and urgent (r = 0.30) measures and modestly correlated for the routine (r = 0.17) measure. Although patient reports and UPC were significantly associated with the physician-patient interaction quality (p < 0.001), the effect size for patient-reports was approximately five times larger than the effect size for UPC.
Conclusions
Studies and quality initiatives seeking to evaluate visit continuity should rely on administratively derived measures whenever possible. Patient-reported measures appear to be subject to biases that can overestimate the relationship between visit continuity and some patient-reported outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Pereira AG, Pearson SD. Patient attitudes toward continuity of care. Arch. Intern. Med. 2003;163(8):909–12.
Mainous AG, III, Goodwin MA, Stange KC. Patient-physician shared experiences and value patients place on continuity of care. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):452–4.
Nutting PA, Goodwin MA, Flocke SA, Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC. Continuity of primary care: to whom does it matter and when? Ann Fam Med. 2003;1(3):149–55.
Blankfield RP, Kelly RB, Alemagno SA, King CM. Continuity of care in a family practice residency program. Impact on physician satisfaction. J Fam Pract. 1990;31(1):69–73.
Stokes T, Tarrant C, Mainous AG, III, Schers H, Freeman G, Baker R. Continuity of care: is the personal doctor still important? A survey of general practitioners and family physicians in England and Wales, the United States, and The Netherlands. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(4):353–9.
Saultz JW, Albedaiwi W. Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):445–51.
Rodriguez HP, Rogers WH, Marshall RE, Safran DG. The effects of primary care physician visit continuity on patients’ experiences with care. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(6):787–93.
Rodriguez HP, Rogers WH, Marshall RE, Safran DG. Multidisciplinary primary care teams: effects on the quality of clinician-patient interactions and organizational features of care. Med Care. 2007;45(1):19–27.
Safran DG, Montgomery JE, Chang H, Murphy J, Rogers WH. Switching doctors: predictors of voluntary disenrollment from a primary physician’s practice. J Fam Pract. 2001;50(2):130–6.
Sorbero ME, Dick AW, Zwanziger J, Mukamel D, Weyl N. The effect of capitation on switching primary care physicians. Health Serv Res. 2003;381 Pt 1191–209.
Gill JM, Mainous AG, III,. The role of provider continuity in preventing hospitalizations. Arch Fam Med. 1998;7(4):352–7.
Gill JM, Mainous AG, III, Nsereko, M. The effect of continuity of care on emergency department use. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(4):333–8.
Saultz JW. Defining and measuring interpersonal continuity of care. Ann Fam Med. 2003;1(3):134–43.
Love MM, Mainous AG, III, Talbert JC, Hager GL. Continuity of care and the physician-patient relationship: the importance of continuity for adult patients with asthma. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(11):998–1004.
Fan VS, Burman M, McDonell MB,Fihn SD. Continuity of care and other determinants of patient satisfaction with primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(3):226–33.
Rodriguez HP, Marsden PV, Landon BE, Wilson IB, Cleary PD. The Effect of Care Team Composition on the Quality of HIV Care. Med Care Res Rev. 2008;65(1):88–113.
Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q. 1996;74(4):511–44.
Safran DG, Karp M, Coltin K, Chang H, Li A, Ogren J, et al. Measuring patients’ experiences with individual primary care physicians. Results of a statewide demonstration project. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(1):13–21.
Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (2006) American Institutes for Research, Harvard Medical School, Rand Corporation. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Survey: Submission to National Quality Forum.
Jee SH, Cabana MD. Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):158–88.
Breslau N, Reeb KG. Continuity of care in a university-based practice. J Med Educ. 1975;50(10):965–9.
Magill MK, Senf J. A new method for measuring continuity of care in family practice residencies. J Fam Pract. 1987;24(2):165–8.
Sudman S, Bradburn, NM. Effects of Time and Memory Factors on Response in Surveys. J Am Stat Assoc. 1973;68(344):805–15.
Druss BG, Marcus SC, Olfson M, Tanielian T, Pincus HA. Trends in care by nonphysician clinicians in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(2):130–7.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to Jo-Anne Foley and to David Atwood and his staff at DataStat for their expertise in the sampling and data collection activities that supported this work. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insights that strengthened the paper.
Conflict of Interest
None disclosed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodriguez, H.P., Marshall, R.E., Rogers, W.H. et al. Primary Care Physician Visit Continuity: A Comparison of Patient-reported and Administratively Derived Measures. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 1499–1502 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0692-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0692-z