Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Relationship Between Measured Performance and Satisfaction with Care Among Clinically Complex Patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Recent work has shown that clinically complex patients are more likely to receive recommended care, but it is unknown whether higher achievement on individual performance goals results in improved care for complex patients or detracts from other important but unmeasured aspects of care, resulting in unmet needs and lower satisfaction with care.

Objective

To examine the relationship between measured performance and satisfaction with care among clinically complex patients

Design and Participants

An observational analysis of a national sample of 35,927 veterans included in the External Peer Review Program in fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Measurements

First, compliance with individual performance measures (breast cancer screening with mammography, colorectal cancer screening, influenza vaccination, pneumococcal vaccination, lipid monitoring, use of ACE inhibitor in heart failure, and diabetic eye examination), as well as overall receipt of recommended care, was estimated as a function of each patient’s clinical complexity. Second, global satisfaction with care was estimated as a function of clinical complexity and compliance with performance measures.

Main Results

Higher clinical complexity was predictive of slightly higher overall performance (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.18) and higher performance on most individual performance measures, an effect that was mediated by increased visit frequency. High measured performance was associated with higher satisfaction with care among patients with high clinical complexity. In fact, as complexity increased, the effect of achieving high performance on the odds of being satisfied with care also increased

Conclusions

Not only was measured performance higher in clinically complex patients, but satisfaction with care was also higher among clinically complex patients with high measured performance, suggesting that compliance with performance measures in clinically complex patients does not crowd out unmeasured care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berwick DM, James B, Coye MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care. 2003;41:I-30–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Werner RM, Asch DA. Clinical concerns about clinical performance measurement. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:159–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA. 2005;293:1239–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Casalino LP. The unintended consequences of measuring quality on the quality of medical care. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1147–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294:716–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr., Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2870–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Min LC, Wenger NS, Fung C, et al. Multimorbidity is associated with better quality of care among vulnerable elders. Med Care. 2007;45:480–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Higashi T, Wenger NS, Adams JL, et al. Relationship between Number of Medical Conditions and Quality of Care. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2496–504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kizer KW. The “new VA”: a national laboratory for health care quality management. Am J Med Qual. 1999;14:3–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kizer KW, Demakis JG, Feussner JR. Reinventing VA health care: systematizing quality improvement and quality innovation. Med Care. 2000;38:I-7–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jha AK, Perlin JB, Kizer KW, Dudley RA. Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs health care system on the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2218–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Doebbeling BN, Vaughn TE, Woolson RF, et al. Benchmarking Veterans Affairs Medical Centers in the delivery of preventive health services: comparison of methods. Med Care. 2002;40:540–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wright SM, Craig T, Campbell S, Schaefer J, Humble C. Patient satisfaction of female and male users of Veterans Health Administration services. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:S26–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Physician Quality Reporting Initiative. 2007; Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/pqri/. Accessed June 11, 2008.

  15. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. HEDIS & Quality Measurement. 2006; Available at: http://web.ncqa.org/tabid/59/Default.aspx. Accessed 6/11/2008.

  16. Jencks SF, Cuerdon T, Burwen DR, et al. Quality of medical care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries: a profile at state and national levels. JAMA. 2000;284:1670–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Min LC, Reuben DB, MacLean CH, et al. Predictors of overall quality of care provided to vulnerable older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:1705–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellis RP, Pope GC, Iezzoni LI, et al. Diagnosis-based risk adjustment for Medicare capitation payments. Health Care Financ Rev. 1996;17:101–28.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. DxCG. DxCG RiskSmart Stand Alone V2.1.1 User Guide. Boston, MA 2006.

  20. Rosen AK, Loveland S, Anderson JJ, et al. Evaluating diagnosis-based case-mix measures: how well do they apply to the VA population? Med Care. 2001;39:692–704.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Petersen LA, Pietz K, Woodard LD, Byrne M. Comparison of the predictive validity of diagnosis-based risk adjusters for clinical outcomes. Med Care. 2005;43:61–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Werner RM, Greenfield S, Fung C, Turner BJ. Measuring quality of care in patients with multiple clinical conditions: summary of a conference conducted by the Society of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1206–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Weeks WB, Bott DM, Bazos DA, et al. Veterans Health Administration patients’ use of the private sector for coronary revascularization in New York: opportunities to improve outcomes by directing care to high-performance hospitals. Med Care. 2006;44:519–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. Am Med Assoc. 1998;280:1690–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Anderson G, Horvarth J. Chronic Conditions: Making the Case for Ongoing Care. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Breen A, Breen R. Back pain and satisfaction with chiropractic treatment: what role does the physical outcome play? Clin J Pain. 2003;19:263–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Edlund MJ, Young AS, Kung FY, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB. Does satisfaction reflect the technical quality of mental health care? Health Serv Res. 2003;38:631–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gross R, Tabenkin H, Porath A, et al. The relationship between primary care physicians’ adherence to guidelines for the treatment of diabetes and patient satisfaction: findings from a pilot study. Fam Pract. 2003;20:563–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Orlando M, Meredith LS. Understanding the causal relationship between patient-reported interpersonal and technical quality of care for depression. Med Care. 2002;40:696–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Meredith LS, Orlando M, Humphrey N, Camp P, Sherbourne CD. Are better ratings of the patient-provider relationship associated with higher quality care for depression? Med Care. 2001;39:349–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Druss BG, Rosenheck RA, Stolar M. Patient satisfaction and administrative measures as indicators of the quality of mental health care. Psychiatr Serv. 1999;50:1053–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry. 1988;25:25–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, et al. Patients’ global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:665–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:609–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK, Szalay D. Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med. 1998;73:993–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Cohen DS, Colliver JA, Marcy MS, Fried ED, Swartz MH. Psychometric properties of a standardized-patient checklist and rating-scale form used to assess interpersonal and communication skills. Acad Med. 1996;71:S87–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hays RD, Shaul JA, Williams VS, et al. Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. Med Care. 1999;37:22–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Shea JA, Guerra CE, Ravenell KL, McDonald VJ, Henry CA, Asch DA. Health literacy weakly but consistently predicts primary care patient dissatisfaction. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:45–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mah JK, Tough S, Fung T, Douglas-England K, Verhoef M. Parents’ global rating of mental health correlates with SF-36 scores and health services satisfaction. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:1395–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weech-Maldonado R, Morales LS, Elliott M, Spritzer K, Marshall G, Hays RD. Race/ethnicity, language, and patients’ assessments of care in Medicaid managed care. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:789–808.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Shea JA, Guerra CE, Weiner J, Aguirre AC, Ravenell KL, Asch DA. Adapting a patient satisfaction instrument for low literate and Spanish-speaking populations: Comparison of three formats. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;in press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Anne Canamucio, M.S., for her excellent assistance with data analyses, and Judy Shea, PhD, for her comments on this manuscript.

Funding for the study was provided by the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA and by the Atlantic Philanthropies, SGIM/ACGIM, the John A. Hartford Foundation, and ASP. Rachel Werner is supported in part by a VA HSR&D Career Development Award. Virginia Chang is supported in part by grant K12-HD043459 from the NIH/NICHD.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel M. Werner MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Werner, R.M., Chang, V.W. The Relationship Between Measured Performance and Satisfaction with Care Among Clinically Complex Patients. J GEN INTERN MED 23, 1729–1735 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0734-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0734-6

KEY WORDS

Navigation