Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 973–978 | Cite as

Is this “My’ patient? Development and validation of a predictive model to link patients to primary care providers

  • Steven J. Atlas
  • Yuchiao Chang
  • Thomas A. Lasko
  • Henry C. Chueh
  • Richard W. Grant
  • Michael J. Barry
Original Articles


BACKGROUND: Evaluating the quality of care provided by individual primary care physicians (PCPs) may be limited by failing to know which patients the PCP feels personally responsible for.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a model for linking patients to specific PCPs.

DESIGN: Retrospective convenience sample.

PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen PCPs from 10 practice sites within an academic adult primary care network.

MEASUREMENTS: Each PCP reviewed the records for all outpatients seen over the preceding 3 years (16,435 patients reviewed) and designated each patient as “My Patient” or “Not My Patient.” Using this reference standard, we developed an algorithm with logistic regression modeling to predict “My Patient” using development and validation subsets drawn from the same patient set. Quality of care was then assessed by “My Patient” or “Not My Patient” designation by analyzing cancer screening test rates.

RESULTS: Overall, PCPs designated 11,226 patients (68.3%, range per provider 15% to 93%) to be “My Patient.” The model accurately categorized patients in development and validation subsets (combined sensitivity 80.4%, specificity 93.7%, and positive predictive value 96.5%). To achieve positive predictive values of >90% for individual PCPs, the model excluded 19.6% of PCP “My Patients” (range 5.5% to 75.3%). Cancer screening rates were higher among model-predicted “My Patients.”

CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients seen were considered “Not My Patient” by the PCP, although this proportion varied widely. We developed and validated a simple model to link specific patients and PCPs. Such efforts may help effectively target interventions to improve primary care quality.

Key words

primary health care health services research quality of care patient roster provider denominator 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st-Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of medicine national roundtable on health care quality. JAMA. 1998;280:1000–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schuster MA, McGlynn EA, Brook RH. How good is the quality of health care in the United States? Milbank Q. 1998;76:517–63, 509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD. Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:966–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bass M. Approaches to the denominator problem in primary care research. J Fam Pract. 1976;3:193–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cherkin DC, Berg AO, Phillips WR. In search of a solution to the primary care denominator problem. J Fam Pract. 1982;14:301–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schlaud M, Brenner MH, Hoopmann M, Schwartz FW. Approaches to the denominator in practice-based epidemiology: a critical overview. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(suppl 1):13S-9S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lasko TA, Atlas SJ, Barry MJ, Chueh HC. Automated identification of a physician’s primary patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:74–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wennberg JE, Fisher ES, Stukel TA, Skinner JS, Sharp SM, Bronner KK. Use of hospitals, physician visits, and hospice care during last six months of life among cohorts loyal to highly respected hospitals in the United States. Br Med J. 2004;328:607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson JE, Gancher WA, Bell PW. Validation of the patient roster in a primary care practice. Health Serv Res. 1985;20:301–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blumenthal D, Epstein AM. Quality of health care. Part 6: the role of physicians in the future of quality management. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1328–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gray DP, Evans P, Sweeney K, et al. Towards a theory of continuity of care. J Roy Soc Med. 2003;96:160–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parkerton PH, Smith DG, Straley HL. Primary care practice coordination versus physician continuity. Fam Med. 2004;36:15–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofer TP, Hayward RA, Greenfield S, Wagner EH, Kaplan SH, Manning WG. The unreliability of individual physician “report cards” for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease. JAMA. 1999;281:2098–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Epstein AM. Health care in America—still too separate, not yet equal. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:603–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roberge D, Beaulieu MD, Haddad S, Lebeau R, Pineault R. Loyalty to the regular care provider: patients’ and physicians’ views. Fam Pract. 2001;18:53–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Maeseneer JM, De Prins L, Gosset C, Heyerick J. Provider continuity in family medicine: does it make a difference for total health care costs? Ann Fam Med. 2003;1:144–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wasson JH, Sauvigne AE, Mogielnicki RP, et al. Continuity of outpatient medical care in elderly men. A randomized trial. JAMA. 1984;252:2413–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven J. Atlas
    • 1
  • Yuchiao Chang
    • 1
  • Thomas A. Lasko
    • 2
  • Henry C. Chueh
    • 3
  • Richard W. Grant
    • 1
  • Michael J. Barry
    • 1
  1. 1.General Medicine Division, Medical Services, Massachusetts General HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA
  3. 3.Laboratory of Computer ScienceMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations