Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 1109–1115

Improving Clinical Access and Continuity through Physician Panel Redesign

  • Hari Balasubramanian
  • Ritesh Banerjee
  • Brian Denton
  • James Naessens
  • James Stahl
Original Research



Population growth, an aging population and the increasing prevalence of chronic disease are projected to increase demand for primary care services in the United States.


Using systems engineering methods, to re-design physician patient panels targeting optimal access and continuity of care.


We use computer simulation methods to design physician panels and model a practice’s appointment system and capacity to provide clinical service. Baseline data were derived from a primary care group practice of 39 physicians with over 20,000 patients at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, for the years 2004–2006. Panel design specifically took into account panel size and case mix (based on age and gender).


The primary outcome measures were patient waiting time and patient/clinician continuity. Continuity is defined as the inverse of the proportion of times patients are redirected to see a provider other than their primary care physician (PCP).


The optimized panel design decreases waiting time by 44% and increases continuity by 40% over baseline. The new panel design provides shorter waiting time and higher continuity over a wide range of practice panel sizes.


Redesigning primary care physician panels can improve access to and continuity of care for patients.


primary care access continuity of care systems engineering 


  1. 1.
    Colwill JM, Cultice, Kruse RL. Will generalist physician supply meet demands of an increasing and aging population? Health Aff. 2008;27(3):232–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodenheimer T. Primary care—will it survive? N Engl J Med. 2006;355(9):861–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Available at: (accessed May 19, 2010).
  4. 4.
    Strunk, B, Cunningham, P. Treading Water: Americans’ Access to Needed Medical Care, 1997–2001, Washington DC, Center for Studying Health Systems Change, March 2002, (accessed May 19, 2010)
  5. 5.
    Becker M, Drachman R, Kirscht J. Continuity of pediatrician: new support for an old shibboleth. J Pediatr. 1974;84:599–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christakis DA, Mell L, Wright JA, et al. The association between greater continuity of care and timely measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:962–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gill J, Mainous A. The role of provider continuity in preventing hospitalizations. Arch Fam Med. 2000;7:352–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gill J, Mainous A, Nsereko M. The effect of continuity of care on emergency department use. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:333–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Hare CD, Corlett J. The outcomes of open-access scheduling. Fam Pract Manage. 2004;11(2):35–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Uden CJT, Zwietering PJ, Hobma SO, et al. Follow-up care by patient's own general practitioner after contact with out-of-hours care. A descriptive study. BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6(23):1–10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murray, M., and Tantau, C. Same-day appointments: Exploding the access paradigm, Family Practice Management, 1999, (accessed May 19, 2010)
  12. 12.
    Murray M, Berwick DM. Advanced access: reducing waiting and delays in primary care. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(8):1035–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green LV, Savin S, Murray M. Providing timely access to care: what is the right patient panel size? Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007;33(4):211–18.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murray, M., Davies, M., and Boushon, B. Panel size: How many patients can one doctor manage? Family Practice Management, 2007, (accessed May 19, 2010)
  15. 15.
    O’Hare CD, Corlett J. The outcomes of open-access scheduling. Fam Pract Manage. 2004;11(2):35–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murray M, Bodenheimer T, Rittenhouse D, Grumbach K. Improving timely access to primary care: case studies of the advanced access model. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(3):1042–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Belardi F, Weir S, Craig F. A controlled trial of an advanced access appointment system in a residency family medicine center. Fam Med. 2004;36(5):341–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salisbury C, Montgomery A, Simons L, et al. Impact of Advanced Access on access, workload, and continuity: controlled before-and-after and simulated-patient study. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(541):608–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mehrotra A, Keehl-Markowitz A, Ayanian J. Implementing open-access scheduling of visits in primary care practices: a cautionary tale. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:915–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray M, Bodenheimer T, Rittenhouse D, Grumbach K. Improving timely access to primary care: case studies of the advanced access model. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;289(3):1042–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phan K, Brown S. Decreased continuity in a residency clinic: a consequence of open-access scheduling. Fam Med. 2009;41(1):46–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mainous A III, Salisbury C. Advanced access, open access, and continuity of care: should we enforce continuity? Fam Med. 2009;41(1):57–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Birge JR, Louveaux F. Introduction to Stochastic Programming. New York: Springer; 1997.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olsen RA, et al. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group; 1984.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott J, Conner D, Venohr I, et al. Effectiveness of a group outpatient visit model for chronically ill older health maintenance organization members. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:1463–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Edward GM, Das SF, Elkhuizen SG, Bakker PJ, Hontelez JA, Hollmann MW, et al. Simulation to analyse planning difficulties at the preoperative assessment clinic. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:195–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dexter F. Design of appointment systems for preanesthesia evaluation clinics to minimize patient waiting times: a review of computer simulation and patient survey studies. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:925–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aharonson-Daniel L, Paul RJ, Hedley AJ. Management of queues in out-patient departments: the use of computer simulation. J Manag Med. 1996;10:50–8, 3.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clague JE, Reed PG, Barlow J, Rada R, Clarke M, Edwards RH. Improving outpatient clinic efficiency using computer simulation. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 1997;10:197–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elkhuizen SG, Das SF, Bakker PJ, Hontelez JA. Using computer simulation to reduce access time for outpatient departments. Qual Saf Health Care. 2007;16:382–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stahl JE, Roberts MS, Gazelle S. Optimizing management and financial performance of the teaching ambulatory care clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:266–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hashimoto F, Bell S. Improving outpatient clinic staffing and scheduling with computer simulation. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11:182–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pope C, Banks J, Salisbury C, Lattimer V. Improving access to primary care: eight case studies of introducing advanced access in England. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(1):33–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rohrer JE, Bernard M, Naessens J, Furst J, Kircher K, Adamson S. Impact of open access scheduling on realized access. Health Serv Manage Res. 2007;20:134–9 [PMID: 17524225].CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hari Balasubramanian
    • 1
  • Ritesh Banerjee
    • 2
    • 5
  • Brian Denton
    • 3
  • James Naessens
    • 2
  • James Stahl
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences ResearchMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  4. 4.Department of Medicine, MGH Institute for Technology AssessmentMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  5. 5.Analysis Group, Inc.BostonUSA

Personalised recommendations