Collecting Practice-level Data in a Changing Physician Office-based Ambulatory Care Environment: A Pilot Study Examining the Physician induction interview Component of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Meghan C Halley, Katharine A Rendle, Brian Gugerty, Denys T Lau, Harold S Luft, Katherine A Gillespie
{"title":"Collecting Practice-level Data in a Changing Physician Office-based Ambulatory Care Environment: A Pilot Study Examining the Physician induction interview Component of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.","authors":"Meghan C Halley,&nbsp;Katharine A Rendle,&nbsp;Brian Gugerty,&nbsp;Denys T Lau,&nbsp;Harold S Luft,&nbsp;Katherine A Gillespie","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective This report examines ways to improve National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data on practice and physician characteristics in multispecialty group practices. Methods From February to April 2013, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) conducted a pilot study to observe the collection of the NAMCS physician interview information component in a large multispecialty group practice. Nine physicians were randomly sampled using standard NAMCS recruitment procedures; eight were eligible and agreed to participate. Using standard protocols, three field representatives conducted NAMCS physician induction interviews (PIIs) while trained ethnographers observed and audio recorded the interviews. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed to identify recurrent issues in the data collection process. Results The majority of the NAMCS items appeared to have been easily answered by the physician respondents. Among the items that appeared to be difficult to answer, three themes emerged: (a) physician respondents demonstrated an inconsistent understanding of \"location\" in responding to questions; (b) lack of familiarity with administrative matters made certain questions difficult for physicians to answer; and (c) certain primary care‑oriented questions were not relevant to specialty care providers. Conclusions Some PII survey questions were challenging for physicians in a multispecialty practice setting. Improving the design and administration of NAMCS data collection is part of NCHS' continuous quality improvement process.</p>","PeriodicalId":23577,"journal":{"name":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","volume":" 176","pages":"1-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective This report examines ways to improve National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data on practice and physician characteristics in multispecialty group practices. Methods From February to April 2013, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) conducted a pilot study to observe the collection of the NAMCS physician interview information component in a large multispecialty group practice. Nine physicians were randomly sampled using standard NAMCS recruitment procedures; eight were eligible and agreed to participate. Using standard protocols, three field representatives conducted NAMCS physician induction interviews (PIIs) while trained ethnographers observed and audio recorded the interviews. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed to identify recurrent issues in the data collection process. Results The majority of the NAMCS items appeared to have been easily answered by the physician respondents. Among the items that appeared to be difficult to answer, three themes emerged: (a) physician respondents demonstrated an inconsistent understanding of "location" in responding to questions; (b) lack of familiarity with administrative matters made certain questions difficult for physicians to answer; and (c) certain primary care‑oriented questions were not relevant to specialty care providers. Conclusions Some PII survey questions were challenging for physicians in a multispecialty practice setting. Improving the design and administration of NAMCS data collection is part of NCHS' continuous quality improvement process.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在不断变化的以医生办公室为基础的门诊护理环境中收集实践水平的数据:一项检查全国门诊医疗调查中医生导入访谈组成部分的试点研究。
目的:本报告探讨了如何改善国家门诊医疗调查(NAMCS)的实践数据和医生的特点在多专科组实践。方法2013年2月至4月,国家卫生统计中心(NCHS)开展了一项试点研究,观察NAMCS医师访谈信息组件在大型多专科分组实践中的收集情况。采用NAMCS标准招募程序随机抽取9名医生;有8人符合条件并同意参加。采用标准方案,三名现场代表进行NAMCS医师入职访谈(PIIs),同时训练有素的民族志学家对访谈进行观察和录音。分析了记录和实地记录,以确定数据收集过程中经常出现的问题。结果NAMCS的大部分题目均能被受访医师轻松回答。在似乎难以回答的项目中,出现了三个主题:(a)医生受访者在回答问题时表现出对“位置”的不一致理解;(b)对行政事务不熟悉使医生难以回答某些问题;(c)某些面向初级保健的问题与专科保健提供者无关。结论:一些PII调查问题对多专业执业医师具有挑战性。改进NAMCS数据收集的设计和管理是NCHS持续质量改进过程的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, and contributions to statistical theory. Studies also include comparison of U.S. methodology with those of other countries.
期刊最新文献
Calibration Weighting Methods for the National Center for Health Statistics Research and Development Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. Assessing Linkage Eligibility Bias in the National Health Interview Survey. An Investigation of Nonresponse Bias and Survey Location Variability in the 2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2018: Sample Design and Estimation Procedures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1