Adria Whiting APRN, CNP , April E. Poolman APRN, CNP, MSN , Artika Misra MD , Joel E. Gordon MD , Kurt B. Angstman MD
{"title":"Comparison of Ambulatory Quality Measures Between Shared Practice Panels and Independent Practice Panels","authors":"Adria Whiting APRN, CNP , April E. Poolman APRN, CNP, MSN , Artika Misra MD , Joel E. Gordon MD , Kurt B. Angstman MD","doi":"10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.05.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess for differences in patient care outcomes in the primary care setting for patients assigned to an independent practice panel (IPP) or a shared practice panel (SPP).</p></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of patients of 2 Mayo Clinic family medicine primary care clinics from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Patients were assigned to either an IPP (physician or advanced practice provider [APP]) or an SPP (physician and ≥1 APP). We assessed 6 measures of quality care and compared them between IPP and SPP groups: diabetes optimal care, hypertension control, depression remission at 6 months, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and colon cancer screening.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The study included 114,438 patients assigned to 140 family medicine panels during the study period: 87 IPPs and 53 SPPs. The IPP clinicians showed improved quality metrics compared with the SPP clinicians for the percentage of assigned patients achieving depression remission (16.6% vs 11.1%; <em>P</em><.01). The SPP clinicians showed improved quality metrics compared with that of the IPP clinicians for the percentage of patients with cervical cancer screening (79.1% vs 74.2%; <em>P</em><.01). The mean percentage of the panels achieving optimal diabetes control, hypertension control, colon cancer screening, and breast cancer screening were not significantly different between IPP and SPP panels.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This study shows a considerable improvement in depression remission among IPP panels and in cervical cancer screening rates among SPP panels. This information may help to inform primary care team configuration.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94132,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fd/78/main.PMC10300043.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454823000346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To assess for differences in patient care outcomes in the primary care setting for patients assigned to an independent practice panel (IPP) or a shared practice panel (SPP).
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of patients of 2 Mayo Clinic family medicine primary care clinics from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Patients were assigned to either an IPP (physician or advanced practice provider [APP]) or an SPP (physician and ≥1 APP). We assessed 6 measures of quality care and compared them between IPP and SPP groups: diabetes optimal care, hypertension control, depression remission at 6 months, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, and colon cancer screening.
Results
The study included 114,438 patients assigned to 140 family medicine panels during the study period: 87 IPPs and 53 SPPs. The IPP clinicians showed improved quality metrics compared with the SPP clinicians for the percentage of assigned patients achieving depression remission (16.6% vs 11.1%; P<.01). The SPP clinicians showed improved quality metrics compared with that of the IPP clinicians for the percentage of patients with cervical cancer screening (79.1% vs 74.2%; P<.01). The mean percentage of the panels achieving optimal diabetes control, hypertension control, colon cancer screening, and breast cancer screening were not significantly different between IPP and SPP panels.
Conclusion
This study shows a considerable improvement in depression remission among IPP panels and in cervical cancer screening rates among SPP panels. This information may help to inform primary care team configuration.