0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

The Effect of a Physician Partner Program on Physician Efficiency and Patient Satisfaction FREE

David B. Reuben, MD1; Janine Knudsen, BA2; Wendy Senelick, MPH1; Eve Glazier, MD3; Brandon K. Koretz, MD, MBA1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California
2Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
3Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1190-1193. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1315.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Despite the advantages of electronic health records, concerns have been raised about the amount of computer time spent documenting care1 and its adverse effects on the physician-patient relationship. Using scribes to reduce physician documentation time has resulted in improved satisfaction among urologists2 and increased productivity among emergency department physicians3 and cardiologists.4 Although scribes have been used in primary care,5 their effects have received little formal evaluation.

We created a new position, a Physician Partner (P2), to facilitate patient care during the office visit and tested this in 2 practices at an academic medical center to determine its effect on physician efficiency and patient satisfaction.

Two P2s, one with a bachelor’s degree and the other a licensed vocational nurse, performed scribing and other administrative functions for 3 geriatricians (D.B.R., B.K.K., and 1 other) and 2 general internists (E.G. and 1 other) in a 2:1 ratio (Figure). During the study, the practices used an electronic health record (cView; Orion Health) that relied primarily on scanned paper outpatient notes.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Choreography and Roles of Physician Partners

HPI indicates history of present illness; LVN, licensed vocational nurse; MA, medical assistant; MD, physician; P2, Physician Partner; PSR, patient services representative; ROS, review of systems. Rcopia is an electronic prescribing system (DrFirst).aFor general internal medicine visits, the P2 did not perform checkout functions in the room and referred patients to the front desk to perform these.

Graphic Jump Location

Each physician had 4-hour clinic sessions with and without P2s, thereby allowing comparisons. Efficiency was measured in a subsample of sessions by (1) direct measurement of physician time in the examining room and (2) retrospective physician diaries of time spent before and after each session. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using questions from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician & Group Survey.6

On the basis of time-study data, we calculated the total physician time in the examining room per session. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare median physician times before, during, and after each session with and without P2s. We used χ2 tests to compare patient responses with survey questions. The project was a quality improvement project and was not considered research by the institutional review board.

From October 29, 2012, through June 28, 2013, the 5 physicians in the 2 practices had 326 sessions that included P2s. Of these, 37 sessions (22 with and 15 without P2s) that included 289 visits had visit times monitored, and 42 sessions (21 with and 21 without P2s) had physician diaries recording the amount of time they spent before and after the session. Surveys were administered to 156 patients (84 visits with and 72 visits without P2s).

In geriatrics, visits with P2s were a median 2.7 minutes shorter than visits without P2s, 18.0 (interquartile range, 14-21) vs 20.7 (15-26) minutes (P = .01). Among internists, the difference was less, 10.0 (8-14) vs 12.0 (8-15) minutes (P = .15). Per 4-hour scheduled session (Table), an estimated 122 minutes (geriatrics) and 75 minutes (internal medicine) were saved during P2 sessions.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Physician Time Spent per 240-Minute (4-Hour) Scheduled Session

Patients were more likely to strongly agree that the physician spent enough time with them during P2 visits (88.1% vs 75.0%, P = .03). Although 17.7% were uncomfortable with P2s in the room, 79.3% of patients agreed that they helped the visit run smoothly.

In this study, adding personnel to perform more administrative components of office practice was associated with less presession and postsession physician time, shorter geriatric visits, and higher patient satisfaction. Despite these positive findings, several issues remain. First, what background and training do P2s need? We have increasingly employed bachelor’s degree–level personnel. Training includes medical vocabulary modules, use of the electronic health record, referral and order entry, and optimizing clinic work flow. A related issue concerns scope of practice regulations. It is possible that documentation requirements of different health care systems and reimbursement regulations may impede diffusion. Finally, what are the financial implications of implementing a P2 program? Some practices have estimated that by adding 2 more visits per session, scribe programs can pay for themselves. However, because of diverse cost and reimbursement structures, the business case may vary.

Limitations of the study include the single site, small sample size, inability to measure actual time spent communicating with patients, and self-reported or measured times for only a subsample of sessions.

In summary, the P2 program provides a potential model to improve physician efficiency and satisfaction in the office setting without compromising patient satisfaction. The program should be tested in larger samples and additional settings.

Corresponding Author: David B. Reuben, MD, Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10945 Le Conte Ave, Ste 2339, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1687 (dreuben@mednet.ucla.edu).

Published Online: May 12, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1315.

Author Contributions: Drs Reuben and Koretz had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Reuben, Senelick, Glazier.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Knudsen, Senelick, Koretz.

Statistical analysis: Reuben, Knudsen, Senelick.

Obtained funding: Koretz.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Senelick, Glazier, Koretz.

Study supervision: Reuben, Senelick, Glazier, Koretz.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by grant 5P30AG028748 from the UCLA Claude Pepper Older Americans Independence Center funded by the National Institute on Aging.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: Niki Alejo, BS, and Krisan May Soriano, BS, LVN, in their roles as Physician Partners, assisted in defining the choreography and tasks and reviewed the manuscript; Matthew Abrishamian, BA, provided data collection and manuscript review; and Lee Jennings, MD, MSPH, contributed statistical assistance. They received no additional compensation for their roles in this study, and all are affiliated with the Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, except Mr Abrishamian, who was a volunteer.

Jamoom  E, Patel  V, King  J, Furukawa  MF. Physician Experience With Electronic Health Record Systems That Meet Meaningful Use Criteria: NAMCS Physician Workflow Survey, 2011. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2013. NCHS Data Brief No. 129.
Koshy  S, Feustel  PJ, Hong  M, Kogan  BA.  Scribes in an ambulatory urology practice: patient and physician satisfaction. J Urol. 2010;184(1):258-262.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arya  R, Salovich  DM, Ohman-Strickland  P, Merlin  MA.  Impact of scribes on performance indicators in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(5):490-494.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bank  AJ, Obetz  C, Konrardy  A,  et al.  Impact of scribes on patient interaction, productivity, and revenue in a cardiology clinic: a prospective study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;9(5):399-406.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sinsky  CA, Willard-Grace  R, Schutzbank  AM, Sinsky  TA, Margolius  D, Bodenheimer  T.  In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(3):272-278.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). Clinician & Group Surveys.https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/surveys-guidance/cg/index.html. Accessed November 30, 2013.

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Choreography and Roles of Physician Partners

HPI indicates history of present illness; LVN, licensed vocational nurse; MA, medical assistant; MD, physician; P2, Physician Partner; PSR, patient services representative; ROS, review of systems. Rcopia is an electronic prescribing system (DrFirst).aFor general internal medicine visits, the P2 did not perform checkout functions in the room and referred patients to the front desk to perform these.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Physician Time Spent per 240-Minute (4-Hour) Scheduled Session

References

Jamoom  E, Patel  V, King  J, Furukawa  MF. Physician Experience With Electronic Health Record Systems That Meet Meaningful Use Criteria: NAMCS Physician Workflow Survey, 2011. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2013. NCHS Data Brief No. 129.
Koshy  S, Feustel  PJ, Hong  M, Kogan  BA.  Scribes in an ambulatory urology practice: patient and physician satisfaction. J Urol. 2010;184(1):258-262.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arya  R, Salovich  DM, Ohman-Strickland  P, Merlin  MA.  Impact of scribes on performance indicators in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(5):490-494.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bank  AJ, Obetz  C, Konrardy  A,  et al.  Impact of scribes on patient interaction, productivity, and revenue in a cardiology clinic: a prospective study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;9(5):399-406.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sinsky  CA, Willard-Grace  R, Schutzbank  AM, Sinsky  TA, Margolius  D, Bodenheimer  T.  In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(3):272-278.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). Clinician & Group Surveys.https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/surveys-guidance/cg/index.html. Accessed November 30, 2013.

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

879 Views
2 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
×