» Articles » PMID: 28914222

Process Measures or Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) for Comparing Performance Across Providers? A Study of Measures Related to Access and Continuity in Swedish Primary Care

Overview
Date 2017 Sep 16
PMID 28914222
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Access and continuity are important objectives in primary care. They can be measured through registered process measures or PREMs. These measures do not necessarily converge in terms of outcomes. Patient views are affected by factors not necessarily reflecting quality of services. Results from surveys are often uncertain due to low response rates, particularly in vulnerable groups. The quality of process measures, on the other hand, may be influenced by registration practices and are often more easy to manipulate. With increased transparency and use of quality measures for management and governance purposes, knowledge about the pros and cons of using different measures to assess the performance across providers are important.

Methods: Four regression models were developed with registered process measures and PREMs of access and continuity as dependent variables. Independent variables were characteristics of providers as well as geographical location and degree of competition facing providers. Data were taken from two large Swedish county councils. Findings Although ranking of providers is sensitive to the measure used, the results suggest that providers performing well with respect to one measure also tended to perform well with respect to the other. As process measures are easier and quicker to collect they may be looked upon as the preferred option. PREMs were better than process measures when exploring factors that contributed to variation in performance across providers in our study; however, if the purpose of comparison is continuous learning and development of services, a combination of PREMs and registered measures may be the preferred option. Above all, our findings points towards the importance of a pre-analysis of the measures in use; to explore the pros and cons if measures are used for different purposes before they are put into practice.

Citing Articles

Understanding of 'person-centred care' in an oncology ICU: Associative group analysis.

Botma Y, Herselman H, Heyns T Heliyon. 2024; 10(19):e38592.

PMID: 39403529 PMC: 11471458. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38592.


Evaluating cancer patient-reported experience measures against health literacy best practices.

Giannopoulos E, Moody L, Mackinnon R, Gill B, Giuliani M, Papadakos J Support Care Cancer. 2024; 32(10):631.

PMID: 39227513 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08838-z.


How can we meet the needs of patients, their families and their communities? A qualitative study including clinicians, consumer representatives, patients, and community members.

Roberts N, Jacmon H, Scanlon B, Battersby C, Buttrum P, James C BMC Health Serv Res. 2023; 23(1):809.

PMID: 37507758 PMC: 10385916. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09814-9.


Russian-language translation and cultural adaptation of the Norwegian 'Patient Experience Questionnaire'.

Ionov M, Dubinina E, Tregubenko I, Zvartau N, Konradi A PEC Innov. 2023; 2:100174.

PMID: 37384153 PMC: 10294072. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100174.


Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Shunmuga Sundaram C, Campbell R, Ju A, King M, Rutherford C J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022; 6(1):122.

PMID: 36459251 PMC: 9718906. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-022-00524-0.

References
1.
Campbell J, Ramsay J, Green J . Age, gender, socioeconomic, and ethnic differences in patients' assessments of primary health care. Qual Health Care. 2001; 10(2):90-5. PMC: 1757978. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.10.2.90. View

2.
Campbell J, Ramsay J, Green J . Practice size: impact on consultation length, workload, and patient assessment of care. Br J Gen Pract. 2001; 51(469):644-50. PMC: 1314075. View

3.
Sundquist K, Malmstrom M, Johansson S, Sundquist J . Care Need Index, a useful tool for the distribution of primary health care resources. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57(5):347-52. PMC: 1732439. DOI: 10.1136/jech.57.5.347. View

4.
Lilford R, Mohammed M, Spiegelhalter D, Thomson R . Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet. 2004; 363(9415):1147-54. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15901-1. View

5.
Petersen L, Woodard L, Urech T, Daw C, Sookanan S . Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care?. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145(4):265-72. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00006. View