Physicians with multiple patient complaints: ending our silence

Patients' Experiences of Ending Massage Therapy Care: a Commentary

Patients are best positioned to provide information about their experiences of healthcare services; however, their perspectives are often underutilized. During informal discussions with massage therapists (MTs) and through the authors' own professional experiences, it was noted that there are times when patients decide independently, and without notice, to end the care they are receiving. To date, no research has been published exploring the experiences of patients who choose to discontinue massage therapy care and there is a gap in the quality assurance process of MTs. Lack of understanding of patients' experiences is a missed opportunity to strengthen the therapeutic relationship, ensure patient safety, improve treatment quality, and develop professionally. We recommend researchers explore mixed methods designs, involve patients in the research process, and solicit multiple perspectives when studying patients' experiences of ending massage therapy care.

Identification of practitioners at high risk of complaints to health profession regulators

Background

Some health practitioners pose substantial threats to patient safety, yet early identification of them is notoriously difficult. We aimed to develop an algorithm for use by regulators in prospectively identifying practitioners at high risk of attracting formal complaints about health, conduct or performance issues.

Methods

Using 2011—2016 data from the national regulator of health practitioners in Australia, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 14 registered health professions. We used recurrent-event survival analysis to estimate the risk of a complaint and used the results of this analysis to develop an algorithm for identifying practitioners at high risk of complaints. We evaluated the algorithm’s discrimination, calibration and predictive properties.

Results

Participants were 715,415 registered health practitioners (55% nurses, 15% doctors, 6% midwives, 5% psychologists, 4% pharmacists, 15% other). The algorithm, PRONE-HP (Predicted Risk of New Event for Health Practitioners), incorporated predictors for sex, age, profession and specialty, number of prior complaints and complaint issue. Discrimination was good (C-index = 0·77, 95% CI 0·76–0·77). PRONE-HP’s score values were closely calibrated with risk of a future complaint: practitioners with a score ≤ 4 had a 1% chance of a complaint within 24 months and those with a score ≥ 35 had a higher than 85% chance. Using the 90th percentile of scores within each profession to define “high risk”, the predictive accuracy of PRONE-HP was good for doctors and dentists (PPV = 93·1% and 91·6%, respectively); moderate for chiropractors (PPV = 71·1%), psychologists (PPV = 54·9%), pharmacists (PPV = 39·9%) and podiatrists (PPV = 34·0%); and poor for other professions.

Conclusions

The performance of PRONE-HP in predicting complaint risks varied substantially across professions. It showed particular promise for flagging doctors and dentists at high risk of accruing further complaints. Close review of available information on flagged practitioners may help to identify troubling patterns and imminent risks to patients.

Changes in Practice among Physicians with Malpractice Claims

BACKGROUND

Physicians with poor malpractice liability records may pose a risk to patient safety. There are long-standing concerns that such physicians tend to relocate for a fresh start, but little is known about whether, how, and where they continue to practice.

METHODS

We linked an extract of the National Practitioner Data Bank to the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty data set to create a national cohort of physicians 35 to 65 years of age who practiced during the period from 2008 through 2015. We analyzed associations between the number of paid malpractice claims that physicians accrued and exits from medical practice, changes in clinical volume, geographic relocation, and change in practice-group size.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 480,894 physicians who had 68,956 paid claims from 2003 through 2015. A total of 89.0% of the physicians had no claims, 8.8% had 1 claim, and the remaining 2.3% had 2 or more claims and accounted for 38.9% of all claims. The number of claims was positively associated with the odds of leaving the practice of medicine (odds ratio for 1 claim vs. no claims, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.11; odds ratio for ≥5 claims, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.74). The number of claims was not associated with geographic relocation but was positively associated with shifts into smaller practice settings. For example, physicians with 5 or more claims had more than twice the odds of moving into solo practice than physicians with no claims (odds ratio, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.79 to 3.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians with multiple malpractice claims were no more likely to relocate geographically than those with no claims, but they were more likely to stop practicing medicine or switch to smaller practice settings. (Funded by SUMIT Insurance and the Australian Research Council.).

Understanding Test Results Follow-Up in the Ambulatory Setting: Analysis of Multiple Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Delayed or incomplete test result follow-up, which can lead to missed and/or delayed diagnosis, is an important issue in the ambulatory setting. Delayed test result follow-up has been linked to poorer patient outcomes and increased risk of mortality and accounts for a large portion of medical malpractice claims. Yet improvements are difficult, reflecting the complexity of the test result follow-up process. Test result follow-up safety culture was investigated using qualitative and quantitative patient safety and quality of care data at an academic medical center.

METHODS

After an environmental scan, five sources of data were used to compass multiple perspectives on safety culture-two national surveys (AHRQ MO SOPS for safety culture and CG-CAHPS for patient satisfaction); patient and family complaints; safety reports; and provider response times to test message results in the electronic health record.

RESULTS

The following metrics were inspected: how patients and providers estimated the frequency for providing timely test results; how patients' satisfaction with their provider correlated with their provider's response time to test result messages; and qualitative themes in patient complaints and safety reports filed by clinic. The institution was compared to national benchmarks using surveys. As test result response time decreased, patient satisfaction increased (p = 0.0073).

CONCLUSION

Test result follow-up culture was investigated using tools typically used to examine patient satisfaction and experience and staff culture. Use of these five sources of data led to an examination of multiple perspectives in follow-up culture and identification of possible explanations for inappropriate follow-up. These data sources can be further explored to identify possible solutions.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Physicians Prone to Malpractice Claims

BACKGROUND

The distribution of malpractice claims among physicians is not well understood. If claim-prone physicians account for a substantial share of all claims, the ability to reliably identify them at an early stage could guide efforts to improve care.

METHODS

Using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, we analyzed 66,426 claims paid against 54,099 physicians from 2005 through 2014. We calculated concentrations of claims among physicians. We used multivariable recurrent-event survival analysis to identify characteristics of physicians at high risk for recurrent claims and to quantify risk levels over time.

RESULTS

Approximately 1% of all physicians accounted for 32% of paid claims. Among physicians with paid claims, 84% incurred only one during the study period (accounting for 68% of all paid claims), 16% had at least two paid claims (accounting for 32% of the claims), and 4% had at least three paid claims (accounting for 12% of the claims). In adjusted analyses, the risk of recurrence increased with the number of previous paid claims. For example, as compared with physicians who had one previous paid claim, the 2160 physicians who had three paid claims had three times the risk of incurring another (hazard ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.84 to 3.41); this corresponded in absolute terms to a 24% chance (95% CI, 22 to 26) of another paid claim within 2 years. Risks of recurrence also varied widely according to specialty--for example, the risk among neurosurgeons was four times as great as the risk among psychiatrists.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a recent 10-year period, a small number of physicians with distinctive characteristics accounted for a disproportionately large number of paid malpractice claims.

Measuring prevalence, reliability and variation in high-risk prescribing in general practice using multilevel modelling of observational data in a population database

Background

High-risk primary care prescribing is common and is known to vary considerably between practices, but the extent to which high-risk prescribing varies among individual general practitioners (GPs) is not known.

Objectives

To create prescribing safety indicators usable in existing electronic clinical data and to examine (1) variation in high-risk prescribing between patients, GPs and practices including reliability of measurement and (2) changes over time in high-risk prescribing prevalence and variation between practices.

Design

Descriptive analysis and multilevel logistic regression modelling of routine data.

Setting

UK general practice using routine electronic medical record data.

Participants

(1) For analysis of variation and reliability, 398 GPs and 26,539 patients in 38 Scottish practices. (2) For analysis of change in high-risk prescribing, ≈ 300,000 patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug effects registered with 190 Scottish practices.

Main outcome measures

For the analysis of variation between practices and between GPs, five indicators of high-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing. For the analysis of change in high-risk prescribing, 19 previously validated indicators.

Results

Measurement of high-risk prescribing at GP level was feasible only for newly initiated drugs and for drugs similar to NSAIDs which are usually initiated by GPs. There was moderate variation between practices in total high-risk NSAID prescribing [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.034], but this indicator was highly reliable (> 0.8 for all practices) at distinguishing between practices because of the large number of patients being measured. There was moderate variation in initiation of high-risk NSAID prescribing between practices (ICC 0.055) and larger variation between GPs (ICC 0.166), but measurement did not reliably distinguish between practices and had reliability > 0.7 for only half of the GPs in the study. Between quarter (Q)2 2004 and Q1 2009, the percentage of patients exposed to high-risk prescribing measured by 17 indicators that could be examined over the whole period fell from 8.5% to 5.2%, which was largely driven by reductions in high-risk NSAID and antiplatelet use. Variation between practices increased for five indicators and decreased for five, with no relationship between change in the rate of high-risk prescribing and change in variation between practices.

Conclusions

High-risk prescribing is common and varies moderately between practices. High-risk prescribing at GP level cannot be easily measured routinely because of the difficulties in accurately identifying which GP actually prescribed the drug and because drug initiation is often a shared responsibility with specialists. For NSAID initiation, there was approximately three times greater variation between GPs than between practices. Most GPs with above average high-risk prescribing worked in practices which were not themselves above average. The observed reductions in high-risk prescribing between 2004 and 2009 were largely driven by falls in NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing, and there was no relationship between change in rate and change in variation between practices. These results are consistent with improvement interventions in all practices being more appropriate than interventions targeted on practices or GPs with higher than average high-risk prescribing. There is a need for research to understand why high-risk prescribing varies and to design and evaluate interventions to reduce it.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Feasibility and validation of real-time patient evaluations of internal medicine interns' communication and professionalism skills

BACKGROUND

Residents receive little information about how they interact with patients.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study assessed the feasibility and validity of a new 16-item tool developed to assess patients' perspectives of interns' communication skills and professionalism and the team's communication.

METHODS

Feasibility was determined by the percentage of surveys completed, the average time for survey completion, the percentage of target interns evaluated, and the mean number of evaluations per intern. Generalizability was analyzed using an (evaluator:evaluatee) × item model. Simulated D studies estimated optimal numbers of items and evaluators. Factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to examine the structure of the items. Scores were correlated with other measures of communication and professionalism for validation.

RESULTS

Most patients (225 of 305 [74%]) completed the evaluation. Each survey took approximately 6.3 minutes to complete. In 43 days over 18 weeks, 45 of 50 interns (90%) were evaluated an average of 4.6 times. Fifty evaluations would be required to reach a minimally acceptable coefficient (0.57). Two factor structures were identified. The evaluation did not correlate with faculty evaluations of resident communication but did correlate weakly (r  =  0.140, P  =  .04) with standardized patient evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of patient evaluations are needed to reliably assess intern and team communication skills. Evaluations by patients add a perspective in assessing these skills that is different from those of faculty evaluations. Future work will focus on whether this new information adds to existing evaluation systems and warrants the added effort.