Procedures performed by general practitioners and general internal medicine physicians - a comparison based on routine data from Northern Germany

Psychometric properties of the GP-Patient Relationship Questionnaire as an instrument for quality improvement in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Since the patient-doctor relationship (PDR) plays a crucial role in patient primary health care and management, the evaluation of the PDR from both, the patients' and primary care physicians', perspectives is an important approach to improve the quality of primary care. However, although there are a variety of questionnaires surveying the patients' view of the PDR, only few consider the physicians' perspective. The purpose of this study was to develop a questionnaire that adds the physicians' perspective to an existing PDR instrument and thus enables a mutual assessment of the relationship.

METHODS

This study was embedded in a German project aiming at enhancing the adherence in patients with hypertension. Patients and primary care physicians were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning their PDR. The Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9) was used to assess the patients' perspective. For the physicians, the PDRQ-9 items were adapted to the physicians' perspective resulting in the GP-Patient Relationship Questionnaire (GPPR). The Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ) was used for external validation.

RESULTS

A total of 60 physician questionnaires and 50 matched pairs of questionnaires from physicians and patients were included in the analyses. Within the analysis, notable deviations were found for one Item, nevertheless the calculated Cronbach's α of 0.89 showed a high internal consistency of the 9-item questionnaire. External validation showed a high correlation of the GPPR with the HAQ, confirming the good psychometric properties demonstrated for the overall instrument.

DISCUSSION

Overall, this initial validation study revealed good psychometric properties of the GPPR. A retest will be performed in the course of the overall project to confirm the reliability of the newly developed questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

A new questionnaire to assess the physicians' perspectives on the PDR was successfully developed to improve adherence depending processes of quality improving in primary care.

Differences Between General Internal Medicine and Family Medicine Physicians' Initiation of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

Preexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is under-utilized in primary care. Given differences in treatment approaches for other conditions between family medicine (FM) and general internal medicine (GIM), this study compared PrEP-prescribing between FM and GIM physicians.

METHODS

De-identified electronic health record data from a multi-state health care system was used in this retrospective observational study. The time period from 1/1/13 to 9/30/21 was used to identify PrEP eligible patients using measures of current sexually transmitted disease and condomless sex at the time of eligibility. Receipt of PrEP was measured in the 12 months after PrEP eligibility. The odds of receiving PrEP in GIM as compared to FM was computed before and after adjusting for demographics and physical and psychiatric comorbidities.

RESULTS

The majority of eligible patients were 18 to 39 years of age, 60.9% were female and 71.6% were White race. Among PrEP eligible patients, 1.1% received PrEP in the first year after index date. Receiving PrEP was significantly more likely among patients treated in GIM versus FM (OR = 2.30; 95% CI:1.63-3.25). After adjusting for covariates, this association remained statistically significant (OR = 2.02; 95% CI:1.41-2.89).

CONCLUSIONS

PrEP is grossly under-utilized in primary care. The majority of Americans enter the health care system through primary care and not through HIV providers or other specialties. Therefore, educational interventions are needed to increase confidence and knowledge and to encourage PrEP prescribing by FM and GIM physicians.

Identifying desired qualifications, tasks, and organizational characteristics of practice managers-a cross-sectional survey among group practice physicians in Germany

Background

The increase of centralization developments in primary and secondary care practices may cause the organizational needs to increase as well, as the practices grow in size. This continuous change is observed in different stages in various countries since, from the perspective of a physician, it is reinforced by the benefits it adds to flexible work configuration, professional exchange and specialization. However, in order to benefit from the joint practice system, the proper managerial skills of practice managers are required, as doctors are not naturally prepared to fulfill such tasks. This study thus aims to gain insight into physicians' views in group practices and acquire a greater understanding of expectations towards practice management and the emerging role of practice managers (PM).

Methods

A cross-sectional study design was employed which utilized an anonymous online questionnaire. In total, 3,456 physicians were invited to participate in the study between February 8^th and March 17^th 2021 by the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were applied to characterize the expectations of physicians towards practice management.

Results

The survey yielded 329 replies (9,5%). 50% of the participating practices already had a PM employed. In general, these practices were larger than practices without a PM. Most physicians (85%) considered a medical background to be essential for the task of a PM. While practices without a PM considered it important for PMs to have medical qualifications, practices with a PM favored qualifications in business administration. 77.2% of physicians preferred to educate and recruit PMs out of their current practice staff. Competence in organizational tasks, such as coordination of tasks and quality management, was considered to be an essential skill of a PM and had the highest agreement levels among those surveyed, followed by staff management of non-physicians, billing, bookkeeping, staff management of physicians and recruiting. Based on multivariate regression analysis, larger practices valued the role of a PM more and were more likely to employ a PM. Notably, the effect that size had on these items was more substantial for generalists than specialists.

Conclusions

The benefits and importance of PMs as well as the potential for delegation are recognized, in particular, by larger practices. The positive feelings that physicians who already employ PMs have towards their contribution to ambulatory care are even more significant. Pre-existing medical support staff has been identified to be the most desirable candidates for taking on the role of PM.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08199-5.

Factors that influence specialist physician preferences for fee-for-service and salary-based payment models: A qualitative study

Most physicians across the world are paid through fee-for-service. However, there is increased interest in alternative payment models such as salary, capitation, episode-based payment, pay-for-performance, and strategic blends of these models. Such models may be more aligned with broad health policy goals such as fiscal sustainability, delivery of high-quality care, and physician and patient well-being. Despite this, there is limited research on physicians' preferences for different models and a disproportionate focus on differences in income over other issues such as physician autonomy and purpose. Using qualitative interviews with 32 specialist physicians in Alberta, Canada, we examined factors that influence preferences for fee-for-service (FFS) and salary-based payment models. Our findings suggest that a series of factors relating to (1) physician characteristics, (2) payment model characteristics, and (3) professional interests influence preferences. Within these themes, flexibility, autonomy, and compatibility with academic roles were highlighted. To encourage physicians to select a specific payment model, the model must appeal to them in terms of income potential as well as non-monetary values. These findings can support constructive discussions about the merits of different payment models and can assist policy makers in considering the impact of payment reform.

Which procedures are performed by general internists practicing primary care in Germany? - a cross-sectional study

Background

Due to differences of residency training programs’ emphases – inpatient vs office-based – internal medicine and family medicine residents consistently reported differences in preparedness to care for common adult conditions. Study’s aim was to add knowledge about procedures that a) are performed by general internists working in primary care and b) should be learned during residency in general internists’ appraisal.

Methods

A cross-sectional postal survey was carried out by using a questionnaire that comprised 90 procedures relevant in primary care. Each procedure implied the two questions “Do you perform this procedure in your own practice?” and “How important do you think it is to learn this procedure during residency?” The final questionnaire was sent to 1002 general internists working in primary care in Germany in May 2015. Data analysis was performed using SPSS Version 24.0 (SPSS inc., IBM). Next to descriptive statistics subgroup analyses were performed using cross tabulation and Chi-square tests for evaluation of differences in the performance of most frequently performed procedures in urban or rural areas as well as by male or female physicians.

Results

Twenty-eight percent of sent questionnaires (276/1002) could be included in analysis. Mean age of participants was 52 years with 13 years of practice experience; 40% were female.

Twenty-nine (32%) of 90 given procedures were performed by at least half of the participants, foremost technical diagnostics, punctures, procedures of the integument and resuscitation. After Bonferroni correction, five of those procedures were performed by more male than female physicians and two procedures by more physicians working in a rural practice than physicians practicing in an urban location. Moreover, 46 (51%) procedures were assessed as important to learn during residency by at least 50% of participants.

Conclusions

General internists working in German primary care perform a narrow scope of procedures offered by primary care physicians. In order to provide best ambulatory care for patients, residency training programs must ensure training in procedures that are necessary for providing high quality care. Therefore, a consensus aligned with patients’ and health-systems’ needs on procedures required for working as a general internist in primary care is necessary.

[Regional differences between general practitioners and general internal medicine physicians in primary care]

OBJECTIVE

In many places in Germany, the need for primary care physicians has been steadily increasing for several years, especially in rural areas. It is hypothesized that physicians are more likely to practice in rural areas if they have received a broad education and vocational training. Differences between general practitioners (GPs) and physicians in general internal medicine (GIM) in the breadth of their vocational training are created by the underlying distinct training schemes. The aim of the analysis was to test whether GPs and GIM physicians differ in their distribution between urban and rural regions of Schleswig-Holstein and whether there are differences in the rate and frequency of performing home visits.

METHODS

Based on invoicing data of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein (Northern Germany) covering the years 2015 up to the third quarter (Q3) of 2018, we analysed differences between GPs and GIM physicians in their regional distribution. Furthermore, we looked at differences between both specialties regarding the application rate and the number of home visits performed and unforeseen physician visits. In addition to bivariate approaches, we also used multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Between 2017 (Q4) and 2018 (Q3), 1,378 GPs and 585 GIM physicians provided medical services in Schleswig-Holstein. While 27.5 % of the GPs had practices in rural areas, the share of GIM physicians was 14.5 % (p < 0.001). Home visits were performed by 97.8 % of the GPs and 93.2 % of the GIM physicians (p < 0.001). This difference was even more pronounced in rural areas (99.5 % vs. 94.1 % (p = 0.002)). Significant differences have also been found in the number of billed home visits. GPs made 36 % more home visits than GIM physicians. In rural areas, the difference was 60 %.

CONCLUSION

The analysis revealed significant differences between GPs and GIM physicians regarding the type of region where they work, the application rate and the number of performed home visits. The findings could foster a discussion about how GIM physicians can be better prepared to provide primary care, especially in rural areas.