Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31907323/ below:

Cautionary study on the effects of pay for performance on quality of care: a pilot randomised controlled trial using standardised patients

Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations

• ¹ College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA ellen.green@asu.edu.
• ² Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
• ³ College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
• ⁴ Department of Systems, Population and Leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

• PMID: 31907323
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010260

Item in Clipboard

Randomized Controlled Trial

Ellen Green et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Aug.

• ¹ College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA ellen.green@asu.edu.
• ² Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
• ³ College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
• ⁴ Department of Systems, Population and Leadership, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

• PMID: 31907323
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010260

Item in Clipboard

Background: Due to the difficulty of studying incentives in practice, there is limited empirical evidence of the full-impact pay-for-performance (P4P) incentive systems.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of P4P in a controlled, simulated environment.

Design: We employed a simulation-based randomised controlled trial with three standardised patients to assess advanced practice providers' performance. Each patient reflected one of the following: (A) indicated for P4P screenings, (B) too young for P4P screenings, or (C) indicated for P4P screenings, but screenings are unrelated to the reason for the visit. Indication was determined by the 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures.

Intervention: The P4P group was paid $150 and received a bonus of $10 for meeting each of five outcome measures (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, pneumococcal, tobacco use and depression screenings) for each of the three cases (max $300). The control group received $200.

Setting: Learning resource centre.

Participants: 35 advanced practice primary care providers (physician assistants and nurse practitioners) and 105 standardised patient encounters.

Measurements: Adherence to incentivised outcome measures, interpersonal communication skills, standards of care, and misuse.

Results: The Type a patient was more likely to receive indicated P4P screenings in the P4P group (3.82 out of 5 P4P vs 2.94 control, p=0.02), however, received lower overall standards of care under P4P (31.88 P4P vs 37.06 control, p=0.027). The Type b patient was more likely to be prescribed screenings not indicated, but highlighted by P4P: breast cancer screening (47% P4P vs 0% control, p<0.01) and colorectal cancer screening (24% P4P vs 0% control, p=0.03). The P4P group over-reported completion of incentivised measures resulting in overpayment (average of $9.02 per patient).

Limitations: A small sample size and limited variability in patient panel limit the generalisability of findings.

Conclusions: Our findings caution the adoption of P4P by highlighting the unintended consequences of the incentive system.

Keywords: health policy; health services research; pay for performance; performance measures; simulation.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PubMed Disclaimer

Competing interests: None declared.

• The inescapable question of fairness in Pay-for-performance bonus distribution: a qualitative study of health workers' experiences in Tanzania.

  Chimhutu V, Songstad NG, Tjomsland M, Mrisho M, Moland KM. Chimhutu V, et al. Global Health. 2016 Nov 25;12(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0213-5. Global Health. 2016. PMID: 27884185 Free PMC article.

• Design choices made by target users for a pay-for-performance program in primary care: an action research approach.

  Kirschner K, Braspenning J, Jacobs JE, Grol R. Kirschner K, et al. BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Mar 27;13:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-25. BMC Fam Pract. 2012. PMID: 22453028 Free PMC article.

• Effect of pay-for-performance incentives on quality of care in small practices with electronic health records: a randomized trial.

  Bardach NS, Wang JJ, De Leon SF, Shih SC, Boscardin WJ, Goldman LE, Dudley RA. Bardach NS, et al. JAMA. 2013 Sep 11;310(10):1051-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.277353. JAMA. 2013. PMID: 24026600 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

• Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care.

  Van Herck P, De Smedt D, Annemans L, Remmen R, Rosenthal MB, Sermeus W. Van Herck P, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Aug 23;10:247. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-247. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010. PMID: 20731816 Free PMC article. Review.

• Lessons from healthcare providers' attitudes toward pay-for-performance: what should purchasers consider in designing and implementing a successful program?

  Lee JY, Lee SI, Jo MW. Lee JY, et al. J Prev Med Public Health. 2012 May;45(3):137-47. doi: 10.3961/jpmph.2012.45.3.137. Epub 2012 May 31. J Prev Med Public Health. 2012. PMID: 22712040 Free PMC article. Review.

• Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.

  Lindson N, Pritchard G, Hong B, Fanshawe TR, Pipe A, Papadakis S. Lindson N, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 6;9(9):CD011556. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011556.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 34693994 Free PMC article. Review.

• Performance Pay in Hospitals: An Experiment on Bonus-Malus Incentives.

  Kairies-Schwarz N, Souček C. Kairies-Schwarz N, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 10;17(22):8320. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228320. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. PMID: 33182846 Free PMC article.

• The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Screening: Challenges and Opportunities.

  Cancino RS, Su Z, Mesa R, Tomlinson GE, Wang J. Cancino RS, et al. JMIR Cancer. 2020 Oct 29;6(2):e21697. doi: 10.2196/21697. JMIR Cancer. 2020. PMID: 33027039 Free PMC article.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3