Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices

Several jurisdictions attempting to reform primary care have focused on changes in physician remuneration. The goals of this study were to compare the delivery of preventive services by practices in four primary care funding models and to identify organizational factors associated with superior prev...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ) 2012-02, Vol.184 (2), p.E135-E143
Hauptverfasser: Dahrouge, Simone, Hogg, William E, Russell, Grant, Tuna, Meltem, Geneau, Robert, Muldoon, Laura K, Kristjansson, Elizabeth, Fletcher, John
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page E143
container_issue 2
container_start_page E135
container_title Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ)
container_volume 184
creator Dahrouge, Simone
Hogg, William E
Russell, Grant
Tuna, Meltem
Geneau, Robert
Muldoon, Laura K
Kristjansson, Elizabeth
Fletcher, John
description Several jurisdictions attempting to reform primary care have focused on changes in physician remuneration. The goals of this study were to compare the delivery of preventive services by practices in four primary care funding models and to identify organizational factors associated with superior preventive care. In a cross-sectional study, we included 137 primary care practices in the province of Ontario (35 fee-for-service practices, 35 with salaried physicians [community health centres], 35 practices in the new capitation model [family health networks] and 32 practices in the established capitation model [health services organizations]). We surveyed 288 family physicians. We reviewed 4108 randomly selected patient charts and assigned prevention scores based on the proportion of eligible preventive manoeuvres delivered for each patient. A total of 3284 patients were eligible for at least one of six preventive manoeuvres. After adjusting for patient profile and contextual factors, we found that, compared with prevention scores in practices in the new capitation model, scores were significantly lower in fee-for-service practices (β estimate for effect on prevention score = -6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.9 to -0.6) and practices in the established capitation model (β = -9.1, 95% CI -14.9 to -3.3) but not for those with salaried remuneration (β = -0.8, 95% CI -6.5 to 4.8). After accounting for physician characteristics and organizational structure, the type of funding model was no longer a statistically significant factor. Compared with reference practices, those with at least one female family physician (β = 8.0, 95% CI 4.2 to 11.8), a panel size of fewer than 1600 patients per full-time equivalent family physician (β = 6.8, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.6) and an electronic reminder system (β = 4.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 8.7) had superior prevention scores. The effect of these three factors was largely but not always consistent across the funding models; it was largely consistent across the preventive manoeuvres. No funding model was clearly associated with superior preventive care. Factors related to physician characteristics and practice structure were stronger predictors of performance. Practices with one or more female physicians, a smaller patient load and an electronic reminder system had superior prevention scores. Our findings raise questions about reform initiatives aimed at increasing patient numbers, but they support the adoption of information technology.
doi_str_mv 10.1503/cmaj.110407
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3273534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>920367280</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-e68d6500ff1f403358f5f4c491f4a8a610664f11f653551c638f1cae832c9fac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1vEzEQxa0KRNOUE3dkceFQbfHXer0XpKoCWqkSF3q2jDNOHe3awd6NRP96JiRULb5YM_Pz0_M8Qt5xdslbJj_50W0uOWeKdSdkwZUxjZCif0UWzAjWyF7pU3JW64bhkaJ7Q06F4EoK0S1Ivh23zk80B1pgnBMUN8WcqEsrmsvapfj4t-EGGpDLpVKc-jxuB5hiWtNtgR2kKe6Aji5lmHcFKo0JB3F05Tf1rgAW-Dh6qOfkdXBDhbfHe0nuv375cX3T3H3_dnt9ddd4_MbUgDYr3TIWAg-KSdma0AblVY-lM05zprUKnAfdyrblXksTuHdgpPA9GpVL8vmgu51_jrDyaLG4wR5N2eyifTlJ8cGu887igmQrFQp8PAqU_GuGOtkxVg_D4BLkudpeMKk7YRiSH_4jN3kuuLE9hFvmHZpckosD5EuutUB4ssKZ3cdo9zHaQ4xIv3_u_on9l5v8A31Nm4o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>923221765</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Dahrouge, Simone ; Hogg, William E ; Russell, Grant ; Tuna, Meltem ; Geneau, Robert ; Muldoon, Laura K ; Kristjansson, Elizabeth ; Fletcher, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Dahrouge, Simone ; Hogg, William E ; Russell, Grant ; Tuna, Meltem ; Geneau, Robert ; Muldoon, Laura K ; Kristjansson, Elizabeth ; Fletcher, John</creatorcontrib><description>Several jurisdictions attempting to reform primary care have focused on changes in physician remuneration. The goals of this study were to compare the delivery of preventive services by practices in four primary care funding models and to identify organizational factors associated with superior preventive care. In a cross-sectional study, we included 137 primary care practices in the province of Ontario (35 fee-for-service practices, 35 with salaried physicians [community health centres], 35 practices in the new capitation model [family health networks] and 32 practices in the established capitation model [health services organizations]). We surveyed 288 family physicians. We reviewed 4108 randomly selected patient charts and assigned prevention scores based on the proportion of eligible preventive manoeuvres delivered for each patient. A total of 3284 patients were eligible for at least one of six preventive manoeuvres. After adjusting for patient profile and contextual factors, we found that, compared with prevention scores in practices in the new capitation model, scores were significantly lower in fee-for-service practices (β estimate for effect on prevention score = -6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.9 to -0.6) and practices in the established capitation model (β = -9.1, 95% CI -14.9 to -3.3) but not for those with salaried remuneration (β = -0.8, 95% CI -6.5 to 4.8). After accounting for physician characteristics and organizational structure, the type of funding model was no longer a statistically significant factor. Compared with reference practices, those with at least one female family physician (β = 8.0, 95% CI 4.2 to 11.8), a panel size of fewer than 1600 patients per full-time equivalent family physician (β = 6.8, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.6) and an electronic reminder system (β = 4.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 8.7) had superior prevention scores. The effect of these three factors was largely but not always consistent across the funding models; it was largely consistent across the preventive manoeuvres. No funding model was clearly associated with superior preventive care. Factors related to physician characteristics and practice structure were stronger predictors of performance. Practices with one or more female physicians, a smaller patient load and an electronic reminder system had superior prevention scores. Our findings raise questions about reform initiatives aimed at increasing patient numbers, but they support the adoption of information technology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0820-3946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1488-2329</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110407</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22143227</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CMAJAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Canada: CMA Impact, Inc</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Analysis of Variance ; Capitation Fee - organization & administration ; Capitation Fee - statistics & numerical data ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Community Health Services - economics ; Community Health Services - organization & administration ; Community Health Services - statistics & numerical data ; Compensation ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Fee-for-Service Plans - economics ; Fee-for-Service Plans - organization & administration ; Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics & numerical data ; Female ; Humans ; Linear Models ; Male ; Ontario ; Physicians ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - economics ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - organization & administration ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data ; Preventive Health Services - economics ; Preventive Health Services - organization & administration ; Preventive Health Services - statistics & numerical data ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care - economics ; Primary Health Care - organization & administration ; Primary Health Care - statistics & numerical data ; Remuneration ; Sex Factors ; Studies]]></subject><ispartof>Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ), 2012-02, Vol.184 (2), p.E135-E143</ispartof><rights>Copyright Canadian Medical Association Feb 7, 2012</rights><rights>1995-2012, Canadian Medical Association 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-e68d6500ff1f403358f5f4c491f4a8a610664f11f653551c638f1cae832c9fac3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3273534/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3273534/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22143227$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dahrouge, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogg, William E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russell, Grant</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuna, Meltem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geneau, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muldoon, Laura K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristjansson, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, John</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices</title><title>Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ)</title><addtitle>CMAJ</addtitle><description>Several jurisdictions attempting to reform primary care have focused on changes in physician remuneration. The goals of this study were to compare the delivery of preventive services by practices in four primary care funding models and to identify organizational factors associated with superior preventive care. In a cross-sectional study, we included 137 primary care practices in the province of Ontario (35 fee-for-service practices, 35 with salaried physicians [community health centres], 35 practices in the new capitation model [family health networks] and 32 practices in the established capitation model [health services organizations]). We surveyed 288 family physicians. We reviewed 4108 randomly selected patient charts and assigned prevention scores based on the proportion of eligible preventive manoeuvres delivered for each patient. A total of 3284 patients were eligible for at least one of six preventive manoeuvres. After adjusting for patient profile and contextual factors, we found that, compared with prevention scores in practices in the new capitation model, scores were significantly lower in fee-for-service practices (β estimate for effect on prevention score = -6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.9 to -0.6) and practices in the established capitation model (β = -9.1, 95% CI -14.9 to -3.3) but not for those with salaried remuneration (β = -0.8, 95% CI -6.5 to 4.8). After accounting for physician characteristics and organizational structure, the type of funding model was no longer a statistically significant factor. Compared with reference practices, those with at least one female family physician (β = 8.0, 95% CI 4.2 to 11.8), a panel size of fewer than 1600 patients per full-time equivalent family physician (β = 6.8, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.6) and an electronic reminder system (β = 4.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 8.7) had superior prevention scores. The effect of these three factors was largely but not always consistent across the funding models; it was largely consistent across the preventive manoeuvres. No funding model was clearly associated with superior preventive care. Factors related to physician characteristics and practice structure were stronger predictors of performance. Practices with one or more female physicians, a smaller patient load and an electronic reminder system had superior prevention scores. Our findings raise questions about reform initiatives aimed at increasing patient numbers, but they support the adoption of information technology.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Capitation Fee - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Capitation Fee - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Chi-Square Distribution</subject><subject>Community Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Community Health Services - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Community Health Services - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Compensation</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Fee-for-Service Plans - economics</subject><subject>Fee-for-Service Plans - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Linear Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Ontario</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - economics</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - economics</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Remuneration</subject><subject>Sex Factors</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0820-3946</issn><issn>1488-2329</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1vEzEQxa0KRNOUE3dkceFQbfHXer0XpKoCWqkSF3q2jDNOHe3awd6NRP96JiRULb5YM_Pz0_M8Qt5xdslbJj_50W0uOWeKdSdkwZUxjZCif0UWzAjWyF7pU3JW64bhkaJ7Q06F4EoK0S1Ivh23zk80B1pgnBMUN8WcqEsrmsvapfj4t-EGGpDLpVKc-jxuB5hiWtNtgR2kKe6Aji5lmHcFKo0JB3F05Tf1rgAW-Dh6qOfkdXBDhbfHe0nuv375cX3T3H3_dnt9ddd4_MbUgDYr3TIWAg-KSdma0AblVY-lM05zprUKnAfdyrblXksTuHdgpPA9GpVL8vmgu51_jrDyaLG4wR5N2eyifTlJ8cGu887igmQrFQp8PAqU_GuGOtkxVg_D4BLkudpeMKk7YRiSH_4jN3kuuLE9hFvmHZpckosD5EuutUB4ssKZ3cdo9zHaQ4xIv3_u_on9l5v8A31Nm4o</recordid><startdate>20120207</startdate><enddate>20120207</enddate><creator>Dahrouge, Simone</creator><creator>Hogg, William E</creator><creator>Russell, Grant</creator><creator>Tuna, Meltem</creator><creator>Geneau, Robert</creator><creator>Muldoon, Laura K</creator><creator>Kristjansson, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Fletcher, John</creator><general>CMA Impact, Inc</general><general>Canadian Medical Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M3G</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120207</creationdate><title>Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices</title><author>Dahrouge, Simone ; Hogg, William E ; Russell, Grant ; Tuna, Meltem ; Geneau, Robert ; Muldoon, Laura K ; Kristjansson, Elizabeth ; Fletcher, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c407t-e68d6500ff1f403358f5f4c491f4a8a610664f11f653551c638f1cae832c9fac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Capitation Fee - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Capitation Fee - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Chi-Square Distribution</topic><topic>Community Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Community Health Services - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Community Health Services - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Compensation</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Fee-for-Service Plans - economics</topic><topic>Fee-for-Service Plans - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Linear Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Ontario</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - economics</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - economics</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Remuneration</topic><topic>Sex Factors</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dahrouge, Simone</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hogg, William E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russell, Grant</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuna, Meltem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geneau, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muldoon, Laura K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kristjansson, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, John</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business &amp; Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business &amp; Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>CBCA Reference &amp; Current Events</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dahrouge, Simone</au><au>Hogg, William E</au><au>Russell, Grant</au><au>Tuna, Meltem</au><au>Geneau, Robert</au><au>Muldoon, Laura K</au><au>Kristjansson, Elizabeth</au><au>Fletcher, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices</atitle><jtitle>Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ)</jtitle><addtitle>CMAJ</addtitle><date>2012-02-07</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>184</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>E135</spage><epage>E143</epage><pages>E135-E143</pages><issn>0820-3946</issn><eissn>1488-2329</eissn><coden>CMAJAX</coden><abstract>Several jurisdictions attempting to reform primary care have focused on changes in physician remuneration. The goals of this study were to compare the delivery of preventive services by practices in four primary care funding models and to identify organizational factors associated with superior preventive care. In a cross-sectional study, we included 137 primary care practices in the province of Ontario (35 fee-for-service practices, 35 with salaried physicians [community health centres], 35 practices in the new capitation model [family health networks] and 32 practices in the established capitation model [health services organizations]). We surveyed 288 family physicians. We reviewed 4108 randomly selected patient charts and assigned prevention scores based on the proportion of eligible preventive manoeuvres delivered for each patient. A total of 3284 patients were eligible for at least one of six preventive manoeuvres. After adjusting for patient profile and contextual factors, we found that, compared with prevention scores in practices in the new capitation model, scores were significantly lower in fee-for-service practices (β estimate for effect on prevention score = -6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.9 to -0.6) and practices in the established capitation model (β = -9.1, 95% CI -14.9 to -3.3) but not for those with salaried remuneration (β = -0.8, 95% CI -6.5 to 4.8). After accounting for physician characteristics and organizational structure, the type of funding model was no longer a statistically significant factor. Compared with reference practices, those with at least one female family physician (β = 8.0, 95% CI 4.2 to 11.8), a panel size of fewer than 1600 patients per full-time equivalent family physician (β = 6.8, 95% CI 3.1 to 10.6) and an electronic reminder system (β = 4.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 8.7) had superior prevention scores. The effect of these three factors was largely but not always consistent across the funding models; it was largely consistent across the preventive manoeuvres. No funding model was clearly associated with superior preventive care. Factors related to physician characteristics and practice structure were stronger predictors of performance. Practices with one or more female physicians, a smaller patient load and an electronic reminder system had superior prevention scores. Our findings raise questions about reform initiatives aimed at increasing patient numbers, but they support the adoption of information technology.</abstract><cop>Canada</cop><pub>CMA Impact, Inc</pub><pmid>22143227</pmid><doi>10.1503/cmaj.110407</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0820-3946
ispartof Canadian Medical Association journal (CMAJ), 2012-02, Vol.184 (2), p.E135-E143
issn 0820-3946
1488-2329
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3273534
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Analysis of Variance
Capitation Fee - organization & administration
Capitation Fee - statistics & numerical data
Chi-Square Distribution
Community Health Services - economics
Community Health Services - organization & administration
Community Health Services - statistics & numerical data
Compensation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Fee-for-Service Plans - economics
Fee-for-Service Plans - organization & administration
Fee-for-Service Plans - statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Linear Models
Male
Ontario
Physicians
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - economics
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - organization & administration
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data
Preventive Health Services - economics
Preventive Health Services - organization & administration
Preventive Health Services - statistics & numerical data
Primary care
Primary Health Care - economics
Primary Health Care - organization & administration
Primary Health Care - statistics & numerical data
Remuneration
Sex Factors
Studies
title Impact of remuneration and organizational factors on completing preventive manoeuvres in primary care practices
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T15%3A53%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20remuneration%20and%20organizational%20factors%20on%20completing%20preventive%20manoeuvres%20in%20primary%20care%20practices&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20Medical%20Association%20journal%20(CMAJ)&rft.au=Dahrouge,%20Simone&rft.date=2012-02-07&rft.volume=184&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=E135&rft.epage=E143&rft.pages=E135-E143&rft.issn=0820-3946&rft.eissn=1488-2329&rft.coden=CMAJAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1503/cmaj.110407&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E920367280%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=923221765&rft_id=info:pmid/22143227&rfr_iscdi=true