Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 113, Issues 1–2, November 2013, Pages 188-198
Health Policy

Group versus single handed primary care: A performance evaluation of the care delivered to chronic patients by Italian GPs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.05.016Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

In family medicine contrasting evidence exists on the effectiveness of team practice compared with solo practice on chronic disease management. In Italy, several experiences of team practice have been introduced since the late 1990s but few studies detail their impact on the quality of care.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impact of team practice in family medicine in six Italian regions using chronic disease management process indicators as a measure of outcome.

Methods

Cross-sectional studies were performed to assess impact on quality of care for diabetes, congestive heart failure and ischaemic heart disease. The impact of team vs. solo practice was approximated through performance comparison of general practitioners (GPs) adhering to a team with respect to GPs working in a solo practice.

Among the 2082 practitioners working in the 6 regions those assisting 300+ patients were selected. Quality of care towards 164,267 patients having at least one of three chronic conditions was estimated for the year 2008 using administrative databases.

Quality indicators (% of patients receiving appropriate care) were selected (4 for diabetes, 4 for congestive heart failure, 3 for ischaemic heart disease) and a total score was computed for each patient. For each disease the response variable associated to each physician was the average score of the patients on his/her list. A multilevel model was estimated assessing the impact of team vs. solo practice.

Results

No impact was found for diabetes and heart failure. For ischaemic heart disease a slightly significant impact was observed (0.040; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.065).

Conclusions

No significant difference was found between team practice and solo practice on chronic disease management in six Italian regions.

Introduction

Changes in demographic structure of the population and in the type of family relationships as well as medical technology advances are quickly modifying the relationship between health needs and health care services supply. Current estimates forecast that by 2020 chronic diseases will cause 73% of overall deaths and will be responsible for 60% of the global burden of disease [1], [2]. There is widespread agreement on the fact that primary care can represent an effective tool for dealing with the future health care needs of the population [3]. Accessibility, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity and accountability are all features of primary care which can contribute to an improved management of disease and in particular of chronic disease.

Team practice is one of the features of primary care organization which is often considered effective in managing chronic disease and in offering high quality services to patients. Starting from the early 1970s team practice was adopted in many countries as an important part of the primary health care (PHC) promotion process and currently represents the base of modern health care systems [4].

Nevertheless, recent developments have made it an imperative to support changes in the organization of health care delivery with sound performance measurement and reporting management. A recent publication by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies highlighted the role of information and its dissemination in enhancing decision-making by various stake-holders seeking to steer health systems towards better outcomes [5]. Improved governance of the system and increased accountability are the key elements which enable stakeholders to make informed decisions.

Several methods have been suggested in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care [6], [16]. While it may never be possible to produce an error free measure of quality, measures should adhere, as far as possible, to some fundamental a priori characteristics (acceptability, feasibility, reliability, sensitivity to change, and validity). Adherence to these characteristics will help maximize the effectiveness of quality indicators in quality improvement strategies [7].

During the last decade, the comparison between team practice and single handed general practitioners (GPs) has been widely studied and has focused on the impact on different effects. The scientific literature provides contrasting evidence on the effectiveness of team practice compared with “solo” practice [8], [9], [10], [11].

Particularly, when considering adherence to clinical guideline recommendations, some authors found a greater adherence in team practice than single handed practice [12], [13], [14] while others found no differences [15], [16].

Performance evaluation and monitoring are slowly entering the Italian health care policy arena and primary care represents one of the areas where less has been done in this sense. Although team practice within the Italian primary care system is rapidly expanding, no evaluation of its effectiveness has ever been carried across regions, and available evidence is restricted to single regions or health districts [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. More generally, limited experience exists on the evaluation of GPs performance in chronic disease management in national health systems, in particular using record linkage of different administrative database.

In 2010 the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services (Agenas) launched the VALORE project. This study was the first to consider more than one region in evaluating the impact of GPs team practice on chronic disease management process indicators (i.e. the mean number of recommended clinical exams performed and drugs prescribed in one year) under the assumption that adherence to clinical recommendations is a proxy for good quality of care [23]. In particular the study analyzed the relationship between GPs organization (team vs. single handed practice) and adherence to recommendations for specific diseases: ischaemic heart disease, congestive heart failure and diabetes.

Italy's health care system is a regionally based national health service (Servizio Sanitario Nazionale – SSN) that provides universal coverage free of charge at the point of service with financing mainly based on taxation. The system is organized into three levels: national, regional and local. The national level is responsible for ensuring the general objectives and fundamental principles of the national health care system. Regional governments, through the regional health departments, are responsible for ensuring the delivery of a benefits package through a network of population-based health management organizations (Local Health Authorities – LHA). LHAs provide care directly through their own facilities or through services supplied by independent hospital trusts, research hospitals and accredited private providers (acute and rehabilitation hospitals, diagnostic laboratories, nursing homes, outpatient specialists). Primary care is provided, free of charge, by GPs and paediatricians, self-employed and independent physicians working under a government contract paid through a capitation fee based on the number of people belonging to their own list.

Coordination of GPs activity is a responsibility of health districts. Health districts are geographical subunits of LHAs responsible for coordinating and providing primary care, non-hospital-based specialist medicine and residential and semi-residential care to their assigned populations. The number of districts in each LHA depends on its size and on other geographical and demographic characteristics.

Reforms of the system adopted during the 90s introduced significant changes in primary health care. Team practice was reinforced along with the introduction of economic incentives for general practitioners to share clinic premises with their colleagues. Also, integration between primary care physicians and district services (social care, home care, health education and environmental health) was actively promoted.

The current law allows general practitioners to work in a team in three ways:

  • (a)

    Medicina in associazione (base group): between 3 and 10 GPs working in their own offices but sharing clinical experience, adopting guidelines and organizing workshops for quality and appropriate prescribing assessment; each GP is paid an additional 2.58 € for each patient on his/her list;

  • (b)

    Medicina in rete (network group): same characteristics as previous type; in addition, GPs share a common patient electronic health record system and each GP is paid an additional 4.7 € for each patient on his/her list;

  • (c)

    Medicina di gruppo (group practice): 3–8 GPs share the same office and the patient electronic health record system. They also provide primary care to patients belonging to the list of patients of the colleagues working in the same group; each GP is paid an additional 7 € for each patient on his/her list [24].

According to the National Collective Agreement, the capitated payment that GPs receive for participating in a team implies adherence to clinical guidelines and promotion of clinical audits. Moreover, based on regional planning decisions, additional financial incentives might be provided locally for the participation in chronic disease management programmes.

Neither specialists nor other professionals participate in these teams.

Section snippets

Study design

Three analysis were performed, one for each chronic condition. They were observational, cross-sectional studies. In each study the impact of team vs. “solo” practices was approximated through performance comparison of GPs who had chosen to adhere or not to a group in the previous years. Exposure and covariates (characteristics of the GPs, of their patients and of the health districts) were measured at baseline (1st January 2008), and performance (composite score taking into account the number

Results

Overall, 1,962,137 inhabitants (7.9% of the total population of the 6 regions) and 2082 GPs were considered for the analysis. The algorithms in Table 2 identified 164,267 as having one or more of the selected chronic conditions. The average age of chronic patients was 71.9 years, with 47.1% being females; 81.3% of the patients were identified as having only one of the considered conditions. Diabetes was the most frequent (45.0%), followed by ischaemic heart disease (31.3%) and congestive heart

Discussion

Available evidence on the impact of GPs working in teams on quality of care and on effective management of chronic patients reports mixed results [12], [16], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Nevertheless, GPs working in association with other colleagues, when compared to solo practices, appear to have favourable results: teams of GPs generally allow extended accessibility to health care services leading to an improved outcome in terms both of acute care and chronic care management. Evidence for the

Conclusions

The study concluded that, in the selected health districts, there appears to be no significant difference between performance of team practice and solo practice on chronic disease management. As Fattore and Salvatore pointed out Italian GPs groups are still uniprofessional organizational forms created with little attention to the context necessary to allow networking to have an impact on professional work [22]. It is thus time for re-organization of primary care system based on

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Italian Ministry of Health (310,000 €).

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest declared.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all those involved in data collection activities and Paolo Rodelli, Remo Piroli, Giuseppina Rossi (Emilia-Romagna Region), Fabio Michelotti, Ettore Giustini Saffi, Alessandro Bussotti (Toscana Region) for their extremely useful comments on the preliminary results of our study. The authors wish to thank Niek Klazinga and Gerrard Abi-Aad for insightful comments on a previous version of the manuscript. The authors are extremely grateful to Professor Elio Guzzanti

References (57)

  • P.C. Smith et al.

    Performance measurement for health system improvement: experiences, challenges and prospects

    (2011)
  • J. Caminal et al.

    The role of primary care in preventing ambulatory care sensitive conditions

    European Journal of Public Health

    (2004)
  • S.M. Campbell et al.

    Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care

    Quality & Safety in Health Care

    (2002)
  • L.P. Casalino

    Which type of medical group provides higher-quality care?

    Annals of Internal Medicine

    (2006)
  • J. Hippisley-Cox et al.

    Do single handed practices offer poorer care? Cross sectional survey of processes and outcomes

    British Medical Journal

    (2001)
  • H.C. Lin et al.

    Patient perceptions of service quality in group versus solo practice clinics

    International Journal for Quality in Health Care

    (2004)
  • J.L. Haggerty et al.

    Practice features associated with patient-reported accessibility, continuity and coordination of primary health care

    Annals of Family Medicine

    (2008)
  • M. Butzlaff et al.

    German ambulatory care physicians’ perspectives on clinical guidelines – a national survey

    BMC Family Practice

    (2006)
  • M.A. Smith et al.

    Overprescribing of lipid lowering agents

    Quality & Safety in Health Care

    (2006)
  • P.E. Muijrers et al.

    Differences in prescribing between GPs: impact of the cooperation with pharmacists and impact of visits from pharmaceutical industry representatives

    Family Practice

    (2005)
  • M. Smolders et al.

    Which physician and practice characteristics are associated with adherence to evidence-based guidelines for depressive and anxiety disorders?

    Medical Care

    (2010)
  • G. Fiorentini et al.

    Incentives in primary care and their impact on potentially avoidable hospital admissions

    European Journal of Health Economics

    (2011)
  • M.P. Fantini et al.

    Health Care Management Review

    (2012)
  • S. Mannino et al.

    Variazioni delle performance dei MMG in relazione dalle forme associative

    Mecosan

    (2009)
  • G. Fattore et al.

    Network organizations of general practitioners: antecedents of formation and consequences of participation

    BMC Health Services Research

    (2010)
  • C. Giorda et al.

    The impact of adherence to screening guidelines and of diabetes clinics referrals in morbidity and mortality in diabetes

    PLoS ONE

    (2012)
  • A. Lo Scalzo et al.

    Italy: health system review

    Health Systems in Transition

    (2009)
  • L. Simonato et al.

    Objectives, tools and methods for an epidemiological use of electronic health archives in various areas of Italy

    Epidemiologia & Prevenzione

    (2008)
  • Cited by (33)

    • Continuity of care in patients with type 2 diabetes in Croatian primary care setting during COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective observational study

      2022, Primary Care Diabetes
      Citation Excerpt :

      We can conclude that the better care was given to patients who had FMPs both in the COVID and preCOVID period. In 7 out of the 12 published studies [14–19], higher physician age was associated with the poorer quality of care which is contradicted to our results, possibly because of the FMPs higher academic rank and longer continuity of care. Comparing our results with other countries in the preCOVID period, 80.4% of diabetic patients in a Swiss study [20], 45% in Canadian [21] and 47.6% in an American study [22] had at least one recorded HbA1c measurement in one year.

    • Patient and General Practitioner characteristics influencing the management of non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional study in Italy

      2016, Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
      Citation Excerpt :

      Our results are in line with other Italian studies showing the influence of physicians’ attitudes on current practices; they can affect intermediate outcome as well [41,42]. Working in group practice in association with other physicians did not improve the disease management in this investigation (data not shown) and showed mixed results in other Italian studies [25,43]; perhaps these organizational issues must be considered jointly with attitudes, improvement of clinical, management and information technology skills and effective use of economic and human resources. Some limitations may affect our results.

    • Dealing with minor illnesses: The link between primary care characteristics and Walk-in Centres' attendances

      2016, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Parma LHA is subdivided into four Health Districts, each responsible for providing primary care, non-hospital-based specialist medicine, residential and semi-residential care. The largest Health District covers the entire municipality of Parma, and delivers primary care to approximately 217,000 people through around 150 GPs, most of whom work in associated practices where GPs coordinate their activities, for example by replacing one another in cases of absence, share the same premise, and if present, the same nursing staff [20–22]. The purpose of this is also to ensure the mutual sharing of planning strategies and guidelines.

    • Out-of-hours primary care services: Demands and patient referral patterns in a Veneto region (Italy) Local Health Authority

      2015, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The independent variables were divided into three categories: socio-demographic, process-contextual, and clinical, as detailed in the regression table footnotes. The organizational format adopted by the patient's GP was used as a dummy variable: taking GPs who worked alone for reference, as opposed to GPs working in associations, networks, groups, or integrated units (UTAP) [12,17]. A fully adjusted logistic regression was also run on the output of the contact (with referral to an ED vs other outputs as the dependent variable), after including another independent variable, which was a unique code for anonymously identifying the 34 OOH physicians working at the LHA 4 considered (dummy variable, taking a randomly selected OOH physician coded as No. 1 for reference) to test whether different operators influenced the way in which patients contacting the OOH were managed, after accounting for all other covariates.

    • Health care delivery in type 2 diabetes. A survey in an Italian primary care practice

      2015, Primary Care Diabetes
      Citation Excerpt :

      Rather, this group of patients should be addressed cautiously [27] reserving the achievement of HbA1c values <7% only to functional and cognitively fit elders with a life expectancy long enough to reap benefits from glucose lowering interventions [4]. A second point of interest emerging from this audit was the highly heterogeneous distribution of patients with HbA1c > 8% among the GPs belonging to the group practice, a large interindividual spread explained by several factors including discrepant medical competence and personal motivation, defective communication of the common goals to be reached as a team and ignorance and/or unwillingness to accept guidelines recommendations [28,29]. This latter possibility applies also to the way physicians monitored the metabolic status of their patients since about half of the post-baseline evaluation HbA1c determinations were obtained at time intervals either too short (less than 3 months) or too long (more than 9 months) to be used as a meaningful clinical guide quite in contrast with guidelines requiring HbA1c determinations 2 times each year in stable patients at target and quarterly in those not meeting glycemic goals [4,19].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    On behalf of the VALORE group. See Appendix A.

    View full text