Skip to main content
How Is Family Medicine Engaging Patients at the Practice-Level?: A National Sample of Family Physicians.
- Author(s): Sharma, Anjana E;
- Knox, Margae;
- Peterson, Lars E;
- Willard-Grace, Rachel;
- Grumbach, Kevin;
- Potter, Michael B
- et al.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2018.05.170418
IntroductionEmerging policy consensus advocates that patient-centered care should include an active, practice-level patient role, but it is unknown how commonly these roles are implemented. We sought to understand current prevalence and predictors of practice-level patient engagement in US primary care settings.
MethodsWe assessed practice-level patient engagement by using 2016 American Board of Family Medicine Certification Examination registration data, restricted to ambulatory primary care site respondents randomly selected for a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) question module. Multivariate logistic regression models identified predictors of high-intensity patient engagement, defined as a patient advisory council or patient volunteers in quality improvement activities.
ResultsA total of 6900 examinees reported practicing in primary care sites; 1368 randomly received PCMH questions. Practice-level patient engagement included patient surveys (76.5%; 95% CI, 74.3-78.8%), patient suggestion boxes (52.9%; 95% CI, 50.2-55.5%), patient board of director memberships (18.8%; 95% CI, 16.7-20.9%), patient advisory councils (23.8%; 95% CI, 21.5-26.0%), and patient participation in quality improvement (20.5%; 95% CI, 18.3-22.6%). High-intensity patient engagement was reported by 31.1% (95% CI, 28.7-33.6%); predictors included large practice size (OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 1.96-5.57), serving more vulnerable patient populations, (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.18-2.84) and PCMH certification (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.62-2.97).
ConclusionsNearly one-third of physicians reported working in settings with high-intensity practice-level patient engagement. An implementation science approach should examine why high-intensity activities are more common in some practice settings and whether these activities add value through improved patient experience and health outcomes.
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.