Measuring performance in primary care: What patient outcome indicators do physicians value?

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-8

  Dassow, Paul L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PAIN; PHYSICIAN; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; QUALITY OF LIFE; SHORT FORM 36; SOCIAL STATUS; SOCIAL SUPPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; KENTUCKY; MALE; PHYSICIANS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 33846892807     PISSN: 15572625     EISSN: 15587118     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2007.01.060082     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. HEDIS Benchmarks [homepage on the internet]. Washington (DC): National Committee for Quality Assurance [cited 10 May 2006]. Available from: http://www.ncqa.org.
2. Tarlov AR, Ware JE Jr., Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989;262:925-30.
3. McHorney CA. Generic health measurement: past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st century. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:743-50.
4. AQA [homepage on the internet]. The Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance; ©2005 [cited 2006 May 10]. Available from http://www. ambulatoryqualityalliance.org.
5. AQA Workgroup Membership. The Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance; c2005 [cited 10 May 2006]. Available from: http://www.ambulatoryqualityalliance.org/ files/AQAWorkgroupMembershipLists.doc.
6. AQA releases ambulatory quality measures. Med Health 2005;59:3-4.
7. Resolution No. 302 (Kentucky A) [cited 20 Sept 2006]. Available from: http://www.aafp.org.
8. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP. The General Health Policy Model: An integrated approach. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. New York: Raven Press; 1996. p. 309.
9. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short form health survey. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1988;30:473-83.
10. Stewart AL, Ware JE. Measuring functioning and well-being: the medical outcomes study approach. Durham (NC): Duke University Press; 1992.
11. Nelson E, Wasson J, Kirk J, et al. Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: Description of the COOP chart method and preliminary findings. J Chron Dis 1987;40:55S-63S.
12. Parkerson GR, Gehlbach SH, Wagner EH, James SA, Clapp NE, Muhlbaier LH. The Duke-UNC Health Profile: An adult health status instrument for primary care. Med Care 1981;19:806-28.
13. Hunt SM, McEwen J. The development of a subjective health indicator. Soc Health Illness 1980;2:232-46.
14. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Gilson BJ, Morris JR. The Sickness Impact Profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv 1976;6:393-415.
15. Jette AM, Davies AR, Cleary PD, et al. The Functional Status Questionnaire: reliability and validity when used in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 1986;1:143-9.
16. World Health Organization. Constitution of the World Health Organization. New York: World Health Organization; 1947.
17. Weber DO. The dark side of P4P. Physician Exec 2005;31:20-5.
18. Williams TR. Practical design and implementation considerations in pay-for-performance programs. Am J Man Care 2006;12:77-80.
19. Mirsky RS. Physician buy-in is essential for pay for performance. Physician Exec 2005;31:16-9.
20. Idler EL, Kasl S. Health perceptions and survival: do global evaluations of health status really predict mortality? J Gerontol 1991;46:S55-S65.
21. Steiger B. Poll finds physicians very wary of pay-forperformance programs. Physician Exec 2005;31:6-11.