The structural landscape of the health care system for breast cancer care: results from the Los Angeles Women's Health Study.

The structure of health care has been rapidly evolving in response to financial pressures and demands to improve quality. Little work has documented the structure of care and its impact in the context of breast cancer care. We conducted a survey to characterize Los Angeles physicians caring for breast cancer patients and the structural landscape of the healthcare system in which they practice. Cross-sectional survey of physicians who treated a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients. We surveyed 477 physicians, targeting all Los Angeles County medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons reported by patients participating in the Los Angeles Women's Health Study (77% response rate). Specialty-specific questionnaires were developed. Items were based on the structure and quality of care literature, cognitive interviews with cancer care specialists, and existing physician survey instruments. Breast cancer care providers in Los Angeles are diverse, with one-third non-white and 46% speaking a non-English language. Group practice is most common, (37% single specialty, 16% group-model HMO, 8% multi-specialty group). Minimal teaching involvement predominates. Mean new breast cancer patient volumes are relatively high (8 per month overall; six for surgeons), representing 46% of new cancer patients. Physicians reported high career satisfaction levels (83-92%). Physicians were least satisfied with the amount of time spent with patients (82%). Data from this study represent important building blocks for further analyses to determine the impact of structural characteristics on the quality of care that breast cancer patient's experience.

Does concordance between data sources vary by medical organization type?

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how concordance between patient self-report and medical record data varies with medical organization type. Given discrepancies in quality of care received across patient cohorts and organizations, it is important to understand the degree to which concordance metrics are robust across organization types. We tested whether concordance between patient selfreport and medical record data would vary with medical organization type, controlling for patient demographic characteristics, health status, and domain of medical care. STUDY DESIGN: This observational study included 1270 patients sampled from 39 West Coast medical organizations with at least 1 of the following conditions: diabetes, ischemic heart disease, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or low back pain. METHODS: Medical records and patient self-report were used to measure 50 items grouped into 4 conceptual domains: diagnosis, clinical services delivered, counseling and referral, and medication use. We evaluated the concordance between ambulatory medical record and patient survey data. We conducted multivariate logistic regressions to test the impact of medical organization type (medical groups vs independent practice associations), controlling for patient characteristics and domain of care, on 5 concordance measures. RESULTS: Independent practice associations were associated with worse agreement, survey specificity, and medical record sensitivity, and better medical record specificity compared with medical groups. CONCLUSIONS: The medical record and patient survey do not measure quality comparably across organization types. We recommend continued efforts to improve survey data collection across different patient populations and to improve the quality of clinical data.