Part-time physicians...prevalent, connected, and satisfied.

OBJECTIVE: The health care workforce is evolving and part-time practice is increasing. The objective of this work is to determine the relationship between part-time status, workplace conditions, and physician outcomes. DESIGN: Minimizing error, maximizing outcome (MEMO) study surveyed generalist physicians and their patients in the upper Midwest and New York City. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physician survey of stress, burnout, job satisfaction, work control, intent to leave, and organizational climate. Patient survey of satisfaction and trust. Responses compared by part-time and full-time physician status; 2-part regression analyses assessed outcomes associated with part-time status. Of 751 physicians contacted, 422 (56%) participated. Eighteen percent reported part-time status (n = 77, 31% of women, 8% of men, p < .001). Part-time physicians reported less burnout (p < .01), higher satisfaction (p < .001), and greater work control (p < .001) than full-time physicians. Intent to leave and assessments of organizational climate were similar between physician groups. A survey of 1,795 patients revealed no significant differences in satisfaction and trust between part-time and full-time physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Part-time is a successful practice style for physicians and their patients. If favorable outcomes influence career choice, an increased demand for part-time practice is likely to occur.

Urban outpatient views on quality and safety in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The Minimizing Errors Maximizing Outcomes Study is designed to examine the effect of workplace conditions on quality of care and medical errors. In the first phase of the study, patients were asked to "tell their stories" via focus groups. DESIGN: Moderators used a standard question guide. Researchers read the transcripts independently and reached consensus on major themes. Two coders independently assigned transcript statement to themes. SETTING: Three focus groups were conducted in three cities, including 21 patients from three clinics. PATIENTS: Patients with previously scheduled appointments at participating clinics were invited to join the focus groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Agreement between the two coders was 77.5% (kappa value 0.66). All but 2% of 187 distinct comments could be grouped into four categories: (1) Systems Issues (44% of comments). Long waits for providers and lack of access were the most common frustrations. Understaffing, underfunding and lack of health insurance were perceived as contributing to poor quality of care; (2) Interpersonal Skills (37%). Physician listening skills were valued. Participants felt patient attitudes affected care. (3) Knowledge and Technical Skills (9%). (4) Errors (7%). Medication errors, errors of inattention and technical errors were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients provide important insights into complex systems issues, which can guide planners in improving quality and reducing errors. According to focus group participants, healthcare could be improved and made safer by increasing timely access to patients' own physicians, decreasing the time patients spend in waiting rooms, and adding staff to double-check prescriptions.