How Can We Raise Awareness of Physician's Needs in Order to Increase Adherence to Management and Leadership Training?

Due to the increasing complexity of medical education and practice, the training of healthcare professionals for leadership and management roles and responsibilities has become increasingly important. But gaps in physician leadership and management skills have been identified across a broad range of organizational and geographic settings. Many clinicians are inadequately prepared to meet their day-to-day clinical leadership responsibilities. Simultaneously, physicians' leadership and management skills play a central role and yield superior outcomes for patients and health care delivery organizations. Currently, there is a tremendous variability in the amount of time, structure and resources dedicated to leadership/management training for physicians. Physicians who have completed such trainings seem to be pleased with the outcome. However, only a limited number of physicians enroll in these types of trainings. Several reasons can explain this fact, but it seems crucial to investigate what could increase the involvement of medical leaders and managers in these training programs. This paper offers a framework for addressing the barriers to training commitment and for designing initial training interventions for physicians. This framework is rooted in two well-known theoretical models used in social sciences. It aims to promote self-assessed knowledge and expertise amongst physicians about to embrace leader/manager careers. By developing the ability to explore and be curious about one's own experience and actions, physicians may suddenly open up the possibilities of purposeful learning. The process we describe in this paper may be an essential step in fostering the involvement of physicians in leadership and management training processes. And this is essential to contribute to the advancement of medical discipline.

Providing high-quality care in primary care settings: how to make trade-offs.

OBJECTIVE: To gain a deeper understanding of how primary care (PC) practices belonging to different models manage resources to provide high-quality care. DESIGN: Multiple-case study embedded in a cross-sectional study of a random sample of 37 practices. SETTING: Three regions of Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Health care professionals and staff of 5 PC practices. METHODS: Five cases showing above-average results on quality-of-care indicators were purposefully selected to contrast on region, practice size, and PC model. Data were collected using an organizational questionnaire; the Team Climate Inventory, which was completed by health care professionals and staff; and 33 individual interviews. Detailed case histories were written and thematic analysis was performed. MAIN FINDINGS: The core common feature of these practices was their ongoing effort to make trade-offs to deliver services that met their vision of high-quality care. These compromises involved the same 3 areas, but to varying degrees depending on clinic characteristics: developing a shared vision of high-quality care; aligning resource use with that vision; and balancing professional aspirations and population needs. The leadership of the physician lead was crucial. The external environment was perceived as a source of pressure and dilemmas rather than as a source of support in these matters. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of their models, PC practices' pursuit of high-quality care is based on a vision in which accessibility is a key component, balanced by appropriate management of available resources and of external environment expectations. Current PC reforms often create tensions rather than support PC practices in their pursuit of high-quality care.

Characteristics of primary care practices associated with high quality of care.

BACKGROUND: No primary practice care model has been shown to be superior in achieving high-quality primary care. We aimed to identify the organizational characteristics of primary care practices that provide high-quality primary care. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional observational study involving a stratified random sample of 37 primary care practices from 3 regions of Quebec. We recruited 1457 patients who had 1 of 2 chronic care conditions or 1 of 6 episodic care conditions. The main outcome was the overall technical quality score. We measured organizational characteristics by use of a validated questionnaire and the Team Climate Inventory. Statistical analyses were based on multilevel regression modelling. RESULTS: The following characteristics were strongly associated with overall technical quality of care score: physician remuneration method (27.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.0-35.0), extent of sharing of administrative resources (7.6; 95% CI 0.8-14.4), presence of allied health professionals (15.3; 95% CI 5.4-25.2) and/or specialist physicians (19.6; 95% CI 8.3-30.9), the presence of mechanisms for maintaining or evaluating competence (7.7; 95% CI 3.0-12.4) and average organizational access to the practice (4.9; 95% CI 2.6-7.2). The number of physicians (1.2; 95% CI 0.6-1.8) and the average Team Climate Inventory score (1.3; 95% CI 0.1-2.5) were modestly associated with high-quality care. INTERPRETATION: We identified a common set of organizational characteristics associated with high-quality primary care. Many of these characteristics are amenable to change through practice-level organizational changes.

Patients' experience of chronic illness care in a network of teaching settings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate chronic illness care delivery from the patient's perspective and to examine its main correlates. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, descriptive study using questionnaires and medical chart review. SETTING: Nine teaching family practices in Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 364 patients with diabetes, hypertension, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Score on the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire, which evaluates the patient's perspective on the care received based on the chronic care model (CCM); patients characteristics (sex, level of education, number of chronic illnesses); patient-physician relationship (relational continuity, interpersonal communication assessed from the patient's perspective); and interdisciplinary care and technical quality of care abstracted from patients' medical charts. RESULTS: The mean PACIC score obtained (2.8 out of 5) indicates that, on average, CCM-concordant care "generally did not occur" or occurred only "sometimes" in this network of teaching practices. However, with a mean technical quality-of-care score of nearly 80%, physicians in this network showed a high degree of adherence to clinical guidelines for the chronic illnesses under study. Patient education level lower than high school was negatively associated with PACIC scores, while positive associations were found with male sex, number of chronic illnesses, relational continuity, interpersonal communication, interdisciplinary care, and technical quality of care. CONCLUSION: Patients with less education reported receiving less CCM-concordant care. The patient-physician relationship was the strongest correlate of PACIC scores, while interdisciplinary care and technical quality of care had modest contributions.