How Feedback Is Given Matters: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Satisfaction Feedback Delivery and Physician Well-being.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how variation in the way patient satisfaction feedback is delivered relates to physician well-being and perceptions of its impact on patient care, job satisfaction, and clinical decision making. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was sent to faculty physicians from a large academic medical center in March 29, 2019. Physicians reported their exposure to feedback (timing, performance relative to peers, or channel) and related perceptions. The Professional Fulfillment Index captured burnout and professional fulfillment. Associations between feedback characteristics and well-being or perceived impact were tested using analysis of variance or logistic regression adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of 1016 survey respondents, 569 (56.0%) reported receiving patient satisfaction feedback. Among those receiving feedback, 303 (53.2%) did not believe that this feedback improved patient care. Compared with physicians who never received feedback, those who received any type of feedback had higher professional fulfillment scores (mean, 6.6±2.1 vs 6.3±2.0; P=.03) but also reported an unfavorable impact on clinical decision making (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7; P<.001). Physicians who received feedback that included one-on-one discussions (as opposed to feedback without this channel) held more positive perceptions of the feedback's impact on patient care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.0; P=.003), whereas perceptions were less positive in physicians whose feedback included comparisons to named colleagues (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8; P=.003). CONCLUSION: Providing patient satisfaction feedback to physicians was associated with mixed results, and physician perceptions of the impact of feedback depended on the characteristics of feedback delivery. Our findings suggest that feedback is viewed most constructively by physicians when delivered through one-on-one discussions and without comparison to peers.

An Incentive to Innovate: Improving Health Care Value and Restoring Physician Autonomy Through Physician-Directed Reinvestment.

PROBLEM: Many health care systems in the United States are shifting from a fee-for-service reimbursement model to a value-based payment model. To remain competitive, health care administrators must engage frontline clinicians in their efforts to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Engaging physicians and other clinicians is challenging, however, as many feel overwhelmed with clinical responsibilities and do not view cost reduction as in their purview. Even if they are willing, providing a direct financial incentive to clinicians to control costs poses ethical and legal challenges. An effective incentive in the current system must motivate clinicians to engage in creative problem solving and mitigate ethical and legal risk. APPROACH: Evidence suggests the most successful behavior change interventions in physicians are multifaceted and combine intrinsic motivators, such as increased autonomy, with extrinsic motivators, such as access to funding or social recognition. Two academic health centers-the University of Utah Health and Stanford Health Care-have begun experimenting with an alternative value-sharing arrangement. Physician-directed reinvestment is an explicit agreement in which a health care system reinvests a portion of savings attributed to physician-led cost reduction initiatives back into areas of the physician's choosing, such as capital investment, research, or education. OUTCOMES: Both organizations reported similar positive outcomes, including increased engagement from clinicians and administrators, sustained or improved quality of care, reduced costs of care, and benefits from reinvested funds. Many savings opportunities were previously unknown to administrators. NEXT STEPS: Physician-directed reinvestment appears to effectively engage physicians in ongoing efforts to improve value in health care, although formal evaluation is still needed. This incentive structure may hold promise in other configurations, such as inviting nonphysicians to apply as project leaders (clinician-directed reinvestment) and expanding the program to nonacademic and ambulatory settings.