Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jul-Aug;8(4):341-7.
doi: 10.1370/afm.1157.

A method for estimating relative complexity of ambulatory care

David A Katerndahl  1 , Robert Wood, Carlos Roberto Jaén
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A method for estimating relative complexity of ambulatory care

David A Katerndahl et al. Ann Fam Med. 2010 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

Purpose: We wanted to demonstrate a method for calculating the relative complexity of ambulatory clinical encounters.

Methods: Measures of complexity should reflect the complexity of the typical encounter and across encounters. If inputs represent the information transferred from the patient to the physician, then inputs include history, physical examination, testing, diagnoses, and patient demographics. Outputs include medications prescribed and other therapies used, including education and counseling, procedures performed, and disposition. The complexity of each input/output is defined as the mean input/output quantity per clinical encounter weighted by its inter-encounter diversity (range of possibilities used) and variability (visit-to-visit change). In complex systems, as the information in the input increases linearly, the complexity of the system increases exponentially. To assess the impact of the complexity of the encounter on the physician, we adjusted the estimated complexity by the duration-of-visit.

Results: Using the 2000 NAMCS database, we calculated input and output complexities for 3 specialties. Construct validity was affirmed by comparing the relative rankings of complexity against relative rankings using other complexity-related measures. Although total relative complexity was similar for family medicine (44.04 +/- 0.0024 SE) and cardiology (42.78 +/- 0.0004 standard error [SE]), when adjusted for duration-of-visit, family medicine had a greater complexity density per hour (167.33 +/- 0.0095 SE) than either cardiology (125.4 +/- 0.0117 SE) or psychiatry (31.21 +/- 0.0027 SE).

Conclusions: This method estimates complexity based on the amount of care provided weighted by its diversity and variability. Such estimates could have broad use for interphysician comparisons as well as longitudinal applications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Variance as function of sample.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Goldberger AL. Non-linear dynamics for clinicians: chaos theory, fractals, and complexity at the bedside. Lancet. 1996;347(9011): 1312–1314. - PubMed
    1. Rosser WW. Approach to diagnosis by primary care clinicians and specialists: is there a difference? J Fam Pract. 1996;42(2):139–144. - PubMed
    1. Wilson T, Holt T, Greenhalgh T. Complexity science: complexity and clinical care. BMJ. 2001;323(7314):685–688. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stange KC. The paradox of the parts and the whole in understanding and improving general practice. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(4):267–268. - PubMed
    1. Graham R, Bagley B, Kilo CM, Spann SJ, Bogdewic SP. Task Force 1. Report of the task force on patient expectations, core values, reintegration, and the new model of family medicine. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(Suppl 1):S33–S50.

Publication types

MeSH terms