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
. 2016 Apr;28(2):183-90.
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzv120. Epub 2016 Jan 26.

Patient assessment of diabetes care in a pay-for-performance program

Affiliations

Patient assessment of diabetes care in a pay-for-performance program

Herng-Chia Chiu et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: Few studies address quality of care in pay-for-performance (P4P) programs from the perspective of patients' perceptions. This study aimed to examine and compare the patient assessment of diabetes chronic care as perceived by diabetic patients enrolled and not enrolled in a P4P program from the patients' self-reported perspectives.

Design: A cross-sectional study with case and comparison group design.

Setting: A large-scale survey was conducted from February to November 2013 in 18 healthcare institutions in Taiwan.

Participants: A total of 1458 P4P (n = 1037) and non-P4P (n = 421) diabetic patients participated in this large survey. The Chinese version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument was used and patients' clinical outcome data (e.g. HbA1c, LDL) were collected.

Intervention: None.

Main outcome measures: Five subscales from the PACIC were measured, including patient activation, delivery system design/system support, goal setting/tailoring, problem solving/contextual and follow-up/coordination. Patient clinical outcomes were also measured. Multiple linear regression and logistic regression models were used and controlled for patient demographic and health institution characteristics statistically.

Results: After adjusting for covariates, P4P patients had higher overall scores on the PACIC and five subscales than non-P4P patients. P4P patients also had better clinical processes of care (e.g. HbA1c test) and intermediate outcomes.

Conclusions: Patients who participated in the program likely received better patient-centered care given the original Chronic Care Model. Better perceptions of diabetic care assessment also better clinical outcomes. The PACIC instrument can be used for the patient assessment of chronic care in a P4P program.

Keywords: PACIC; chronic care model; diabetes care; patient-centered care; pay-for-performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types