BackgroundAccurate clinical problem lists are critical for patient care, clinical decision support, population reporting, quality improvement, and research. However, problem lists are often incomplete or out of date.ObjectiveTo determine whether a clinical alerting system, which uses inference rules to notify providers of undocumented problems, improves problem list documentation.Study Design and MethodsInference rules for 17 conditions were constructed and an electronic health record-based intervention was evaluated to improve problem documentation. A cluster randomized trial was conducted of 11 participating clinics affiliated with a large academic medical center, totaling 28 primary care clinical areas, with 14 receiving the intervention and 14 as controls. The intervention was a clinical alert directed to the provider that suggested adding a problem to the electronic problem list based on inference rules. The primary outcome measure was acceptance of the alert. The number of study problems added in each arm as a pre-specified secondary outcome was also assessed. Data were collected during 6-month pre-intervention (11/2009–5/2010) and intervention (5/2010–11/2010) periods.Results17 043 alerts were presented, of which 41.1% were accepted. In the intervention arm, providers documented significantly more study problems (adjusted OR=3.4, p<0.001), with an absolute difference of 6277 additional problems. In the intervention group, 70.4% of all study problems were added via the problem list alerts. Significant increases in problem notation were observed for 13 of 17 conditions.ConclusionProblem inference alerts significantly increase notation of important patient problems in primary care, which in turn has the potential to facilitate quality improvement.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01105923.

CONTEXT: Although few data are available, many believe that part-time primary care physicians (PCPs) are less productive and provide lower quality care than full-time PCPs. Some insurers exclude part-time PCPs from their provider networks.OBJECTIVE: To compare productivity, quality of preventive care, patient satisfaction, and risk-adjusted resource utilization of part-time and full-time PCPs.DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Boston.PARTICIPANTS: PCPs affiliated with 2 academic outpatient primary care networks.MEASUREMENTS: PCP productivity, patient satisfaction, resource utilization, and compliance with screening guidelines.RESULTS: Part-time PCP productivity was greater than that of full-time PCPs (2.1 work relative value units (RVUs)/bookable clinical hour versus 1.3 work RVUs/bookable clinical hour, P < .01). A similar proportion of part-time PCPs (80%) and fulltime PCPs (75%) met targets for mammography, Pap smears, and cholesterol screening (P = .67). After adjusting for clinical case mix, practice location, gender, board certification status, and years in practice, resource utilization of part-time PCPs ($138 [95% confidence interval (CI), $108 to $167]) was similar to that of full-time PCPs ($139 [95% CI, $108 to $170], P = .92). Patient satisfaction was similar for part-time and full-time PCPs.CONCLUSIONS: In these academic primary care practices, rates of patient satisfaction, compliance with screening guidelines, and resource utilization were similar for part-time PCPs compared to full-time PCPs. Productivity per clinical hour was markedly higher for part-time PCPs. Despite study limitations, these data suggest that academic part-time PCPs are at least as efficient as full-time PCPs and that the quality of their work is similar. KEY WORDS: productivity; quality of care; patient satisfaction; part-time physicians; women in medicine. J GEN INTERN MED 2001;16:663±667.

In these academic primary care practices, rates of patient satisfaction, compliance with screening guidelines, and resource utilization were similar for part-time PCPs compared to full-time PCPs. Productivity per clinical hour was markedly higher for part-time PCPs. Despite study limitations, these data suggest that academic part-time PCPs are at least as efficient as full-time PCPs and that the quality of their work is similar.