Abstract
Objectives
Assess 1) provider satisfaction with specific elements of PCMH; 2) clinic organizational cultures; 3) associations between provider satisfaction and clinic culture.
Methods
Cross sectional study with surveys conducted in 2011 with providers and staff in 10 primary care clinics implementing their version of a PCMH: Care by Design™. Measures included the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) and the American Medical Group Association provider satisfaction survey.
Results
Providers were most satisfied with quality of care (M=4.14; scale=1–5) and interactions with patients (M=4.12) and least satisfied with time spent working (M=3.47), paper work (M =3.45) and compensation (M=3.35). Culture profiles differed across clinics with family/clan and hierarchical the most common. Significant correlations (p ≤ 0.05) between provider satisfaction and clinic culture archetypes included: family/clan negatively correlated with administrative work; entrepreneurial positively correlated with the Time Spent Working dimension; market/rational positively correlated with how practices were facing economic and strategic challenges; and hierarchical negatively correlated with Relationships with Staff and Resource dimensions.
Discussion
Provider satisfaction is an important metric for assessing experiences with features of a PCMH model.
Conclusions
Identification of clinic-specific culture archetypes and archetype associations with provider satisfaction can help inform practice redesign. Attention to effective methods for changing organizational culture is recommended.
Background
In the management literature, it is widely accepted that an understanding of organization culture is key to the successful implementation of major improvement strategies as well as adaptation to the increasingly turbulent environment faced by modern organizations1. Health services researchers have investigated the relationship between organizational culture and various dimensions of performance. In a review of studies reported in the healthcare literature, Scott et al. (2003) conclude that “there is some evidence to suggest that organizational culture may be a relevant factor in healthcare performance, yet articulating the nature of that relationship proves difficult” 2. Recently, Nembhard and colleagues (2012) argue that as medical groups adapt to changes under health care reform, their success likely depends on their cultures3. Thus, a better understanding of the relationship between organizational culture and performance is needed.
Beyond the influence organizational culture may have on practice performance, it can also affect provider satisfaction. In a qualitative study of physicians working in group practice settings, Williams and colleagues found that organizational culture was an important determinant of physician job satisfaction4. Zazzili et al. (2007) found that dimensions of practice culture were associated with individual provider satisfaction with group practice and these dimensions varied across different cultures5. Brazili et al. (2010) found that clinicians reported different levels of job satisfaction and perceived effectiveness depending upon the culture of the organization within which they practiced6.
Despite this general association between organizational culture and provider satisfaction, little is known about the relationship between practice culture and provider satisfaction with specific features of a PCMH model. The PCMH model requires a shift from provider-centric care to team-based care. Some providers may be uncomfortable sharing decision-making with other members of the care team, particularly with sharing decisions regarding preventive and chronic care7. The focus of PCMH on comprehensive care and continuity of the provider/patient relationship calls for practices to implement or enhance existing Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems. Such technological changes may be accompanied by the need to acquire new skills and may trigger resistance or dissatisfaction among some employees8. There is evidence that, with sufficient staffing and practice support, adoption of the PCMH can lead to greater work satisfaction9. Assessment of clinician work-related satisfaction should be among the outcomes measured as practice transformation proceeds10.
In the context of practice transformation towards a PCMH, it is critical to consider provider satisfaction with specific aspects of the redesigned care delivery model, including assessment of satisfaction with new approaches to care (team-based, patient-centered care), use of new technologies to support care (EMRs, best practice reminders), and implementation of new compensation plans (performance incentives for dimensions of PCMH). It is also important to assess the ways in which organizational culture may be differentially associated with specific aspects of providers’ experiences in redesigned practices.
Objective
In this exploratory study, our objectives are to: 1) assess provider satisfaction with specific elements of a PCMH care model; 2) assess the culture of practices that have implemented a PCMH type model, and 3) investigate whether there are associations between clinic culture and specific elements of provider satisfaction with PCMH features. Further study of the relationship of organizational culture to provider satisfaction will provide insights into how culture may color providers’ experiences, and thus their satisfaction with, particular elements of redesigned practice. It will also help identify ways in which management can facilitate practice redesign while simultaneously enhancing provider satisfaction.
Methods
Study Setting
The University of Utah Community Clinics (CC) is a network of 10 primary care clinics owned by University of Utah Health Care (UUHC) and located in and around Salt Lake City, UT. In the 2011study period, CC employed approximately 70 primary care providers and 170 staff directly involved in patient care. Clinics ranged in size from 4 to 12 primary care providers. CC has implemented a care delivery model called Care by Design™ (CBD). CBD includes many of the components of the PCMH model11. This model was built around three organizing principles: Appropriate Access, Care Teams, and Planned Care.
Implementing the three CBD principles required many complex and interrelated changes. Appropriate Access was introduced in 2003 as a way to balance visit supply and demand. It required the standardization of provider schedules and centralization of appointment scheduling and response to messages. Care Teams were implemented in 2004. The physician-led teams included providers and medical assistants (MAs) working in tandem supported by EMR tools. The MA role was expanded to include recording patients’ histories using EMR templates, reviewing medications, obtaining a limited set of x-rays, drawing labs, arranging referrals, and providing immunizations. The implementation of care teams required a shift in focus from provider-centric to team-oriented care. Planned Care was initiated in 2006 and included the use of care protocols, order sets, pre-visit planning, laboratory tests prior to visits, and registries to support outreach to patients with chronic conditions.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is a term used to describe the values and beliefs held in common by members of an organization. It is stable, socially constructed, and subconscious12. The Competing Values Framework has been widely used in health services research to assess organizational culture13. This framework suggests that organizations can be characterized along two dimensions. These dimensions represent alternative approaches that organizations can use to resolve challenges in their everyday functioning and thus are viewed as “competing.” The first dimension is the degree to which an organization emphasizes centralization and control over organizational processes versus decentralization and flexibility. The second dimension is the degree to which the organization is oriented toward its own internal environment and processes versus the external environment and relationships with outside entities. Combining these two dimensions creates four archetypes, referred to as family/clan, entrepreneurial, market/rational and hierarchical cultures as outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Description of the four culture archetypes within the Competing Values Framework for Organizational Culture adapted from Cameron & Quinn1.
Each of these culture archetypes may be compatible with different aspects of a PCMH model. For example, a family/clan culture with its emphasis on employee empowerment and involvement may be particularly suited to team-based care. A hierarchical culture with its emphasis on policies, coordination, and efficiency may be helpful in larger organizations aiming for standardized practices. A market/rational culture which is more externally focused may be appropriate in competitive environments where differentiation between practices is important to market leadership.
Study Design
As part of a larger project assessing the experience of the CC in implementing CBD, CC primary care providers (i.e., internal medicine (IM), family medicine (FM), Pediatrics (Peds), Obstetrics-Gynecology and IM/Peds) and staff who support these providers participated in a survey that included the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)14. This survey was distributed at provider and staff meetings in each clinic during the spring of 2011. In a separate survey, conducted in the summer of 2011, the American Medical Group Association’s (AMGA) provider satisfaction survey was used to capture physician sentiment. Responses to these two surveys were combined for clinic-level analyses of provider satisfaction and clinic culture.
Provider Satisfaction Survey
The AMGA provider satisfaction survey includes 55 questions structured to assess 12 dimensions of practice life15. The reliability and validity of this instrument have been well established16. All CC physicians are asked to complete the survey. To assure that their responses are kept anonymous, physicians’ responses are reported to CC only in aggregate for all physicians practicing at each clinic and only for clinics with 4+ physicians responding. We had access to clinic level data for 9 of our 10 clinics.
Our CBD model was intended to enhance quality of care, clinic efficiency, and clinic productivity as well as physician satisfaction with aspects of their work life. The AMGA provider satisfaction survey includes items that assess activities and outcomes related to CBD, such as, providers’ satisfaction with “time spent working,” “control over schedule,” and “relationships with patients.”
Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)
To assess organizational culture, we used the OCAI14 which is based upon the Competing Values Framework. It identifies four organizational archetypes: Family/Clan (A), Entrepreneurial (B), Market/Rational (C), and Hierarchical (D). The OCAI is structured into 6 domains: organizational character, managers and leadership, organizational cohesion, management of employees, organizational emphases and criteria for success14. Our survey used an ipsative scale with participants distributing 100 points among the four archetypes in each of the six domains, relating their own clinic’s culture to the archetypes. Use of an ipsative scale forces respondents to make trade-offs among the archetypes they perceive within their organization, thus archetype scores are not independent. The OCAI has been widely used across many industries and its reliability and validity have been shown to be acceptable1.
The study was approved by the University of Utah institutional review board.
Statistical Analysis
Determination of provider satisfaction scores for each clinic
Provider satisfaction data for each clinic were obtained from a CC report of provider responses at the clinic level. Responses are reported on 5-point scales from “very dissatisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (5). Satisfaction dimension scores are calculated for 12 dimensions of practice by combining the clinic level satisfaction items relevant to each dimension and generating an overall mean dimension score. All analyses of the provider satisfaction data are performed at the clinic level.
Determination of Clinic Culture Profiles
Clinic culture archetype scores were determined using individual level responses from providers and staff in each clinic. Clinic level culture profiles include scores for each of the four archetypes calculated by averaging the scores for each participant within each clinic for each archetype. Mean archetype scores were compared across the clinics using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey pairwise comparisons of archetype means.
Correlation Analysis
We used clinic level data for both provider satisfaction and culture profiles to evaluate the relationship between clinic level satisfaction scores (individual items and dimensions) and each clinic’s culture archetype profile (all four archetypes). We used Spearman’s correlation to evaluate these relationships.
Results
Provider Satisfaction
Completed satisfaction surveys were reported for 63 providers from the nine included clinics representing an overall response rate of 94%. Response rates ranged across the clinics from 80% to 100%. Across all the clinics, the dimensions with which providers were most satisfied were Computers (M=4.68), followed by Acceptance by Colleagues (M=4.22), Quality of Care Provided (M=4.14), and Patient Interactions (M=4.12). Dimensions with which providers were least satisfied included the Preauthorization Process (M=3.15), Compensation (M=3.35), Paper work (M=3.45), and Time Spent Working (M=3.47). See Table 1.
Table 1.
Mean Provider Satisfaction Scores on Survey Dimensions*
| Provider Satisfaction Dimension |
Leadership and Communication (10)** |
Quality of Care (4) | Time Spent Working (5) | Patient Interaction (4) | Administrators (4) | Compensation (3) | Relationships with Staff (4) |
Resources (4) | Acceptance by Colleagues (5) |
Paper Work (3) | Computers (3) | Pre-authorization Hassle (4) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||||
| Practice | n*** | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M | M |
| Clinic 1 | <4**** | ——— | |||||||||||
| Clinic 2 | 4 | 3.59 | 4.35 | 3.25 | 4.00 | 3.63 | 3.33 | 3.92 | 3.69 | 4.30 | 4.00 | 4.67 | 3.50 |
| Clinic 3 | 6 | 3.11 | 4.15 | 2.91 | 4.03 | 3.13 | 3.28 | 4.14 | 3.80 | 4.10 | 3.43 | 4.56 | 3.86 |
| Clinic 4 | 5 | 3.80 | 4.12 | 3.18 | 4.10 | 3.80 | 3.40 | 3.93 | 4.05 | 4.08 | 3.73 | 4.93 | 3.25 |
| Clinic 5 | 7 | 4.21 | 4.25 | 4.22 | 4.23 | 4.21 | 3.56 | 4.21 | 3.87 | 4.71 | 3.67 | 4.95 | 3.06 |
| Clinic 6 | 8 | 3.67 | 3.82 | 3.89 | 4.50 | 3.71 | 3.85 | 3.81 | 3.47 | 4.53 | 3.41 | 4.31 | 2.87 |
| Clinic 7 | 4 | 3.53 | 3.55 | 2.60 | 4.06 | 3.69 | 2.75 | 3.92 | 4.19 | 4.00 | 2.83 | 4.58 | 1.63 |
| Clinic 8 | 10 | 3.19 | 4.43 | 3.91 | 4.28 | 3.17 | 3.30 | 4.00 | 3.91 | 4.06 | 3.20 | 4.80 | 3.48 |
| Clinic 9 | 11 | 3.82 | 4.33 | 3.80 | 3.88 | 3.88 | 3.75 | 3.90 | 3.82 | 4.18 | 3.47 | 4.64 | 3.53 |
| Clinic 10 | 8 | 3.55 | 4.28 | 3.43 | 3.97 | 3.72 | 2.94 | 3.91 | 3.63 | 4.05 | 3.28 | 4.68 | 3.16 |
| Grand Mean | 63 | 3.61 | 4.14 | 3.47 | 4.12 | 3.66 | 3.35 | 3.97 | 3.83 | 4.22 | 3.45 | 4.68 | 3.15 |
The provider satisfaction survey items were measured on Likert scales from “very dissatisfied” (1) to “very satisfied” (5). We aggregated items into 12 domains by summing responses to all survey items in each dimension then calculating grand means for each dimension. These composite domain scores are presented at the clinic level.
The number of survey items in each dimension is noted in parentheses.
n= number of providers from each clinic responding and total of providers across all clinics.
Because fewer than 4 providers responded the data from Clinic 1 were not included in our analyses. Clinic numbers indicate the same clinics as those in Table 2.
Clinic Culture Profiles
Completed provider/staff OCAI surveys were received from 162 respondents representing an overall response rate of 75% with a range across individual clinics of 48% to 100%. For analysis, 28 surveys were excluded (15 from providers and 23 from staff) because of missing data or respondents not following instructions, leaving 134 observations. Of the remaining respondents, 20.2% were providers and 79.8% were MAs. Providers and staff reported similar perceptions of their team’s culture; responses of providers and staff differed on only two of the 24 OCAI items using t-test (p<.05). Thus their responses were combined for analysis.
The mean scores and standard deviations for each of the archetypes for each clinic are presented in Table 2. Among the ten clinics, the highest archetype score for four clinics was family/clan, for four clinics it was hierarchical, and for 2 clinics it was market/rational; none of our clinics had entrepreneurial as the highest archetype score. Across all ten clinics, mean scores for the culture archetypes were 30.1 for family/clan, 15.4 for entrepreneurial, 24.2 for market/rational, and 30.3 for hierarchical. The culture profiles for all of the clinics are portrayed in Figure 2.
Table 2.
Culture archetype scores within the Community Clinics
| Community Clinics (#respondents) | Family/Clan | Entrepreneurial | Market/Rational | Hierarchical | p values* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||
| Overall Mean (10 clinics) | 30.1 (16.3) | 15.4 (9.8) | 24.2 (13.6) | 30.3 (11.9)** | 0.001 |
| Clinic 1(10) | 28.8 (17.2) | 11.9 (8.3) | 23.5 (15.7) | 35.8 (15.5) | 0.007 |
| Clinic 2 (15) | 25.5 (15.7) | 18.4 (10.0) | 29.4 (17.5) | 26.6 (12.4) | 0.170 |
| Clinic 3 (16) | 37.3 (10.0) | 14.8 (9.7) | 18.4 (7.6) | 29.5 (12.6) | <0.001 |
| Clinic 4 (13) | 44.7 (18.4) | 10.1 (11.2) | 16.5 (9.9) | 28.7 (12.8) | <0.001 |
| Clinic 5 (10) | 19.2 (10.2) | 10.2 (7.8) | 33.7 (16.5) | 36.9 (10.4) | 0.002 |
| Clinic 6 (25) | 28.8 (15.4) | 14.2 (9.2) | 22.7 (14.7) | 34.2 (12.0) | <0.001 |
| Clinic 7 (12) | 22.1 (12.1) | 15.5 (9.2) | 27.5 (10.3) | 34.8 (13.5) | 0.003 |
| Clinic 8 (11) | 25.2 (13.9) | 14.5 (8.8) | 31.1 (15.2) | 29.3 (6.2) | 0.008 |
| Clinic 9 (9) | 32.1 (20.9) | 15.4 (10.0) | 21.5 (11.2) | 31.0 (11.4) | 0.056 |
| Clinic 10 (13) | 32.4 (9.5) | 17.6 (5.7) | 24.3 (11.6) | 25.7 (5.0) | 0.001 |
ANOVA of mean archetype scores across clinics followed by Tukey’s pairwise comparison of archetypes within clinic (data not shown).
Bolded scores are the highest archetype score for each clinic.
Figure 2.
The organizational culture profiles of the 10 Community Clinics. Each colored trapezoid represents a single clinic.
Association of Provider Satisfaction and Organizational Culture
Using the full culture profile for individual clinics, we ran Spearman’s correlations with the clinic-level provider satisfaction scores on the 12 satisfaction dimensions. To help us interpret the domain correlations, we also conducted correlation analyses between culture profiles and individual satisfaction items. As noted, only data for only 9 of 10 clinic were available for these analyses. A number of correlations between culture archetypes and provider satisfaction were significant at p≤.05. Patterns of correlation were quite different for each of the four archetypes (see Table 3).
Table 3.
Spearman Correlation of Provider Satisfaction with Clinic Culture Archetypes
| Provider Satisfaction/Dimension | Family/Clan | Entrepreneurial | Market/Rational | Hierarchical | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Leadership and Communication Dimension (10) | |||||
|
| |||||
| How well your group is facing the economic and strategic challenges confronting the physicians in this country | Coefficient | −.550 | .067 | .717 | .017 |
| p-value | .125 | .865 | 0.030* | .966 | |
|
| |||||
| Quality of care you are able to provide Dimension (4) | Coefficient | −.500 | .283 | .717 | −.083 |
| p-value | .171 | .460 | 0.030* | .831 | |
|
| |||||
| Time Spent Working Dimension (5) | Coefficient | −.300 | .783 | .367 | −.183 |
| p-value | .433 | 0.013* | .332 | .637 | |
|
| |||||
| Degree of control you have over your schedule | Coefficient | .050 | .812 | .034 | −.385 |
| p-value | .898 | 0.008** | .932 | .306 | |
|
| |||||
| Amount of time you spend with each patient | Coefficient | −.400 | .833 | .383 | −.017 |
| p-value | .286 | 0.005** | .309 | .966 | |
|
| |||||
| Relationships with Staff Dimension (4) | Coefficient | .385 | .310 | .017 | −.736 |
| p-value | .306 | .418 | .966 | .0245* | |
|
| |||||
| Resources Dimension (4) | Coefficient | .400 | −.217 | −.100 | −.733 |
| p-value | .286 | .576 | .798 | 0.025* | |
|
| |||||
| Acceptance by Colleagues Dimension (5) | |||||
|
| |||||
| My values are consistent with those of my colleagues | Coefficient | −.233 | .667 | .200 | .017 |
| p-value | .546 | 0.050* | .606 | .966 | |
|
| |||||
| Paper Work Dimension (3) | |||||
|
| |||||
| I do not have too much administrative work to do | Coefficient | −.733 | .233 | .883 | .150 |
| p-value | 0.025* | .546 | 0.002** | .700 | |
=p ≤0.05;
=p ≤0.01.
Because of the small sample size, we conducted non-asymptotic Spearman’s rank correlations rather than Pearson’s correlations.
Grayed rows are satisfaction dimensions; non-grayed rows are individual survey items. The numbers in parentheses are the number of survey items included in the dimension.
The family/clan archetype was not correlated with any of the provider satisfaction dimensions. However, it was negatively correlated with the survey item about the amount of administrative work required (p=0.025). The entrepreneurial archetype was positively correlated with the Time Spent Working dimension (p=0.013). This was driven by positive correlations with two items within that dimension, degree of control over providers’ schedule (p=0.008) and amount of time spent with each patient (p=0.005). The market/rational archetype was positively correlated with one dimension of provider satisfaction and two survey items. These included the Quality of Care Dimension (p=0.030) and survey items from the Leadership and Communication dimension (how well the group is facing economic and strategic challenges, p=0.030) and the Paper Work Dimension (administrative work, p=0.002). The hierarchical archetype was negatively correlated with the dimensions, Relationships with Staff (p=0.024) and Resources (p=0.025).
Discussion
Our study provides a novel contribution to the literature on health care redesign. We examined provider satisfaction, organizational culture, and their correlation within our network of primary care clinics that has implemented a PCMH model. Here we summarize and interpret our key findings.
Provider Satisfaction
Our analyses of the dimensions included in the provider satisfaction survey suggest that, as intended with the implementation of our CBD model, providers are generally satisfied with the Quality of Care Provided and Patient Interactions dimensions. In addition, they are satisfied with the Acceptance by Colleagues and Computers dimensions, which is consistent with findings elsewhere9. When supported by adequate resources (e.g., EMR and colleagues also participating in practice change), practicing in a PCMH model can be satisfying.
Providers were least satisfied with the time they spend working, the paper work required, the preauthorization process, and compensation. Many of the process and paper work requirements with which providers are dissatisfied result from external demands such as those of payers. Requirements that involve additional work for which providers cannot bill likely contribute to their dissatisfaction with their compensation. Dissatisfaction with the Compensation dimension may also reflect the tension between productivity and quality in a fee-for-service environment17,18.
Clinic Culture
Although our clinics are all affiliated with the same university-owned network, we found differences in culture archetype profiles among our clinics. Within our network, family/clan and hierarchical cultures were the most prevalent. Other research has found that primary care practices commonly have family/clan cultures6. Four of our clinics have high hierarchical archetype scores. Three of these clinics were also high on another archetype, either market/rational or family/clan, suggesting that multiple cultures can coexist within an individual clinic3.
Our findings highlight the importance of assessing, rather than assuming, knowledge of organizational culture. The propensity of practices with different culture archetypes to implement changes necessary to become PCMHs may be quite different. Recognition of the differences between culture archetypes can be helpful to management in fostering practice redesign.
Association Between Clinic Culture and Provider Satisfaction
We found a negative correlation between the family/clan culture archetype and providers’ satisfaction with the amount of administrative work they have to do. There are several factors that may be driving this correlation, including the patient panel size and new work that is required for patient-centered care17. The delivery of patient-centered care with a focus on continuity of information and coordination of care requires the development of relationships outside the practice. Relationship building and information exchange are new tasks that must be assumed by members of the care team and, especially when the patient/provider ratio is high, this extra work may result in tensions among team members. Practice change within family/clan cultures may be facilitated by stressing the accountability of all members of the team to implementation of new processes. Clear role definitions and explanations of the rationale for new procedures may facilitate transformation.
The entrepreneurial culture archetype was positively associated with providers’ satisfaction with the Time Spent Working dimension, including providers’ sense of control over their schedules and the time they spend with each patient. In entrepreneurial cultures, where flexibility is highly valued, it is important to sustain providers’ ability to modify their schedules as needed to accommodate their patients’ needs, and a practice’s ability to respond to external factors such as perceived competition and patient demand.
The market/rational culture was positively associated with provider satisfaction with the Quality of Care dimension and with leadership in facing economic and strategic challenges. A market/rational culture emphasizes achieving competitive advantage. The pattern of provider satisfaction observed in clinics with strong market/rational cultures may reflect recognition that practice redesign facilitates the delivery of quality care, thus enhancing the ability of a practice to be responsive to local market forces.
The hierarchical archetype was negatively correlated with two dimensions of provider satisfaction: Relationships with Staff (p=0.024) and Resources (p=0.025). In hierarchical cultures, managers should be aware of the potential for dissatisfaction surrounding staff relationships and resources as transformation occurs.
Our finding that providers’ experience in, and satisfaction with, features of a PCMH model of care are associated with organizational culture suggests that understanding the relationship of organizational culture to provider satisfaction may be helpful for management in facilitating clinic transformation into PCMH models. With knowledge of the cultures within individual clinics, managers may be able to adapt both their messages about transformation and their management of the change process to be more compatible with individual clinic’s cultures, reducing barriers to change. By identifying existing cultures, management may be able to implement culture change strategies that will facilitate transformation towards a culture more aligned with environmental demands.
Limitations
Our analyses were limited by the small number of clinics in our network and by our cross-sectional design. With organizational culture data for ten clinics and provider satisfaction data for only nine clinics, we relied on simple correlations at the clinic level to detect associations. A study design that included a larger set of clinics and individual level data would advance understanding of these relationships. With our cross-sectional design, it is not possible to assess the dynamics of clinic culture. A longitudinal design examining change in provider satisfaction during a period of delivery model transformation could also provide important insights.
Our analyses reveal relatively few significant correlations between provider satisfaction and clinic culture archetypes. It may be that the AMGA provider satisfaction survey developed prior to the movement toward PCMH does not adequately assess aspects of providers’ work life that are most impacted by implementation of a PCMH model. It may also be that the OCAI measure of organizational culture, developed outside of healthcare, does not facilitate identification of aspects of culture that are particularly relevant to a PCMH, such as a quality orientation or patient-centeredness. The use of survey instruments that more explicitly assess elements of PCMH and cultural orientations that support the philosophy of PCMH may identify additional correlations between provider satisfaction and clinic culture.
A clinic’s organizational culture both affects and is affected by the providers who practice in a given clinic. It also may reflect aspects of the external environment. The relationship between culture and provider satisfaction is complex and our results may be affected by self-selection of providers to clinics with cultures in which they feel comfortable.
In examining the relationship of organizational culture to provider satisfaction, we combined survey responses from providers and staff in individual clinics to determine culture archetype scores for each clinic. However, we did not take this clustering into account in our analyses so we may have underestimated standard errors.
Furthermore, two different groups of participants responded to our two surveys. A combined group of providers and staff completed the OCAI survey while only providers completed the provider satisfaction survey. It is possible that had we been able to match respondents from the two surveys that our correlation results may have been different.
Finally, our clinics are part of a university-owned community-based practice network. As such, their structure is different from that of many clinics and our specific findings may not be replicated in non-university owned clinics or in clinics with other organizational affiliations.
Conclusions
As healthcare reform progresses, organizational culture change may be necessary. By identifying existing cultures, management may be able to implement culture change strategies that will facilitate transformation towards a culture more aligned with environmental demands. For example, previously independent clinics may join Accountable Care Organizations. As these organizations work to deliver high value care, there will be pressure to eliminate variation in practice. In this context, the internally focused and flexible family/clan culture often found in primary care practices may no longer be appropriate. More externally focused and integrated cultures that emphasize stability and control may be better positioned to meet patients’ needs. As redesign occurs, although a more hierarchical culture may be helpful in achieving the goals of larger integrated organizations, management should be alert to ways in which provider-staff relationships can be strengthened, adequate resources can be provided, and quality of care enhanced and communicated effectively to external stakeholders. Attention to effective methods for changing organizational culture, in a way that enhances provider satisfaction, is recommended.
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by grant numbers 1 R18 HS019136-02 and R18HS020106 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (MKM) and by grant number 1KM1CA156723 from the National Institutes of Health (JK).
This study was approved by University of Utah IRB.
We acknowledge the contribution of Rachel Day, BS, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah for assistance in conceptualization of the study.
Footnotes
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the National Institutes of Health.
Contributor Information
Debra L. Scammon, Department of Marketing, David Eccles School of Business and Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah.
Jennifer Tabler, Department of Sociology, University of Utah.
Kimberly Brunisholz, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah.
Lisa H. Gren, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah.
Jaewhan Kim, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah.
Andrada Tomoaia-Cotisel, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah; Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Julie Day, Community Clinics, University of Utah Hospitals and Clinics.
Timothy W. Farrell, Division of Geriatrics and Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah; VA SLC Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center.
Norman J. Waitzman, Department of Economics, College of Social and Behavioral Science, University of Utah.
Michael K. Magill, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Executive Medical Director, University of Utah Health Plans.
References
- 1.Cameron K, Quinn R. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. 3. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Scott T, Mannion R, Marshall M, Davies H. Does ogranisational culture influence health care performance? A review of the evidence. Journal of health services research policy. 2003 Apr;8(2):105–17. doi: 10.1258/135581903321466085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Nembhard IM, Singer SJ, Shortell SM, Rittenhouse D, Casalino LP. The cultural complexity of medical groups. Health care managementr review. 2012 Jul-Sep;37(3):200–13. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e31822f54cd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Williams ES, Konrad TR, Linzer M, et al. Physician, practice, and patient characteristics related to primary care physician physical and mental health: results from the Physician Worklife Study. Health services research. 2002 Feb;37(1):121–143. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Zazzali JL, Alexander JA, Shortell SM, Burns LR. Organizational culture and physician satisfaction with dimensions of group practice. Health services research. 2007 Jun;42(3 Pt 1):1150–1176. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00648.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Brazil K, Wakefield DB, Cloutier MM, Tennen H, Hall CB. Organizational culture predicts job satisfaction and perceived clinical effectiveness in pediatric primary care practices. Health care management review. 2010 Oct-Dec;35(4):365–371. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181edd957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ghorob A, Bodenheimer T. Sharing the care to improve access to primary care. The New England journal of medicine. 2012 May 24;366(21):1955–1957. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1202775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Jaen CR, Crabtree BF, Palmer RF, et al. Methods for evaluating practice change toward a patient-centered medical home. Annals of family medicine. 2010;8( Suppl 1):S9–20. S92. doi: 10.1370/afm.1108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Reid RJ, Coleman K, Johnson EA, et al. The group health medical home at year two: cost savings, higher patient satisfaction, and less burnout for providers. Health affairs. 2010 May;29(5):835–843. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Altschuler J, Margolius D, Bodenheimer T, Grumbach K. Estimating a reasonable patient panel size for primary care physicians with team-based task delegation. Annals of family medicine. 2012 Sep-Oct;10(5):396–400. doi: 10.1370/afm.1400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Egger MJ, Day J, Scammon DL, Li Y, Wilson A, Magill MK. Correlation of the Care by Design primary care practice redesign model and the principles of the patient-centered medical home. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: JABFM. 2012 Mar-Apr;25(2):216–223. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.02.110159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Helfrich CD, Li YF, Mohr DC, Meterko M, Sales AE. Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on the Competing Values Framework: exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Implementation science: IS. 2007;2:13. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-2-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Quinn R, Rohrbaugh J. A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public productivity review. 1981:122–140. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cameron K, Quinn R. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 15.American Medical Group Association. American Medical Group Association provider satisfaction survey protocol. Retrieved April 17, 2013 from http://www.amga.org/Research/PROSAT/prosatProtocol.pdf.
- 16.Kerr EA, Hays RD, Mittman BS, Siu AL, Leake B, Brook RH. Primary care physicians’ satisfaction with quality of care in California capitated medical groups. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 1997 Jul 23–30;278(4):308–312. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Day J, Scammon DL, Kim J, et al. Quality, satisfaction, and fininancial efficiency associated with elements of primary care practice transformation: Preliminary findings. Annals of family medicine. 2013 May-Jun;11(suppl 1):550–59. doi: 10.1370/afm.1475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tomoaia-Cotisel A, Scammon DL, Waitzman NJ, et al. Context matters: The experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. Annals of family medicine. 2013 May-Jun;11(suppl 1):S115–23. doi: 10.1370/afm.1549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]