Table 4.

Mean (SE) level of patients’ experiences of the core dimensions of primary care at baseline and 18 mo after FMG constitution

ASPECT OF CAREPATIENTS’ LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE, MEAN (SE)PATIENTS WHO RATED CARE EQUAL TO OR HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM EXPECTED CARE LEVEL, %
BASELINE18 MO AFTER FMG CONSTITUTIONBASELINE18 MO AFTER FMG CONSTITUTION
Concentration of care, % visits
  • Percent of FMG visits to registered physician77.2 (2.44)74.0 (2.47)*NANA
  • Percent of all ambulatory visits to FMG87.2 (1.80)85.0 (1.82)NANA
Continuity
  • Relational continuity3.49 (0.04)3.55 (0.04)§84.286.0
  • Information continuity3.33 (0.06)3.43 (0.06)§87.090.2
Organizational accessibility||4.53 (0.17)4.51 (0.17)56.455.9
Service responsiveness toward patients||
  • Patients’ perceptions of personnel’s attitude and efficiency and of waiting time4.86 (0.11)4.84 (0.11)72.771.5
First-contact accessibility
  • Face-to-face2.27 (0.22)2.30 (0.22)23.025.3
  • By telephone2.74 (0.13)2.78 (0.13)47.048.9
Care coordination
  • Physician-nurse coordination3.06 (0.10)3.16 (0.10)53.559.8
  • PCP-specialist coordination3.21 (0.04)3.15 (0.04)69.063.6*
Intra-FMG collaboration3.34 (0.02)3.34 (0.02)85.084.4
Patients’ perceptions of FMGs
  • Had enough information about FMGs2.79 (0.12)3.04 (0.12)§64.973.8§
  • More advantages to FMGs than disadvantages3.27 (0.12)3.28 (0.12)82.081.3
  • FMG—family medicine group, PCP—primary care physician.

  • * Significant difference before and after FMG constitution (P < .01).

  • Significant difference before and after FMG constitution (P < .05).

  • A score of 1 = definitely not, 2 = probably not, 3 = probably, and 4 = definitely; minimum expected care level of 3.

  • § Significant difference before and after FMG constitution (P < .001).

  • || A score of 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = fair, 4 = good, 5 = very good, and 6 = excellent; minimum expected care level of 4.5.

  • A score of 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = often, and 4 = always; minimum expected care level of 3.