You are on page 1of 42

Patient Centered but Employee Delivered: Patient Care Restructuring, Turnover and Organizational Outcomes in Hospitals

Ariel Avgar University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Rebecca K. Givan Cornell University

Mingwei Liu Rutgers University

* Authors contributed equally to this paper. Names appear in alphabetical order.

Abstract This article examines organizational outcomes associated with the use of patientcentered-care (PCC), an increasingly prevalent alternative approach to patient care delivery, which focuses on enhancing patient input and voice alongside better coordination of frontline work. A patient-centered approach in healthcare is somewhat analogous to a high performance work systems approach in manufacturing. More specifically, using data from 173 hospitals in the United Kingdom, this article tests the authors hypotheses that PCC has a positive effect on the quality of patient care and on patient perceptions of their care. In addition, the authors test the hypothesis that employee turnover intentions partially mediate the relationship between PCC and quality of care and patient satisfaction outcomes. Analysis of the data provides support for the argument that the restructuring of delivery of care practices from an institutional focused pattern to one that places patients and their needs at the center does have positive consequences for both quality of care, measured through reported errors, and patient perceptions of care. The use of PCC practices reduces medical errors and increases patient ratings of their satisfaction and the dignity and respect they received. The paper also supports the hypothesis that PCC positively affects a central employee outcomenamely intentions to quit the organization. Finally, the authors provide partial support for the hypothesis that employee turnover intentions partially mediate quality of care outcomes associated with PCC. Turnover intentions partially mediated the relationship between PCC and medical errors.

Over two decades of industrial relations and human resource management research have established a clear linkage between the organization of work and specific work practices and a variety of performance outcomes (see for example Batt, 1999; MacDuffie, 1995; Huselid 1995; Ichniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi, 1997; Youndt et al., 1996; Katz, Kochan, and Weber, 1985). Indeed, existing workplace scholarship has made substantial advances in delving inside the black box and determining which particular practices improve outcomes and some of the underlying mechanisms behind these relationships (Givan et al., forthcoming; Ichniowski et al., 1997; MacDuffie, 1995). Nevertheless, there are still settings, such as the healthcare industry, in which the insights and lessons learned about the organization of work and organizational outcomes have not yet been fully explored and empirically tested. Although the healthcare industry is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy in many developed and developing countries and employs a substantial portion of the workforce, research on the link between work practices and organizational, employee and patient care outcomes in this setting is still vastly underdeveloped (for a similar claim see Preuss, 2003; West et al., 2002). This paper seeks to address this gap by examining the effects of the reorganization of methods used to deliver patient care on clinical and employee outcomes. More specifically, we study the effects of patientcentered methods of delivering care on medical errors, patient perceptions of care and the mediating role of employee turnover intentions. Despite the growth and centrality of healthcare as an industry in much of the industrialized world, hospitals and other healthcare organizations are in a state of crisis (Porter and Teisberg, 2006; Weinberg, 2003; Clark, 2002; Lee and Alexander, 1999).

Faced with the soaring costs of providing healthcare services alongside intense competitive pressures, healthcare organizations are struggling to provide high quality patient care while also remaining financially viable (Weinberg, 2003; Porter and Teisberg, 2006). Concerns for the quality of care provided by healthcare organizations in the United States have received extensive public and academic attention. Thus, for example, in a frequently cited 2000 report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) it was estimated that as many as 98,000 patients die each year as a result of medical errors (Kohn et al., 2000). More recently, the IOM reported that as many as 1.5 million patients are harmed each year as a result of medication errors (Aspden et al., 2007). 1 Unfortunately, the U.S is not alone in this respect (Department of Health 2000, 2001; National Audit Office, 2005). A report by the British National Patient Safety Agency indicates that in the twelve months prior to March 2008, there were over 76,000 medication errors reported in acute hospitals in England and Wales, and over 80,000 errors in treatment or procedures. Patient safety incidents resulted in 3,471 deaths in the UK in this time period (National Patient Safety Agency National Reporting and Learning System, 2008). In an effort to address this crisis and improve the quality of patient care, hospitals and other healthcare organizations have been experimenting with a variety of different work and patient care delivery reorganization initiatives (Aiken et al., 2002a; Walston et al., 2000; Lee and Alexander, 1999; Alexander et al., 1996; Pierson and Williams, 1994). Many of these initiatives represent a shift towards, what some have referred to as, a high

In fact, the IOM has sponsored a series of well publicized reports that all deal with the quality of care challenges inherent to the healthcare system in the United States and some of the potential ways to meet them.

performance work systems (HPWS) model for healthcare (see for example Westphal et al., 1997; Walston et al., 2000). Thus, healthcare organizations have been seeking to benefit from a workplace model that has been both more prevalent and more intensely researched in the manufacturing and some service sector settings (see for example Scotti et al., 2007; West et al., 2006). Although some research has applied the discussion regarding innovative work practices from the manufacturing to service sectors (see Batt, 2002; Batt, 1999 for a discussion of work innovation in the telecommunications industry), there are still many insights developed in these settings that have not yet been fully tested in the healthcare setting (for a similar claim see Preuss, 2003). Furthermore, there are workplace innovations, such as the one addressed in this paper, that are unique to this arena, which do not necessarily fit the traditional HPWS constructs and frameworks developed in other settings. Many of the initiatives being implemented by hospitals target both the organization of frontline workers and the overall approach to delivering patient care. These are essentially changes to the actual organization of work and to the processes used to deliver patient care. Thus, alongside pure work practice restructuring, such as HPWS, hospitals have also attempted to restructure the philosophy underlying the manner in which they deliver care to their patients, shifting, for example, from an institutional and physician focus emphasizing professional roles and hierarchies to an emphasis on patient needs and preferences (Wolf et al., 2008; Bergeson and Dean, 2006; Epstein et al., 2005; Flach et al., 2004).

Although scholars have recently begun to examine the effects of work practice innovation on patient outcomes (see for example West et al., 2006; West et al., 2002), much less attention has been given to the study of innovative approaches to the delivery of patient care (Davis et al., 2005). This is in clear contrast to the well-established research on work and processes reorganization in the manufacturing sector, which has examined the effect of work practice innovation and human resource management practices on performance outcomes for over two decades (Ichniowski, Shaw, and Prennushi, 1997; Huselid, 1995; MacDuffie, 1995; Katz, Kochan, and Weber, 1985; Katz, Kochan, and Gobeille, 1983). This article examines the effects of patient-centered-care, an increasingly prevalent alternative approach to patient care delivery, which focuses on enhancing patient input and voice alongside better coordination of frontline work, on medical errors, emergency readmissions, and patient satisfaction in hospitals and the mediating role of employee turnover intentions. Using data from 173 hospitals in the United Kingdom, this paper addresses two underlying research questions. First, does the restructuring of patient care delivery practices, and the associated work reorganization that it entails, improve the quality of care provided? Second, if such practices do improve patient outcomes, does employee turnover mediate this direct effect? In doing so, the paper tackles two fundamental healthcare issuesnamely factors influencing quality of patient care and the role of employee turnover. In order to address these questions, we use a unique dataset combining hospital performance data with patient and employee level data. As will be demonstrated below, our data show that

patient centered care reduces medical errors and increases patient satisfaction and that this relationship is mediated by the reduction in frontline staff turnover intentions.

The Organization of Work and Quality of Care: Existing Evidence The direct assessment of work practices and performance has lagged behind similar inquiries in other industries. Nevertheless, more recent research has examined the relationship between some work arrangements, such as the use of teams and other coordination patterns and patient care indicators (see for example Gittell et al., 2009; West et al., 2006; Preuss, 2003; West et al., 2002; Borrill et al., 2000; Aiken et al., 1994). West and colleagues (2002) provided one of the first comprehensive analyses of the link between work practices and healthcare related performance outcomes. The authors collected survey data from human resource executives in 81 hospital trusts (of a population of 137). West et al focused on three primary human resource practice areas: training; teamwork; and employee appraisals. Performance data was collected on actual patient care measures focusing on mortality rates as a function of various medical procedures. The authors found strong support for a negative and significant relationship between the three HR practices studied and mortality rates (p. 1305). The authors did not, however, specify the mechanisms by which human resource management practices might affect mortality. West et al (2006) extended this earlier research by examining the relationship between HR practices associated with HPWS and patient mortality rates in 52 hospitals in England, thereby moving from a single practice focus to a complementarity or systems approach. In addition to the three human resource management areas studied by West et al (2002), in this study the authors examined decentralization, employee participation,

employment security, staffing related practices and compensation (West et al., 2006: 986). This analysis broadens the independent variables but retains the emphasis on a single dependent variablenamely mortality rate. The authors report regression analysis that supports the negative relationship between the use of a bundled set of high performance practices and patient mortality rates (p. 993). In addition, the authors find support for an individual practice effect on patient mortality. Evidence on the effects of workplace practices on organizational outcomes in healthcare is also available from studies of the relationship between unionization and organizational performance. The presence of unions in health organizations does not fall under the traditional literature on work practices and performance. However, empirical findings on this relationship help to identify appropriate outcome variables of interest and, more importantly, the mechanisms by which work arrangements may affect performance outcomes. In a recent study of mortality rates for heart attack patients in 344 hospitals in California, Ash and Seago (2004) found that heart attack mortality rates in hospitals with unionized RNs were 5.5 percent lower than heart attack mortality rates in nonunion hospitals. Notably, the authors found that improved patient care outcomes were not the consequence of higher union wages and better working hours. Rather, the authors maintain that the union effect on productivity and patient care in these hospitals was principally because unions facilitate communication and collaboration, across occupational groups and between managers and employees (Ash and Seago, 2004). This evidence suggests that other work related practices that promote communication and collaboration may increase the quality of patient care as well.

This body of research provides an important foundation for the relationship between human resource practices and performance in healthcare. This research on work practices and outcomes in healthcare suggests that there are crucial implications for how work is organized in this setting and that different patterns of work can have a substantial effect on quality of care outcomes. This said, these studies are limited in a number of key respects. First, existing research, like the majority of general human resource practices and performance research, has focused on one central performance indicatorpatient mortality rates, often after cardiovascular procedures. Although this outcome is of great significance, there is a clear need to incorporate additional indicators, such as patient satisfaction, and employee outcomes and other measures of quality of care. This early research on work practices and performance in healthcare is parallel to earlier HPWS work in the manufacturing setting which focused primarily on productivity (production speed) and wastage as the key performance indicators (for example Ichniowski et al., 1997). In addition, although a direct effect between work practices and outcomes has been established, there is still limited evidence on possible indirect effects or mediating constructs, such as employee outcomes. Finally and most importantly for the purposes of this paper, the majority of the research thus far has examined work practices in a vacuum without assessing them in the context of a broader pattern and reorganization of patient care delivery. In importing theoretical and empirical frameworks from other settings, HR and IR scholars have tended to focus on the traditional forms of work reorganization in other settings thus placing most of the emphasis on how frontline employees work with less attention to how patients are cared for. As will be illustrated below, employee work organization and

patient care delivery are integrally related and, as argued in this paper, should be studied in tandem. Theory Development The Effects of Patient-Centered-Care and Quality of Care and Patient Satisfaction In the search for effective methods to address issues regarding both quality of care and financial viability, healthcare organizations have sought out new ways to deliver patient care and to organize frontline work. For the most part, these two approaches have been adopted separately, without linking the way patients are cared for with the way front line staff is organized to do their work. One of the notable exceptions in terms of the separation between changes to the arrangement of work and those implemented in the delivery of care is the relatively recent introduction of patient-centered-care (PCC) practices in healthcare intended both to shift the underlying philosophy of care and the organization of work needed to do so. At the heart of the PCC approach to healthcare is a clear departure from the physician or institution centered model, which places almost all the power and authority regarding patient care in the hands of the treating professionals, primarily the physicians, and the organizations in which treatment is provided (see for example Robinson et al., 2008; Wolf et al., 2008; Bergeson and Dean, 2006; Epstein et al., 2005; Flach et al., 2004). Proponents of the PCC model maintain that one of the causes of poor quality of care is the lack of patient engagement and coordination of care inherent to the traditional physician or institution centered model of care (Robinson et al., 2008; Mead and Bower, 2000). In 2001, the IOM included PCC as one of the six measures central to the rebuilding of the U.S. healthcare system (Corrigan et al., 2001). Furthermore, the IOM

10

has maintained that this model of patient care is inextricably linked to the design of work (Corrigan et al., 2001: 118) Thus, the PCC model is designed to redistribute the decision making power in the provider-patient relationship and provides the latter with greater voice and input in the development of treatment options and in their execution (see for example Robinson et al., 2008). This approach echoes a renewed focus on customer service and satisfaction in other service sector contexts (see for example Batt, 2002; Batt, 1999). The overarching goal of the PCC model is to provide care that is most conducive to patients preferences, needs, and desires (Robinson et al., 2008; Wolf et al., 2008; Davis et al., 2005). Alongside the transformation in the philosophy underlying the delivery of care in hospitals that adopt PCC, this model also entails restructuring of the workplace practices that facilitate the interaction between frontline staff and clinicians. More specifically, one of the central dimensions of the PCC model is the organization of work around interdisciplinary teams (Wolf et al., 2008; Lemieux-Charles and McGuire, 2006). In addition, PCC calls for improved coordination between different professional groups (physicians and nurses for example) and across organizational units (for recent research on the positive healthcare outcomes associated with coordination see Gittell et al., 2008). PCC therefore provides a unique opportunity to examine the outcomes associated with the combined restructuring of both methods for treating patients and the organization and structure of the work conducted by frontline staff and physicians in hospitals. Thus, transforming the relationship between the hospital and the patient requires, arguably, a transformation in the organization of work for frontline staff. PCC is founded on the notion that information should be shared between physicians and patients and,

11

more importantly, that decision making is based on patient involvement so that viable treatment or medication options take into account patient preferences and perspectives (Davis et al., 2005; Corrigan et al., 2001). PCC, then, is potentially a dramatic change in both the structure and process of work. It calls for a shift in how workers are organized and in the manner in which they execute their work. Despite the clear implications for the way in which hospital staff work, PCC has received virtually no attention in the industrial relations or human resource management scholarship. We contend that patient-centered care is, in many ways, parallel but not identical to the high performance work system (HPWS) approach in manufacturing and other service sector settings. Specifically, the focus on quality through specific production processes, staff engagement, involvement and coordination and an emphasis on productivity and performance outcomes are very similar to the innovations currently pervading healthcare. Unlike the HPWS model in other settings, which focuses on altering the involvement of employees, PCC entails the facilitation of input and participation both from frontline staff and also from the patients they care for. The existing PCC literature has identified five dimensions, which, implemented together, make up PCC as a delivery of patient care construct. The most frequently cited PCC dimensions are (1) access to care; (2) patient engagement in care or patient preferences; (3) patient education or information systems; (4) coordination of care; and (5) patient emotional support (Davis et al., 2005; for a similar dimensions see IOM, 2001: 49). Each of these core dimensions is intended to shift fundamental aspects of how healthcare organizations operate and provide care for patients. [Insert Table 1 about here]

12

As is evident, four of these PCC dimensions are intended to alter the traditional relationship between hospital patients and those who provide them with care. For example, the focus on increased patient education is designed to enhance patient understanding of their conditions, treatment option advantages and disadvantages etc. As noted, one of the five PCC dimensions, coordination of care, is specifically related to the manner in which frontline staff are organized in order to deliver care. Transforming healthcare in this manner is supposed to improve the quality of care provided to patients and increase their associated satisfaction levels (see for example Wolf et al., 2008). Interestingly, despite the increase in the use of PCC based methods of delivering care, the evidence regarding its effectiveness in improving the quality of care provided and in increasing patient satisfaction is limited (Charmel and Frampton, 2008; Wolf et al., 2008). Furthermore, despite PCCs implications for the study of the workplace, there is almost no attention to this form of work organization in industrial relations and human resource management scholarship. This is in contrast to the deep knowledge in the field about equivalent processes in manufacturing, and the growing knowledge about similar processes in other parts of the service sector. That said, there is some empirical evidence which supports a positive relationship between the adoption of PCC and improved quality of care outcomes. For example, Stewart et al (2000) reported a significant statistical relationship between patient-centered communication practices and clinical outcomes. Specifically, patients perception of patient centeredness was statistically and clinically related to improved recovery and fewer diagnostic tests and referrals (see Stewart el al., 2000; for additional empirical evidence on the effects of PCC see Wolf et al., 2008).

13

In addition to this evidence, one can argue that lessons and evidence generated in the industrial relations and human resource management realms can assist in developing hypotheses regarding the effects of PCC practices on organizational outcomes. At the heart of the PCC model is a rationale parallel to the one advanced by high performance work system scholars. Building on the existing evidence on work practices and performance in healthcare, discussed above, and on the wider body of literature developed outside this setting, we hypothesize that PCC will have a positive effect on both clinical outcomes as well as patient perceptions of care. We argue that the shift towards a method of delivering care that provides patients with greater opportunities for engagement alongside the restructuring of work so as to allow for more teamwork and cross functional coordination will have a positive effect on key organizational outcomes, namely quality of care and patient satisfaction. Hypothesis 1: Greater use of patient-centered-care practices will increase the quality of care provided by a hospital. Hypothesis 2: Greater use of patient-centered-care practices will increase patient satisfaction ratings.

The Mediating Role of Employee Turnover Intentions Our first two hypotheses above propose a direct relationship between the reorganization of patient care delivery in the form of PCC and two patient care outcomes- clinical and patient perceptions. Providing empirical support for these hypotheses is, by itself, a contribution to what is currently known about PCC and its effects on outcomes. Nevertheless, we wish to extend our exploration of this construct and examine the

14

implications for employee outcomes and the potential mediating role as a mechanism through which PCC affects central organizational outcomes. As reviewed above, the adoption of PCC by healthcare organizations has substantial implications for the way in which work is arranged for frontline staff and physicians. Primarily, a greater level of cross occupational coordination is emphasized alongside increased teamwork. Thus, the effect of PCC on clinical and patient satisfaction outcomes is integrally linked to effects on frontline employee outcomes. The large body of existing empirical evidence provided in the industrial relations and human resource management literature on the mechanisms through which HPWS enhance organizational performance lead us to explore the mediating relationship of employee outcomes between PCC and other organizational outcomes. More specifically, we propose that employee turnover intentions mediate the relationship between PCC and medical errors and patient satisfaction (for existing industrial relations and human resource management literature on the relationship between work restructuring and turnover see Batt, 2002; Huselid, 1995; Arthur, 1994). In order to support this overarching proposition that the improvements in outcomes for healthcare organizations are delivered, at least in part, through employment related outcomes, we return to the established industrial relations and human resource literature. Huselid (1995) provided strong empirical support for the mediating role of turnover in the relationship between high performance work systems and financial performance. Huselid (1995) examined the relationship between HR practices associated with HPWS, such as contingent compensation and employee participation, and productivity and financial performance in 968 US firms across different industries. The

15

authors results supported an overall positive relationship which was translated into an actual dollar figure associated with increased productivity due to the use of practices corresponding to the HPWS. He estimated that an increase in one standard deviation for HPWS practices was associated, among other things, with increased market value of approximately $18,000 per employee (p. 658).2 Huselid found that one of the clear mechanisms through which this organizational outcome was delivered involved the reduction in employee turnover. According to his findings, an increase of one standard deviation in use of high performance work practices was associated with a 7.05 percent decrease in employee turnover (p. 656). What this evidence suggests is that the direct effects of a dramatic restructuring of work were delivered, in part, through a negative effect on employee turnover. In a study of work practices in the telecommunications industry, Batt (2002) also found support for the role of lower turnover rates in explaining the effects of work restructuring on organizational outcomes. In her study of human resource practices in U.S. call centers, Batt (2002) found that call centers that employed human resource practices that enhanced employee participation and work in teams, among other practices, enjoyed higher sales growth and that this relationship was mediated by lower employee quit rates (pp. 594-595). Batts service sector findings provide an important foundation for our partial mediation hypotheses outlined below. As noted, much of the research regarding the effects of high performance work practices has been conducted in the manufacturing setting. Given that our study focuses on restructuring in the healthcare setting, evidence

Correcting for possible measurement error, Huselid and Becker (1996) estimated a more modest $15,000 increase in market share per employee.

16

from other service sector settings is especially important. In addition, Batt explains the relationship between the work practices examined and lower quit rates as a function of increased autonomy (p. 589). Although PCC restructuring is not identical to the work practices examined in Batts research, it is also founded on the assumption that redesigning the role of frontline staff in a manner that increases involvement will enhance the ability to provide high quality service or patient care. The relationship between turnover and enhanced organizational outcomes, such as financial outcomes and sales, rests primarily on the reduction in the costs associated with employee turnover. Although we believe that turnover plays a similar role in mediating the relationship between PCC and medical errors and patient satisfaction, the rationale for this relationship cannot rest on the simple cost of turnover argument, since the reduction of medical errors and the increase of patient satisfaction is not as responsive to turnover cost reduction as sales and financial performance might be. We hypothesize that PCC adoption will reduce employee turnover intentions and that this reduction will, in turn, improve quality of care and patient perceptions of their care. Our hypothesis regarding the relationship between hospital use of PCC and lower turnover intentions rests on the two underlying dimensions of these practices. First, PCC represents a departure from institutionally driven patient care to an approach that places the patient at the center of the process. In doing so, hospitals are, arguably, enabling frontline staff to refocus their energies on their core missionnamely caring for patients. It is proposed that frontline employees are interested in working for hospitals that provide them with the processes and resources to address patient needs and concerns (for a similar general argument see West et al., 2005). The second underlying dimension

17

associated with PCC is enhanced interdisciplinary coordination and teamwork alongside greater discretion on the part of frontline staff. Here too, we propose that healthcare professionals will prefer to work in hospitals that facilitate this organization of work, which will translate into a reduction in turnover intentions. The reduction in employee turnover is likely to directly affect the two outcomes examined (quality of care and patient perceptions of their care) by increasing employee skill level and organizational stability. In an industry plagued by recruitment and retention challenges alongside the inherent need for highly skilled employees, the ability of providing increased employment stability is of central importance and will, it is proposed, translate into increased quality of care (Charmel and Frampton, 2008; Aiken et al., 2002(b); Clark et al., 2001; for a discussion regarding the substantial negative costs associated with turnover in healthcare organizations, see Waldman et al., 2004). Existing healthcare research has documented the relationship between turnover rates and quality of care in hospitals and other healthcare organizations (see for example Plomondon et al., 2007; Ash and Seago, 2004). In their study of the effects of nurses unions on quality of care, Ash and Seago (2004) speculated that the positive relationship between union status and mortality rates after heart surgery was due, among other things, to the associated tenure levels and organizational stability (p. 440). Similarly, we argue that the adoption of PCC will reduce employee turnover intentions, which in turn will increase employee tenure levels and organizational stability. What this review indicates is that the reorganization of work has both direct and indirect effects on a variety of organizational outcomes. We therefore hypothesize that alongside the direct effects of PCC on clinical and patient satisfaction outcomes,

18

proposed above, there is an indirect effect operating through the reduction of employee turnover intentions. Support for this proposition will reinforce the claim made throughout this paper that the restructuring of patient care practices have direct implications for frontline staff. Furthermore, it will support the argument that the outcomes associated with patient care redesign, like PCC, are delivered, at least in part, through their effects on employee level outcomes. Hypothesis 3: Greater use of patient-centered-care practices will have a negative effect on employee turnover intentions. Hypothesis 4: Employee turnover intentions will partially mediate the relationship between PCC use and quality of care and patient satisfaction.

Data and Methodology Data The data used to test the four hypotheses outlined above was compiled from the British National Health Service (NHS). As a fairly centralized public healthcare system, the NHS makes most of its performance, survey and audit data publicly available. All NHS hospitals are required to report a variety of performance indicators using a number of different methods. In putting together our dataset, we have triangulated self-reported performance data with third-party administered staff and patient surveys. Using these multiple sources, we constructed a master data set from several years of publicly available data. The initial data set included hospital performance data for the years 2001-2005, employee survey data for the years 2003-2005 and patient survey data for the years 2001-2005. Since the performance measures and survey questions evolved over time, and different categories of patients (i.e. inpatients, outpatients, and patients in

19

the emergency department) were surveyed across these years, we used a subset of the data compiled. In our analysis for this paper, we used data from different matched years to conduct our analyses, which included inpatient survey data of 2001, 2003, and 2005, employee survey data of 2003 and 2005, and performance data of 2001 and 2003. The data was collected from 173 acute and teaching hospitals (excluding specialist hospitals, which focus on a single area such as pediatrics, orthopedics or ophthalmology). Due to the somewhat devolved nature of the National Health Service (see Greer, 2004), the data we use is confined to English hospitals. A hospital trust is the unit of analysis- a trust is a single organization and is the key administrative unit of the National Health Service. Some trusts operate hospitals on multiple sites (although usually no more than two or three) but remain a single organization with a unitary management structure. The performance data used here (all collected prior to a major transition in the inspection and rating regime in 2006) were collected annually from each trusts management team. The management reported its status on a broad range of criteria, from treatment times for specific medical issues, to staff absenteeism rates. Although there were initial concerns about accuracy of reporting procedures (see Givan 2005), there is also a procedure for inspecting each trust every few years to ensure that the actual functioning matches the self-reporting. This data alone is similar to data sets used by many scholars in that it combines a single respondent survey with performance data (eg. Wright et al., 2003; Bloom and Van Reenen, 2006; and Ichniowski et al., 1997). We triangulated this trust reported data with survey data from patients and employeesboth key stakeholders in healthcare organizations. Both sets of data are

20

from national surveys using consistent survey questions and methods over time. The staff survey has a response rate of slightly over 50% with approximately 60,000 trust employee respondents for each year used.3 The individual data is not publicly released, and since the healthcare organization is our unit of analysis, we use the aggregated staff survey data for each healthcare trust. Our patient data come from an annual patient survey. The survey is nationally coordinated and implemented by each NHS trust, according to a common sampling framework. Response rates have generally been around 44% for emergency department patients with about 55,000 respondents each year, and 59% for outpatients with approximately 140,000 patients each year.4 The unique nature of our dataset allows us to utilize patient perceptions items for both the quality of the care that they received and for the respect and dignity with which they were treated. We believe that these two measures capture important aspects of the patient experience. The framework that we utilize requires this analysis of patient perceptions of their care alongside clinical and quality of care outcomes. Indeed, we follow the directive of a widely cited editorial in the British Medical Journal that the best way of measuring patient centeredness is an assessment made by the patient themselves (Stewart 2001: 444). Earlier research has used patient surveys to measure primarily patient satisfaction as a dependent variable (see for example Vahey et al., 2004). We utilize the patient data to measure practices, rather than attitudes or perceptions; we contend that patients are the only stakeholders truly equipped to
A copy of the employee survey instrument used can be found at: http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_documents/04007747.pdf 4 A copy of the patient survey instrument used can be found at: http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/healthcareproviders/nationalfindings/surveys/patientsandthepubli c/patientsurveyresults.cfm
3

21

comment on the presence or absence of these practices. As the survey items below indicate, some of the data from the patients clearly measure inputs (such as whether hospital staff disagreed about procedures) and not outcomes. There are a number of primary advantages to using this multi-source data. First, much of the current scholarship on work practices and performance uses data from one management respondent matched with additional comparable performance data often derived from public filings for publicly traded companies. Our data, which also includes certain single response items, is unique in its inclusion of employee perception data both on the use of specific managerial practices and on attitudes and satisfaction in general, as well as patient perception data. Second, we derive patient data from two sources- the aggregate data on certain clinical measures from the performance dataset, and survey data from patients themselves on their experience in the hospital. Finally, by utilizing data from multiple sources, we avoid some of the pitfalls of research which relies on a single management respondent to provide data on all management practices. Our use of employee data to examine whether work practices are in place allows us to reach the point of implementation, rather than assuming that a policy has been implemented as stated by a high level manger. Our data provides us with data both on structures and procedures that are in place, and on employee perceptions thereof. Variables and Measures Our hypotheses outline three dependent variables: a) clinical care; b) patient satisfaction; and c) employee intentions to quit. In examining clinical outcomes we use measures for: (1) emergency readmissions to hospital within 28 days of discharge (all ages), as a percentage of live discharges (age and sex standardized)(%); and (2) the

22

percentage of employees that have seen errors and near misses that could hurt patients or staff in the last month.5 Patient satisfaction is measured using survey items regarding: (1) inpatient

overall ratings of care; and (2) inpatient overall ratings of respect and dignity. Finally, with regards to employee turnover, we use a scale measuring employee intentions to quit (Cronbachs alpha = 0.932).6 The independent variable used in this study is patient-centered-care practices and processes. The measurement of patient centered care incorporates measures for the five core dimensions discussed above, i.e., (1) access to care (if your family or someone else close to you wanted to talk to a doctor, did they have enough opportunity to do so?); (2) patient engagement in care (were you involved as much as you wanted to be in decisions about your care and treatment?); (3) patient education (six items, Cronbachs alpha = 0.929);7 (4) coordination of care (sometimes in a hospital, a member of staff will say one thing and another will say something quite different. Did this happen to you?) (reverse coding); and (5) emotional support (did you find someone on the hospital staff to talk to

The survey measured the percentage of employees that have seen errors and near misses that could hurt patients in the last month and the percentage of employees that have seen errors and near misses that could hurt staff in the last month separately. We added them together to get a global measurement of errors and near misses. This approach exaggerates the percentage of employees that have seen errors and near misses (some percentages are therefore over 100%). However, we are using this variable to measure the extent of errors and near misses; and we would rather overestimate than underestimate errors and near misses. 6 The survey question is to what extent do you agree with the following? a. I often think about leaving my current employer; b. I will probably look for a new job in the next year; c. As soon as I can find another job, I will leave my current employer. (Strongly disagree=1; Strongly agree=5) 7 The six survey questions are: a. When you had important questions to ask a doctor, did you get answers that you could understand? b. When you had important questions to ask a nurse, did you get answers that you could understand? c. Did a member of staff explain the purpose of the medicines you were to take at home in a way you could understand? d. Did a member of staff tell you about any medication side effects to watch for when you went home? e. Did a member of staff tell you about any danger signals you should watch for after you went home? f. Did the doctors or nurses give your family or someone close to you all the information they needed to help you recover?

23

about your worries and fears?). 8 Factor analysis shows a single factor for these dimensions. The Cronbachs alpha of the patient centered care scale is 0.905. Modeling We employed an unobserved effects model to estimate the relationships between patient centered care practices and medical, employment, and patient outcomes. The model took the following form:

Yit = Xit + ci + uit

i = 1,..., N ; t = 1,..., T ,

where Yit represented one specific outcome, X it was a vector of patient centered care practices for trust i at time t, was a vector of slope coefficients, ci represented

unobserved effect of trust i, and uit was idiosyncratic disturbances. However, ci can be treated as either a fixed effect or a random effect. According to Greene (2003, p. 293) and Cheng (2003, p.43), a fixed effects model is more appropriate when the inferences will apply only to the cross-sectional units in the sample, while a random effects approach is more appropriate when the inferences will extend to observations outside the sample. Given our sample and purpose of analysis, the appropriate model is the random effects model. Nonetheless, although a random effects model provides more efficient estimates, it assumes that ci is uncorrelated with X it , which increases the possibility of inconsistent estimates. Thus, there is a trade-off between efficiency and consistency when making a decision between the two models. In our analysis, we chose fixed effects models or
Doctors and nurses were surveyed separately on this question. To keep consistency, we took the maximum of the two scores.
8

24

random effects models based on the results of the Hausman test (1978), which provides a method to test whether the cost of inconsistency in the random effects model exceeds the gain in efficiency. In addition, we also tested whether a fixed effects model or a random effects model was a better choice than the pooled OLS regression approach, based on the F test or the Lagrangian Multiplier test respectively.
Results

Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, and bi-variate correlations for the variables used in the study. The average score and standard deviation of patient centered care is 71.43 (the full score is 100) and 4.05 respectively. In addition, patient centered care is significantly and positively correlated with emergency readmissions to hospital, patient ratings of care, and patient ratings of respect and dignity; and significantly and negatively correlated with errors and near misses that could hurt patients or staff and employee turnover intentions. Medical errors (i.e. errors and near misses that could hurt patients or staff) are positively related with employee turnover intentions and negatively related with patient ratings of care and respect and dignity. These negative relationships between employee turnover intentions and patient ratings of care and respect and dignity may indicate positive interactions between employment and patient outcomes, i.e. patient and employee satisfaction may enhance each other.
[Insert Table 2 about here]

25

Tables 3, 4 and 5 document the effects of patient centered care on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and employee intentions to quit. Analysis of our data provides partial support for our hypothesized PCC effect on quality of care. As seen in Table 3, PCC did significantly reduce observed medical errors that could harm patients or staff (b=-0.822, p<0.001), thus providing support for Hypothesis 1. On the other hand, in contrast to our hypothesis, our results indicate a positive relationship between patient centered care and emergency readmissions to hospitals (b=0.081, p<0.01), which we have used as a proxy for quality of care. As will be discussed in the conclusion below, this positive relationship may be due to the fact that emergency readmissions could measure the effectiveness of patient education rather than the quality of clinical care provided.
[Insert Table 3 about here]

As seen in Table 4, Hypothesis 2 is fully supported given the significant and positive relationships between patient-centered-care and patient ratings of care (b=0.846, p<0.001) and patient ratings of respect and dignity (b=0.638, p<0.001). Our findings also provide strong support for Hypothesis 3 as demonstrated by equation 5, which shows the negative relationship between patient-centered-care and employee turnover intentions (b=-0.01, p<0.001). Thus, a higher level of PCC adoption was statistically and significantly related to a reduction in employee intentions to leave the hospital.
[Insert Table 4 about here]

Finally, we also tested the mediating effect of employee turnover intentions on medical errors and patient satisfaction ratings, using Baron and Kennys (1986) recommended procedures. First, the regression results of patient-centered-care against errors and near 26

misses that could hurt patient or staff, patient ratings of care, and patient ratings of respect and dignity show significant effects for all of the three dependent variables (see equations 2a, 3a, and 4a in Table 3). Second, patient centered care is negatively related to employee turnover intentions, as is shown in equation 5 in Table 5. Third, when patient centered care and employee turnover intentions were entered into the equations simultaneously, we found that employee turnover intentions were a significant predictor of errors and near misses that could hurt patients or staff (b=17.8, p<0.001) and the negative effect of patient centered care on this dependent variable was reduced from 0.822 to 0.630 (see equations 2a and 2b in Table 3), which supports our hypothesis that employee turnover intentions partially mediate the relationship between patient-centered-care and medical errors. However, as shown in equations 3b and 4b in Table 4, employee turnover intentions do not have significant effects on patient ratings of care or patient ratings of respect and dignity. Therefore, the mediating effects of employee turnover intentions on patient satisfaction ratings were not supported.
[Insert Table 5 about here]

Conclusions and Discussion

This paper has provided support for the argument, which in many cases has remained theoretical, that the restructuring of delivery of care practices from an institutionally focused pattern to one that places patients and their needs at the center does have positive consequences for both quality of care, measured through reported errors, and patient perceptions of care. Analysis of our dataset partially supports our 27

hypothesis regarding the quality of care and demonstrates that the use of PCC practices reduces medical errors that could hurt patients or staff and increases patient ratings in terms of their satisfaction and the dignity and respect they received. These findings are especially relevant given both of the fundamental healthcare challenges raised at the outset of this papernamely providing high quality patient care and remaining financially viable. Reducing medical errors, which is a persistent challenge in many healthcare systems, and increasing positive patient perceptions of care are essential in addressing both of these challenges. Our findings also support the hypothesis that in addition to increasing patient perceptions of care, PCC positively affects a central employee outcomenamely intentions to quit the organization. Furthermore, we provided partial support for the hypothesis that employee turnover intentions partially mediate quality of care outcomes associated with PCC. In other words, while these practices are focused on placing the patient at the center, delivering on the gains associated with this shift, are, at least in part, associated with employee related outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of employee outcomes in mediating efforts to improve the quality of patient care through delivery of care innovations. Our findings that PCC has a statistically significant effect on improved patient perceptions and on the reduction of reported medical errors provided much needed empirical support regarding the benefits of practices that have been widely adopted in many developed countries. In an industry plagued by a drastic shortage in skilled professionals and high turnover rates, our evidence regarding the relationship between PCC and turnover intentions and the subsequent effect on medical errors has practical implications for the

28

manner in which healthcare organizations can deliver care and increase employee and patient related benefits. PCC, according to these results, decreases turnover intentions, which in turn has some positive spillovers on the quality of healthcare delivered within the organization, as indicated by lower error rates. Thus, these findings suggest that despite the existence of multiple stakeholders central to organizational survival, hospitals can adopt patient care methods that provide some gains to patients, employees and the organization. Put differently, these findings illustrate the need to examine delivery of care innovations based on their implications for multiple stakeholders (for a detailed discussion regarding the need to address multiple stakeholder needs in healthcare see Givan et al., forthcoming). Our papers theoretical framework builds on the solid foundation of industrial relations and human resource management literature, which has provided extensive empirical evidence for the strong link between the manner in which work is organized and key organization and individual level outcomes. For example, in examining the relationship between PCC practices and hospital outcomes we sought to reexamine Batts (2002) evidence regarding the mediating role of turnover in the service sector setting. Our findings contribute to this body of literature in two central ways. First, as noted above, despite the size and rapid growth of the healthcare industry, there is still not a great deal of industrial relations and human resource management research in this area. Testing theoretical frameworks developed and examined in traditional manufacturing and service sector settings in the healthcare context is of significant independent value. Thus, for example, our paper provides support for Batts (2002) findings regarding the

29

mediating role of employee turnover. Similar to Batts findings regarding high involvement practices, we find that PCC delivers some of its gains through its effect on employee turnover. Despite the differences in both our independent and dependent variables, we believe that these findings demonstrate the fruitful potential associated with integrating established IR and HR frameworks in the healthcare setting. A second and related contribution of our paper is the assessment of a context specific workplace innovation that combines a shift in how work is organized and how patient care is delivered. Unlike many of the workplace innovations studied in other contexts, PCC affects the involvement and integration of both employees and the customers they servicenamely patientsin the process and structure of work. We believe that in addition to the contribution inherent to the application of industrial relations and human resource management models in the healthcare setting, the findings reported above suggest that there is potential value in examining the relevance of innovations developed in this unique setting for other contexts. Taken together, this paper highlights the need for greater cross fertilization between the traditional industrial relations and human resource management research and the emerging body of literature on innovations in the healthcare arena. These conclusions should be qualified, however, given the mixed results regarding effect of PCC on one of the quality of care indicators examined. More specifically, as reported above and in contrast to our hypothesis, PCC was significantly and positively related to patient emergency readmission to the hospital. On the one hand, this result weakens the argument regarding the benefits associated with the adoption of PCC and its associated work arrangements and emphasizes the need for additional

30

research. On the other hand, it is possible that the positive effect on patient readmissions is not an indicator of poor patient care, but rather is a result of better-informed and educated patients. As noted above, one of the dimensions of PCC is patient education. It is possible that increased patient education leads to an increase in readmissions since patients are more aware of conditions and symptoms that require hospital treatment. Regardless of the explanation for this result, it calls for additional research on the relationship between PCC and this quality of care indicator. Our paper does have a number of additional limitations that should also be noted. First, despite the fact that our dataset is based on three separate sources, our measures for PCC and for our patient perception outcomes are both derived from a single patient survey instrument. Although we are confident that we are capturing separate constructs, this methodological limitation raises a response bias concern, which should be addressed in future studies. Second, in contrast to earlier research on the mediating role of employee turnover, our study does not examine actual turnover. We used employee intentions of turnover instead. On the one hand, this is a limitation since we are not capturing objective turnover rates. On the other hand, measurement of employee intentions allows us to capture the effects of PCC on a broader set of employees. In other words, we are able to assess the effects of PCC on all employees and not just those who left the organization. Third, data from this study comes from hospitals in the UK, which has implications for the generalizability of our findings. Although we believe that hospitals in the UK are confronting many of the same pressures and constraints that are affecting hospitals in other developed countries including the United States, this is a unique system

31

with specific characteristics and traits that do not exist in other settings. Future research should examine the extent to which our findings hold in other counties with different national healthcare systems characteristics. Having acknowledged some of the papers central limitations, it is important to restate one of our studys strengths, which rests in the unique quality of our dataset. The size of the data set, using the entire population of hospitals, and tens of thousands of patient and employee surveys, gives us confidence in these findings, and allows this analysis to avoid the pitfalls of narrower samples and single respondent surveys. We believe that the use of triangulated data provides findings which demonstrate the effects of patient centered care for the multiple stakeholders in the healthcare setting.

32

References

Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P. and Sloane, D. M. 2002. Hospital staffing, organization, and quality of care: Cross-national findings. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 14 (1): 5. Aiken,. L. H., Clarke, S. P., Sloane, D. M., Sochalski, J. and Silber, J. H. (2002). Hospital nurse staffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout and job dissatisfaction. Journal of the American Medical Association 288(16):1987-1993. . Aiken, L.H., Smith, H. L. and Lake, E. T. 1994. Lower medical mortality among a set of hospitals known for good nursing care. Medical Care 32: 771 787.
Alexander, J. A., DAunno, T. A. and Succi, M. J. 1996. Determinants of profound organizational change: Choice of conversion of closure among rural hospitals. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 37: 238 251. Arthur, J. B. 1994. Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal 37 (3): 670-687.

Ash, M. and Seago, J. A. 2004. The Effect of registered nurses' unions on heart attack mortality. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 57 (3): 422-442.
Aspden, P., Wolcott, J. A., Bootman, J. L. and Cronenwett, L. R. (eds.). 2007. Preventing medication errors. Institute of Medicine Report on Medical Errors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Batt, R. 1999. Work organization, technology, and performance in customer service and sales. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 52 (4): 539-564.
Batt, R. 2002. Managing customer services: Human resource practices, quit rates, and sales growth. Academy of Management Journal 45(3): 587-597.

Baron, R. M., Kenny. D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6) 11731182.
Bergeson, S. C., and Dean, J. D. 2006. A systems approach to patient-centered care. The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (23): 2848 2851. Bloom, N. and Van Reenen, J. 2006. Management practices, worklife balance, and productivity: A review of some recent evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22 (4): 457-482. Borrill C., West M., Shapiro D. and Rees, A. 2000. Team working and effectiveness in health care. British Journal of Health Care Management 6: 364371

33

Cheng, H. 2003. Analysis of panel data. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, P. F., Clark, D. A. Day, D. V. and Shea, D. G. 2001. Healthcare reform and the workplace experience of nurses: Implications for patient care and union organizing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 55 (1): 133-148.
Clark, P. F. 2002. Health Care: A growing role for collective bargaining. In Collective bargaining in the privates sector: Current developments and future challenges, Paul F. Clark, John Delaney, and Ann Frost (eds.). Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association: 91-136.

Charmel, P.A., and Frampton, S. B. 2008. Building the business case for patient-centered care. Healthcare Financial Management 62 (3): 80 85. Corrigan, J. M., Donaldson, M. S., Kohn, L. T., Maguire, S. K. and Pike, K. C. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: An new health system fir the 21st century. Institute of Medicine Report on Medical Errors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Davis, K., Schoenbaum, S. C. and Audet, A. M. 2005. A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 20 (10): 953 957. Epstein, R M., Franks, P., Fiscella, K., Shields, C. G., Meldrum, S. C., Richard L., Kravitz, R. L. and Duberstein, P. R. 2005. Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues. Social Science and Medicine 61 (7): 1516 1528. Flach, S. D., McCoy, K. D., Vaughn, T. E., Ward, M. M., Miller, B. and Doebbeling, B. N. 2004. Journal of General Internal Medicine 19 (10): 1019 1026. Gittell, J.H., Seidner, R. and Wimbush, J. 2009. A Relational Model of How High performance work systems. Organization Science, forthcoming. Gittell, J. H., Weinberg, D. B., Pfefferie, S. and Bishop, C. 2008. Impact of relational coordination on job satisfaction and quality outcomes: A study of nursing homes. Human Resource Management Journal 18(2): 154-170. Givan, R. K., Avgar, A. C. and Liu, M. 2010. Having your cake and eating it too? The relationship between human resource management and organizational performance in healthcare. Advances in Industrial Relations, forthcoming. Givan, R. K. 2005. Seeing Stars? Performance management and human resources in the National Health Service. Personnel Review 34(6): 634-647.

34

Great Britain Department of Health. 2000. An organization with a memory: report of an expert group on learning from adverse events in the NHS chaired by the Chief Medical Officer. The Stationery Office. . 2001. Building a safer NHS for patients: Implementing an organization with a memory. Great Britain, Department of Health. Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Greer, S.L. 2004. Four way bet: How devolution has led to four different models for the NHS. London: The Constitution Unit, School of Public Policy, UCL. Hausman, J. A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics, Econometrica 46 (6): 1251-1271. Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. The Academy of Management Journal 38 (3): 635-672. Huselid, M. A., and Becker, B E. 1996. Methodological issues in cross-sectional and panel estimates of the human resource-firm performance link. Industrial Relations 35: 400-422. Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. 1997. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review 87 (3): 291-313. Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A. and Gobeille, K. R. 1983. Industrial relations performance, economic performance, and QWL programs: An Interplant Analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 37 (1): 3 - 17. Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A. and Weber, M. R. 1985. Assessing the effects of industrial relations systems and efforts to improve the quality of working life on organizational effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal 28 (3): 509 - 526. Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M. and Donaldson, M. S. (Eds.). 2000. To err is human: building a safer health system. Institute of Medicine Report on Medical Errors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Lee, SY. D. and Alexander, J. S. 1999. Managing hospitals in turbulent times: Do organizational changes improve hospital survival? Health Services Research 34 (4): 923 946. Lemieux-Charles, L. and McGuire, W. 2006. What do we know about health care team effectiveness: A review of literature. Medical Care Research and Review 63(3): 1-38.

35

MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48 (2): 197-221. Mead N. and Bower, P. 2000. Patient-centeredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science and Medicine 51(7): 1087-1110. National Audit Office. 2005. Department of Health: A safer place for patients: Learning to improve patient safety. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. HC 456 Session 2005-2006. London: The Stationery Office. National Patient Safety Agency National Reporting and Learning System. 2008. Workbook to accompany Data Summary Pierson, D. and Williams, J. 1994. Remaking the rules: Hospitals attempt work transformation. Hospitals and Health Networks 5: 30-68. Plomomdon, M. E., Magid, D. J., Steiner, J. F., MaWhinney, S., Gifford, B. D., Shih, S. C., Grunwald, G. K. and Rumsfeld, J. S. (2007) Primary Care Provider Turnover and Quality of Managed Care Organizations. American Journal of Managed Care 13(8) 465-472. Porter M. E. and Teisberg, E. O. 2006. Redefining health care. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Preuss, G. A. 2003. High performance work systems and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of information quality. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56 (4): 590 - 605. Robinson, J. H., Callister, L. C., Berry, J. A. and Dearing, K. A. 2008. Patient-centered care and adherence: Definitions and applications to improve outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 20 (12): 600 607. Scotti, D., Harmon, J. and Behson, S. J. 2007. Links among high-performance work environment, service quality, and customer satisfaction: An extension to the healthcare sector. Journal of Healthcare Management 52 (2): 109 124. Stewart, M. 2001. Towards a global definition of patient centered care: The patient should be the judge of patient centered care. British Medical Journal. Stewart, M., Brown, J. B., Donner, A., McWhinney, I. R., Oates, J., WestonW. W. and Jordan, J. 2000. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. Journal of Family Practice 49: 796804.

36

Vahey, D. C., Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Clarke, S. P. and Vargus, D. 2004. Nurse burnout and patient satisfaction. Medical Care 42(2): 57-66. Waldon, J. D., Kelly, F., Arora, S. and Smith, H. L. (2004).The shocking cost of turnover in healthcare. Healthcare Management Review 29(1): 2-7. Walston, S. L., Burns, L. R. and Kimberly, J. R. 2000. Does reengineering really work? An examination of the context and outcomes of hospital reengineering initiatives. Health Services Research 34 (5): 1363 1388. Weinberg, D. B. 2003. Code green: Money-driven hospitals and the dismantling of nursing. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. West, E., Barron, D. N. and Reeves, R. (2005). Overcoming the barriers to patient centered care: Time, tools and training. Journal of Clinical Nursing 14:435-443 West, M. A., Borrill, C., Dawson, J., Scully, J., Carter, M., Anelay, S., Patterson, M. and Waring, J. 2002. The link between the management of employees and patient mortality in acute hospitals. Internal Journal of Human Resource Management 13 (8): 1299-1310. West, M.A., Guthrie, J. P., Dawson, J. Borrill, C. and Carter, M. 2006. Reducing patient mortality in hospitals: The role of human resource management. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27 (7): 983 1002. Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R. and Shortell, S. M. 1997. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly 42:366-94. Wolf, D. M., Lehman, L., Quinlin, R., Zullo, T. and Hoffman, L. 2008. effect of patient-centered care on patient satisfaction and quality of care. Journal of Nursing Care Quality 23 (4): 316 321. Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M. and Moynihan, L. M. 2003. The impact of HR practices on the performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal 13: 21-36. Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. W. and Lepak, D. P. 1996. Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance. The Academy of Management Journal 39 (4):836-866.

37

Table 1. Five Patient Centered Care Dimensions


Five Core Dimensions of PCC Description Ease with scheduling appointments; availability of same day appointments/walk-in appointments; limited in office waiting time; off hours services; alternate means of communication with clinicians (telephone, e-mail, Internet, etc.); incorporation of electronic databases; medical records Internet based and available everywhere; computerbased guidance and communication systems; publicly available information

Access to Care

Patient Engagement in Care

Physicians openly share information and management options; patients encouraged to add and clarify information concerning medical records; clinician as agent; treatment decisions made jointly; decisions made considering patients perspectives, needs, and values; inclusion of family members

Patient Education or Information Systems

Underscores patients understanding of illness and treatment options; education via information systems comprised of registries; registries of patients by diagnosis or health risk; personalized longitudinal charts of risk factors; treatment reminders and alerts; routine use of electronic medical records

Coordination of Care

Use of interdisciplinary teams; strategic coordination used to produce more physicianpatient time; coordination of procedural processes related to patient referrals (both given and received); availability of patients medical records, tests results, or other relevant clinical information at the time of visits and/or calls (scheduled an unscheduled)

Emotional Support

High levels of trust between patients and physicians; effective communication practices between patients and physicians; comfort with expressing fears and concerns; adequate length of appointments; development of strong patient-physician relationships; contract for care set by patient and physician

38

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Mean S.D. 1.Emergency readmissions to hospital 2. Errors & Near Misses 3. Patient ratings of care 4.Patient ratings of respect & dignity 5. Turnover intentions 7.89 1.66

72.03 9.57 -0.073 76.56 5.01 0.305** -0.314** 87.90 3.49 0.11 -0.349** 0.927** 0.370** -0.378** -0.364 ** ** 0.358

2.66 0.12 0.055

6. Patient centered care 71.43 4.05


*p<0.05; **p<0.01

0.14* -0.352** 0.916** 0.913 **

39

Table 3. The Effects of Patient Centered Care on Quality of Care Outcomes

Emergency Readmissions Patient-Centered-Care Eq.1 (pols) 0.081**


0.029

Errors & Near Misses Eq.2a (pols) Eq.2b (pols) -0.822*** -0.630***
0.119 0.125

Turnover intentions R F F test Wald 2 LM test 2 Hausman test 2 N *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001 7.37** 250
2

17.8***
4.144

0.031 7.96** 0.47

0.126 47.36*** 0.71

0.173 34.16*** 0.62

14.33*** 22.15*** 330

40

Table 4. The Effects of Patient Centered Care on Patient Perceptions of Care


Patient Ratings of Care Eq.3a (fe) Eq.3b (fe) 0.846 *** 0.776 ***
0.049 0.053

Patient Centered Care Turnover intentions R F F test Wald 2 LM test


2 2

Patient Ratings of Respect & Dignity Eq.4a (fe) Eq.4b (re) 0.638 *** 0.744 ***
0.037 0.021

-1.591
1.184

-0.66
0.654

0.846 292.22 *** 2.49 ***

0.881 112.01 *** 2.51 ***

0.83 301.5 2.37

0.848 *** *** 1452 *** 19.61 ***

Hausman test

N *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

37.34 *** 447

29.22 *** 328

17.9 *** 447

5.09 328

41

Table 5. The Effects of Patient Centered Care Employee Turnover Intentions


Turnover Intentions Eq.5 (re) -0.01 ***
0.002

Patient Centered Care R F F test Wald 2 LM test


2 2

0.128

31.77 *** 39.55 ***

Hausman test

2.52 N 328 *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001

42

You might also like