Changes In Patient Experience Research Articles

National surveys of patient experiences with addiction services in Norway: do employees use the results in quality initiatives and are results improving over time?

The experiences of patients receiving health care constitute an important aspect of health-care quality assessments. One of the purposes of the national program of patient-experience surveys in Norway is to support institutional and departmental improvements to the quality of local health-care services. This program includes national surveys of patients receiving interdisciplinary treatment for substance dependence performed four times between 2013 and 2017. The aims of this study were twofold: (i) to determine the attitudes of employees towards these surveys and their use of the survey results, and (ii) to identify changes in patient experiences at the national level from 2013 to 2017. Employees were surveyed one week prior to conducting cross-sectional patient experience surveys. One-way ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to assess differences between years, and content analysis was applied to the open-ended comments. Around 400 employees were recruited in each of the four survey years, and the response rate varied from 61% to 79%. The employees generally reported a positive attitude towards patient-experience surveys, and 40%-50% of them had implemented quality initiatives based on the results of the patient surveys. The mean score for the question on usefulness was higher than 3 (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 points) for all four surveys. Many employees provided details about the changes that had been made in open-ended comments. The results from the patient-experience surveys demonstrated positive changes over time. The employees had positive viewpoints towards patient-experience surveys, and around half of them had implemented quality initiatives. This implies that employees find such surveys important, and that patient-experience surveys are regarded as useful and actionable. The surveys of patients showed positive changes in their experiences over time. The most-common target areas reported by employees showed clear improvements in patient experiences at the national level.

Patient experience with hospital care following the Maryland global budget revenue model: A difference-in-difference analysis.

As a result of the success of Maryland's full risk capitated payment model experiment (Global Budget Revenue) in constraining healthcare costs, there is momentum for expanding the reach of such models. However, as these models are implemented, studies analyzing their long-term effects suggest unintended spillover effects that may ultimately influence patient experiences. The aim of this study was to determine whether implementation of the GBR was associated with changes in patient experience. Cross-sectional study using a difference-in-difference analysis to examine changes in patient experiences according to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) domains before and after implementation of the GBR model. Acute care hospitals from 2010-2016 with completed HCAHPS surveys were included. Hospitals identified for inclusion were then matched, based on county location, to area level characteristics using the Area Health Resource File. A total of 844 hospitals were included. Compared to hospitals in non-GBR states, hospitals in GBR states experienced significant declines in the following HCAHPS domains: "would definitely recommend the hospital to others" [Average treatment effect (ATT) = -1.19, 95% CI = -1.97, -0.41)] and 9-10 rating of the hospital (ATT = -0.93, 95% CI = -1.71, -0.15). Results also showed significant increases in the HCAHPS domains: "if patient's rooms and bathroom were always kept clean" (ATT = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.20, 2.00). There were no significant differences in changes for the other domains, including no improvements in: nursing communication, doctor communication, help from hospital staff, pain control, communication on medicines, discharge information, and quietness of the patient environment. These findings suggest there should be efforts made to ascertain and mitigate potential adverse effects of care transformation initiatives on patient experience. Patients are stakeholders and their inputs should be sought and incorporated in care transformation efforts to ensure that these models align with improved patient experiences.

Retention efficacy and patient experience with customized clear retainer and wrap-around circumferential retainer among non-extraction orthodontic patients: A 12-month follow-up cohort study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate retention efficacy by assessing retention stability and patient perspectives according to type of circumferential retainer: the wrap-around circumferential retainer (WCR) and customized clear retainer (CCR). This cohort follow-up study involved 52 patients aged 18-62 who underwent fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment without extractions or orthognathic surgery. Following screening consenting participants were divided into WCR and CCR groups. All participants before follow-up received fixed retainers for the upper and lower anteriors and respective removable retainers within 2 weeks post-debond. Intraoral scans and lateral cephalograms were taken immediately after debonding (T0) and again 12 months later. Dentoalveolar changes in several measurements were compared to evaluate retention efficacy. Surveys were conducted at 1 month (T1) and 12 months (T2) post-debonding to assess changes in patient experiences. Outcome assessments were blinded. Paired T-tests and independent T-tests were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons of dentoalveolar measurements, respectively. Survey responses were analysed using the Pearson Chi-Square test. The final assessment included 32 participants. Model analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups, except for maxillary intermolar width (p = .033). In the WCR group, the cephalometric analysis indicated a significant increase in the incisor mandibular plane angle (p = .002) and a decrease in the interincisal angle (p = .014), while changes in the CCR group were statistically non-significant. Patient attitude evaluation showed similar trends for wear time and overall satisfaction. However, a higher percentage of respondents in the WCR group reported irritation when wearing the retainers (p = .037) at T1 and discomfort related to speech (p = .038) at T2. CCR showed better retention efficacy in terms of lower incisor inclination. Patients experienced relatively less irritation and speech discomfort with CCRs.

Hospital Patient Experience: Exploring Hospitals as Shifters and Sustainers Over Time.

Patient experience is a key factor in measuring hospital performance, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey tool is used to assess patient perceptions. Hospitals with positive patient experience tend to have a better quality of clinical care, lower readmission and mortality rates, and an overall shorter inpatient length of stay. Studies have identified several organizational determinants of high- and low-rated patient experiences, including hospital size, type, staffing levels, and patient demographics.This study aims to explore the determinants of consistently high- and low-rated patient experience, as well as factors associated with positive and negative changes in patient experience over time. The 2014 to 2019 American Hospital Association annual survey and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Value-Based Purchasing database were used. A total of 2801 acute-care hospitals were included in this study. A series of multivariate logistic regressions were used to model the probability of "1" (being a superior hospital or an inferior hospital). In addition, a generalized linear mixed model for binary responses was used to analyze the change (probability of positive and negative change). The results showed that most hospitals did not sustain superior or inferior performance, and competition decreased the likelihood of a hospital consistently performing well in terms of patient experience. Superior performance was associated with hospital ownership (P <.001), size (P =.026), location (P =.002), teaching status (P =.009), average Herfindahl-Hirschman Index value (P =.005), and Medicaid and Medicare patient population. On the other hand, inferior performance was associated with hospital ownership (P =.003), size (P <.001), teaching status (P =.003), safety net status (P =.020), and Medicaid and Medicare patient population. This study aimed to examine the trends in hospital patient experience performance and the influence of hospital organizational characteristics on those trends. Our findings allow us to question the widely held belief that patient experience is a metric of differentiation and industry competition, suggesting that performance in this domain has not been utilized by most hospitals as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. The findings from this study highlight the importance of considering changes in performance over time and the need for significant organizational efforts to improve hospital performance in terms of patient experience.

Changes in Patient Experiences of Hospital Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

It is important to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic was adversely associated with patients' care experiences. To describe differences in 2020 to 2021 patient experiences from what would have been expected from prepandemic (2018-2019) trends and assess correlates of changes across hospitals. This cohort study compared 2020 to 2021 data with 2018 to 2019 data from 3 900 887 HCAHPS respondents discharged from 3381 HCAHPS-participating US hospitals. The data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023. The primary outcome was an HCAHPS summary score (HCAHPS-SS), which averaged 10 HCAHPS measures. The primary analysis estimated whether HCAHPS scores from patients discharged from 2020 to 2021 differed from scores that would be expected based on quarterly and linear trends from 2018 to 2019 discharges. Secondary analyses stratified hospitals by prepandemic overall star ratings and staffing levels. Of the 3 900 887 HCAHPS 2020 to 2021 respondents, 59% were age 65 years or older, and 35% (11%) were in the surgical (maternity) service lines. Compared with trends expected based on prepandemic (2018-2019) data, HCAHPS-SS was 1.2 percentage points (pp) lower for quarter (Q) 2/2020 discharges and -1.9 to -2.0 pp for Q3/2020 to Q1/2021, which then declined to -3.6 pp by Q4/2021. The most affected measures (Q4/2021) were staff responsiveness (-5.6 pp) and cleanliness (-4.9 pp); the least affected were discharge information (-1.6 pp) and quietness (-1.8 pp). Overall rating and hospital recommendation measures initially exhibited smaller-than-average decreases, but then fell as much as the more specific experience measures by Q2/2021. Quietness did not decline until Q2/2021. The HCAHPS-SS fell most for hospitals with the lowest prepandemic staffing levels; hospitals with bottom-quartile staffing showed the largest decrements, whereas top-quartile hospitals showed smaller decrements in most quarters. Hospitals with better overall prepandemic quality showed consistently smaller HCAHPS-SS drops, with effects for 5-star hospitals about 25% smaller than for 1-star and 2-star hospitals. The results of this cohort study of HCAHPS-participating hospitals found that patient experience scores declined during 2020 to 2021. By Q4/2021, the HCAHPS-SS was 3.6 pp lower than would have been expected, a medium effect size. The most affected measures (staff responsiveness and cleanliness) showed large effect sizes, possibly reflecting high illness-associated hospital workforce absenteeism. Hospitals that were lower performing and less staffed prepandemic may have been less resilient to reduced staff availability and other pandemic-associated challenges. However, by Q4/2021, even prepandemic high-performing hospitals had similar declines.

Patient Experience at US Hospitals Following the Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act

Communication with caregivers is often not established or standardized during hospitalization. The Caregiver Advise, Record, Enable (CARE) Act is a state-level policy designed to facilitate communication among patients, caregivers, and clinical care teams during hospitalization to improve patient experience; 42 states have passed this policy since 2014, but whether it was associated with achieving these goals remains unknown. To determine whether passage of the CARE Act was associated with improvements in patient experience. This cohort study used a difference-in-differences analysis of short-term, acute-care US hospitals from 2013 to 2019 to analyze changes in patient experience before vs after CARE Act implementation in hospitals located in states that passed the CARE Act compared with those in states that did not. Analyses were performed between September 1, 2021, and July 31, 2022. Time-varying indicators for whether a hospital was in a state that passed the CARE Act. Patient-reported experience via the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. A total of 2763 hospitals were included, with 2188 hospitals in CARE Act states and 575 in non-CARE Act states. There were differential improvements in patient experience in the measures of communication with nurses (unadjusted mean [SD] score, 78.40% [0.42%]; difference, 0.18 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.07-0.29 percentage points; P = .002), communication with physicians (mean [SD] score, 80.00% [0.19%]; difference, 0.17 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.06-0.28 percentage points; P = .002), and receipt of discharge information (mean [SD] score, 86.40% [0.22%]; difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.02-0.21 percentage points; P = .02) among CARE Act states compared with non-CARE Act states after policy passage. In subgroup analyses, improvements were larger among hospitals with lower baseline Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems performance on measures of communication with nurses, communication with physicians, and overall hospital rating. These findings suggest that implementation of the CARE Act was associated with improvements in several measures of patient experience. Policies that formally incorporate caregivers into patient care during hospitalization may improve patient outcomes.

Telemedicine Adoption in an NCI-Designated Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Report on Patient Experience of Care.

Patients with cancer require timely access to care so that healthcare providers can prepare an optimal treatment plan with significant implications for quality of life and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred rapid adoption of telemedicine in oncology, but study of patient experience of care with telemedicine in this population has been limited. We assessed overall patient experience of care with telemedicine at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic and examined changes in patient experience over time. This was a retrospective study of outpatient oncology patients who received treatment at Moffitt Cancer Center. Press Ganey surveys were used to assess patient experience. Data from patients with appointments between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed. Patient experience was compared between telemedicine and in-person visits, and patient experience with telemedicine over time was described. A total of 33,318 patients reported Press Ganey data for in-person visits, and 5,950 reported Press Ganey data for telemedicine visits. Relative to patients with in-person visits, more patients with telemedicine visits gave higher satisfaction ratings for access (62.5% vs 75.8%, respectively) and care provider concern (84.2% vs 90.7%, respectively) (P<.001). When adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, insurance, and clinic type, telemedicine visits consistently outperformed in-person visits over time regarding access and care provider concern (P<.001). There were no significant changes over time in satisfaction with telemedicine visits regarding access, care provider concern, telemedicine technology, or overall assessment (P>.05). In this study, a large oncology dataset showed that telemedicine resulted in better patient experience of care in terms of access and care provider concern compared with in-person visits. Patient experience of care with telemedicine visits did not change over time, suggesting that implementing telemedicine was effective.

Changes in Patient Experiences and Assessment of Gaming Among Large Clinician Practices in Precursors of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System

Medicare's Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), a public reporting and pay-for-performance program, adjusts clinician payments based on publicly reported measures that are chosen primarily by clinicians or their practices. However, measure selection raises concerns that practices could earn bonuses or avoid penalties by selecting measures on which they already perform well, rather than by improving care-a form of gaming. This has prompted calls for mandatory reporting on a smaller set of measures including patient experiences. Within precursor programs of the MIPS, this study examined 1) practices' selection of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) patient experience measures for quality scoring under pay-for-performance and 2) the association between mandated public reporting on CAHPS measures and performance on those measures. This study included 2 analyses. The first analysis examined the association between the baseline CAHPS scores of large practices (≥100 clinicians) and practices' selection of these measures for quality scoring under pay-for-performance up to 2 years later. The second analysis examined changes in patient experiences associated with a requirement that large practices publicly report CAHPS measures starting in 2014. A difference-in-differences analysis of 2012-2017 fee-for-service Medicare CAHPS data was conducted to compare changes in patient experiences between large practices (111-150 clinicians) that became subject to this reporting mandate and smaller unaffected practices (50-89 clinicians). Analyses were conducted between October 1, 2020 and July 30, 2021. CAHPS measures. Among 301 large practices that publicly reported patient experience measures, the mean age of patients at baseline was 71.6 years (interquartile range [IQR] across practices: 70.4-73.2 years) and 55.8% of patients were female (IQR: 54.3%-57.7%). Large practices in the top vs. bottom quintile of patient experience scores at baseline were more likely to voluntarily include these scores in the pay-for-performance program two years later (96.3% vs. 67.9%), a difference of 28.4 percentage points (95% CI: 9.4,47.5 percentage points; P=0.004). After 2-3 years of the reporting mandate, patient experiences did not differentially improve in affected vs. unaffected practices (difference-in-differences estimate: -0.03 practice-level standard deviations of the composite score; 95% CI: -0.64,0.58; P=0.92). In this study of US physician practices that participated in precursors of the MIPS, large practices were found to select measures on which they were already performing well for a pay-for-performance program, consistent with gaming. However, mandating public reporting was not associated with improved patient experiences. These findings support recommendations to end optional measures in the MIPS but also suggest that public reporting on mandated measures may not improve care.

The influence of COVID-19 visitation restrictions on patient experience and safety outcomes: A critical role for subjective advocates

With the emergence of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States in early 2020, hospitals across the country made the difficult decision to alter visitation policies, by either limiting visitations or restricting visitations altogether by closing access to family, friends and care partners in an effort to reduce further spread of the virus. While there is foundational research on the impact of family and care partner presence on the experience of patients and patient safety outcomes, the actions driven by the pandemic allowed for a real-time comparison of the impact of family or care partner presence or lack thereof. Patient and family engagement has long been a part of patient experience scholarship where the role of family members and care partners as patient advocates and a presence of support has been reinforced. Scholarship and practice have also encouraged movement from restricted visiting hours to having open visitation based on findings that, in addition to better patient outcomes, there is a benefit in nurse job satisfaction and communication when visitations are unrestricted. The purpose of this study is to examine the degree to which hospital visitation restrictions in U.S. hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic help to explain changes in patient experience and patient safety outcomes. To examine this relationship, patient experience and safety outcomes of a national sample of hospitals (n=32) during the pandemic is compared to previous corresponding performance. The results indicate that hospital performance was negatively impacted on average during the pandemic for hospitals in the sample. However, differences in hospital performance during the pandemic were driven by hospitals that disallowed patient visitations. Hospitals with closed visitations saw most pronounced deficits in their performance with regard to patient ratings of medical staff responsiveness, fall rates and sepsis rates. Performance in hospitals that either remained unrestricted or partially limited their visitations was not appreciably different from pre-pandemic performance, and in some cases performance even improved marginally. The findings of this study indicate that the policy to allow for visitors, or subjective advocates, individuals with a vested interest in the well-being of the patient, is beneficial not only for the patient, but also in sustaining high quality of care. Recommendations are given for how hospitals might achieve improved quality and safety outcomes even in instances when organizations believe visitation needs to be disallowed or restricted. The results of this study suggest those decisions should be made with great care and in only the most extreme circumstances.

Disrupted and Restored Patient Experience With Transition to New Electronic Health Record System.

Transitioning from one electronic health record (EHR) system to another is of the most disruptive events in health care and research about its impact on patient experience for inpatient is limited. This study aimed to assess the impact of transitioning EHR on patient experience measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems composites and global items. An interrupted time series study was conducted to evaluate quarter-specific changes in patient experience following implementation of a new EHR at a Midwest health care system during 2017 to 2018. First quarter post-implementation was associated with statistically significant decreases in Communication with Nurses (−1.82; 95% CI, −3.22 to −0.43; P = .0101), Responsiveness of Hospital Staff (−2.73; 95% CI, −4.90 to −0.57; P = .0131), Care Transition (−2.01; 95% CI, −3.96 to −0.07; P = .0426), and Recommend the Hospital (−2.42; 95% CI, −4.36 to −0.49; P = .0142). No statistically significant changes were observed in the transition, second, or third quarters post-implementation. Patient experience scores returned to baseline level after two quarters and the impact from EHR transition appeared to be temporary.

Changes in patient experience associated with growth and collaboration in general practice: observational study using data from the UK GP Patient Survey.

BackgroundFor the last few years, English general practices — which are, traditionally, small — have been encouraged to serve larger populations of registered patients by merging or collaborating with each other. Meanwhile, patient surveys have suggested that continuity of care and access to care are worsening.AimTo explore whether increasing the size of the practice population and working collaboratively are linked to changes in continuity of care or access to care.Design and settingThis observational study in English general practice used data on patient experience, practice size, and collaborative working. Data were drawn from the English GP Patient Survey, NHS Digital, and from a previous study.MethodThe main outcome measures were the proportions of patients at practice level reporting positive experiences of both access and relationship continuity of care in the GP Patient Survey. Changes in proportions between 2013 and 2018 among practices that had grown and those that had, roughly, stayed the same size were compared, as were patients’ experiences, categorised by whether or not practices were working in close collaborations in 2018.ResultsPractices that had grown in population size had a greater fall in continuity of care (by 6.6%, 95% confidence interval = 4.3% to 8.9%), than practices that had roughly stayed the same size, after controlling for other factors. Differences in falls in access to care were smaller (4.3% difference for being able to get through easily on the telephone; 1.5% for being able to get an appointment; 0.9% in satisfaction with opening hours), but were statistically significant. Practices collaborating closely with others had marginally worse continuity of care than those not working in collaboration, and no differences in access.ConclusionLarger general practice size in England may be associated with slightly poorer continuity of care and may not improve patient access. Close collaborative working did not have any demonstrable effect on patient experience.

Team-Based Primary Care Practice Transformation Initiative and Changes in Patient Experience and Recommended Cancer Screening Rates.

Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices’ successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.

Determinants Of Patient Experience With Low Back Pain Interdisciplinary Care: A Pre-Post Interventional Study.

Background and purposeMeasuring patients’ experiences of health services has become an essential part of quality of care reporting and a means for identifying opportunities for improvement. This study aimed to evaluate change in patient experience in an interdisciplinary primary care program and to estimate the impact on patient experience of sociodemographic, function, pain and general health status, resource utilization, and process variables.Patients and methodsA 6-month interdisciplinary care program for individuals with low back pain (LBP) was implemented at four primary care settings and evaluated using an observational pre/post study design. The change in patient experience was evaluated using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care questionnaire (PACIC) completed at baseline and 6 months post-intervention (n=132). Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3.ResultsThe average patient age was 57 (SD: 14) years of age and the majority were female (53%). The mean overall PACIC score was 2.6 (SD: 1.1) at baseline and 3.6 (SD: 0.9) at 6 months. The experience of care improved for 62% of the participants based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). No significant determinants of overall PACIC change score were identified in the multivariable regression models.ConclusionThe lack of association of hypothesized determinants requires further examination of the properties of the PACIC and with a larger sample. Future investigation is needed on the relationship between improved patient experience and outcomes.

Improving Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome from Diagnosis to Management through Online Continuing Education: Changes in Patient Experience, Clinical Practice, and Provider Knowledge and Competence (P2.5-028)

Improving Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome from Diagnosis to Management through Online Continuing Education: Changes in Patient Experience, Clinical Practice, and Provider Knowledge and Competence (P2.5-028)

A patient-centred model to quality assure outputs from an echocardiography department: consensus guidance from the British Society of Echocardiography

Background: Quality assurance (QA) of echocardiographic studies is vital to ensure that clinicians can act on findings of high quality to deliver excellent patient care. To date, there is a paucity of published guidance on how to perform this QA. The British Society of Echocardiography (BSE) has previously produced an Echocardiography Quality Framework (EQF) to assist departments with their QA processes. This article expands on the EQF with a structured yet versatile approach on how to analyse echocardiographic departments to ensure high-quality standards are met. In addition, a process is detailed for departments that are seeking to demonstrate to external bodies adherence to a robust QA process.Methods: The EQF consists of four domains. These include assessment of Echo Quality (including study acquisition and report generation); Reproducibility & Consistency (including analysis of individual variability when compared to the group and focused clinical audit), Education & Training (for all providers and service users) and Customer & Staff Satisfaction (of both service users and patients/their carers). Examples of what could be done in each of these areas are presented. Furthermore, evidence of participation in each domain is categorised against a red, amber or green rating: with an amber or green rating signifying that a quantifiable level of engagement in that aspect of QA has been achieved.Conclusion: The proposed EQF is a powerful tool that focuses the limited time available for departmental QA on areas of practice where a change in patient experience or outcome is most likely to occur.

Effects of Live-Online Education on Multiple Sclerosis Disease Management: Changes in Patient Experience, Clinical Practice, Provider Knowledge and Competence (P2.422)

Effects of Live-Online Education on Multiple Sclerosis Disease Management: Changes in Patient Experience, Clinical Practice, Provider Knowledge and Competence (P2.422)

Development and pilot of brief surveys to evaluate the quality of patient-centered cancer care.

202 Background: Oncology practices have increasingly engaged in patient-centered systematic quality improvement efforts. One test of their effectiveness is patient feedback, yet many existing instruments are unwieldy or insensitive to change. Here we describe the development and pilot testing of short patient surveys used to assess change in patient experience of the key domains of access, communication, and coordination. Methods: Domains and corresponding questions of patient-centered care were informed by existing literature and tools available online, with a focus on domains relevant to cancer patients. Questions were modified from validated or semi-validated instruments to have a consistent 4 or 5-category Likert response scale, put into four unique short instruments that included at most ten questions each and piloted in cancer clinic waiting rooms. Input from patients was sought to assess: 1) relevance and clarity of questions; 2) whether important concepts were missing; 3) acceptability to patients regarding place and timing of surveys and; 4) estimate top box scores. Internal consistency of the final question sets for each domain was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Results: Patient feedback from the pilot was positive with respect to all above categories. The following modifications were made based on top box score analysis: 1) created a common 5-point Likert scale for all questions and 2) excluded questions with a top box score higher than 80%. An open comment field was also added to complement the quantitative responses. Cronbach’s alpha for all domains was ≥ 0.80 expect for the access domain which was 0.51. The final 4 complementary instruments have 7-8 questions each and take only a few minutes for patients to complete. Each return patient receives one of the instruments randomly at clinic visits so information on all domains is continuously collected and a given patient has the opportunity to provide feedback on all domains over time; response rates are approximately 60%. Conclusions: The short surveys are being used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. Other cancer centers and their patients may find similar short surveys an improvement over general patient satisfaction surveys e.g., Press-Ganey.

Effect of a Whole-Person Model of Care on Patient Experience in Patients With Complex Chronic Illness in Late Life.

Background:Patients with serious chronic illness are at a greater risk of depersonalized, overmedicalized care as they move into later life. Existing intervention research on person-focused care for persons in this transitional period is limited.Objective:To test the effects of LifeCourse, a team-based, whole-person intervention emphasizing listening to and knowing patients, on patient experience at 6 months.Design:This is a quasi-experimental study with patients allocated to LifeCourse and comparison groups based on 2 geographic locations. Robust change-score regression models adjusted for baseline differences and confounding.Setting/Participants:Patients (113 intervention, 99 comparison in analyses) were individuals with heart failure or other serious chronic illness, cancer, or dementia who had visits to hospitals at a large multipractice health system in the United States Midwest.Measurements:Primary outcome was 6-month change in patient experience measured via a novel, validated 21-item patient experience tool developed specifically for this intervention. Covariates included demographics, comorbidity score, and primary diagnosis.Results:At 6 months, LifeCourse was associated with a moderate improvement in overall patient experience versus usual care. Individual domain subscales for care team, communication, and patient goals were not individually significant but trended positively in the direction of effect.Conclusion:Person-focused, team-based interventions can improve patient experience with care at a stage fraught with overmedicalization and many care needs. Improvement in patient experience in LifeCourse represents the sum effect of small improvements across different domains/aspects of care such as relationships with and work by the care team.

Pilot Study of Kano “Attractive Quality” Techniques to Identify Change in Emergency Department Patient Experience

We describe the use of the Kano Attractive Quality analytic tool to improve an identified patient experience gap in perceived compassion by emergency department (ED) providers. In phase 1, point-of-service surveying assessed baseline patient perception of ED provider compassion. Phase 2 deployed Kano surveys to predict the effect of 4 proposed interventions on patient perception. Finally, phase 3 compared patients receiving standard care versus the Kano-identified intervention to assess the actual effect on patient experience. In phase 1, 193 of 200 surveys (97%) were completed, showing a baseline median score of 4 out of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3 to 5), with top box percentage of 33% for patients' perception of receiving compassionate care. In phase 2, 158 of 180 surveys (88%) using Kano-formatted questions were completed, and the data predicted that increasing shared decisionmaking would cause the greatest improvement in the patient experience. Finally, in phase 3, 45 of 49 surveys (92%) were returned and demonstrated a significant improvement in perceived concern and sensitivity, 5 (IQR 5 to 5) versus 4 (IQR 3 to 5) with a difference of 1 (95% CI 0.1-1.9) and a top box rating of 79% versus 35% with a difference of 44% (95% CI 12-66) by patients who received dedicated shared decisionmaking interventions versus those receiving standard of care. Kano analysis is likely predictive of change in patient experience. Kano methods may prove as useful in changing management of the health care industry as it has been in other industries.

Use of a national collaborative to improve hospital quality in a low-income setting.

BackgroundQuality improvement collaboratives are a widely used mechanism to improve hospital performance in high-income settings, but we lack evidence about their effectiveness in low-income settings.MethodsWe conducted cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of data from the Ethiopian Hospital Alliance for Quality, a national collaborative sponsored by Ethiopia's Federal Ministry of Health. We identified hospital strategies associated with more positive patient satisfaction using linear regression and assessed changes in patient experience over a 3-year period (2012–2014) using matched t-tests.ResultsA total of 68 hospitals (response rate 68/120, 56.7%) were included in cross-sectional analysis. Four practices were significantly associated with more positive patient satisfaction (p<0.05): posting a record of cleaning activity in toilets and in patient wards, distributing leaflets in the local language with each prescription, and sharing ideas about patient experience across the hospital. Among hospitals that had complete data for longitudinal analysis (44/68, 65%), we found a 10% improvement in a 10-point measure of patient satisfaction (7.7 vs 8.4, p<0.01) from the start to the end of the study period.ConclusionsQuality improvement collaboratives can be useful at scale in low-income settings in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly for hospitals that adopt strategies associated with patient satisfaction.