Differences In Care Experiences Research Articles

Differences in Stroke Outcomes and Experiences between White and Minority Patients and Providers (P7-5.029)

<h3>Objective:</h3> Our primary aim was comparing provider and patient surveys regarding stroke care. Our secondary aim was comparing patient responses by race/ethnicity. <h3>Background:</h3> Race disparities exist in treatment, lived experiences, and outcomes of stroke survivors. Stroke providers and patients differ in values and concerns during recovery. Aligning patient and provider concerns may foster better therapeutic relationships. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> A 28-question patient survey and 25-question provider survey were created to gain insight into experiences with stroke care at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (MGUH). Of 200 patients admitted to MGUH stroke service from September 2021 to March 2021, 39 completed the patient survey. All 40 providers (physicians and nurses from emergency medicine, neurology and critical care) completed their provider surveys. Statistical analyses included Fisher’s exact test. <h3>Results:</h3> White patients were older and had higher education than racial/ethnic minority patients but similar health-insurance status. Providers were mostly white and female. White patients agreed their health care team effectively communicated to understand their condition significantly more than minority patients (p=0.033). White patients perceived significantly more support from their health care team than minority patients (p=0.05). Providers viewed managing chronic stroke effects (77%) and difficulty following lifestyle changes (46%) as the biggest challenges in patients’ long-term care. Racial/ethnic minority patients expressed concern with understanding stroke risk factors (35%) and responsibilities at work and home (35%). White patients reported concerns managing effects of their strokes (33%), risks of recurrence (25%), and worries about home responsibilities (25%). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> This pilot survey-based study demonstrated differences in care experiences and post-stroke concerns between white and racial/ethnic minority patients. Most providers viewed managing chronic effects as the biggest challenge for patients, which was more consistent with white patients. Racial differences between providers and minority patients may contribute to differences in long-term stroke concerns. Limited by sample size, a larger multi-center study is planned to increase generalizability. <b>Disclosure:</b> Mr. Shankar has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Medstar Georgetown. Ms. Sumling has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Georgetown Medstar. Dr. Denny has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Abbott Laboratory. The institution of Dr. Denny has received research support from NIDDILIR. Dr. Denny has received publishing royalties from a publication relating to health care.

Association of Hospice Profit Status With Family Caregivers’ Reported Care Experiences

Expansive growth in the US hospice market has been driven almost exclusively by an increase in for-profit hospices. Prior research found that, in contrast to not-for-profit hospices, for-profit hospices focus on delivering care to patients in nursing homes, provide fewer nursing visits, and use less skilled staff. However, prior studies have not reported on the associations of these differences in care patterns with hospice care quality. Patient- and family-centeredness is a core element of hospice care quality that is measured through surveys of care experiences. To examine whether differences in profit status are associated with family caregivers' reports of hospice care experiences and assess factors that may be associated with observed differences in care experiences by profit status. Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey data from 653 208 caregiver respondents, reflecting care received from 3107 hospices between April 2017 and March 2019, were used for a cross-sectional examination of hospice care experiences by profit status. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to November 2022. Outcomes were case-mix-adjusted and mode-adjusted top-box scores for 8 measures of hospice care experiences, including communication, timely care, symptom management, and emotional and religious support, as well as a summary score averaging across measures. Linear regression examined the association between profit status and hospice-level scores, adjusting for other organizational and structural hospice characteristics. There were 906 not-for-profit and 1761 for-profit hospices with mean (SD) time in operation of 25.7 (7.8) years and 13.8 (8.0) years, respectively. Mean (SD) decedent age at death was 82.8 (2.3) years, similar for not-for-profit and for-profit hospices. The mean proportion of patients who were Black, Hispanic, and White was 4.9%, 0.9%, and 91.4% for not-for-profit hospices and 9.0%, 2.2%, and 85.4% for for-profit hospices, respectively. Family caregivers reported worse care experiences at for-profit hospices than at not-for-profit hospices for all measures. Significant differences in average hospice performance by profit status remained after adjusting for hospice characteristics. However, for-profit hospice performance varied, with 548 of 1761 (31.1%) for-profit hospices scoring 3 or more points below the national hospice average of overall performance and 386 of 1761 (21.9%) scoring 3 or more points above the average. In contrast, only 113 of 906 (12.5%) not-for-profit hospices scored 3 or more points below the average, and 305 of 906 (33.7%) scored 3 or more points above the average. In this cross-sectional study of CAHPS Hospice Survey data, caregivers of patients receiving hospice care reported substantially worse care experiences in for-profit than in not-for-profit hospices; however, there was variation in reported experiences among both types of hospices. Public reporting of hospice quality is important.

Bundled Payment Episodes Initiated by Physician Group Practices: Medicare Beneficiary Perceptions of Care Quality.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative incentivizes participating providers to reduce total Medicare payments for an episode of care. However, there are concerns that reducing payments could reduce quality of care. To assess the association of BPCI with patient-reported functional status and care experiences. We surveyed a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes attributed to participating physician group practices, and matched comparison beneficiaries, after hospitalization for one of the 18 highest volume clinical episodes. The sample included beneficiaries discharged from the hospital from February 2017 through September 2017. Beneficiaries were surveyed approximately 90 days after their hospital discharge. We estimated risk-adjusted differences between the BPCI and comparison groups, pooled across all 18 clinical episodes and separately for the five largest clinical episodes. Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes (n=16,898, response rate=44.5%) and comparison beneficiaries hospitalized for similar conditions selected using coarsened exact matching (n=14,652, response rate=46.2%). Patient-reported functional status, care experiences, and overall satisfaction with recovery. Overall, we did not find differences between the BPCI and comparison respondents across seven measures of change in functional status or overall satisfaction with recovery. Both BPCI and comparison respondents reported generally positive care experiences, but BPCI respondents were less likely to report positive care experience for 3 of 8 measures (discharged at the right time, -1.2 percentage points (pp); appropriate level of care, -1.8 pp; preferences for post-discharge care taken into account, -0.9 pp; p<0.05 for all three measures). The proportion of respondents with favorable care experiences was smaller for BPCI than comparison respondents. However, we did not detect differences in self-reported change in functional status approximately 90 days after hospital discharge, indicating that differences in care experiences did not affect functional recovery.

A Service Evaluation of the Experiences of Patients With Functional Neurological Disorders Within the NHS.

Previous research into Functional Neurological Disorder (FND) has shown that there are significant barriers in providing patient-centred care. However, there has been no specific research into whether patient experiences of care for FND meet the current standards of care. This study aimed to investigate the types of problems experienced by FND patients, and whether these differed to patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). FND (n = 40) and MS patients (n = 37) were recruited from NHS tertiary neurology clinics and completed questionnaires on their experiences of health care services. Significant differences in experiences of care between the two patient groups were found, with FND patients reporting significantly more problems in their diagnosis and treatment (p = 0.003), patient-centred care (p < 0.001), relationships with healthcare professionals (p < 0.001), and in accessing community care (p = 0.001). Limitations include a small sample size, specificity to a single centre, and cross-sectional design. The results suggest that current care for FND patients is not meeting expected standards for long-term neurological conditions, highlighting the need for structured care pathways and patient-centred care.

A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Ambulatory Oncology Experience by Treatment Intent.

The Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) is a standardized instrument to assess the overall cancer patient experience. This study retrospectively investigated differences in care experiences and satisfaction among ambulatory oncology patients who self-identified as receiving outpatient therapies for curative intent or for symptom or disease control. This cross-sectional study analyzed data from the AOPSS collected between February and April 2019 within the provincial cancer program in Alberta, Canada. There were 2104 participants who returned the survey, representing a 52.7% response rate. This nationally validated survey gathers patient care experiences and satisfaction across six domains of person-centred care. Treatment intent was characterized by adding a new “goal of treatment” question. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann–Whitney U tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVAs). Cancer patients’ treatment goals were found to be significantly associated with key patient characteristics like age, sex, tumour group, and the locations where they received care. Patients whose self-identified goal of treatment was to cure their cancer reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction and a more positive experience in five out of the six person-centred care domains. Results identify marked differences in satisfaction and experience between these two patient groups even though they both received care in the same ambulatory environments. A better understanding of the experience and satisfaction of non-curative cancer patients could allow for a more holistic and supportive approach to patient care. In addition, an early palliative approach to care is recommended for improved patient outcomes.

Associations between shared care and patient experiences among older cancer survivors.

Cancer survivors have unique medical care needs. "Shared care," delivered by both oncologists and primary care providers (PCPs), may better address these needs. Little information is available on differences in outcomes among survivors receiving shared care versus oncologist-led or PCP-led care. This study compared experiences of care for survivors receiving shared care, oncologist-led, PCP-led, or other care patterns. We used SEER-CAHPS data, including NCI's SEER registry data, Medicare claims, and Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey responses. Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries age ≥ 65years in SEER-CAHPS with breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, renal, or prostate cancers or hematologic malignancies who responded to a Medicare CAHPS survey ≥ 18months post-diagnosis were included. CAHPS measures included ratings of overall care, personal doctor, specialist physician, health plan, prescription drug plan, and five composite scores. Survivorship care patterns were identified using proportions of oncologist, PCP, and other physician encounters. Multivariable regressions examined associations between care patterns and CAHPS outcomes. Among 10,132 survivors, 15% received shared care, 10% oncologist-led, 33% PCP-led, and 42% other. Compared with shared care, we found no significant differences in experiences of care except for getting needed drugs (lower scores for PCP-led and other care patterns). Sensitivity analyses using different patterns of care definitions similarly showed no associations between survivorship care pattern and experience of care. Within the limitations of the study dataset, survivors age 65+ receiving shared care reported similar experiences of care to those receiving oncologist-led, PCP-led, and other patterns of care. Shared care may not provide survivor-perceived benefits compared with other care patterns.

Disparities in experiences of emergency department care for people with a mental health condition

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to explore differences in experiences of care in Emergency Departments (EDs) for people with and without mental health conditions. MethodsSecondary analyses of a survey of 15,995 patients from 82 EDs in New South Wales, Australia was conducted focusing on the most positive responses for 53 questions across nine dimensions of experiences. Logistic regression was used to compare experiences between people with and without a self-reported mental health condition, regardless of the reason for presentation. ResultsMost patients reported positive experiences, with 60% rating care as ‘very good’. However, fewer people with mental health conditions gave ‘very good’ ratings (52%). Their experiences were significantly less positive for 40 of 53 questions. For overall impressions of professionals, physical comfort, and continuity dimensions, experiences for those with mental health conditions were at least eight percentage points lower than those with no condition. Differences were minimal for other questions such as experiences with facilities (e.g. clean treatment areas). ConclusionsRegardless of the reason for their visit, improvements in experiences for people with mental health conditions should focus on interactions with healthcare professionals, comfort, engagement and continuity. Improving experiences of this group can help improve their outcomes of care.

Identifying disparities in patient-centered care experiences between non-Latino white and black men: results from the 2008-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

BackgroundPatient-centered healthcare in the context of a medical home (PCMH) is an important pathway to reducing healthcare inequities. To date, no work has examined the prevalence of care experiences associated with PCMH among non-elderly Black males.MethodsWe analyzed data, on 22 indicators representative of six healthcare domains associated with PCMH experiences, from non-Latino White (NLW) and Black males aged 18–64 from the 2008–2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (n = 47,405). We used generalized linear models to test whether Behavioral Model factors attenuate any differences in access to these domains between NLW and Black males, and decomposition techniques to examine the contribution of these factors to reported differences.ResultsBlack males reported 1) lower access to personal primary care providers, 2) poorer quality communication with providers, and 3) lower levels of care comprehensiveness (all p < 0.05). Differences between groups were attenuated but not eliminated by accounting for the Behavioral Model factors particularly through enabling and predisposing factors. Group health characteristics were not a primary driver of racial differences in care experiences across all the considered domains.ConclusionsBlack men, in the U.S, continue to face barriers to accessing high quality, patient-centered care, specifically as it relates to accessing specialty care, medical tests, and patient-provider communication.

‘It's like you don't have a roadmap really’: using an antiracism framework to analyze patients’ encounters in the cancer system

ABSTRACT Background: Cancer patients can experience healthcare system-related challenges during the course of their treatment. Yet, little is known about how these challenges might affect the quality and completion of cancer treatment for all patients, and particularly for patients of color. Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity is a multi-component, community-based participatory research intervention to reduce Black-White cancer care disparities. This formative work aimed to understand patients’ cancer center experiences, explore racial differences in experiences, and inform systems-level interventions. Methods: Twenty-seven breast and lung cancer patients at two cancer centers participated in focus groups, grouped by race and cancer type. Participants were asked about what they found empowering and disempowering regarding their cancer care experiences. The community-guided analysis used a racial equity approach to identify racial differences in care experiences. Results: For Black and White patients, fear, uncertainty, and incomplete knowledge were disempowering; trust in providers and a sense of control were empowering. Although participants denied differential treatment due to race, analysis revealed implicit Black-White differences in care. Conclusions: Most of the challenges participants faced were related to lack of transparency, such that improvements in communication, particularly two-way communication could greatly improve patients’ interaction with the system. Pathways for accountability can also be built into a system that allows patients to find solutions for their problems with the system itself. Participants’ insights suggest the need for patient-centered, systems-level interventions to improve care experiences and reduce disparities.

Patients with epilepsy care experiences: Comparison between services with and without an epilepsy specialist nurse

The aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences in experiences of care, satisfaction with care and quality of life between those who were in receipt of care from a service with an epilepsy specialist nurse (ESN) and those who were receiving care from a service that did not include an ESN. A comparative design was used, which involved the completion of a confidential, self-completed survey. The survey was administered to a nonprobability convenience sample of patients with epilepsy who were attending services with an ESN (n = 244) and services where the treatment team did not include an ESN (n = 261) from each of the four health areas in Ireland. This study found that, in comparison to people with epilepsy (PWE) who attended a service without an ESN, PWE who attended a service with an ESN reported receiving greater amount of information, were more involved in their care, perceived care to be better coordinated, and had greater confidence in the information provided and greater comfort in discussing issues with an ESN. They also reported higher rates of satisfaction with the emotional and practical support offered. Thus, it may be concluded that models of care involving the input of ESNs enhance the quality of epilepsy care and care processes. The findings also emphasize the need to have an ESN as part of the multidisciplinary team.

Differences in experiences of care between patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer of known and unknown primaries: mixed-method findings from the 2013 cancer patient experience survey in England

ObjectivesTo explore differences in experiences of care reported in the Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) between patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) and those with metastatic disease of known...

Examining Patients’ Perceptions of Care to Identify Opportunities for Quality Improvement in Psychiatric Inpatient Hospitals

Our objectives were to examine patients' perceptions with psychiatric care to prioritize action for quality improvement (QI), and to explore differences in care experiences across domains of care by sample subgroups in psychiatric inpatient hospitals. Analysis of frequency, central tendency, and variation examined the distribution of 11,778 Inpatient Consumer Surveys (ICS), from 67 psychiatric inpatient hospitals, by domain of care and Likert scale. The percentage of patients responding positively to each domain of care was evaluated. A performance-importance matrix was constructed to identify key drivers and prioritize action for QI. Chi-squared, t test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses evaluated the experiences of care by sample subgroups. Overall, patients tended to be satisfied with the care received. However, patients perceived their care differently across hospitals. Hospitals scored lower in the rights domain, mainly attributed to problems with communication between patients and hospital staff. Patients' care experiences varied among sample subgroups; however, four sample characteristics were common to all domains of care. Patients who were Latinos, aged 65 years and older, who completed the survey at discharge, before leaving the hospital, had a higher perception of care across all domains of care. Either an examination of the individual items on the ICS or the aggregation of them by domain of care, the ICS could be a significant tool for hospitals that continuously strive to improve the quality of care provided to psychiatric patients in a time driven by the needs and expectations of consumers.