Patient Experience Measures Research Articles

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PATIENT REPORT OUTCOMES OF A JOINT CNS / AHP NEURO-ONCOLOGY CLINIC ON PATIENTS QUALITY OF LIFE

Abstract AIMS Velindre Cancer Centre established a successful model of collaborative working between CNS and AHP services for neuro-oncology patients to holistically support their complex needs throughout treatment. Building on this success, the clinic has introduced a recognised reliable and valid patient reported outcome measure (PROM) to be completed pre and post clinic intervention. This is in addition to the patient reported experience measure that is already established within the pathway. This PROM will enable an analysis of the clinics impact on patients quality of life. METHOD A quantitative methodology will be utilised to enable a objective evaluation of the impact of the clinic on patients quality of life. An EQ-5D-5L PROM is completed with patients prior to their involvement with the clinic enabling an overview of key aspects related to quality of life including mobility, self-care, participation in usual activities, pain and anxiety / depression. Following interventions within the clinic, patient are provided with a post treatment EQ-5D-5L to enable a comparison of these key indicators of quality of life. RESULTS The data will build on the resounding success of collaborative working between CNS and AHP’s in the neurooncology MDT clinic. An analysis of the pre and post data will demonstrate the impact of having access to this unique and integrated way of working, enabling patient access to specialist timely support throughout their treatment. CONCLUSION This innovative model of working is now established in the patient pathway and findings from patient experience measures have recognised that patients experience of the clinic is extremely highly valued. Findings from this additional dataset will further evidence the impact on patients quality of life. It will add to findings from a proposed gap analysis to evidence the benefits of developing an outreach service for this patient cohort.

County-level racial bias is associated with worse care for white and especially black older US adults: a cross-sectional observational study

ObjectiveTo assess the association of county-level bias about black and white people with patient experience, influenza immunisation, and quality of clinical care for black and white older US adults (age...

The relationship between patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer.

248 Background: Measures of patient experience (PEX) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are used by health systems across the US to improve care delivery and quality of life, respectively. Despite their widespread use, little is known regarding the relationship between these two types of patient-generated data. From 2018 to 2023, we conducted a pragmatic type-II hybrid effectiveness/implementation study of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded symptom management program (eSyM) across six diverse cancer centers. This project focused on patients who started chemotherapy (CHEMO) or had surgery (SURG) for a suspected or confirmed gastrointestinal, gynecologic, or thoracic malignancy. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults who were eligible for either the control or intervention arm of the eSyM study to determine if patients who reported having an inferior care-team experience were more likely to report having worse symptoms. Participants completed a one-time survey via REDCap that included elements from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Analyses determined the extent to which PEX measures were associated with PRO measures by evaluating differences in mean PROMIS scores for those who rated their PEX highly vs. not highly. Results: In total, 1419 respondents reported having cancer for which they received care at a participating center: median age 66, 63% female, 5% black, 13% disabled, 66% married/partnered, 23% high school or less education, 22% somewhat-extreme difficulty paying bills. For both CHEMO and SURG patients, 82% rated their overall cancer care-team experience highly (top box score of 9-10). Compared to patients who did not rate their care-team experience highly, those who did reported better scores for depression, fatigue, anxiety, pain interference, physical function, and self-efficacy (Table). PROMIS values differed for other CAHPS measures too. Conclusions: Among patients receiving routine cancer care, there was a significant association between PEX and multiple PROs. Further investigation of the nature and strength of the association between PEX and PRO measures is warranted. If confirmed, this association could lead to the development of interventions that impact both patient satisfaction and quality of life. Clinical trial information: NCT03850912 . Mean difference in PROMIS scores for patients who rated their care-team experience highly versus not highly (P from two-sample T-test). CHEMO (N=889) SURG (N=530) Mean Diff 95%CI P value Mean Diff 95%CI P value Depression -2.7 -4.3, -1.1 0.001 -3.3 -5.3, -1.4 <0.001 Anxiety -3.7 -5.4, -1.9 <0.001 -3.6 -5.7, -1.5 <0.001 Fatigue -2.3 -4.0, -0.5 0.011 -4.5 -6.8, -2.2 <0.001 Pain interference -3.6 -5.3, -1.9 <0.001 -4.7 -6.7, -2.7 <0.001 Physical function 1.6 0.1, 3.1 0.042 3.5 1.4, 5.6 0.001 Self-efficacy 3.9 2.6, 5.2 <0.001 6.4 4.6, 8.1 <0.001

Abstract B160: Assessing patient experience in cancer clinical trial participants: Results from a rapid umbrella review with an equity lens

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials are an important part of cancer care, yet research assessing patient experience in cancer clinical trials is sparse. Ensuring that the patient voice is heard and valued in the context of clinical trials is critical to the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered, and equitable cancer care. Furthermore, understanding the aspects of cancer clinical trials that are important to and reported by patients may inform strategies to address barriers to clinical trial participation, improve diversity in clinical trials, and advance health equity, particularly among populations underrepresented in clinical research. This rapid umbrella review sought to understand how patient experience is assessed in cancer clinical trials and to identify opportunities to integrate an equity lens. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched for systematic reviews that identify and describe development, use, or testing of tools/instruments assessing patient experience of cancer clinical trial patients. The search strategy was collaboratively developed with an NIH Librarian, using a combination of key terms to describe: 1) patient experience, 2) clinical trials, 3) healthcare delivery, and ) systematic reviews. The search was limited to publications in the English language and a date range of 2018-2024. One co-author completed the title and abstract review based on the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers will then independently completed the full text review, quality appraisal, and data abstraction for all included studies. All authors will synthesize data into matrix tables and narratively summarize into key themes. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Results: Out of 1,751 yielded search results, 151 articles were preliminarily identified. Upon further reading of the full texts, the final list of included articles meeting inclusion criteria will be reported using Covidence. Summary findings from this rapid umbrella review will include the number of studies identified, clinical trials population, a description of the patient experience measures, domains, findings, as well as opportunities for health equity integration using the PROGRESS-Plus Framework. Conclusion: Equitable representation in clinical trials will require intentional efforts to understand and enhance the experience of patients on clinical trials across diverse patient populations, as well as address barriers to participation. However, there are several research gaps that limit our understanding in this area, including a lack of consistent definitions, patient experience domains; availability and use of standardized, validated measures for clinical trial populations, and knowledge about what factors differ and influence patients’ experiences, particularly among populations underrepresented in clinical research. Attention to these gaps will facilitate a greater understanding of patient needs, experiences, and barriers, and may promote actionable strategies to increase access to, inclusion of, and diversity in cancer clinical trials. Citation Format: Brenda Adjei, Katrina Makres, Eric Juarez, Sae-Jin E Lee, Lynne Padgett. Assessing patient experience in cancer clinical trial participants: Results from a rapid umbrella review with an equity lens [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr B160.

Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the patient-reported experience measure for addiction treatment (PREMAT-NL).

Patient-centred care has become increasingly important in health care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREM) are used to measure patient experiences in health care, but the availability of psychometrically validated PREMs is limited. The Patient Reported Experience Measure in Addiction Treatment (PREMAT) is a PREM developed with extensive service user input to assess the experiences of people in residential addiction treatment services. In this study we aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dutch translation of the PREMAT, the PREMAT-NL. Ninety-three participants completed the PREMAT-NL approximately 45 days after starting addiction treatment as part of a naturalistic prospective multi-centre study in Belgium. We examined the factorial structure using principal component analysis with Promax oblique rotation and assessed the internal consistencies of the subscales and total score using Cronbach's α. Additionally, we explored the relationship of PREMAT-NL scores with demographic and clinical variables. The PREMAT-NL had a four-factor structure, with good internal consistencies of the subscales (Cronbach's α >0.70) and excellent internal consistency of the total score (Cronbach's α = 0.94). The PREMAT-NL total score was negatively skewed, and four score categories were proposed based on z-scores. PREMAT-NL scores correlated weakly with the type of treatment centre (r = 0.21, p < 0.05) and with previously received treatment for addiction (r = -0.25, p < 0.05). Although the factor structure and thus the appropriate use of subscales need further investigation, the findings of this study support the use of the PREMAT-NL total score as a valid and reliable PREM to evaluate residential addiction treatment services.

National audit of patient reported experience of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer pathways

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this study was to measure and describe the national patient experience of radical cystectomy (RC) pathways in the UK using the validated Cystectomy‐Pathway Assessment Tool (C‐PAT).Patients and MethodsA cohort of 1081 patients who underwent RC for bladder cancer, between 1 January 2021 and 31 July 2022 at 33 UK cystectomy centres, returned completed C‐PAT responses. SPSS was employed for data summary statistics, including median, interquartile range, Mann Whitney U test or Chi‐square test with a 95% confidence interval to assess statistical significance between potentially associated variables. Open‐text responses in the C‐PAT tool were analysed and coded using NVivo software.ResultsIn this cohort, the greatest perceived delay in the RC pathway, reported by 19% of patients (n = 208), was at the GP consultation to first hospital referral stage with suspected bladder cancer. Around 10% of patients perceived delays at each of the other stages in their pathway. Cancer nurse specialist (CNS) contact was strongly associated with an improved patient experience (p &lt; 0.001); however, 9.5% of patients reported that they were not assigned a cancer nurse specialist in their pathway. Overall, 96% (n = 1028) reported their experience of RC pathway care to be good or excellent. There were no significant differences in reported patient experience found between cystectomy centres.ConclusionThis audit demonstrates the feasibility of measuring patient experience of RC pathways at scale. The C‐PAT tool demonstrated utility in identifying specific pathway areas for quality improvement. Overall UK patients report a high quality pathway experience. A focus on improving the referral pathway between primary and secondary care is necessary.

2265 Patient experience and outcome measures in virtual wards at Swansea Bay university health board.

Abstract Introduction Swansea Bay Health Board is covered by eight community clusters (240 virtual beds), each with their own Virtual Ward (VW) MDT which provides community based Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment and reablement. The VW governance structure includes the routine collection of person-centred metrics. There is no recognised PROM or PREM specifically designed for needs of frail older people and PROMsand PREMsare rarely used to inform quality and continuity in services at transitions of care (e.g. at discharge from hospital). Methods VW data from June 2023 to February 2024 was analysed. Patient-reported outcomes and experiences (PROMS and PREMS) were collected by the VW team at set timepoints in the patient journey. Data was collected using the PRO-MAPP digital interface ensuring inter-user consistency. Results 1858 VW patients, 1094 (58.9%) female, median age 86 years. The majority, 1044 (56.2%) were referred from secondary care, primarily from acute frailty services, with the remainder identified by primary care. In total, 418 PROMS and 344 PREMS were collected. PROMS—Reported improvements in mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and anxiety &amp; depression (p &amp;lt; 0.001) after VW input. PREMS—The majority of patients found the VW had been explained well prior to referral (84.0%), were contacted promptly (95.6%), staff were professional and friendly (100%), provided patient-centred care (94.2%), staff were contactable (92.4%), were glad they avoided or reduced the length of hospital admission (95.3%). When speaking with 72 care-givers, they were happy the patients’ needs were met (100%) and the VW positively impacted their lives as carers (90.1%). Discussion There was high patient and care-giver satisfaction with the VW service. PROM data suggested a significant positive impact on patient outcomes. Not all the patients referred to the VW have been sampled which is a missed opportunity and there was a variability between data collection between clusters.

What role does compassion have on quality care ratings? A regression analysis and validation of the SCQ in emergency department patients

ObjectiveTo examine the unique contribution of patient reported experiences of compassion to overall patient quality care ratings. Additionally, we assess whether patients’ reported experiences of compassion in the emergency department differed between sociodemographic groups.MethodsProvincial data for this cross-sectional study were collected from 03/01/2022 to 09/05/2022 from 14 emergency departments in Alberta, Canada. Data from 4501 emergency department patients (53.6% women, 77.1% White/European) were analyzed. The primary outcome was patients’ overall quality care ratings during their most recent ED visit. Measures included in the hierarchical stepwise regression included demographics, and those drawn from the Emergency Department Patient Experience of Care (EDPEC) questionnaire: single and multi-item measures of patient information (e.g., patient perceptions health) and patient experience (e.g., physician communication), and compassion (e.g., Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire; SCQ-ED).ResultsData from 4501 ED patients were analysed. Stepwise hierarchical linear multiple regression indicated that of 21 included variables, compassion most strongly predicted overall quality care ratings (b=1.61, 95% CI 1.53-1.69, p<.001, f2=.23), explaining 19% unique variance beyond all other measures. One-way ANOVAs indicated significant demographic differences in mean compassion scores, such that women (vs. men) reported lower compassion (MD=-.15, 95% CI=-.21, -.09, p<.001), and Indigenous (vs. White) patients reported lower compassion (MD=-.17, 95% CI =-.34, -.01, p=.03).ConclusionsCompassion was identified as a key contributor to ED overall quality care ratings, and experiences of compassion varied as a function of demographics. Patient-reported compassion is an indicator of quality care that needs to be formally integrated into clinical care and quality care assessments.

Impact of a codesigned and coproduced patient-centred discharge form on communication and understanding.

Adverse clinical outcomes and patient dissatisfaction with care often have elements of poor communication. Factors such as illness and pharmacotherapy can affect cognition, and overestimation of patients' health literacy may contribute to suboptimal communication with patients regarding their hospitalisation and post-discharge instructions. Improved patient understanding and recall of their diagnoses and treatment is critical for adherence to treatment, follow-up and optimal clinical outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess whether a coproduced and codesigned patient-centred discharge form (PCDF) improves patients' understanding of their discharge diagnosis, in-hospital treatment and post-discharge plan. A sample of 111 patients was enrolled through simple randomisation by admission to one of two identically operating general medicine wards. Over a 3-month period, 59 patients received the coproduced and codesigned form and 52 patients were controls. Assessment of patients' understanding of diagnosis, in-hospital management, post-discharge instructions and overall experience of care was undertaken by a blinded phone survey conducted approximately 6 days after discharge. Patients who received PCDF were significantly more likely to report adequate understanding of their hospital management (P < 0.001) and the post-discharge plan (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups in terms of understanding of diagnosis. Patients who received PCDF reported better understanding of care and recall of admission. The use of PCDF is associated with improved patient understanding with respect to their hospital management and post-discharge instructions. It is also associated with high levels of satisfaction as assessed by measures of patient experience.

Near real-time patient experience feedback with data relay to providers: a systematic review of its effectiveness.

Near Real-Time Feedback (NRTF) on the patient's experience with care, coupled with data relay to providers, can inform quality-of-care improvements, including at the point of care. The objective is to systematically review contemporary literature on the impact of the use of NRTF and data relay to providers on standardized patient experience measures. Six scientific databases and five specialty journals were searched supplemented by snowballing search strategies, according to the registered study protocol. Eligibility included studies in English (2015-2023) assessing the impact of NRTF and data relay on standardized patient-reported experience measures as a primary outcome. Eligibility and quality appraisals were performed by two independent reviewers. An expert former patient (Patient and Family Advisory Council and communication sciences background) helped interpret the results. Eight papers met review eligibility criteria, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized study. Three of these studies involved in-person NRTF prior to data relay (patient-level data for immediate corrective action or aggregated and peer-compared) and led to significantly better results in all or some of the experience measures. In turn, a kiosk-based NRTF achieved no better experience results. The remaining studies were pre-post designs with mixed or neutral results and greater risks of bias. In-person NRTF on the patient experience followed by rapid data relay to their providers, either patient-level or provider-level as peer-compared, can improve the patient experience of care. Reviewed kiosk-based or self-reported approaches combined with data relay were not effective. Further research should determine which approach (e.g. who conducts the in-person NRTF) will provide better, more efficient improvements and under which circumstances.

Outcomes or Experiences — What Do Patients Value More When Evaluating Medical Teams?

As quality-based payment proliferates worldwide, patient outcomes and patient experience measures are increasingly prioritized. However, little is known about whether patients value outcomes or experiences more when choosing a medical team. In a survey of patients across four European countries — France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom — 998 patients with diagnoses of breast cancer, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, depression, or arthritis rated the importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) validated by the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement relative to patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), which lack a standard instrument across Europe. The authors randomized the order of questions on PROMs and PREMs, and they further randomized the order of 10 indicators of outcomes and experiences to blunt priming effects. Although patients considered both outcomes and experiences important, on average 83.0% of patients considered PROMs more important than PREMs for choosing a medical team, with PROMs more important among 86.9% of the breast cancer sample, 82.6% in diabetes, 80.8% in inflammatory bowel disease, 79.4% in depression, and 86.7% in arthritis. Older patients were more likely to consider outcomes more important than experiences. These results suggest that outcomes and experiences are not viewed as the same by patients and that PROMs may need to be integrated to a larger extent into current payer efforts involving incentives to improve quality; these efforts could include value-based payment models that reward or put payments at risk based on quality performance.

(086) MEDICAL GASLIGHTING AND VULVOVAGINAL PAIN DISORDERS

Abstract Introduction Gaslighting is a form of epistemic injustice that involves testimonial injustice, in which patient’s experiences are discounted by others. The incidence of epistemic injustice has been described in a number of pain conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, as well as in marginalized obstetric populations. Little research has been directed towards epistemic injustice in populations seeking treatment for benign gynecologic conditions or the unique context of vulvovaginal pain conditions. Additionally, little is known about the consequence of this type of injustice on patient’s perception of their care or willingness to seek care. Objective The purpose of this study was to develop a patient-validated instrument to measure patient experience of epistemic injustice in their past gynecologic care and to use the instrument to explore patient experiences in a vulvovaginal pain referral center. Methods An instrument was designed by the study team to quantify the incidence and distressed caused by gaslighting in patients seek care for vulvovaginal pain conditions. This was created based on common themes from written testimonials of patients available from National Vulvodynia Association. After construction, the instrument was submitted for feedback to officers from two vulvovaginal pain disorder patient societies. The survey was modified to include the feedback from these sources. The survey was then completed by patients establishing care with the clinic prior to their first appointment. Results 187 patients completed the survey in part or in full. Patients reported having seen an average of 5.7 providers prior to presentation. Patients felt supported by only 42% of past providers. Patients felt belittled by 27% of past providers. Patients felt 21% of past providers did not believe their symptoms. 45% of patients were told they “just needed to relax more”; 18% percent were recommended to drink alcohol to improve their condition; 55% considered giving up seeking care because they felt their concerns were not being addressed; 31% were told their symptoms were caused by high levels of anxiety; 22% were referred to psychiatry without other medical treatment for their symptoms; 19% felt unsafe during a medical encounter. 39% percent of patients were made to feel they were “crazy” and this was the most distressing of the questions asked (average 7.3/10 on a likert scale for distress for patients who had experienced this). Conclusions A survey based on patient concerns and validated by patients affected by vulvovaginal pain conditions has not been previously reported. This instrument was applied to a patient population at a large referral center for vulvovaginal pain conditions and the results showed that patients commonly experienced many forms of epistemic injustice, and greater than half of patients consider cessation of care for their condition because of these experiences. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Dr. Jill Krapf is a medical advisor for Evvy. Dr. Andrew Goldstein is a part time Employee of Daré Bioscience. He is a member of the board of directors of The Gynecologic Cancers Research Foundation. He is an advisor for: AbbVie, Incyte, and the National Vulvodynia Association. He has received research funding from Incyte.

Using a health equity lens to measure patient experiences of care in diverse health care settings

Using a health equity lens to measure patient experiences of care in diverse health care settings

A phase 2, open-label, 2-cohort study to evaluate patient preference for nivolumab (NIVO) + relatlimab (RELA) fixed-dose combination (FDC) subcutaneous (SC) vs NIVO + RELA FDC intravenous (IV) and NIVO SC vs NIVO IV in participants with melanoma.

TPS9619 Background: The oncology burden on healthcare resources and patients increases as the number of individuals with cancer grows, necessitating treatment options offering improved convenience to patients. SC delivery of monoclonal antibodies in various cancer indications has previously been shown to be effective, well tolerated, and preferred by patients over IV infusion. In CheckMate 67T (NCT04810078), noninferiority of exposure (time-averaged serum concentration at Day 28 and trough serum concentration at steady state) and efficacy (objective response rate by BICR) were previously reported for NIVO SC 1200 mg + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) vs IV in patients with locally advanced/metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. RELATIVITY-127 (NCT05625399) is ongoing to establish exposure noninferiority of NIVO + RELA + rHuPH20 FDC SC to IV in patients with previously untreated metastatic/unresectable melanoma. This phase 2, open-label study CA224-1044 (NCT06101134) assesses patient preference for NIVO SC or NIVO + RELA FDC SC vs IV formulations after transitioning from IV to SC in patients with melanoma and aims to further characterize the safety profile of immuno-oncology therapy during IV-to-SC switch. Methods: Cohort 1 includes adult patients with previously untreated stage III (unresectable) or stage IV (metastatic) melanoma who will receive NIVO + RELA FDC IV every 4 weeks (Q4W) for 2 cycles (28-day cycle) followed by NIVO + RELA + rHuPH20 FDC SC Q4W until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a maximum total treatment duration of 2 years, whichever comes first. Cohort 2 includes adult patients with completely resected stage IIB/C, stage III or stage IV melanoma who will receive NIVO IV Q4W for 2 cycles (28-day cycle) followed by NIVO SC + rHuPH20 Q4W until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or a maximum total treatment duration of 1 year, whichever comes first. The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants preferring the SC route of administration based on question 7 of the Patient Experience and Preference Questionnaire after the Cycle 4 Day 1 dose. This question evaluates patient preference for IV or SC or no preference in treatment administration and was previously used in CheckMate 8KX. Secondary endpoints include safety outcomes such as adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, treatment-related AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, immune-mediated AEs, other events of special interest, injection/infusion-related AEs, deaths, and laboratory abnormalities. Safety is assessed for IV period, SC period (8 weeks each) and overall study period. Exploratory endpoints include additional measures of patient experience and preference for IV vs SC. The study is recruiting to enroll 50 patients per cohort. Clinical trial information: NCT06101134 .

Evaluation of regional variation in racial and ethnic differences in patient experience among Veterans Health Administration primary care users.

To evaluate racial and ethnic differences in patient experience among VA primary care users at the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) level. We performed a secondary analysis of the VA Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients-Patient Centered Medical Home for fiscal years 2016-2019. We compared 28 patient experience measures (six each in the domains of access and care coordination, 16 in the domain of person-centered care) between minoritized racial and ethnic groups (American Indian or Alaska Native [AIAN], Asian, Black, Hispanic, Multi-Race, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander [NHOPI]) and White Veterans. We used weighted logistic regression to test differences between minoritized and White Veterans, controlling for age and gender. We defined meaningful difference as both statistically significant at two-tailed p < 0.05 with a relative difference ≥10% or ≤-10%. Within VISNs, we included tests of group differences with adequate power to detect meaningful relative differences from a minimum of five comparisons (domain agnostic) per VISN, and separately for a minimum of two for access and care coordination and four for person-centered care domains. We report differences as disparities/large disparities (relative difference ≥10%/≥ 25%), advantages (experience worse or better, respectively, than White patients), or equivalence. Our analytic sample included 1,038,212 Veterans (0.6% AIAN, 1.4% Asian, 16.9% Black, 7.4% Hispanic, 0.8% Multi-Race, 0.8% NHOPI, 67.7% White). Across VISNs, the greatest proportion of comparisons indicated disparities for three of seven eligible VISNs for AIAN, 6/10 for Asian, 3/4 for Multi-Race, and 2/6 for NHOPI Veterans. The plurality of comparisons indicated advantages or equivalence for 17/18 eligible VISNs for Black and 12/14 for Hispanic Veterans. AIAN, Asian, Multi-Race, and NHOPI groups had more comparisons indicating disparities by VISN in the access domain than person-centered care and care coordination. We found meaningful differences in patient experience measures across VISNs for minoritized compared to White groups, especially for groups with lower population representation.

"You want people to listen to you": Patient experiences of women's healthcare within the Veterans Health Administration.

To identify constructs that are critical in shaping Veterans' experiences with Veterans Health Administration (VA) women's healthcare, including any which have been underexplored or are not included in current VA surveys of patient experience. From June 2022 to January 2023, we conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with a diverse, national sample of Veterans who use VA women's healthcare. Using VA data, we divided Veteran VA-users identified as female into four groups stratified by age (dichotomized at age 45) and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White vs. all other). We enrolled Veterans continuously from each recruitment strata until thematic saturation was reached. For this qualitative study, we asked Veterans about past VA healthcare experiences. Interview questions were guided by a priori domains identified from review of the literature, including trust, safety, respect, privacy, communication and discrimination. Analysis occurred concurrently with interviews, using inductive and deductive content analysis. We identified five themes influencing Veterans' experiences of VA women's healthcare: feeling valued and supported, bodily autonomy, discrimination, past military experiences and trauma, and accessible care. Each emergent theme was associated with multiple of the a priori domains we asked about in the interview guide. Our findings underscore the need for a measure of patient experience tailored to VA women's healthcare. Existing patient experience measures used within VA fail to address several aspects of experience highlighted by our study, including bodily autonomy, the influence of past military experiences and trauma on healthcare, and discrimination. Understanding distinct factors that influence women and gender-diverse Veterans' experiences with VA care is critical to advance efforts by VA to measure and improve the quality and equity of care for all Veterans.

#1204 Measuring needling experience: development and validation of the Needling Patient Reported Experience Measure (NPREM)

Abstract Background and Aims Most people on haemodialysis rely on having reliable access to their vascular system, often via surgically created arteriovenous fistula or graft. At the beginning of each dialysis session, needles must be inserted. While ‘needling’ is a key step, an annual UK survey shows that needling is one of the lowest scoring areas of reported experience for individuals receiving haemodialysis in a kidney centre or satellite unit. Qualitative research indicates that needling can be painful and cause anxiety. Although an emerging area of research, no validated measures exist which assess patient reported experience of needling. We aimed to develop a questionnaire which reliably measures needling experience. The Needling Patient Reported Experience Measure (NPREM) was developed over multiple phases consisting of qualitative interviews with patients, item generation involving a multidisciplinary expert group including experts by experience, cognitive interviewing and pilot testing. Here we report the results of the final validation phase. Methods Seven NHS kidney centres participated in the validation phase (aiming for 500 participants). Between February-April 2023, participants completed either online or paper versions of the questionnaire. A subset of participants (aiming for 80-120) completed a follow-up questionnaire pack (NPREM, Change of Circumstances) 2-4 weeks after the first to assess the reliability of the scale over time. Analyses included a full evaluation of the scale psychometric properties and factor analyses to assess dimensional structure. Correlations with other validated measures (Vascular Access Quality of Life [VASQoL], EuroQol 5 Dimension [EQ5D-5L], and Patient Activation Measure [PAM]) were used to assess the convergent and divergent validity of the NPREM. Results 468 people participated (sample characteristics: male 66%, mean age 66 years (SD 14), White 75%, access via fistula 95%, first access 76%), of which 99 completed the follow-up. Overall, the NPREM showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94) and moderate to strong inter-item correlations. Factor analyses indicated that needling experience was a unidimensional construct, with one strong, main factor. Follow-up scores were strongly correlated (r = 0.89) with participants’ initial NPREM responses, demonstrating high reliability. Evidence of convergent validity was seen in the strong correlations between the NPREM and 1) the VASQoL (r = 0.60) and 2) the Overall Needling Experience question (r = 0.79). NPREM did not correlate with the EQ-5D (r = −0.31), the EQ-5D overall health (r = 0.24) or PAM (0.17), demonstrating divergent validity. The research team reviewed all items and themes reaching a consensus on items included, resulting in the validated 28-item NPREM (v 1.0), across five themes of care (Communicating with the Team, My Fistula/Graft and Needling, Steps in Needling, Working Together, My Personal Experience) plus Overall Needling Experience. Conclusion These results indicate that the NPREM offers a robust needling-specific tool to measure patient experience in those receiving haemodialysis. It addresses a gap by offering a way for kidney care providers to assess needling experience, both as a whole and across themes of care, which may facilitate meaningful service improvements. When published, the NPREM will be publicly available and free to use.

Systematic review of contemporary interventions for improving discharge support and transitions of care from the patient experience perspective.

To synthesize the impact of improvement interventions related to care coordination, discharge support and care transitions on patient experience measures. Systematic review. Searches were completed in six scientific databases, five specialty journals, and through snowballing. Eligibility included studies published in English (2015-2023) focused on improving care coordination, discharge support, or transitional care assessed by standardized patient experience measures as a primary outcome. Two independent reviewers made eligibility decisions and performed quality appraisals. Of 1240 papers initially screened, 16 were included. Seven studies focused on care coordination activities, including three randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. These studies used enhanced supports such as improvement coaching or tailoring for vulnerable populations within Patient-Centered Medical Homes or other primary care sites. Intervention effectiveness was mixed or neutral relative to standard or models of care or simpler supports (e.g., improvement tool). Eight studies, including three RCTs, focused on enhanced discharge support, including patient education (e.g., teach back) and telephone follow-up; mixed or neutral results on the patient experience were also found and with more substantive risks of bias. One pragmatic trial on a transitional care intervention, using a navigator support, found significant changes only for the subset of uninsured patients and in one patient experience outcome, and had challenges with implementation fidelity. Enhanced supports for improving care coordination, discharge education, and post-discharge follow-up had mixed or neutral effectiveness for improving the patient experience with care, compared to standard care or simpler improvement approaches. There is a need to advance the body of evidence on how to improve the patient experience with discharge support and transitional approaches.

Introduction of enhanced weekend physiotherapy for patients with hip fracture is associated with improved early mobility outcomes.

To assess whether enhanced daily weekend physiotherapy (EWP) for patients with hip fracture was associated with improved clinical outcomes. We retrospectively analysed all previously ambulatory adults admitted with hip fracture to our tertiary hospital, comparing 'usual' ('control') care (09/19-03/20) to EWP (09/20-03/21). Outcomes included Day-7 mobility ≥20 m (primary), additional mobility measures, specified postoperative complications, new residential facility placement, acute length-of-stay (LOS) and 30-day death. Amongst 235 eligible patients (128 control, 107 EWP), 66% were female, mean age was 80.4 years (SD 10.5), 20% from residential care and 49% (114/235) were mobilising without aid at baseline (no between-group differences; all p ≥ .20). Median acute LOS was 10 days (IQR 6-15), total hospital LOS was 21 days (IQR 12-37) and 3% (n = 6) died by Day 30. Median Day-7 distance mobilised was 25 m (IQR 7-50) with EWP versus 10 m (3-40) (p = .06). No EWP patients developed pressure injury (0 vs. 6, p = .02); other outcomes were similar between groups. Adjusting for age, residence, baseline cognitive impairment, American Society of Anesthesiologist score and preadmission mobilisation without aids, EWP was independently associated with increased likelihood of mobilising ≥20 m at Day 7 (aOR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04-3.23, p = .03). Enhanced daily weekend physiotherapy was associated with improvement in early mobility, but not other outcomes assessed. These data would be strengthened by randomised controlled trial data exploring more intense physiotherapy, cost-benefit analysis and patient experience measures.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.