Should Health Care Providers be Accountable for Patients’ Care Experiences?

Price, Rebecca Anhang; Elliott, Marc N.; Cleary, Paul D.; Zaslavsky, Alan M.; Hays, Ron D.

doi:10.1007/s11606-014-3111-7

Cited by 60 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The response rates are lower than desired, and those nonresponding may be important vulnerable patient groups. CAHPS response rates are reportedly 34–61%, including among patient with ESRD receiving dialysis . The ICH CAHPS estimates the response rate for the mail, telephone and mixed‐mode to be 35%, 45% and 50%, respectively .…”

Section: Common Critiquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Experience Assessment is a Requisite for Quality Evaluation: A Discussion of the In‐Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) Survey

Cavanaugh

2016

Seminars in Dialysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient experience surveys provide a critical and unique perspective on the quality of patient-centered healthcare delivery. These surveys provide a mechanism to systematically express patients' voice on topics valued by patients to make decisions about choices in care. They also provide an assessment to healthcare organizations about their service that cannot be obtained from any other source. Regulatory agencies have mandated the assessment of patients' experience as part of healthcare value based purchasing programs and weighted the results to account for up to 30% of the total scoring. This is a testimony to the accepted importance of this metric as a fundamental assessment of quality. After more than a decade of rigorous research, there is a significant body of growing evidence supporting specifically the validity and use of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys, including a version specific to in-center hemodialysis (ICH CAHPS). This review will focus on the ICH CAHPS survey including a review of its development, content, administration, and also a discussion of common criticisms. Although it is suggested that the survey assesses activities and experiences that are not modifiable by the healthcare organization (or the dialysis facility in our case) emerging evidence suggests otherwise. Dialysis providers have an exclusive opportunity to lead the advancement of understanding the implications and serviceability of the evaluation of the patient experience in health care.

show abstract

Section: Common Critiquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Experience Assessment is a Requisite for Quality Evaluation: A Discussion of the In‐Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) Survey

Cavanaugh

2016

Seminars in Dialysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; Woolhandler and Himmelstein ; Anhang Price et al. ). Practitioners report more being demanded from them, with less autonomy being granted (Emmanuel and Pearson ) and fewer resources made available (Goodman et al.…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience among Employed Physicians and Mid‐Level Practitioners in Upstate New York

Waddimba

Scribani

Hasbrouck

et al. 2016

Health Services Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To investigate the factors associated with resilience among medical professionals. Data Sources/Study Setting. Administrative information from a rural health care network (1 academic medical center, 6 hospitals, 31 clinics, and 20 school health centers) was triangulated with self-report data from 308 respondents (response rate = 65.1 percent) to a 9/2013-1/2014 survey among practitioners serving a nine-county 5,600-square-mile area. Study Design. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey comprising valid measures of resilience, practice meaningfulness, satisfaction, and risk/uncertainty intolerance, nested within a prospective, community-based project. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. The sampling frame included practitioners on institutional payroll, excluding voluntary/involuntary attritions and advisory board/research team members. In multivariable mixed-effects models, we regressed full-range and high-/low-resilience scores on demographics, professional satisfaction, workplace needs, risk/uncertainty intolerance, and service unit characteristics. Principal Findings. Relational needs, uncertainty intolerance, satisfaction ≥75 percent of the time, number of practitioners on a unit, and workload were significantly associated with resilience. Higher scores were most strongly associated with uncertainty tolerance, satisfaction, and practitioner numbers. Practitioner/unit demographics were mostly nonsignificant. Conclusions. More resilient practitioners experienced frequent satisfaction, relational needs gratification, better uncertainty tolerance, lighter workloads, and practiced on units with more colleagues. Further studies should investigate well-being interventions based on these mutable factors.

show abstract

“…1 Public reporting of patient survey data is increasingly the norm, with the expectation that this will foster patient choice and drive improvements in provider performance. 2 3 As such, large investments are made in funding national…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the meaning of ‘good’ or ‘very good’ patient evaluations of care in English general practice: a mixed methods study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo examine concordance between responses to patient experience survey items evaluating doctors' interpersonal skills, and subsequent patient interview accounts of their experiences of care.DesignMixed methods study integrating data from patient questionnaires completed immediately after a video-recorded face-to-face consultation with a general practitioner (GP) and subsequent interviews with the same patients which included playback of the recording.Setting12 general practices in rural, urban and inner city locations in six areas in England.Participants50 patients (66% female, aged 19–96 years) consulting face-to-face with 32 participating GPs.Main outcome measuresPositive responses to interpersonal skills items in a postconsultation questionnaire (‘good’ and ‘very good’) were compared with experiences reported during subsequent video elicitation interview (categorised as positive, negative or neutral by independent clinical raters) when reviewing that aspect of care.ResultsWe extracted 230 textual statements from 50 interview transcripts which related to the evaluation of GPs' interpersonal skills. Raters classified 70.9% (n=163) of these statements as positive, 19.6% (n=45) neutral and 9.6% (n=22) negative. Comments made by individual patients during interviews did not always express the same sentiment as their responses to the questionnaire. Where questionnaire responses indicated that interpersonal skills were ‘very good’, 84.6% of interview statements concerning that item were classified as positive. However, where patients rated interpersonal skills as ‘good’, only 41.9% of interview statements were classified as positive, and 18.9% as negative.ConclusionsPositive responses on patient experience questionnaires can mask important negative experiences which patients describe in subsequent interviews. The interpretation of absolute patient experience scores in feedback and public reporting should be done with caution, and clinicians should not be complacent following receipt of ‘good’ feedback. Relative scores are more easily interpretable when used to compare the performance of providers.

show abstract

Should Health Care Providers be Accountable for Patients’ Care Experiences?

Cited by 60 publications

References 22 publications

Patient Experience Assessment is a Requisite for Quality Evaluation: A Discussion of the In‐Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) Survey

Patient Experience Assessment is a Requisite for Quality Evaluation: A Discussion of the In‐Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) Survey

Resilience among Employed Physicians and Mid‐Level Practitioners in Upstate New York

Investigating the meaning of ‘good’ or ‘very good’ patient evaluations of care in English general practice: a mixed methods study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About