What Consumers Say About Hospices in Online Reviews

Rahman, Anna; Cardenas, Valeria; Singleton, Mekiayla; Zhu, Yujun; Kaur, Tejaspreet; Enguídanos, Susan

doi:10.1089/jpm.2019.0591

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The national mean was calculated including hospices with an "other" profit status; proportions of hospices in the "other" profit status that fall into each category of performance are not shown due to the heterogeneity of the "other" profit status group. pice staff, such as professionalism, knowledge, and skill, 29 which vary across hospices, and express concerns when staff seem overworked, the hospice is understaffed, or there are high rates of staff turnover. 30 Online hospice reviewers report marked differences in communication between for-profit and not-for-profit hospices, with reviewers reporting higher rates of "promises made but not kept" and poorer responsiveness to telephone inquiries at for-profit hospices than at not-forprofit hospices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, employees of not-for-profit hospices rate their hospices as better working environments than employees of for-profit hospices; work environment ratings may reflect differences in organizational culture, compensation, and workload, among other considerations. In online reviews of hospices, families frequently mention characteristics of hospice staff, such as professionalism, knowledge, and skill, which vary across hospices, and express concerns when staff seem overworked, the hospice is understaffed, or there are high rates of staff turnover . Online hospice reviewers report marked differences in communication between for-profit and not-for-profit hospices, with reviewers reporting higher rates of “promises made but not kept” and poorer responsiveness to telephone inquiries at for-profit hospices than at not-for-profit hospices .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceExpansive 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.ObjectiveTo 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.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsConsumer 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.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcomes 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.ResultsThere 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.Conclusions and RelevanceIn 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For these hospices with no CAHPS data, other data available on hospice reviews, including Google and Yelp reviews, should be valuable as well. In a study of what consumers say about hospices in online reviews on Yelp, Rahman, Cardenas, Singleton, Zhu, Kaur, Enguidanos, 19 “analyzed qualitative consumer comments about their experience with hospice care using a grounded theory approach” (p. 240). The researchers found that overall, Yelp comments were positive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers reported that the most frequently mentioned theme was “compassionate, caring staff”, identified in nearly half (46.28%) of the reviews. 19 This theme encompassed whether staff acted compassionately with patients and family members. One implication of this finding is that compassionate staff are usually a reflection of the values of the hospice program.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospice Glassdoor and CAHPS® Scores—Glassdoor Scores and Hospice Financial Characteristics Predict Hospice Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Scores

Hotchkiss

2022

Am J Hosp Palliat Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recent public data transparency on both decedent caregiver satisfaction and employee satisfaction is impacting the three most essential needs of any hospice, admitting hospice enrollees, attracting hospice professionals and delivering on quality. Aim: Explore the relationship between Glassdoor hospice employee recommendation data, hospice financial characteristics, and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) scores among the 50 largest US hospices. Design: Retrospective data with multivariate regression analysis. Data Sources: Provider CAHPS hospice survey data from 2019-2020 and Glassdoor employee recommendation data. Results: Glassdoor Composite and CAHPS Composite were positively correlated (r = .469, P < .01). Glassdoor scores, profit status, and acquisition status predicted Hospice CAHPS scores and explained 44% of the variation in CAHPS Composite. Being a large, for-profit hospice in acquisition status each predicted lower CAHPS scores. Non-profit hospices had significantly higher Glassdoor and CAHPS scores than for-profit hospices. CAHPS Composite and CAHPS Star Rating have potential as global indicators to inform customers of a given hospice’s overall quality on the Hospice Compare website of CMS. Conclusions: Hospice leaders seeking improvements in CAHPS scores are encouraged to seek feedback on whether their own employees would recommend their hospice to a friend. Communication and responsiveness were the strongest indicators of overall hospice quality. Skelton hospice staffing models must give way to realistic models that value company culture and employee satisfaction. Hospice quality and hospice profits are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Future research should explore the difference in themes emerging from positive and negative online caregiver reviews.

show abstract

“…This online rating also captures patient, caregiver and family experience and satisfaction in a facility. Previous studies have examined the hospice performance through Yelp reviews among California hospices [7][8][9] and Glassdoor scores. 10 No study has examined the relationship between hospice Google ratings and CAHPS scores.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Hospice Google Ratings Correlated With Patient Experience Scores? Evidence from a National Hospice Study

Davlyatov

Orewa

et al. 2023

Am J Hosp Palliat Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Choosing hospice care for your loved ones is often challenging. Online ratings such as Google rating has become a go-to source for most consumers. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey for Hospice also provides quality information about hospice care to help patients and their families make decisions. Aim: To evaluate the perceived usefulness of publicly reported hospice quality indicators and compare hospice Google ratings with hospice CAHPS scores. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was performed to test the relationship between Google ratings and CAHPS measures in 2020. We conducted descriptive statistics for all variables. Multivariate regressions were used to assess the relationship between Google ratings and the CAHPS scores of the sample. Results: Among our sample of 1,956 hospices, the average Google rating was 4.2 out of 5 stars. CAHPS score means ranged from 75 (Help for pain and symptoms) to 90 (Treating patients with respect) out of 100. Hospice Google ratings were highly correlated with hospice CAHPS scores. For-profit and chain-affiliated hospices reported lower CAHPS scores. Hospice operational time was positively associated with CAHPS scores. The percentage of minority residents in the community and residents’ educational level was negatively associated with CAHPS scores. Conclusions: Hospice Google ratings were highly correlated with patients' and families’ experience scores as measured by the CAHPS survey. Consumers can use information from both resources in making decisions about hospice care.

show abstract

What Consumers Say About Hospices in Online Reviews

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

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

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

Hospice Glassdoor and CAHPS® Scores—Glassdoor Scores and Hospice Financial Characteristics Predict Hospice Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Scores

Are Hospice Google Ratings Correlated With Patient Experience Scores? Evidence from a National Hospice Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About