Search

BackgroundShadow coaching, a type of one-on-one provider counseling by trained peers, is an effective strategy for improving provider behaviors and patient interactions, but its effects on improving patient experience for English- and Spanish-preferring patients is unknown.ObjectiveAssess effects of shadow coaching on patient experience for English- and for Spanish-preferring patients.DesignWe analyzed 2012-2019 Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) data (n=46,089) from an urban Federally Qualified Health Center with 44 primary care practices and 320 providers. One-third (n=14,631) were Spanish-preferring patients. We fit mixed-effects regression models with random effects for provider (the level of treatment assignment) and fixed effects for time (a linear spline for time with a knot and "jump" at coaching date), patient characteristics, and site indicators, stratified by preferred language.ParticipantsThe 74 providers who had a 6-month average top-box score on the CAHPS overall provider rating below 90 (on a 100-point scale) were shadow coached. Similar percentages of English-preferring (45%) and Spanish-preferring patients (43%) were seen by coached providers.InterventionTrained providers observed patient care by colleagues and provided suggestions for improvement. Verbal feedback was provided immediately after the observation and the participant received a written report summarizing the comments and recommendations from the coaching session.Main measuresCG-CAHPS Visit Survey 2.0 provider communication composite and overall provider rating (0-100 scoring).Key resultsWe found a statistically significant 2-point (small) jump in CAHPS provider communication and overall provider rating among English-preferring patients of coached providers. There was no evidence of a coaching effect on patient experience for Spanish-preferring patients.ConclusionsCoaching improved care experiences for English-preferring patients but may not have improved patient experience for Spanish-preferring patients. Selection and training of providers to communicate effectively with Spanish-preferring patients is needed to extend the benefits of shadow coaching to Spanish-preferring patients.

IntroductionShadow coaching improves provider-patient interactions, as measured by CG-CAHPS® overall provider rating (OPR) and provider communication (PC). However, these improvements erode over time.AimExamine whether a second coaching session (re-coaching) improves and sustains patient experience.SettingLarge, urban Federally Qualified Health Center PROGRAM: Trained providers observed patient care by colleagues and provided suggestions for improvement. Providers with OPRs

BackgroundData from surveys of patient care experiences are a cornerstone of public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives. Recently, increasing concerns have been raised about survey response rates and how to promote equity by ensuring that responses represent the perspectives of all patients.ObjectiveReview evidence on survey administration strategies to improve response rates and representativeness of patient surveys.Research designSystematic review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Study selectionForty peer-reviewed randomized experiments of administration protocols for patient experience surveys.ResultsMail administration with telephone follow-up provides a median response rate benefit of 13% compared with mail-only or telephone-only. While surveys administered only by web typically result in lower response rates than those administered by mail or telephone (median difference in response rate: -21%, range: -44%, 0%), the limited evidence for a sequential web-mail-telephone mode suggests a potential response rate benefit over sequential mail-telephone (median: 4%, range: 2%, 5%). Telephone-only and sequential mixed modes including telephone may yield better representation across patient subgroups by age, insurance type, and race/ethnicity. Monetary incentives are associated with large increases in response rates (median increase: 12%, range: 7%, 20%).ConclusionsSequential mixed-mode administration yields higher patient survey response rates than a single mode. Including telephone in sequential mixed-mode administration improves response among those with historically lower response rates; including web in mixed-mode administration may increase response at lower cost. Other promising strategies to improve response rates include in-person survey administration during hospital discharge, incentives, minimizing survey language complexity, and prenotification before survey administration.

Background and objectivesHealth care organizations track patient experience data, identify areas of improvement, monitor provider performance, and assist providers in improving their interactions with patients. Some practices use one-on-one provider counseling ("shadow coaching") to identify and modify provider behaviors. A recent evaluation of a large shadow coaching program found statistically significant improvements in coached providers' patient experience scores immediately after being coached. This study aimed to examine the content of the recommendations given to those providers aimed at improving provider-patient interactions, characterize these recommendations, and examine their actionability.MethodsProviders at a large, urban federally qualified health center were selected for coaching based on Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) patient experience scores (92 of 320 providers), shadowed by a trained peer coach for a half to full day and received recommendations on how to improve interactions with their patients. We coded 1082 recommendations found in the 92 coaching reports.ResultsReports contained an average of 12 recommendations. About half encouraged consistency of existing behaviors and half encouraged new behaviors. Most recommendations related to behaviors of the provider rather than support staff and targeted actions within the examination room rather than other spaces (eg, waiting room). The most common recommendations mapped to behavioral aspects of provider communication. Most recommendations targeted verbal rather than nonverbal communication behaviors. Most recommendations were actionable (ie, specific, descriptive), with recommendations that encouraged new behaviors being more actionable than those that encouraged existing actions.ConclusionsPatient experience surveys are effective at identifying where improvement is needed but are not always informative enough to instruct providers on how to modify and improve their interactions with patients. Analyzing the feedback given to coached providers as part of an effective shadow-coaching program provides details about implementation on shadow-coaching feedback. Recommendations to providers aimed at improving their interactions with patients need to not only suggest the exact behaviors defined within patient experience survey items but also include recommended behaviors indirectly associated with those measured behaviors. Attention needs to be paid to supplementing patient experience data with explicit, tangible, and descriptive (ie, actionable) recommendations associated with the targeted, measured behaviors. Research is needed to understand how recommendations are put into practice by providers and what motivates and supports them to sustain changed behaviors.

BackgroundThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality held a research meeting on using Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) data for quality improvement (QI) and evaluating such efforts.Topics covered.Meeting addressed: 1)What has been learned about organizational factors/environment needed to improve patient experience? 2)How have organizations used data to improve patient experience? 3)What can evaluations using CAHPS data teach us about implementing successful programs to improve patient experience?Key themesProviders and stakeholders need to be engaged early and often, standardize QI processes, complement CAHPS data with other data, and compile dashboards of CAHPS scores to identify and track improvement. Rigorous study designs are valuable, but much can be learned and accomplished through practical organization-level studies.

BackgroundHealth care organizations strive to improve patient care experiences. Some use one-on-one provider counseling (shadow coaching) to identify and target modifiable provider behaviors.ObjectiveWe examined whether shadow coaching improves patient experience across 44 primary care practices in a large urban Federally Qualified Health Center.Research designSeventy-four providers with "medium" (ie, slightly below average) overall provider ratings received coaching and were compared with 246 uncoached providers. We fit mixed-effects regression models with random effects for provider (level of treatment assignment) and fixed effects for time (linear spline with a knot and "jump" at coaching date), patient characteristics and site indicators. By design, coached providers performed worse at selection; models account for the very small (0.2 point) regression-to-the-mean effects. We assessed differential effects by coach.SubjectsA total of 46,452 patients (from 320 providers) who completed the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) Visit Survey 2.0.MeasuresCAHPS overall provider rating and provider communication composite (scaled 0-100).ResultsProviders not chosen for coaching had a nonsignificant change in performance during the period when selected providers were coached. We observed a statistically significant 2-point (small-to-medium) jump among coached providers after coaching on the CAHPS overall provider rating and provider communication score. However, these gains disappeared after 2.5 years; effects differed by coach.ConclusionsShadow coaching improved providers' overall performance and communication immediately after being coached. Regularly planned shadow coaching "booster" sessions might maintain or even increase the improvement gained in patient experience scores, but research examining additional coaching and optimal implementation is needed.

BackgroundPatient surveys are the primary tool to measure patient experiences of care. Caution must be taken when analyzing these data, as responses can be influenced by factors that do not reflect the quality of care received.ObjectivesTo provide a practical overview of adjusting patient experience survey results to address bias related to patient case-mix, extreme response tendency, and mode of survey administration.Research designWe discuss options for adjustment for biases in how people respond to patient experience surveys.ResultsCase-mix adjustment (CMA) aims to compare provider performance that would have been observed if all providers had treated the same set of patients by removing the effects of patient characteristics that vary across providers. Extreme response tendency can bias the measurement of the disparities in patient experiences even after typical CMAs, since differences in patients' use of extreme response options may affect patient experience scores when they have a skewed distribution. Survey mode may affect scores for the provider entity being evaluated (eg, hospital) more than CMA if survey mode differs at the provider level.ConclusionsIt is best practice to evaluate known source of bias when analyzing patient experience surveys. Failure to adjust for patient case-mix, extreme response tendency, and survey mode in patient experience surveys may lead to erroneous comparisons of providers.

BackgroundDifferences in experiences of care reported by Asian Americans (Asians) compared to non-Hispanic Whites (Whites) may be due to lack of measurement invariance.MethodsWe evaluated the three-factor structure and the equivalence of responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinical and Group (CG-CAHPS) Adult Visit Survey 1.0 and compared care experiences of Asians and Whites. Thirteen questions were used to elicit reports about specific aspects of care and two questions assessed overall care perceptions. This analysis of the CAHPS database included 769 providers and 266,327 respondents. Most surveys (98%) were administered by mail and the rest (2%) by phone. Only 0.5% of the surveys were administered in Spanish. The sample was 64% female, 89% White and 2% Asian, 39% 65 years or older, and 32% were high school graduates or less.ResultsA three-factor model was supported by categorical confirmatory factor analysis using weighted least squares with mean and variance adjustment: confirmatory fit index (CFI) = 0.99 and root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.03). A multi-group configural invariance model also fit the data well: (CFI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.031). Regression models indicated that Asians reported worse access, lower scores on office staff courtesy and helpfulness and rating their doctors and were less likely to recommend their doctors to family/friends than did Whites.ConclusionsUse of the CG-CAHPS Adult Visit Survey 1.0 to assess perceptions of care by Asians and Whites is supported. Quality improvement efforts are needed to address worse experiences of care among Asians in the United States.

Background and objectivesDelivering care as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is being widely adopted across the United States by primary care practices to better meet patient needs. A key PCMH element is measuring patient experience for practice improvement. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition program requires practices to both measure patient experience and engage in continuous practice/quality improvement to attain PCMH recognition and then throughout full PCMH transformation. The NCQA recommends but does not require that practices administer the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) clinician and group patient experience survey (CG-CAHPS) plus 14 CAHPS PCMH items, known as the CAHPS PCMH survey. We examine aspects of patient experience measured by practices with a varying number of years on their journey of PCMH transformation.MethodsWe randomly selected practices from the 2008-2017 NCQA directory of practices that had applied for PCMH recognition based on region, physician count, number of years and level of PCMH recognition, and use of the CG-CAHPS PCMH survey. We collected characteristics of the practices from practice leader(s) knowledgeable about the practice's PCMH history and patient experience data. We confirmed the patient experience surveys used during their PCMH history and requested copies of their non-CAHPS survey(s). For practices not administering the recommended CG-CAHPS survey (53/105 practices), we obtained and coded the content of their non-CAHPS surveys (68%; 36/53). We mapped the patient experience domains and specific measures to the CG-CAHPS survey (versions 2.0 and 3.0), CAHPS PCMH item set (versions 2.0 and 3.0), and the available CG-CAHPS supplemental items.ResultsWhether or not practices administered the CG-CAHPS items, most of them addressed topics contained in the CG-CAHPS survey such as Access to care, Provider communication, Office staff helpfulness/courteousness, Care coordination, and Shared decision-making. The most common CAHPS measures included were Office staff helpfulness/courteousness and Provider communication. Common non-CAHPS measures included were Ease of scheduling, Being informed about delays, and Provider helpfulness/courteousness.ConclusionNCQA PCMH practices included CAHPS items on their patient experience surveys even if they did not administer the full CG-CAHPS survey or the recommended CAHPS PCMH survey. To enhance the usefulness of patient experience surveys for practices undergoing PCMH changes, additional CAHPS measures could be developed related to key areas of PCMH change, including expanded access to care (ie, after-hours and weekend visits, ease of scheduling, being informed about delays), use of shared decision-making, and improvements in provider communication (ie, the provider is courteous, communication by other clinical staff members with the patient). These additional measures would assist practice leaders in capturing the breadth and depth of their PCMH transformation and its influence on providing more patient-centered care. Developing such items would help standardize the measurement of changes related to patient experience during PCMH transformation. Research is needed to determine whether a CAHPS survey is the best source of this information.

Background and objectivesDelivering care as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is being widely adopted across the United States by primary care practices to better meet patient needs. A key PCMH element is measuring patient experience for practice improvement. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition program requires practices to both measure patient experience and engage in continuous practice/quality improvement to attain PCMH recognition and then throughout full PCMH transformation. The NCQA recommends but does not require that practices administer the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) clinician and group patient experience survey (CG-CAHPS) plus 14 CAHPS PCMH items, known as the CAHPS PCMH survey. We examine aspects of patient experience measured by practices with a varying number of years on their journey of PCMH transformation.MethodsWe randomly selected practices from the 2008-2017 NCQA directory of practices that had applied for PCMH recognition based on region, physician count, number of years and level of PCMH recognition, and use of the CG-CAHPS PCMH survey. We collected characteristics of the practices from practice leader(s) knowledgeable about the practice's PCMH history and patient experience data. We confirmed the patient experience surveys used during their PCMH history and requested copies of their non-CAHPS survey(s). For practices not administering the recommended CG-CAHPS survey (53/105 practices), we obtained and coded the content of their non-CAHPS surveys (68%; 36/53). We mapped the patient experience domains and specific measures to the CG-CAHPS survey (versions 2.0 and 3.0), CAHPS PCMH item set (versions 2.0 and 3.0), and the available CG-CAHPS supplemental items.ResultsWhether or not practices administered the CG-CAHPS items, most of them addressed topics contained in the CG-CAHPS survey such as Access to care, Provider communication, Office staff helpfulness/courteousness, Care coordination, and Shared decision-making. The most common CAHPS measures included were Office staff helpfulness/courteousness and Provider communication. Common non-CAHPS measures included were Ease of scheduling, Being informed about delays, and Provider helpfulness/courteousness.ConclusionNCQA PCMH practices included CAHPS items on their patient experience surveys even if they did not administer the full CG-CAHPS survey or the recommended CAHPS PCMH survey. To enhance the usefulness of patient experience surveys for practices undergoing PCMH changes, additional CAHPS measures could be developed related to key areas of PCMH change, including expanded access to care (ie, after-hours and weekend visits, ease of scheduling, being informed about delays), use of shared decision-making, and improvements in provider communication (ie, the provider is courteous, communication by other clinical staff members with the patient). These additional measures would assist practice leaders in capturing the breadth and depth of their PCMH transformation and its influence on providing more patient-centered care. Developing such items would help standardize the measurement of changes related to patient experience during PCMH transformation. Research is needed to determine whether a CAHPS survey is the best source of this information.

BackgroundMusculoskeletal disorders are the second leading cause of disability worldwide.ObjectiveExamine experiences of chiropractic patients in the United States with chronic low back or neck pain.MethodObservational study of 1853 chronic low back pain and neck pain patients (74% female) who completed an online questionnaire at the 3-month follow-up that included Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items assessing their experiences with care.ResultsWe found similar reports of communication for the chiropractic sample and patients in the 2016 CAHPS National Database, but 85% in the database versus 79% in the chiropractic sample gave the most positive response to the time spent with provider item. More patients in the CAHPS database rated their provider at the top of the scale (8 percentage points). More chiropractic patients reported always getting answers to questions the same day (16 percentage points) and always being seen within 15 minutes of their appointment time (29 percentage points).ConclusionsThe positive experiences of patients with chronic back and neck pain are supportive of their use of chiropractic care.

The Dialysis Facility Compare Star Rating and the Quality Incentive Program (QIP) generate separate performance scores from clinical measures, and the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS) survey evaluates patient satisfaction across 6 separate domains related to nephrologists, dialysis facility, and information transmission. This study examined the relationship of the 3 measures for US clinics, modeling the 6 ICH-CAHPS domains as independent variables and QIP and star ratings as dependent variables. Among 3176 dialysis clinics, domains assessing dialysis facility and information transmission had a consistently stronger relationship with QIP and star ratings than the domains assessing nephrologists: QIP, β (95% CI) = 1.62 (1.26-1.97) for dialysis facility staff rating, 0.70 (0.35-1.05) for nephrologists; star rating, odds ratio (95% CI) = 1.38 (1.29-1.49) for dialysis facility staff rating, 1.17 (1.09-1.25) for nephrologists. Patient satisfaction is associated with dialysis care quality, with surprising differences between nephrologists and dialysis facilities.

BackgroundThe In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) Survey is the first patient reported outcome measure included in the U.S. Medicare End Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. Administered twice yearly, it assesses in-center dialysis experience and survey responses are tied to dialysis facility payments. Low response rates, currently approximately 35%, raise concern for possible underrepresentation of patient groups.MethodsCross-sectional analysis of survey administration in 2012 to all in-center hemodialysis patients in Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (DCI) facilities nationally over 18 years old who received hemodialysis at their facility for at least 3 months. Patient-level covariates included demographic, clinical, laboratory, and functional characteristics. Random effects multivariable logistic regression was used to assess survey non-response.ResultsAmong 11,055 eligible patients 6541 (59%) were non-responders. Of the remaining 4514 responders, 549 (14%) surveys were not usable due to presence of proxy help or incomplete responses. Non-responders were more likely to be men, non-white, younger, single, dual Medicare/Medicaid eligible, less educated, non-English speaking, and not active on the transplant list; non-responders had longer ESRD vintage, lower body mass index, lower serum albumin, worse functional status, and more hospitalizations, missed treatments, and shortened treatments. Similar associations were found using more parsimonious multivariable analyses and after imputing missing data.ConclusionsNon-responders to the ICH CAHPS significantly differed from responders, broadly spanning individuals with fewer socioeconomic advantages and greater illness burden, raising limitations in interpreting facility survey results. Future research should assess reasons for non-response to improve ICH CAHPS generalizability and utility.

BackgroundThe In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) Survey is the first patient reported outcome measure included in the U.S. Medicare End Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. Administered twice yearly, it assesses in-center dialysis experience and survey responses are tied to dialysis facility payments. Low response rates, currently approximately 35%, raise concern for possible underrepresentation of patient groups.MethodsCross-sectional analysis of survey administration in 2012 to all in-center hemodialysis patients in Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (DCI) facilities nationally over 18 years old who received hemodialysis at their facility for at least 3 months. Patient-level covariates included demographic, clinical, laboratory, and functional characteristics. Random effects multivariable logistic regression was used to assess survey non-response.ResultsAmong 11,055 eligible patients 6541 (59%) were non-responders. Of the remaining 4514 responders, 549 (14%) surveys were not usable due to presence of proxy help or incomplete responses. Non-responders were more likely to be men, non-white, younger, single, dual Medicare/Medicaid eligible, less educated, non-English speaking, and not active on the transplant list; non-responders had longer ESRD vintage, lower body mass index, lower serum albumin, worse functional status, and more hospitalizations, missed treatments, and shortened treatments. Similar associations were found using more parsimonious multivariable analyses and after imputing missing data.ConclusionsNon-responders to the ICH CAHPS significantly differed from responders, broadly spanning individuals with fewer socioeconomic advantages and greater illness burden, raising limitations in interpreting facility survey results. Future research should assess reasons for non-response to improve ICH CAHPS generalizability and utility.

Research objectiveCare coordination among health care providers is essential for high-quality care and it is strongly associated with overall ratings of doctors. Care coordination may be especially important for sicker and chronically ill patients because of the multiple providers involved in their care. This study examines whether the association of care coordination with global ratings of one's personal doctor varies by number of chronic conditions and self-rated health.Study designWe used nationally representative Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data to evaluate care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, getting care quickly, count of 6 chronic conditions (angina, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart attack, stroke), self-rated general health (5-point scale, poor to excellent, scored linearly), and interactions among them as predictors of the CAHPS global rating of personal doctor (scored 0-100 with 100 being best possible personal doctor) using linear regression models. The analytic sample included 242,871 Medicare fee-for-service and managed care beneficiaries in 2013: 56% female; 14% 18-64, 47% 65-74, 27% 75-84, and 11% 85 and older; and 48% high school education or less.ResultsThe CAHPS composites (of care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly) and number of chronic conditions were significantly positively associated with ratings of personal doctor (P

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE:Care coordination among health care providers is essential for high-quality care and it is strongly associated with overall ratings of doctors. Care coordination may be especially important for sicker and chronically ill patients because of the multiple providers involved in their care. This study examines whether the association of care coordination with global ratings of one's personal doctor varies by number of chronic conditions and self-rated health. STUDY DESIGN:We used nationally representative Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data to evaluate care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, getting care quickly, count of 6 chronic conditions (angina, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart attack, stroke), self-rated general health (5-point scale, poor to excellent, scored linearly), and interactions among them as predictors of the CAHPS global rating of personal doctor (scored 0-100 with 100 being best possible personal doctor) using linear regression models. The analytic sample included 242,871 Medicare fee-for-service and managed care beneficiaries in 2013: 56% female; 14% 18-64, 47% 65-74, 27% 75-84, and 11% 85 and older; and 48% high school education or less. RESULTS:The CAHPS composites (of care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly) and number of chronic conditions were significantly positively associated with ratings of personal doctor (P

This study compares patient experience among practices that vary in adoption of the chronic care management (CCM) dimension of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model that focuses on care coordination and management of chronic diseases. Study participants were 2903 adult patients (ages 18 years or older) at 14 primary care centers in California. Seven of the sites were classified as high (more CCM) and the other 7 low on a CCM index. Hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares regression models. After adjusting for the number of providers at the sites, high CCM scores were associated with significantly better overall ratings of providers, provider communication, follow-up on test results, and willingness to recommend the provider (differences of 5.82, 6.85, 9.81, and 4.56, respectively on the 0-100 scale scores). The results of this study provide support for the value of the PCMH for patient experiences with care.

This study compares patient experience among practices that vary in adoption of the chronic care management (CCM) dimension of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model that focuses on care coordination and management of chronic diseases. Study participants were 2903 adult patients (ages 18 years or older) at 14 primary care centers in California. Seven of the sites were classified as high (more CCM) and the other 7 low on a CCM index. Hypotheses were tested using ordinary least squares regression models. After adjusting for the number of providers at the sites, high CCM scores were associated with significantly better overall ratings of providers, provider communication, follow-up on test results, and willingness to recommend the provider (differences of 5.82, 6.85, 9.81, and 4.56, respectively on the 0-100 scale scores). The results of this study provide support for the value of the PCMH for patient experiences with care.

ObjectiveExamine practice leaders' perceptions and experiences of how patient-centered medical home (PCMH) transformation improves patient experience.SubjectsThirty-six interviews with lead physicians (n = 13), site clinic administrators (n = 13), and nurse supervisors (n = 10).MethodsSemi-structured interviews at 14 primary care practices within a large urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) delivery system to identify critical patient experience domains and mechanisms of change. Identified patient experience domains were compared with Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items.ResultsWe identified 28 patient experience domains improved by PCMH transformation, of which 22 are measured by CAHPS, and identified 24 mechanisms of change commonly reported by practice leaders during PCMH transformation.ConclusionsPCMH practice transformation can improve patient experience. Most patient experience domains reported as improved during PCMH efforts are measured by CAHPS items. Practices would benefit from collecting specific information on staff behaviors related to teamwork, team-based communication, scheduling, emergency and inpatient follow-up, and referrals. All 3 types of practice leaders reported 4 main mechanisms of PCMH change that improved patient experience. Our findings provide guidance for practice leaders on which strategies of PCMH practice transformation lead to specific improvements in patient experience measures. Further research is needed on the relationship between PCMH changes and changes in CAHPS patient experience scores.

ObjectiveExamine practice leaders' perceptions and experiences of how patient-centered medical home (PCMH) transformation improves patient experience.SubjectsThirty-six interviews with lead physicians (n = 13), site clinic administrators (n = 13), and nurse supervisors (n = 10).MethodsSemi-structured interviews at 14 primary care practices within a large urban Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) delivery system to identify critical patient experience domains and mechanisms of change. Identified patient experience domains were compared with Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items.ResultsWe identified 28 patient experience domains improved by PCMH transformation, of which 22 are measured by CAHPS, and identified 24 mechanisms of change commonly reported by practice leaders during PCMH transformation.ConclusionsPCMH practice transformation can improve patient experience. Most patient experience domains reported as improved during PCMH efforts are measured by CAHPS items. Practices would benefit from collecting specific information on staff behaviors related to teamwork, team-based communication, scheduling, emergency and inpatient follow-up, and referrals. All 3 types of practice leaders reported 4 main mechanisms of PCMH change that improved patient experience. Our findings provide guidance for practice leaders on which strategies of PCMH practice transformation lead to specific improvements in patient experience measures. Further research is needed on the relationship between PCMH changes and changes in CAHPS patient experience scores.

PurposeAsians report worse experiences with care than Whites. This could be due to true differences in care received, expectations about care, or survey response styles. We examined responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Medicare survey items by Whites and Asians, controlling for underlying level on the CAHPS constructs.MethodsWe conducted multiple group analyses to evaluate measurement equivalence of CAHPS Medicare survey data between White and Asian Medicare beneficiaries for CAHPS reporting composites (communication with personal doctor, access to care, plan customer service) and global ratings of care using pooled data from 2007 to 2011. Responses were obtained from 1,326,410 non-Hispanic Whites and 40,672 non-Hispanic Asians (hereafter referred to as Whites and Asians). The median age for Whites was 70, with 24 % 80 or older, and 70 for Asians, with 23 % 80 or older. Fifty-eight percent of Whites and 56 % of Asians were female.ResultsA model without group-specific estimates fit the data as well as a model that included 12 group-specific estimates (7 factor loadings, 3 measured variable errors, and 2 item intercepts): Comparative Fit Index = 0.947 and 0.948; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.052 and 0.052, respectively). Differences in latent CAHPS score means between Whites and Hispanics estimated from the two models were similar, differing by 0.053 SD or less.ConclusionsThis study provides support for measurement equivalence of the CAHPS Medicare survey composites (communication, access, customer service) and global ratings between White and Asian respondents, supporting comparisons of care experiences between the two groups.

PurposeAsians report worse experiences with care than Whites. This could be due to true differences in care received, expectations about care, or survey response styles. We examined responses to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Medicare survey items by Whites and Asians, controlling for underlying level on the CAHPS constructs.MethodsWe conducted multiple group analyses to evaluate measurement equivalence of CAHPS Medicare survey data between White and Asian Medicare beneficiaries for CAHPS reporting composites (communication with personal doctor, access to care, plan customer service) and global ratings of care using pooled data from 2007 to 2011. Responses were obtained from 1,326,410 non-Hispanic Whites and 40,672 non-Hispanic Asians (hereafter referred to as Whites and Asians). The median age for Whites was 70, with 24 % 80 or older, and 70 for Asians, with 23 % 80 or older. Fifty-eight percent of Whites and 56 % of Asians were female.ResultsA model without group-specific estimates fit the data as well as a model that included 12 group-specific estimates (7 factor loadings, 3 measured variable errors, and 2 item intercepts): Comparative Fit Index = 0.947 and 0.948; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.052 and 0.052, respectively). Differences in latent CAHPS score means between Whites and Hispanics estimated from the two models were similar, differing by 0.053 SD or less.ConclusionsThis study provides support for measurement equivalence of the CAHPS Medicare survey composites (communication, access, customer service) and global ratings between White and Asian respondents, supporting comparisons of care experiences between the two groups.

BackgroundLittle is known about racial/ethnic differences in the experience of care coordination. To the extent that they exist, such differences may exacerbate health disparities given the higher prevalence of some chronic conditions among minorities.ObjectiveTo investigate the extent to which racial/ethnic disparities exist in the receipt of coordinated care by Medicare beneficiaries.SubjectsA total of 260,974 beneficiaries who responded to the 2013 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey.MethodsWe fit a series of linear, case-mix adjusted models predicting Medicare CAHPS measures of care coordination from race/ethnicity.ResultsHispanic, black, and Asian/Pacific Islander (API) beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor had medical records and other relevant information about their care significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 points for Hispanics, -1 point for blacks, and -4 points for APIs on a 100-point scale). These 3 groups also reported significantly greater difficulty getting timely follow-up on test results than non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-9 points for Hispanics, -1 point for blacks, -5 points for APIs). Hispanic and black beneficiaries reported that help was provided in managing their care significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 points for Hispanics, -3 points for blacks). API beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor discussed their medications and had up-to-date information on care from specialists significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 and -4 points, respectively).DiscussionThese results suggest a need for efforts to address racial/ethnic disparities in care coordination to help ensure high-quality care for all patients. Public reporting of plan-level performance data by race/ethnicity may also be helpful to Medicare beneficiaries and their advocates.

BackgroundLittle is known about racial/ethnic differences in the experience of care coordination. To the extent that they exist, such differences may exacerbate health disparities given the higher prevalence of some chronic conditions among minorities.ObjectiveTo investigate the extent to which racial/ethnic disparities exist in the receipt of coordinated care by Medicare beneficiaries.SubjectsA total of 260,974 beneficiaries who responded to the 2013 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey.MethodsWe fit a series of linear, case-mix adjusted models predicting Medicare CAHPS measures of care coordination from race/ethnicity.ResultsHispanic, black, and Asian/Pacific Islander (API) beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor had medical records and other relevant information about their care significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 points for Hispanics, -1 point for blacks, and -4 points for APIs on a 100-point scale). These 3 groups also reported significantly greater difficulty getting timely follow-up on test results than non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-9 points for Hispanics, -1 point for blacks, -5 points for APIs). Hispanic and black beneficiaries reported that help was provided in managing their care significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 points for Hispanics, -3 points for blacks). API beneficiaries reported that their personal doctor discussed their medications and had up-to-date information on care from specialists significantly less often than did non-Hispanic white beneficiaries (-2 and -4 points, respectively).DiscussionThese results suggest a need for efforts to address racial/ethnic disparities in care coordination to help ensure high-quality care for all patients. Public reporting of plan-level performance data by race/ethnicity may also be helpful to Medicare beneficiaries and their advocates.

BackgroundPhysical functioning is an important health domain for adults.ObjectiveEvaluate physical functioning items in Medicare beneficiaries.Research designSurvey data from the 2010 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Medicare survey.SubjectsThe 366,701 respondents were 58% female; 38% were 75 or older; 57% had high school education or less.MeasuresWalking, getting in or out of chairs, bathing, dressing, toileting, and eating assessed with 3 response choices: unable to do, have difficulty, do not have difficulty.ResultsPearson correlations among the 6 items ranged from 0.515 to 0.835 (coefficient α=0.92). A single factor categorical factor analytic model fit the data well (comparative fit index=0.998; root mean square error of approximation=0.083). The item with the highest percentage of respondents reporting no difficulty was eating, followed by toileting, dressing, bathing, getting in and out of a chair, and walking. Threshold parameters from an item response theory-graded response model ranged from -1.983 (between unable to do and have difficulty eating) to -0.551 (between have difficulty and no difficulty walking). Item discrimination parameters ranged from 4.632 (walking) to 8.228 (dressing). IRT-scored physical functioning scores correlated with self-rated general health (r=0.389, n=344,843, P

BackgroundPhysical functioning is an important health domain for adults.ObjectiveEvaluate physical functioning items in Medicare beneficiaries.Research designSurvey data from the 2010 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Medicare survey.SubjectsThe 366,701 respondents were 58% female; 38% were 75 or older; 57% had high school education or less.MeasuresWalking, getting in or out of chairs, bathing, dressing, toileting, and eating assessed with 3 response choices: unable to do, have difficulty, do not have difficulty.ResultsPearson correlations among the 6 items ranged from 0.515 to 0.835 (coefficient α=0.92). A single factor categorical factor analytic model fit the data well (comparative fit index=0.998; root mean square error of approximation=0.083). The item with the highest percentage of respondents reporting no difficulty was eating, followed by toileting, dressing, bathing, getting in and out of a chair, and walking. Threshold parameters from an item response theory-graded response model ranged from -1.983 (between unable to do and have difficulty eating) to -0.551 (between have difficulty and no difficulty walking). Item discrimination parameters ranged from 4.632 (walking) to 8.228 (dressing). IRT-scored physical functioning scores correlated with self-rated general health (r=0.389, n=344,843, P

BackgroundAsian Americans (hereafter "Asians") generally report worse experiences with care than non-Latino whites (hereafter "whites"), which may reflect differential use of response scales. Past studies indicate that Asians exhibit lower Extreme Response Tendency (ERT)-they less frequently use responses at extreme ends of the scale than whites.ObjectiveTo explore whether lower ERT is observed for Asians than whites in response to standardized vignettes depicting patient experiences of care and whether ERT might in part explain Asians reporting worse care than whites.ProcedureA representative US sample (n=575 Asian; n=505 white) was presented with 5 written vignettes describing doctor-patient encounters with differing levels of physician responsiveness. Respondents evaluated the encounters using modified CAHPS communication questions.ResultsCase-mix-adjusted repeated-measures multivariate models show that Asians provided more positive responses than whites to several vignettes with less-responsive physicians but less positive responses than whites for the vignette with the most physician responsiveness (P

BackgroundThe Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group adult survey (CG-CAHPS) includes 34 items used to monitor the quality of ambulatory care from the patient's perspective. CG-CAHPS includes items assessing access to care, provider communication, and courtesy and respect of office staff. Stakeholders have expressed concerns about the length of the CG-CAHPS survey.ObjectivesThis paper explores the impact on reliability and validity of the CAHPS domain scores of reducing the numbers of items used to assess the 3 core CG-CAHPS domains (Provider Communication, Access to Care, and Courteous and Helpful Office Staff).Research designCG-CAHPS data reported here consist of 136,725 patients across 4 datasets including ambulatory clinics, patient-centered medical homes, and Accountable Care Organizations. Analyses are conducted in parallel across the 4 settings to allow evaluations across data source.AnalysesMultiple regression and ANOVA techniques were used to evaluate reliability for shorter sets of items. Site-level correlations with the overall rating of the provider were compared to evaluate the impact on validity. The change in practices' rank-ordering as a function of domain revision is also reported.ResultsFindings suggest that the Provider Communication (6 items) and Access (5 items) domains can be reduced to as few as 2 items each and Office Staff (2 items) can be reduced to a single item without a substantial loss in reliability or content.ConclusionsThe performance of several of the reduced-length options for CG-CAHPS domains closely matches the full versions and may be useful in health care settings where the full-length survey is impractical due to time or cost constraints.

BackgroundAsian Americans (hereafter "Asians") generally report worse experiences with care than non-Latino whites (hereafter "whites"), which may reflect differential use of response scales. Past studies indicate that Asians exhibit lower Extreme Response Tendency (ERT)-they less frequently use responses at extreme ends of the scale than whites.ObjectiveTo explore whether lower ERT is observed for Asians than whites in response to standardized vignettes depicting patient experiences of care and whether ERT might in part explain Asians reporting worse care than whites.ProcedureA representative US sample (n=575 Asian; n=505 white) was presented with 5 written vignettes describing doctor-patient encounters with differing levels of physician responsiveness. Respondents evaluated the encounters using modified CAHPS communication questions.ResultsCase-mix-adjusted repeated-measures multivariate models show that Asians provided more positive responses than whites to several vignettes with less-responsive physicians but less positive responses than whites for the vignette with the most physician responsiveness (P

BackgroundThe Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group adult survey (CG-CAHPS) includes 34 items used to monitor the quality of ambulatory care from the patient's perspective. CG-CAHPS includes items assessing access to care, provider communication, and courtesy and respect of office staff. Stakeholders have expressed concerns about the length of the CG-CAHPS survey.ObjectivesThis paper explores the impact on reliability and validity of the CAHPS domain scores of reducing the numbers of items used to assess the 3 core CG-CAHPS domains (Provider Communication, Access to Care, and Courteous and Helpful Office Staff).Research designCG-CAHPS data reported here consist of 136,725 patients across 4 datasets including ambulatory clinics, patient-centered medical homes, and Accountable Care Organizations. Analyses are conducted in parallel across the 4 settings to allow evaluations across data source.AnalysesMultiple regression and ANOVA techniques were used to evaluate reliability for shorter sets of items. Site-level correlations with the overall rating of the provider were compared to evaluate the impact on validity. The change in practices' rank-ordering as a function of domain revision is also reported.ResultsFindings suggest that the Provider Communication (6 items) and Access (5 items) domains can be reduced to as few as 2 items each and Office Staff (2 items) can be reduced to a single item without a substantial loss in reliability or content.ConclusionsThe performance of several of the reduced-length options for CG-CAHPS domains closely matches the full versions and may be useful in health care settings where the full-length survey is impractical due to time or cost constraints.

BackgroundSince 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care.ObjectiveTo describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data.DesignThis is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care.ParticipantsIn total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort.Main measuresThe data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys.Key resultsSizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage.ConclusionsSEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

BackgroundSince 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care.ObjectiveTo describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data.DesignThis is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care.ParticipantsIn total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort.Main measuresThe data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys.Key resultsSizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage.ConclusionsSEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

ObjectiveTo describe how practice leaders used Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) data in transitioning toward a patient-centered medical home (PCMH).Study designInterviews conducted at 14 primary care practices within a large urban Federally Qualified Health Center in California.ParticipantsThirty-eight interviews were conducted with lead physicians (n=13), site clinic administrators (n=13), nurse supervisors (n=10), and executive leadership (n=2).ResultsSeven themes were identified on how practice leaders used CG-CAHPS data for PCMH transformation. CAHPS® was used: 1) for quality improvement (QI) and focusing changes for PCMH transformation; 2) to maintain focus on patient experience; 3) alongside other data; 4) for monitoring site-level trends and changes; 5) to identify, analyze, and monitor areas for improvement; 6) for provider-level performance monitoring and individual coaching within a transparent environment of accountability; and 7) for PCMH transformation, but changes to instrument length, reading level, and the wording of specific items were suggested.ConclusionPractice leaders used CG-CAHPS data to implement QI, develop a shared vision, and coach providers and staff on performance. They described how CAHPS® helped to improve the patient experience in the PCMH model, including access to routine and urgent care, wait times, provider spending enough time and listening carefully, and courteousness of staff. Regular reporting, reviewing, and discussing of patient-experience data alongside other clinical quality and productivity measures at multilevels of the organization was critical in maximizing the use of CAHPS® data as PCMH changes were made. In sum, this study found that a system-wide accountability and data-monitoring structure relying on a standardized and actionable patient-experience survey, such as CG-CAHPS, is key to supporting the continuous QI needed for moving beyond formal PCMH recognition to maximizing primary care medical home transformation.

Patient care experience surveys evaluate the degree to which care is patient-centered. This article reviews the literature on the association between patient experiences and other measures of health care quality. Research indicates that better patient care experiences are associated with higher levels of adherence to recommended prevention and treatment processes, better clinical outcomes, better patient safety within hospitals, and less health care utilization. Patient experience measures that are collected using psychometrically sound instruments, employing recommended sample sizes and adjustment procedures, and implemented according to standard protocols are intrinsically meaningful and are appropriate complements for clinical process and outcome measures in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

Patient care experience surveys evaluate the degree to which care is patient-centered. This article reviews the literature on the association between patient experiences and other measures of health care quality. Research indicates that better patient care experiences are associated with higher levels of adherence to recommended prevention and treatment processes, better clinical outcomes, better patient safety within hospitals, and less health care utilization. Patient experience measures that are collected using psychometrically sound instruments, employing recommended sample sizes and adjustment procedures, and implemented according to standard protocols are intrinsically meaningful and are appropriate complements for clinical process and outcome measures in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

There is widespread interest in assessing care coordination to improve overall care quality. We evaluated a five-item measure of care coordination included in the 2012 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare survey (n = 326,194 respondents, 46% response rate). This measure includes patient reports of whether their personal doctor discusses their medicines, has medical records and other relevant information, and is informed about care from specialists, and whether the patient gets help in managing care and timely follow-up on test results. A one-factor categorical confirmatory factor analytic model indicated that five items constituted a coherent scale. Estimated health-plan-level reliability was 0.70 at about 102 responses per plan. The composite had a strong unique association with the CAHPS global rating of health care, controlling for the CAHPS core composite scores. This measure can be used to evaluate relative plan performance and characteristics associated with better care coordination.

There is widespread interest in assessing care coordination to improve overall care quality. We evaluated a five-item measure of care coordination included in the 2012 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare survey (n = 326,194 respondents, 46% response rate). This measure includes patient reports of whether their personal doctor discusses their medicines, has medical records and other relevant information, and is informed about care from specialists, and whether the patient gets help in managing care and timely follow-up on test results. A one-factor categorical confirmatory factor analytic model indicated that five items constituted a coherent scale. Estimated health-plan-level reliability was 0.70 at about 102 responses per plan. The composite had a strong unique association with the CAHPS global rating of health care, controlling for the CAHPS core composite scores. This measure can be used to evaluate relative plan performance and characteristics associated with better care coordination.