Search

Background:Previous research has demonstrated high patient satisfaction with telehealth encounters. The objective of this study was to compare patient satisfaction scores regarding their physician using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys between in-person and telehealth outpatient encounters during the pandemic at a large academic health center. Methods:We analyzed CAHPS patient satisfaction survey data within the UC Davis Health system between August 2020 and February 2022. The questions analyzed pertained to patients' satisfaction with their care provider; whether they felt included in discussions, would recommend their physician, received clear explanations, and that their concerns were heard. Using logistic regression models adjusting for confounders, we compared CAHPS care provider top box scores—a score of 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale—for 5 survey items. Results:Survey results from 76,687 (84.2%) in-person encounters and 14,404 (15.8%) telehealth encounters were evaluated. The odds of a telehealth patient giving a top box score for whether they would recommend their care provider to others were 0.97 those of an in-person patient (95% confidence interval [0.87–1.06]; p = 0.494). Similarly, there was no significant difference in odds of giving a top box score between telehealth and in-person patients for the other four questions analyzed. Discussion:Our findings indicate that patient experience and care provider rankings for in-person care and telehealth care are comparable across a variety of specialties and conditions at a large academic health center. Future studies should investigate patient satisfaction with in-person and telehealth encounters by diagnosis and specialty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about measurement across social determinants of health (SDOH) industry landscape to provide access to quality health care. Topics include emergence or enhanced focus of nonprofit and for-profit companies addressing SDOH evaluation strategy; and inadequate care access and substandard patient experience with a risk of limited impact relative to both the need and to the industry's investment and valuation.

Background: Increasingly, dying patients and their families have a choice of hospice providers. Care quality varies considerably across providers; informing consumers of these differences may help to improve their selection of hospices. Objective: To develop and evaluate standardized survey measures of hospice care experiences for the purpose of comparing and publicly reporting hospice performance. Design: We assessed item performance and constructed composite measures by factor analysis, evaluating item-scale correlations and estimating reliability. To assess key drivers of overall experiences, we regressed overall rating and willingness to recommend the hospice on each composite. Setting/Subjects: Data submitted by 2500 hospices participating in national implementation of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Hospice Survey for April through September 2015. Measurements: Composite measures of Hospice Team Communication, Getting Timely Care, Treating Family Member with Respect, Getting Emotional and Religious Support, Getting Help for Symptoms, and Getting Hospice Care Training. Results: Cronbach's alpha estimates for the composite measures range from 0.61 to 0.85; hospice-level reliability for the measures range from 0.67 to 0.81 assuming 200 completed surveys per hospice. Together, the composites are responsible for 48% of the variance in caregivers' overall ratings of hospices. Hospice Team Communication is the strongest predictor of overall rating of care. Conclusion: Our analyses provide evidence of the reliability and validity of CAHPS Hospice Survey measure scores. Results also highlight important opportunities to improve the quality of hospice care, particularly with regard to addressing symptoms of anxiety and sadness, discussing side effects of pain medicine, and keeping family informed of the patient's condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]