Search

Objective: To describe differences in patient experiences of hospital care by preferred language within racial/ethnic groups.Data Source: 2014-2015 HCAHPS survey data.Study Design: We compared six composite measures for seven languages (English, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Other) within applicable subsets of five racial/ethnic groups (Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Blacks, and Whites). We measured patient-mix adjusted overall, between- and within-hospital differences in patient experience by language, using linear regression.Data Collection Methods: Surveys from 5 480 308 patients discharged from 4517 hospitals 2014-2015.Principal Findings: Within each racial/ethnic group, mean reported experiences for non-English-preferring patients were almost always worse than their English-preferring counterparts. Language differences were largest and most consistent for Care Coordination. Within-hospital differences by language were often larger than between-hospital differences and were largest for Care Coordination. Where between-hospital differences existed, non-English-preferring patients usually attended hospitals whose average patient experience scores for all patients were lower than the average scores for the hospitals of their English-preferring counterparts.Conclusions: Efforts should be made to increase access to better hospitals for language minorities and improve care coordination and other facets of patient experience in hospitals with high proportions of non-English-preferring patients, focusing on cultural competence and language-appropriate services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the effects of provider characteristics on home health agency performance on patient experience of care (Home Health CAHPS) and process (OASIS) measures. Descriptive, multivariate, and factor analyses were used. While agencies score high on both domains, factor analyses showed that the underlying items represent separate constructs. Freestanding and Visiting Nurse Association agencies, higher number of home health aides per 100 episodes, and urban location were statistically significant predictors of lower performance. Lack of variation in composite measures potentially led to counterintuitive results for effects of organizational characteristics. This exploratory study showed the value of having separate quality domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Measure HCAHPS improvement in hospitals participating in the second and fifth years of HCAHPS public reporting; determine whether change is greater for some hospital types.Data: Surveys from 4,822,960 adult inpatients discharged July 2007-June 2008 or July 2010-June 2011 from 3,541 U.S. hospitals.Study Design: Linear mixed-effect regression models with fixed effects for time, patient mix, and hospital characteristics (bedsize, ownership, Census division, teaching status, Critical Access status); random effects for hospitals and hospital-time interactions; fixed-effect interactions of hospital characteristics and patient characteristics (gender, health, education) with time predicted HCAHPS measures correcting for regression-to-the-mean biases.Data Collection Methods: National probability sample of adult inpatients in any of four approved survey modes.Principal Findings: HCAHPS scores increased by 2.8 percentage points from 2008 to 2011 in the most positive response category. Among the middle 95 percent of hospitals, changes ranged from a 5.1 percent decrease to a 10.2 percent gain overall. The greatest improvement was in for-profit and larger (200 or more beds) hospitals.Conclusions: Five years after HCAHPS public reporting began, meaningful improvement of patients' hospital care experiences continues, especially among initially low-scoring hospitals, reducing some gaps among hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Since 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. OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: This 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. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort. MAIN MEASURES: The 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 RESULTS: Sizable 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. CONCLUSIONS: SEER-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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems, also known as the CAHPS Hospital Survey) data from 2,684 hospitals, the authors compare the experiences of Hispanic, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multiracial inpatients with those of non-Hispanic White inpatients to understand the roles of between- and within-hospital differences in patients' perspectives of hospital care. The study finds that, on average, non-Hispanic White inpatients receive care at hospitals that provide better experiences for all patients than the hospitals more often used by minority patients. Within hospitals, patient experiences are more similar by race/ethnicity, though some disparities do exist, especially for Asians. This research suggests that targeting hospitals that serve predominantly minority patients, improving the access of minority patients to better hospitals, and targeting the experiences of Asians within hospitals may be promising means of reducing disparities in patient experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research suggests hospital quality of care is multidimensional. In this study, the authors jointly examine patient experience of care and clinical care measures from 2,583 hospitals based on inpatients discharged in 2006 and 2007. The authors use multinomial logistic regression to identify key characteristics of hospitals that perform in the top quartile on both, either, and neither dimension of quality. Top performers on both quality measures tend to be small (<100 beds), large (>200 beds) and rural, located in the New England or West North Central Census divisions, and nonprofit. Top performers in patient experience only are most often small and rural, located in the East South Central division, and government owned. Top performers in clinical care only are most often medium to large and urban, located in the West North Central division, and non-government owned. These findings provide an overview of how these dimensions of quality vary across hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors describe the history and development of the CAHPS Hospital Survey (also known as HCAHPS) and its associated protocols. The randomized mode experiment, vendor training, and "dry runs" that set the stage for initial public reporting are described. The rapid linkage of HCAHPS data to annual payment updates ("pay for reporting") is noted, which in turn led to the participation of approximately 3,900 general acute care hospitals (about 90% of all such United States hospitals). The authors highlight the opportunities afforded by this publicly reported data on hospital inpatients' experiences and perceptions of care. These data, reported on www.hospitalcompare.hhs. gov, facilitate the national comparison of patients' perspectives of hospital care and can be used alone or in conjunction with other clinical and outcome measures. Potential benefits include increased transparency, improved consumer decision making, and increased incentives for the delivery of high-quality health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]