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

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.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the association of race/ethnicity, patient care experiences (PCEs), and receipt of definitive treatment and treatment modality among older adults in the United States (US) with localized prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results dataset linked to Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) for 2007–2015, we identified men aged ≥ 65 years who completed a CAHPS survey within one year before and one year after PCa diagnosis. Associations of race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), Hispanic, non-Hispanic Asian (NHA), and other) and of interactions between race/ethnicity and PCEs (getting needed care, getting care quickly, doctor communication, and care coordination) with the receipt of definitive PCa treatment and treatment modality within 3 and 6 months of diagnosis were examined using logistic regressions. Results: Among 1,438 PCa survivors, no racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of definitive treatment were identified. However, NHB patients were less likely to receive surgery (vs. radiation) within 3 and 6 months of PCa diagnosis than NHW patients (OR 0.397, p = 0.006 and OR 0.419, p = 0.005), respectively. Among NHA patients, a 1-point higher score for getting care quickly was associated with lower odds (OR 0.981, p = 0.043) of receiving definitive treatment within 3 months of PCa diagnosis, whereas among NHB patients, a 1-point higher score for doctor communication was associated with higher odds (OR 1.023, p = 0.039) of receiving definitive treatment within 6 months of PCa diagnosis. Discussion: We observed differential associations between PCEs and receipt of definitive treatment based on patient race/ethnicity. Further research is needed to explore these associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Each year, roughly 20% of U.S. adults visit an emergency department (ED), but little is known about patients' choice of ED. Examine the discretion patients have to choose among EDs, characteristics associated with ED choice, and relationship between ED choice and self-reported care experiences of ED patients. We surveyed adult patients discharged to the community (DTC) in January–March 2018 from 16 geographically dispersed hospital-based EDs, geocoded patient and hospital-based ED addresses within 100 miles of patient addresses, and calculated travel distances. We examined the likelihood of visiting the closest ED based on patient and ED characteristics. Linear regression models examined the association of choosing the closest ED with seven measures of patient experience of care (scaled 0–100), adjusting for patient characteristics. 43.6% of 4647 responding patients visited the ED nearest their home (on average, 5.7 miles away). Patients who chose a farther ED had more urgent conditions, were more educated, and were less likely to be non-Hispanic White. They were significantly more likely to have visited an ED in a higher-rated, metropolitan, network hospital with major teaching status, a cardiac intensive care unit, and a certified trauma center. Patients who chose a farther ED were more likely to recommend that ED, with "medium-to-large" differences in scores (+4.3% more selected "definitely yes", p < 0.05). Fewer than half of patients visited the closest ED. Patients who chose a farther ED tended to seek higher-rated hospitals and report more favorable experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shadow 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. Objective: Assess effects of shadow coaching on patient experience for English- and for Spanish-preferring patients. Design: We 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. Participants: The 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. Intervention: Trained 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 Measures: CG-CAHPS Visit Survey 2.0 provider communication composite and overall provider rating (0–100 scoring). Key Results: We 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. Conclusions: Coaching 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Abstract Background The most widely used surveys for assessing patient health care experiences in the U.S. are the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. Studies examining the associations of language and ethnicity with responses to CAHPS surveys have yielded inconsistent findings. More research is needed to assess the effect of responding to CAHPS surveys in Spanish. Methods Subjects were patients who had received care at a study community health center in Connecticut within 6 or 12 months of being sent a CAHPS survey that asks about care experiences. The survey included four multi-item measures of care plus an overall rating of the provider. Sampled patients were mailed dual language (English and Spanish) cover letters and questionnaires. Those who did not respond after follow-up mailings were contacted by bilingual interviewers to complete the survey by telephone. We tested three hypotheses for any observed differences by ethnicity and language: 1. Spanish speakers are more likely than others to choose extreme response options. 2. The semantic meaning of the Spanish translation is not the same as the English version of the questions, resulting in Spanish speakers giving different answers because of meaning differences. 3. Spanish speakers have different expectations regarding their health care than those who answer in English. Analyses compared the answers on the survey measures for three groups: non-Hispanics answering in English, Hispanics answering in English, and Hispanics answering in Spanish. Results The overall response rate was 45%. After adjusting for differences in demographic characteristics and self-rated health, those answering in Spanish gave significantly more positive reports than the other two groups on three of the five measures, and higher than the non-Hispanic respondents on a fourth. Conclusions Those answering in Spanish gave more positive reports of their medical experiences than Hispanics and non-Hispanics answering in English. Whether these results reflect different response tendencies, different standards for care, or better care experiences is a key issue in whether CAHPS responses in Spanish need adjustment to make them comparable to responses in English.

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.

Introduction: Shadow coaching improves provider-patient interactions, as measured by CG-CAHPS® overall provider rating (OPR) and provider communication (PC). However, these improvements erode over time. Aim: Examine whether a second coaching session (re-coaching) improves and sustains patient experience. Setting: Large, urban Federally Qualified Health Center Program: Trained providers observed patient care by colleagues and provided suggestions for improvement. Providers with OPRs<90 (0–100-point scale) were eligible. Evaluation: We used stratified randomization based on provider type and OPR to assign half of the 40 eligible providers to re-coaching. For OPR and PC, we fit mixed-effects regression models with random-effects for provider (level of treatment assignment) and fixed-effects for time (linear spline with knots and possible "jump" at initial coaching and re-coaching), previous OPR, patient characteristics, and sites. We observed a statistically significant medium jump among re-coached providers after re-coaching on OPR (3.7 points) and PC (3.5 points); differences of 1, 3, and ≥5-points for CAHPS measures are considered small, medium, and large. Improvements from re-coaching persisted for 12 months for OPR and 8 months for PC. Discussion: Re-coaching improved patient experience more than initial coaching, suggesting the reactivation of knowledge from initial coaching. However, re-coaching gains also eroded. Coaching should occur every 6 to 12 months to maintain behaviors and scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient-centered medical home takes years to attain. Fifteen-to-eighteen percent of US primary care practices in 2008-2017 sought or maintained patient-centered medical home recognition. We conducted interviews with a stratified-random sample of 105 of these practices to determine why patient experience surveys were chosen. Fifty-one were using a Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and 53 administering another patient survey. The 3 most common reasons were (1) to compare performance against other practices, which requires systematically collected data across large numbers of practices (ie, the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey), (2) participation in an external patient-centered medical home program, and (3) survey administration cost. Leaders invested in a second patient survey for quality improvement needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address existing disparities in healthcare for underserved populations, healthcare providers and policymakers need to understand how the experiences of these patients differ to take meaningful action. In this study, we examine whether drivers of patient experiences (PX) for underserved populations vary. Using data from the 2018 and 2019 CAHPS Adult PCMH/Adult Primary Care 6 Month (n = 166,349), we examine differences in the importance of PX drivers - effective communication, helpful and courteous staff, timely appointments, and providers’ use of information - across underserved patients. We further examine whether different survey modes compound the observed differences. The findings show that there is significant variation in PX drivers across underserved patients, such that Asian American patients place less importance on effective communication and timely appointments but more emphasis on helpful and courteous staff than the average patient. In contrast, Black or African American patients place a higher importance on timely appointments. We observe additional differences when survey modes are taken into consideration, implying that for underserved populations the way in which patient feedback is collected matters. Taken together, the results from this study highlight the need to not only examine the overall PX for patients of underserved populations but understand which drivers matter. Moreover, our findings imply the need to make various survey modes available to capture patient feedback in a way that is responsive to the needs of each of these populations so that a representative sample is collected as survey mode significantly moderates the PX captured. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

Our home health (HH) division has collected Home Health Care CAHPS® Survey (HHCAHPS) data since 2011. To date, HH providers have not met performance thresholds related to patient experience. This study aimed to explore HHCAHPS composite measures and specific questions to predict 1) overall rating of care provided by the agency (Care Rating) and 2) willingness to recommend home health agency to family and friends (Recommend Agency). We also explored survey comments to identify specific themes related to positive and negative patient experiences. Logistic regression (N = 7 268) revealed being treated with courtesy and respect, and providers being informed and up to date about care were the 2 most impactful factors of Care Rating. The top 2 most impactful factors for Recommend Agency were problem-free care and providers being informed and up to date about care. Thematic analyses revealed negative patient experiences were described as staff being rude, unhelpful services, and disregarding the patients’ time and schedules. Positive patient experiences were described when patients believed HH services improved their health; quality and professional services were provided by knowledgeable HH providers; and HH providers respected them, their time, and their homes. Our findings suggest that HH agencies must improve interpersonal relationships, provider communication, and clinical skills and knowledge to provide the highest quality of service with the utmost courtesy, respect, and trust; specifically, within the context of elderly adults’ desire for independence and to remain in their homes. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

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.

Background: The most widely used surveys for assessing patient health care experiences in the U.S. are the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. Studies examining the associations of language and ethnicity with responses to CAHPS surveys have yielded inconsistent findings. More research is needed to assess the effect of responding to CAHPS surveys in Spanish.Methods: Subjects were patients who had received care at a study community health center in Connecticut within 6 or 12 months of being sent a CAHPS survey that asks about care experiences. The survey included four multi-item measures of care plus an overall rating of the provider. Sampled patients were mailed dual language (English and Spanish) cover letters and questionnaires. Those who did not respond after follow-up mailings were contacted by bilingual interviewers to complete the survey by telephone. We tested three hypotheses for any observed differences by ethnicity and language: 1. Spanish speakers are more likely than others to choose extreme response options. 2. The semantic meaning of the Spanish translation is not the same as the English version of the questions, resulting in Spanish speakers giving different answers because of meaning differences. 3. Spanish speakers have different expectations regarding their health care than those who answer in English. Analyses compared the answers on the survey measures for three groups: non-Hispanics answering in English, Hispanics answering in English, and Hispanics answering in Spanish.Results: The overall response rate was 45%. After adjusting for differences in demographic characteristics and self-rated health, those answering in Spanish gave significantly more positive reports than the other two groups on three of the five measures, and higher than the non-Hispanic respondents on a fourth.Conclusions: Those answering in Spanish gave more positive reports of their medical experiences than Hispanics and non-Hispanics answering in English. Whether these results reflect different response tendencies, different standards for care, or better care experiences is a key issue in whether CAHPS responses in Spanish need adjustment to make them comparable to responses in English. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study highlights the key drivers that form particular patient impressions resulting in exemplary overall provider performance ratings across service lines in the ambulatory environment. Two national samples of CG-CAHPS data were analyzed. Results indicate variance of impact among all CG-CAHPS questions on "top-box" scores for overall rating of provider among specialties. Interestingly, the same 5 explanatory variables—provider listened carefully, provider spent enough time, provider showed respect, provider knew important information about medical history, and provider explained things clearly—had the greatest explanatory power across the primary and specialty care samples when analyzed via multiple logistic regression analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objective: Few studies have investigated the relationship between patient experience and diabetes medication adherence among Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries. We explored the link between patient experience survey ratings and adherence to diabetes medication. The hypothesis was that adherent patients would report better provider-patient experience than non-adherent patients. Methods: Data included 2,599 patient surveys and pharmacy refill records. Adherence was determined using proportion of days covered (PDC) methodology where a patient must have had medications available 80% or more of the time during the observation period. Analysis involved multivariable logistic regression. Results: Medication adherence was 60.2%. Regarding patient experience, those who were with their provider for 5 years or more had greater odds of adherence (OR 1.86[95%CI 1.19, 2.90]) Most of the patients in this study had high morbidity and high care utilization. Patient characteristics that significantly (p<0.05) differentiated adherent versus non-adherent patients were race, mental health status, multiple medication use, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and health utilization. Conclusion: Two key factors of adherence that emerged from this study are that moderate (OR 2.54[95%CI 1.35, 4.75]) and elevated (OR 2.35[95%CI 1.29, 4.30]) HbA1c and patients with 7+ health care providers (OR 1.56[95%CI 1.06,2.29]) had greater odds of adherence. Findings suggest that ability to see provider when needed and provider continuity support adherence to treatment. The practice implications of this study are health practitioners can leverage patient experience and pharmacy data to identify patterns of adherence among patients in the MHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is great interest in identifying factors that are related to positive patient experiences such as physician communication style. Documented gender-specific physician communication and patient behavior differences raise the question of whether gender concordant relationships (i.e., both the provider and patient share the same gender) might affect patient experiences. Objective: Assess whether patient experiences are more positive in gender concordant primary care relationships. Design: Statewide telephone surveys. Linear mixed regression models to estimate the association of CAHPS scores with patient gender and gender concordance. Subjects: Two probability samples of primary care Medicaid patients in Connecticut in 2017 (5/17–7/17) and 2019 (7/19–10/19). Main Measures: Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey augmented with questions about aspects of care most salient to PCMH-designated organizations and two questions to assess access to mental health services. Key Results: There were no significant effects of gender concordance and differences in experiences by patient gender were modest. Conclusions: This study did not support the suggestion that patient and physician gender and gender concordance have an important effect on patient experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Cancer patients' care experiences encompass the range of interactions with the health care system and are an important indicator of care quality, which may influence survival outcomes. This study evaluates relationships between care experiences and survival using a large, nationally representative sample of cancer patients. Methods: We used linked SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results)–CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) data to identify people diagnosed 8/2006–12/2013, focusing on 10 solid tumor cancer sites with the highest mortality rates among those > 65. CAHPS measures included 5 global ratings and 3 composite scores. We used survey-weighted Cox proportional hazard models comparing survival time for those who had lower (0–8) vs higher ratings (9–10) and lower (0–89) vs higher (90–100) composite scores, adjusting for case-mix and additional covariates. Results: We identified 2,263 eligible people; 26% died by 5-year post-survey completion or end of follow-up (12/31/2017). We found lower Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) ratings were significantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR = 0.67, p = 0.03). Lower Getting Needed Care scores were also significantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR = 0.79, p = 0.04). For other care experience measures, general health status, cancer stage, and comorbidities were more predictive of survival (p <.05). Conclusions: Except for PDP and Getting Needed Care, survival was similar for those with worse versus better care experiences. Patients with poorer cancer prognoses may perceive better services from their drug plan and more responsive care from clinical providers compared to those with better prognoses. Further research is needed examining processes underlying perceptions of care experiences and survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

To understand the relationship between patient experience, as measured by scores on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) survey, and clinical and financial outcomes among older cancer survivors. We analyzed the records of all Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries 66 years and older who completed one CAHPS survey from 2001 to 2004 or 2007–2013 with one of the five following cancer types: breast, bladder, colorectal, lung, or prostate; and completed a CAHPS survey within 5 years of cancer diagnosis date. We conducted a multivariate analysis, controlling for clinical and demographic variables, to evaluate the association between excellent CAHPS scores and the following clinical and financial outcomes: mortality, emergency department visits, and total healthcare expenditures. A total of 7395 individuals were present in our cohort, with 57% being male and 85.7% non-Hispanic White. Breakdown of the cohort by cancer site is as follows: prostate (40.4%), breast (28.6%), colorectal (14.0%), lung (9.4%), and bladder (7.6%). When looking at the relationship between CAHPS scores and clinical outcomes, there was no significant difference between excellent and non-excellent CAHPS score respondents in all three of the clinical outcomes studied. Furthermore, there was no association between ED utilization and patient experience scores when stratifying by cancer site and race/ethnicity among this cohort. In this cohort, a highly rated patient experience, as measured by responses on the CAHPS survey, is not associated with improved clinical outcomes among older cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Patient experience in hemodialysis (HD) is measured twice yearly in all in-center HD patients in the United States using the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey. Survey scores are publically available and incorporated into the dialysis payment system. Despite its importance, little is known about factors associated with better experience scores. We studied the association between patient-level characteristics and experience scores in a large real-world cohort of HD patients. Methods This is a cross-sectional analysis of ICH CAHPS administration in 2012. All in-center HD patients in Dialysis Clinic, Incorporated facilities nationally over 18 years old and receiving HD at their facility for at least 3 months were eligible. Predictors include patient demographic, clinical, and treatment-related characteristics. Outcomes include high global rating scores across three domains (Nephrologist, Dialysis Staff, Dialysis Center) and high composite scores across three domains (Nephrologists’ Communication and Caring, Quality of Dialysis Center Care and Operations, and Providing Information to Patients). Results Among 3369 respondents, older age and telephone (vs. mail) administration of the survey were associated with higher global ratings, while shortened HD treatments were associated with lower global ratings. Lower education and telephone administration were associated with higher composite scores, while older age, and shortened HD treatments were associated with lower composite scores. Conclusions Several patient characteristics and mode of survey administration are associated with higher experience scores. Future research should assess HD facility characteristics associated with higher scores and interventions that might improve experience accounting for these associations.

Abstract Background The 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. Methods Cross-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. Results Among 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. Conclusions Non-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.

Standardized patient experience survey instruments play an important role in informing healthcare quality and process improvement. However, any changes in standardized instruments can impact the interpretation, trending, and analysis of patient reported data. This study investigates how the change in Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG CAHPS) survey recall period, from 12- to 6-months, can impact the accuracy and quality of patient experience data. This study used primary survey data on patient experience collected in 2016. Analyses included tests of proportion and t-tests for a comparison of: 1) experience ratings, and 2) administrative data to corroborate how accurately respondents report the number of visits received within the recall period. The findings indicated that respondents, on average, underestimated their usage of care based on a 12-month recall period, apart from those who reported just one visit. A shorter 6-month recall period resulted in higher accuracy in reporting the number of actual visits that occurred. Furthermore, experiential measures showed consistently higher scores across measures for Provider Communications, Staff Communications, Timely Access to Care, and Care Coordination for a 6-month recall period compared to a 12-month period. This study showed that it would be difficult to compare CG CAHPS Version 2.0 to Version 3.0 due to recall differences in experiential measures. Given that shorter recall periods tend to be associated with higher CG CAHPS ratings, healthcare stakeholders should consider bias introduced by changes of recall periods in survey instruments. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

Traditional CAHPS-style emergency department (ED) surveys result in excessive variability when assessing individual physician performance. The objective of this study is to measure the variability of a brief, electronic survey (e-survey). The study team also measured the association of individual physicians to demographic data, physician and patient factors, and a physician burnout assessment tool. Data from SmartContact (SmartER, La Grange, IL) is a next-day, e-survey that takes about 30-seconds to complete. This tool was used by a hospital-employed emergency department (ED) group during calendar year 2017 across 2 EDs and 37 physicians.1,2 Variability was estimated regarding raw patient experience (PX) scores and top box scores by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Pearson correlations were used to measure the interaction between PX scores, physician factors, and patient factors. Analysis of the 2017 calendar year showed statistically significant differences between physician PX performance on a bimonthly and quarterly basis. As well, there was lower PX in patients presenting at night. No correlation was found with a burnout assessment tool. This study demonstrates statistically valid performance differences among physicians using a next-day e-survey, which conforms to the recommendations of ED professional organizations for use in driving provider PX improvement, enhancing patient trust, and improving patient outcomes. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Innovation & Technology lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Objectives: To investigate whether health care experiences of adult Medicaid beneficiaries differ by race/ethnicity and rural/urban status.Data Sources: A total of 270 243 respondents to the 2014-2015 Nationwide Adult Medicaid Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey.Study Design: Linear regression was used to estimate case mix adjusted differences in patient experience between racial/ethnic minority and non-Hispanic white Medicaid beneficiaries, and between beneficiaries residing in small urban areas, small towns, and rural areas vs large urban areas. Dependent measures included getting needed care, getting care quickly, doctor communication, and customer service.Principal Findings: Compared with white beneficiaries, American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) and Asian/Pacific Islander (API) beneficiaries reported worse experiences, while black beneficiaries reported better experiences. Deficits for AIAN beneficiaries were 6-8 points on a 0-100 scale; deficits for API beneficiaries were 13-22 points (P's < 0.001); advantages for black beneficiaries were 3-5 points (P's < 0.001). Hispanic white differences were mixed. Beneficiaries in small urban areas, small towns, and isolated rural areas reported significantly better experiences (2-3 points) than beneficiaries in large urban areas (P's < 0.05), particularly regarding access to care. Racial/ethnic differences typically did not vary by geography.Conclusions: Improving experiences for racial/ethnic minorities and individuals living in large urban areas should be high priorities for policy makers exploring approaches to improve the value and delivery of care to Medicaid beneficiaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The literature on patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and patient experience is somewhat mixed. Government and private payers are promoting multi-payer PCMH initiatives to align requirements and resources and to enhance practice transformation outcomes. To this end, the multipayer Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT) demonstration project was carried out.Objective: To examine whether the PCMH is associated with a better patient experience, and whether a mature, multi-payer PCMH demonstration is associated with even further improvement in the patient experience.Design: This is a cross-sectional comparison of adults attributed to MiPCT PCMH, non-participating PCMH, and non-PCMH practices, statistically controlling for potential confounders, and conducted among both general and high-risk patient samples.Participants: Responses came from 3893 patients in the general population and 4605 in the high-risk population (response rates of 31.8% and 34.1%, respectively).Main Measures: The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, with PCMH supplemental questions, was administered in January and February 2015.Key Results: MiPCT general and high-risk patients reported a significantly better experience than non-PCMH patients in most domains. Adjusted mean differences were as follows: access (0.35**, 0.36***), communication (0.19*, 0.18*), and coordination (0.33**, 0.35***), respectively (on a 10-point scale, with significance indicated by: *= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, and ***= p<0.001). Adjusted mean differences in overall provider ratings were not significant. Global odds ratios were significant for the domains of self-management support (1.38**, 1.41***) and comprehensiveness (1.67***, 1.61***). Non-participating PCMH ratings fell between MiPCT and non-PCMH across all domains and populations, sometimes attaining statistical significance.Conclusions: PCMH practices have more positive patient experiences across domains characteristic of advanced primary care. A mature multi-payer model has the strongest, most consistent association with a better patient experience, pointing to the need to provide consistent expectations, resources, and time for practice transformation. Our results held for a general population and a high-risk population which has much more contact with the healthcare system. [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]

In his seminal work on health care quality, Avedis Donabedian noted that patient satisfaction was a key indicator of health care quality, and in the 1970s and 1980s a great deal of research explored the determinants of patient satisfaction. Subsequently, attention shifted toward assessing care experiences, and there is now a large body of evidence related to the reliability and validity of survey-based assessments of care. As the use of such surveys has increased, so too have concerns about the validity and uses of such surveys. The available research, however, indicates that such surveys are reliable, valid, correlated across individuals and settings with other quality indicators, and predictive of better outcomes. Patient experiences are now routinely measured, and substantial effort is being devoted to providing high-quality patient-centered care. Providing patient-centered care need not divert resources away from other quality improvement efforts. Improving the infrastructure supporting certain aspects of care may have broad effects because system changes can influence multiple outcomes. Thus, rather than detract from general quality improvement efforts, making changes that facilitate patient-centered care may lead to broader improvements. There is good reason to be optimistic that our health care system will increasingly be "patient centered." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare patient experiences and disparities for older adults with depressive symptoms in managed care (Medicare Advantage [MA]) versus Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS).Data Sources: Data came from the 2010 Medicare CAHPS survey, to which 220,040 MA and 135,874 FFS enrollees aged 65 and older responded.Study Design: Multivariate linear regression was used to test whether case-mix-adjusted associations between depressive symptoms and patient experience differed for beneficiaries in MA versus FFS. Dependent measures included four measures of beneficiaries' experiences with doctors (e.g., reports of doctor communication) and seven measures of beneficiaries' experiences with plans (e.g., customer service).Principal Findings: Beneficiaries with depressive symptoms reported worse experiences than those without depressive symptoms regardless of coverage type. For measures assessing interactions with the plan (but not for measures assessing interactions with doctors), the disadvantage for beneficiaries with versus without depressive symptoms was larger in MA than in FFS.Conclusions: Disparities in care experienced by older Medicare beneficiaries with depressive symptoms tend to be more negative in managed care than in FFS. Efforts are needed to identify and address the barriers these beneficiaries encounter to help them better traverse the managed care environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine relationships among 2 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality measures of hospital patient safety and quality, which reflect different perspectives on hospital performance: the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (Hospital SOPS)—a hospital employee patient safety culture survey—and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Hospital Survey (CAHPS Hospital Survey)—a survey of the experiences of adult inpatients with hospital care and services. Our hypothesis was that these 2 measures would be positively related. Methods: We performed multiple regressions to examine the relationships between the Hospital SOPS measures and CAHPS Hospital Survey measures, controlling for hospital bed size and ownership. Analyses were conducted at the hospital level with each survey’s measures using data from 73 hospitals that administered both surveys during similar periods. Results: Higher overall Hospital SOPS composite average scores were associated with higher overall CAHPS Hospital Survey composite average scores (r = 0.41, P < 0.01). Twelve of 15 Hospital SOPS measures were positively related to the CAHPS Hospital Survey composite average score after controlling for bed size and ownership, with significant standardized regression coefficients ranging from 0.25 to 0.38. None of the Hospital SOPS measures were significantly correlated with either of the two single-item CAHPS Hospital Survey measures (hospital rating and willingness to recommend). Conclusions: This study found that hospitals where staff have more positive perceptions of patient safety culture tend to have more positive assessments of care from patients. This finding helps validate both surveys and suggests that improvements in patient safety culture may lead to improved patient experience with care. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these results to larger sets of hospitals, to hospital units, and to other settings of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To produce reliable and informative health plan performance data by race/ethnicity for the Medicare beneficiary population and to consider appropriate presentation strategies. Data Sources Patient experience data from the 2008-2009 Medicare Advantage ( MA) and fee-for-service ( FFS) CAHPS surveys and 2008-2009 HEDIS data ( MA beneficiaries only). Study Design Mixed effects linear (and binomial) regression models estimated the reliability and statistical informativeness of CAHPS ( HEDIS) measures. Principal Findings Seven CAHPS and seven HEDIS measures were reliable and informative for four racial/ethnic subgroups-Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders-at sample sizes of 100 beneficiaries (200 for prescription drug plans). Although many plans lacked adequate sample size for reporting group-specific data, reportable plans contained a large majority of beneficiaries from each of the four racial/ethnic groups. Conclusions Statistically reliable and valid information on health plan performance can be reported by race/ethnicity. Many beneficiaries may have difficulty understanding such reports, however, even with careful guidance. Thus, it is recommended that health plan performance data by subgroups be reported as supplemental data and only for plans meeting sample size requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To examine gender differences in inpatient experiences and how they vary by dimensions of care and other patient characteristics. Data Source A total of 1,971,632 patients (medical and surgical service lines) discharged from 3,830 hospitals, July 2007- June 2008, and completing the HCAHPS survey. Study Design We compare the experiences of male and female inpatients on 10 HCAHPS dimensions using multiple linear regression, adjusting for survey mode and patient mix. Additional models add additional patient characteristics and their interactions with patient gender. Principal Findings We find generally less positive experiences for women than men, especially for Communication about Medicines, Discharge Information, and Cleanliness. Gender differences are similar in magnitude to previously reported HCAHPS differences by race/ethnicity. The gender gap is generally larger for older patients and for patients with worse self-reported health status. Gender disparities are largest in for-profit hospitals. Conclusions Targeting the experiences of women may be a promising means of improving overall patient experience scores (because women comprise a majority of all inpatients); the experiences of older and sicker women, and those in for-profit hospitals, may merit additional examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To examine whether disparities in health care experiences of Medicare beneficiaries differ between managed care (Medicare Advantage [MA]) and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. Data Sources. 132,937 MA and 201,444 FFS respondents to the 2007 Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Study Design. We defined seven subgroup characteristics: low-income subsidy eligible, no high school degree, poor or fair self-rated health, age 85 and older, female, Hispanic, and black. We estimated disparities in CAHPS experience of care scores between each of these groups and beneficiaries without those characteristics within MA and FFS for 11 CAHPS measures and assessed differences between MA and FFS disparities in linear models. Principal Findings. The seven subgroup characteristics had significant (po.05) negative interactions with MA(larger disparities in MA) in 27 of 77 instances, with only four significant positive interactions. Conclusion. Managed care may provide less uniform care than FFS for patients; specifically there may be larger disparities in MA than FFS between beneficiaries who have low incomes, are less healthy, older, female, and who did not complete high school, compared with their counterparts. There may be potential for MA quality improvement targeted at the care provided to particular subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]