Dataset Information

The effects of survey version on patient experience scores and plan rankings.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of changing survey questions on plan-level patient experience measures and ratings. DATA SOURCE:2015 Medicare Advantage CAHPS Survey respondents. STUDY DESIGN:Ninety three randomly selected beneficiaries in each of 40 MA plans received a revised (5.0) CAHPS survey; 38 832 beneficiaries received version 4.0. Linear mixed-effect regression predicted CAHPS measures from fixed effects for survey version and beneficiary characteristics and random effects for plan and plan-by-version random slope. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Response rates were 42 percent for both versions. Removal of "try to" from screeners increased the percentage of respondents eligible for follow-up questions. Version 5.0 caused a small increase (1-3 points on a 0-100 scale, P < 0.05) in the mean of three altered measures and a moderate increase (>3 points) in one. There was a small statistically significant increase in two unaltered measures. These changes were uniform across plans, so there would be no expected change compared to results using the legacy survey in the score distributions other than uniform mean shifts, and no expected effect on summary measures. CONCLUSIONS:These analyses illustrate how to assess the impact of seemingly minor survey modifications for other national surveys considering changes and highlight the importance of screeners in instrument design.

SUBMITTER: Beckett MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6736904 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effects of survey version on patient experience scores and plan rankings.

Beckett Megan K MK Elliott Marc N MN Burkhart Q Q Cleary Paul D PD Orr Nate N Brown Julie A JA Gaillot Sarah S Liu Karin K Hays Ron D RD

Health services research 20190531 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of changing survey questions on plan-level patient experience measures and ratings.<h4>Data source</h4>2015 Medicare Advantage CAHPS Survey respondents.<h4>Study design</h4>Ninety three randomly selected beneficiaries in each of 40 MA plans received a revised (5.0) CAHPS survey; 38 832 beneficiaries received version 4.0. Linear mixed-effect regression predicted CAHPS measures from fixed effects for survey version and beneficiary characteristics and random e ...[more]

PMID: 31149737

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPatients speaking a primary language other than English face barriers to equitable care, particularly patient-provider communications. There is no gold standard for providing inpatient medical interpretation on family-centered rounds (FCR). We aimed to implement simultaneous, in-person interpretation of FCR for Spanish-speaking families and hypothesized improved satisfaction in care.MethodsIn-person, Spanish Equipment-Assisted Simultaneous Medical Interpretation (EASMI) was implemented in March 2018 on FCR. Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Child HCAHPS) experience scores on communication domains were analyzed for Spanish and English-speaking families pre- (n = 118) and postimplementation (n = 552). Postimplementation, we conducted medical team surveys (n = 104) and semistructured interviews with Spanish-speaking families (n = 25) to determine satisfaction with interpretation modalities (phone, video, and EASMI).ResultsSpanish-speaking families exhibited statistically significant improvements in Child HCAHPS top box scores compared to English-speaking families in multiple communication and informed care-related domains. For example, "How often did your child's doctors explain things to you in a way that was easy to understand?" top box scores improved from 58% to 95% for Spanish-speaking families, compared to 85% to 83% for English speakers, with the differential effect of the intervention showing statistical significance (P = .001). Medical team surveys demonstrated high satisfaction with EASMI. Qualitative themes from interviews and open-ended survey responses emphasized multiple care benefits with EASMI, including a perceived reduction of communication errors and increased family participation.ConclusionsEASMI was associated with significant improvements in Child HCAHPS scores in communication domains and increased medical team and family members' satisfaction with interpretation. EASMI presents a novel method for equitable FCR for Spanish-speaking families.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice.DesignAnalysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices.SettingTwenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey.Participants7721 of 15,172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013.Main outcome measureScore on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models.ResultsAfter control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores.ConclusionsAggregating patients' ratings of doctors' communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to "screen" for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis to discharge). METHODS:Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. RESULTS:For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5-5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 45/64 question [corrected]. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:China launched the National Healthcare Improvement Initiative (NHII) in 2015 to improve patient experiences in healthcare. This study aimed to generate evidence of hospital care quality from the patients' perspective. DESIGN:This nationwide cross-sectional study interviewed participants from 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions across China. SETTING:A total of 117 tertiary hospitals in mainland China. PARTICIPANTS:48 422 responses from outpatients and 35 957 responses from inpatients were included in this study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE:The scores of six predefined domains in the Chinese Patient Experience Questionnaire, five of which were designed to reflect specific dimensions of care, and one of which indicated the overall rating. RESULTS:More than 80% of the respondents viewed their care experiences as positive. The NHII seems to have had a positive impact, as indicated by the steady, although unremarkable, increase in the patient experience scores over the 2016-2018 period. The Chinese patients generally reported a positive experience with the clinical aspects of care, but reported a less positive experience with the environmental, interpersonal and social services aspects of care. The institutional factors, including region and type of hospital, and personal factors, such as gender, age, education and occupation, were factors affecting the patient experience in China. Humanistic care was the aspect of care with the greatest association with the overall patient experience rating in both the outpatient and inpatient settings. CONCLUSIONS:The national survey indicated an overall positive patient perspective of care in China. Older age, higher education level and formal employment status were found to be correlated with positive care experiences, as were higher levels of economic development of the region, a more generous insurance benefits package and a higher degree of coordinated care. The interpersonal-related initiatives had substantial roles in the improvement of the patient experience. In the regions where farmers and users of traditional Chinese medicine services constitute a greater proportion of the population, improvement of patient experiences for these groups deserves special policy attention.

Dataset Information

The effects of survey version on patient experience scores and plan rankings.

Publications

The effects of survey version on patient experience scores and plan rankings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets