Patient-Reported Experiences with Dialysis Care and Provider Visit Frequency.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and objectives
New payment models resulting from the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative may create incentives for nephrologists to focus less on face-to-face in-center hemodialysis visits. This study aimed to understand whether more frequent nephrology practitioner dialysis visits improved patient experience and could help inform future policy.Design, setting, participants, & measurements
In a cross-sectional study of patients receiving dialysis from April 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016, we linked patient records from a national kidney failure registry to patient experience data from the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. We used a multivariable mixed effects linear regression model to examine the association between nephrology practitioner visit frequency and patient-reported experiences with nephrologist care.Results
Among 5125 US dialysis facilities, 2981 (58%) had ≥30 In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys completed between April 2015 and January 2016, and 243,324 patients receiving care within these facilities had Medicare Parts A/B coverage. Face-to-face practitioner visits per month were 71% with four or more visits, 17% with two to three visits, 4% with one visit, and 8% with no visits. Each 10% absolute greater proportion of patients seen by their nephrology practitioner(s) four or more times per month was associated with a modestly but statistically significant lower score of patient experience with nephrologist care by -0.3 points (95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1) and no effect on experience with other domains of dialysis care.Conclusions
In an analysis of patient experiences at the dialysis facility level, frequent nephrology practitioner visits to facilities where patients undergo outpatient hemodialysis were not associated with better patient experiences.
SUBMITTER: Brady BM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425623 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceMedicare's End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program incorporates measures of perceived value into reimbursement calculations. In 2016, patient experience became a clinical measure in the Quality Incentive Program scoring system. Dialysis facility performance in patient experience measures has not been studied at the national level to date.ObjectiveTo examine associations among dialysis facility performance with patient experience measures and patient, facility, and geographic characteristics.DesignIn this cross-sectional analysis, patients from a national end-stage renal disease registry receiving in-center hemodialysis in the United States on December 31, 2014, were linked with dialysis facility scores on the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS) survey. Of 4977 US dialysis facilities, 2939 (59.1%) reported ICH-CAHPS scores from April 8, 2015, through January 11, 2016. Multivariable linear regression models with geographic random effects were used to examine associations of facility ICH-CAHPS scores with patient, dialysis facility, and geographic characteristics and to identify the amount of total between-facility variation in patient experience scores explained by these categories. Data were analyzed from September 15, 2017, through June 1, 2018.ExposuresDialysis facility, geographic characteristic, and 10% change in patient characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresDialysis facility ICH-CAHPS scores and the total between-facility variation explained by different categories of characteristics.ResultsOf the 2939 facilities included in the analysis, adjusted mean ICH-CAHPS scores were 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) lower in for-profit facilities, 1.6 percentage points (95% CI, 0.9-2.2) lower in facilities owned by large dialysis organizations, and 2.3 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-4.2) lower in free-standing facilities compared with their counterparts. More nurses per patient was associated with 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.03-0.3) higher scores; a privately insured patient population was associated with 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2-2.2) higher scores. Facilities with higher proportions of black patients had 0.95 percentage points (95% CI, 0.78-1.12) lower scores; more Native American patients, 1.00 percentage point (95% CI, 0.39-1.60) lower facility scores. Geographic location and dialysis facility characteristics explained larger proportions of the overall between-facility variation in ICH-CAHPS scores than did patient characteristics.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that for-profit operation, free-standing status, and large dialysis organization designation were associated with less favorable patient-reported experiences of care. Patient experience scores varied geographically, and black and Native American populations reported less favorable experiences. The study findings suggest that perceived quality of care delivered in these settings are of concern, and that there may be opportunities for improved implementation of patient experience surveys as is highlighted.
| S-EPMC6233760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesMedicare reimbursement policy encourages frequent provider visits to patients with ESRD undergoing hemodialysis. This study sought to determine whether more frequent face-to-face provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visits lead to more procedures and therapeutic interventions aimed at preserving arteriovenous fistulas and grafts, improved vascular access outcomes, and fewer related hospitalizations.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsMultivariable regression was used to evaluate the association between provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visit frequency and interventions aimed at preserving vascular access, vascular access survival, hospitalization for vascular access infection, and outpatient antibiotic use in a cohort of 63,488 Medicare beneficiaries receiving hemodialysis in the United States. Medicare claims were used to identify the type of vascular access used, access-related events, and vascular access failure.ResultsOne additional provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visit per month was associated with a 13% higher odds of receiving an intervention to preserve vascular access (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 12% to 14%) but was not associated with vascular access survival (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03). One additional provider visit was associated with a 9% (95% CI, 5% to 14%) lower odds of hospitalization for vascular access infection and a corresponding 9% (95% CI, 5% to 14%) higher odds of outpatient intravenous antibiotic administration. However, the associated changes in absolute probabilities of hospitalization and antibiotic administration were small.ConclusionsMore frequent face-to-face provider (physician and advanced practitioner) visits were associated with more procedures and therapeutic interventions aimed at preserving vascular accesses, but not with prolonged vascular access survival and only a small decrease in hospitalization for vascular access.
| S-EPMC4317740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We sought to understand how HIV-infected patients, their providers, and HIV care researchers prioritize self-reported domains of clinical care. Participants rank-ordered two lists of domains. A modified Delphi process was used for providers and researchers. Approximately 25% of patients were interviewed to discuss rationale for rank order choices. List 1 included anger, anxiety, depression, fatigue, physical function, pain, and sleep disturbance. List 2 included alcohol abuse, cognitive function, HIV stigma, HIV and treatment symptoms, medication adherence, positive affect, sexual risk behavior, sexual function, social roles, spirituality/meaning of life, and substance abuse. Seventy-four providers, 80 HIV care researchers, and 66 patients participated. Patients ranked context-based domains, such as HIV stigma, more highly than providers, while health behaviors, such as drug or alcohol use, ranked lower. Patients described a need to address wider-context challenges such as HIV stigma in order to positively impact health behaviors. Divergent patient and provider priorities highlight the importance of incorporating views from all stakeholders and suggests the need for a care approach that more effectively addresses contextual barriers to adverse health behaviors.
| S-EPMC4643852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients can provide valuable information missing from traditional sources of safety data, thus adding new insights about factors that lead to preventable harm. In this study, researchers determined associations between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms experienced after an adverse event (AE).MethodsA secondary analysis was conducted of a national sample of patient-reported AEs (surgical, medication, diagnostic, and hospital-acquired infection) gathered through an online questionnaire between January 2010 and February 2016. Generalized logit multivariable regression was used to assess the association between patient-reported contributory factors and patient-reported harms (grouped as nonphysical harm only, physical harm only, physical harm and emotional or financial harm, and all three harms) and adjusted for patient and AE characteristics.ResultsOne third of patients (32.6%) reported experiencing all three harms, 27.3% reported physical harms and one additional harm, 25.5% reported physical harms only, and 14.7% reported nonphysical harms only. Patients reporting all three harms were 2.5 times more likely to have filed a report with a responsible authority (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-5.01) and 3.3 times more likely to have also experienced a surgical complication (95% CI = 1.42-7.51). Odds of reporting problems related to communication between clinician and patients/families or clinician-related behavioral issues was 13% higher in those experiencing all three harm types (95% CI = 1.07-1.19).ConclusionPatients' experiences are important to identify safety issues and reduce harm and should be included in patient safety measurement and improvement activities. These findings underscore the need for policy and practice changes to identify, address, and support harmed patients.
| S-EPMC7720932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePatient-centered care promotes positive health outcomes in pediatrics. We created a provider-focused intervention and implemented it in a pragmatic clustered randomized controlled trial to improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among pediatric patients.MethodsA one-time (1-1.5-hour) webinar focusing on patient-centered care and motivational interviewing, using obesity screening as an example, was developed. Pediatric providers were recruited and randomized to either intervention (webinar) or control (usual care) arms. All well-child visits to these providers for a period of up to 5 months following webinar completion (or study enrollment for controls) were identified, and these family/patients were invited to complete a survey to assess HRQOL postvisit. Reported outcomes were compared between intervention and control participants using clustered t-tests, chi-squared tests and multiple linear regression models.ResultsWe recruited 20 providers (10 intervention, 10 control) to the study; 469 parents/guardians and 235 eligible children seeing these providers completed the postvisit survey. Parents/guardians of 8-12-year-old children in the intervention group reported higher school functioning compared to controls (83.5 vs 75.8; P=0.023). There were no other differences in children's HRQOL between intervention and control groups.ConclusionsA one-time, web-based provider intervention is feasible to implement in pediatrics. Modest evidence, requiring further study, indicates that instructing providers on patient-centered care in the well-child visit may improve aspects of pediatric HRQOL (ie, school functioning) compared to usual care. However, this was a brief intervention, with multiple outcomes tested and no evaluation of pre- and postintervention provider knowledge, thus additional study is needed.
| S-EPMC7834176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Differences in the effectiveness of diverse healthcare providers to promote health behavior change and successful diabetes self-care have received little attention. Because training in naturopathic medicine (NM) emphasizes a patient-centered approach, health promotion, and routine use of clinical counseling on wellness and prevention, naturopathic physicians (NDs) may be particularly well-prepared for promoting behavior change. However, patients' experiences with NM have not been well studied. This study provides the first report of the perceptions of persons with type 2 diabetes of their first experiences with naturopathic care for their diabetes. Following their participation in a one-year prospective cohort study of adjunctive naturopathic care for diabetes, twenty-two patients were interviewed about their experiences working with a naturopathic physician. Using a content analysis approach, nine dominant themes were identified. Three themes characterized the nature of the ND-patient interaction: 1) patient-centered, 2) holistic health rather than diabetes focused, and 3) collaborative. Five themes characterized the content of the clinical encounter: 1) individualized and detailed health promotion, 2) counseling that promoted self-efficacy, 3) pragmatic and practical self-care recommendations, 4) novel treatment options that fostered hopefulness, and 5) patient education that addressed both diabetes self-care and general health. A ninth theme was cross-cutting: the contrast between ND care and conventional medical care. Results indicate that the routine clinical approach used by NDs is consistent with behavior change theory and clinical strategies found most effective in promoting self-efficacy and improving clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC3492455 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) have traditionally been implemented through a manual process of paper and pencil with little standardization throughout a Healthcare System. Each practice has asked patients specific questions to understand the patient's health as it pertains to their specialty. These data were rarely shared and there has not been a comparison of patient's health across different specialty domains. We sought to leverage interoperable electronic systems to provide a standardization of PRO assessments across sites of care.MethodsUniversity of Utah Health is comprised of four hospitals, 12 community clinics, over 400,000 unique annual patients, and more than 5000 providers. The enterprise wide implementation of PROs started in November of 2015. Patients can complete an assessment at home via email, or within the clinic on a tablet. Each specialty has the opportunity to add additional specialty-specific instruments. We customized the interval with which the patient answers the assessments based on specialty preference in order to minimize patient burden, while maximizing relevant data for clinicians.ResultsBarriers and facilitators were identified in three phases: Pre-implementation, Implementation, and Post-implementation. Each phase was further broken down into technical challenges, content inclusion and exclusion, and organizational strategy. These phases are unique and require collaboration between several groups throughout the organization with support from executive leadership.DiscussionWe are deploying system-wide standard and customized PRO collection with the goals of providing better patient care, improving physician-patient communication, and ultimately improving the value of the care given. Standardized assessment provides any clinician with information to quickly evaluate the overall, physical and mental health of a patient. This information is available real time to aid in patient communication for the clinician.
| S-EPMC6097980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate multiple sclerosis (MS) patients' satisfaction with out-patient follow-up in a general neurological hospital department. Patients with definite MS living in Vest-Agder county, Norway were invited to answer a questionnaire comprising one question regarding overall satisfaction, and 24 questions regarding demographics, disease characteristics, and experiences with different aspects of the health care services.Out of 330 invited patients, 159 responded (48%). Mean overall satisfaction with health care was 3.5 (SD = 1.03) on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very large extent). The best sub scores were given on confidence in the physician's competence (mean = 4.01), the physician speaks in an understandable way (mean = 4.07), expectation of good treatment (mean = 3.72), and perception of being submitted to wrong treatment (mean = 1.5). The worst scores were given on satisfaction with frequency of outpatient appointments (mean = 2.89) and delay of outpatient appointments (mean = 3.07). Four factors were associated with high overall satisfaction; receiving the disease modifying drug natalizumab (B = 0.549, p = 0.004), satisfaction with frequency of outpatient appointments (B = 0.242, p < 0.001), experience that the physician facilitates talking about what the patient finds important (B = 0.218, p = 0.001), and confidence with the physician's competence (B = 0.453, p < 0.001).The patients were rather satisfied with the content of follow-up, and less satisfied with the structure. Regular and predictable contact with a trustworthy physician that facilitates that the patient is able to talk about what is important was associated with higher overall satisfaction.
| S-EPMC5501112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Visit continuity is important to patients and valued by physicians. However, it is virtually impossible for primary care physicians (PCPs) to provide care during every paneled patient visit. It remains unclear whether PCP visit discontinuity can be planned in a way that is least disruptive to patients' experiences with care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to clarify whether visit continuity affects patients' experiences with primary care equally for all patients. DESIGN: From January 2004 through March 2005, a large multispecialty practice in Massachusetts administered the Ambulatory Care Experience Survey (ACES) monthly to a random sample of patients visiting each of 145 PCPs. The analytic sample includes 14,835 patients with 2 or more primary care visits over the 6 months before being surveyed. Usual Provider Continuity (UPC), an administratively based measure of PCP visit continuity, was calculated for all respondents. Multilevel regression models that accounted for the clustering of patients within physicians modeled the relationship between UPC and each ACES measure. Interaction effects between UPC and gender, education, self-rated health, and PCP-patient relationship duration were tested. RESULTS: Physician-patient interaction quality, including physician communication, knowledge of the patient, health promotion support, and organizational access were more strongly influenced by visit continuity among respondents in early stages of a PCP-patient relationship (P < 0.01) and with worse self-rated health (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in physician-patient relationship quality can be achieved by targeting visit continuity improvement efforts to patients who benefit most, particularly those in early stages of a PCP-patient relationship and/or perceive their health as poor.
| S-EPMC2219884 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo illustrate methodological considerations when assessing the relationship between patient care experiences and mortality.Data sourceMedical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2000-2005) linked to National Health Interview Survey and National Death Index mortality data through December 31, 2006.Study designWe estimated Cox proportional hazards models with mortality as the dependent variable and patient experience measures as independent variables and assessed consistency of experiences over time.Data extraction methodsWe used data from respondents age 18 or older with at least one doctor's office or clinic visit during the year prior to the round 2 interview. We excluded subjects who died in the baseline year.Principal findingsThe association between overall care experiences and mortality was significant for deaths not amenable to medical care and all-cause mortality, but not for amenable deaths. More than half of respondents were in a different care experience quartile over a 1-year period. In the five individual experience questions we analyzed, only time spent with the patient was significantly associated with mortality.ConclusionsDeaths not amenable to medical care and the time-varying and multifaceted nature of patient care experience are important issues to consider when assessing the relationship between care experience and mortality.
| S-EPMC4545351 | biostudies-literature