At the Intersection of Patient Experience Data, Outcomes Research, and Practice: Analysis of HCAHPS Scores in Neurology Patients

Rurality and patients' hospital experience: A multisite analysis from a US healthcare system

BACKGROUND

The association between rurality of patients' residence and hospital experience is incompletely described. The objective of the study was to compare hospital experience by rurality of patients' residence.

METHODS

From a US Midwest institution's 17 hospitals, we included 56,685 patients who returned a post-hospital Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. We defined rurality using rural-urban commuting area codes (metropolitan, micropolitan, small town, rural). We evaluated the association of patient characteristics with top-box score (favorable response) for 10 HCAHPS items (six composite, two individual, two global). We obtained adjusted odds ratios (aOR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models including patient characteristics. We used key driver analysis to identify associations between HCAHPS items and global rating (combined overall rating of hospital and recommend hospital).

RESULTS

Of all items, overall rating of hospital had lower odds of favorable response for patients from metropolitan (0.88 [0.81-0.94]), micropolitan (0.86 [0.79-0.94]), and small towns (0.90 [0.82-0.98]) compared with rural areas (global test, P = .003). For five items, lower odds of favorable response was observed for select areas compared with rural; for example, recommend hospital for patients from micropolitan (0.88 [0.81-0.97]) but not metropolitan (0.97 [0.89-1.05]) or small towns (0.93 [0.85-1.02]). For four items, rurality showed no association. In metropolitan, micropolitan, and small towns, men vs. women had higher odds of favorable response to most items, whereas in rural areas, sex-based differences were largely absent. Key driver analysis identified care transition, communication about medicines and environment as drivers of global rating, independent of rurality.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural patients reported similar or modestly more favorable hospital experience. Determinants of favorable experience across rurality categories may inform system-wide and targeted improvement.

Factors influencing patient experience in hospital wards: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient experience plays an essential role in improving clinical effectiveness and patient safety. It's important to identify factors influencing patient experience and to improve quality of healthcare.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that influence patient experience in hospital wards.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review including six databases; they were PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, ProQuest, and Cochrane. Studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria. The JBI checklist was used to perform quality appraisal. We used 5 domains of the ecological model to organize and synthesize our findings to comprehensively understand the multi-level factors influencing the issue.

RESULT

A total of 138 studies were included, and 164 factors were identified. These factors were integrated into 6 domains. All domains but one (survey-related factors) could be mapped onto the attributes of the ecological framework: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, community, and public policy level factors. All factors had mixed effect on patient experience. The intrapersonal level refers to individual characteristics of patients. The interpersonal level refers to interactions between patients and healthcare providers, such as the caring time spent by a nurse. The institutional level refers to organizational characteristics, rules and regulations for operations, such as hospital size and accreditation. The community level refers to relationships among organizations, institutions, and informational networks within defined boundaries, such as a hospital located in a larger population area. Public policy level refers to local, state, national, and global laws and policies, including health insurance policies. The sixth domain, survey-related factors, was added to the framework and included factors such as survey response rate and survey response time.

CONCLUSION

The factors influencing patient experience are comprehensive, ranging from intrapersonal to public policy. Providers should adopt a holistic and integrated perspective to assess patient experience and develop context-specific interventions to improve the quality of care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42023401066.

Multisite analysis of patient experience scores and risk of hospital admission: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected patient experience scores may inform risk of patient outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the risk of hospital admission within 30-days following third-party receipt of the patient experience survey and guide interventions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys, January 2016-July 2019, from an institution's 20 hospitals in four U.S. states. Surveys were routinely sent to patients using census sampling. We analyzed surveys received ≤60 days following discharge from patients living ≤60 miles of any of the institution's hospitals. The exposures were 19 survey items. The outcome was hospital admission within 30 days after third-party receipt of the survey. We evaluated the association of favorable (top-box) vs unfavorable (non-top-box) score for survey items with risk of 30-day hospital admission in models including patient and hospitalization characteristics and reported adjusted odds ratios (aOR [95% confidence interval]).

RESULTS

Among 40,162 respondents (mean age ± standard deviation: 68.1 ± 14.0 years), 49.8% were women and 4.3% had 30-day hospital admission. Patients with 30-day hospital admission, compared to those not admitted, were more likely to be discharged from a medical service line (62.9% vs 42.3%; P < 0.001) and have a higher Elixhauser index. Favorable vs unfavorable score for hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the overall cohort (0.88 [0.77-0.99]; P = 0.04), medical service line (0.81 [0.70-0.94]; P = 0.007), and upper tertile of Elixhauser index (0.79 [0.67-0.92]; P = 0.003). Favorable score for recommend hospital was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the medical service line (0.83 [0.71-0.97]; P = 0.02) but for others (e.g. cleanliness of hospital environment) showed no association.

CONCLUSION

In routinely collected patient experience scores, favorable hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission and may inform risk stratification and interventions. Evidence-based survey items linked to patient outcomes may also inform future surveys.

Awareness and agreement with neurofibromatosis care guidelines among U.S. neurofibromatosis specialists

Introduction

The neurofibromatoses (NF) are a group of rare, genetic diseases sharing a predisposition to develop multiple benign nervous system tumors. Given the wide range of NF symptoms and medical specialties involved in NF care, we sought to evaluate the level of awareness of, and agreement with, published NF clinical guidelines among NF specialists in the United States.

Methods

An anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to U.S.-based NF clinicians. Respondents self-reported demographics, practice characteristics, awareness of seven NF guideline publications, and level of agreement with up to 40 individual recommendations using a 5-point Likert scale. We calculated the proportion of recommendations that each clinician rated “strongly agree”, and assessed for differences in guideline awareness and agreement by respondent characteristics.

Results

Sixty-three clinicians (49% female; 80% academic practice) across > 8 medical specialties completed the survey. Awareness of each guideline publication ranged from 53%-79% of respondents; specialists had higher awareness of publications endorsed by their medical professional organization (p < 0.05). The proportion of respondents who “strongly agree” with individual recommendations ranged from 17%-83%; for 16 guidelines, less than 50% of respondents “strongly agree”. There were no significant differences in overall agreement with recommendations based on clinicians’ gender, race, specialty, years in practice, practice type (academic/private practice/other), practice location (urban/suburban/rural), or involvement in NF research (p > 0.05 for all).

Conclusions

We identified wide variability in both awareness of, and agreement with, published NF care guidelines among NF experts. Future quality improvement efforts should focus on evidence-based, consensus-driven methods to update and disseminate guidelines across this multi-specialty group of providers. Patients and caregivers should also be consulted to proactively anticipate barriers to accessing and implementing guideline-driven care. These recommendations for improving guideline knowledge and adoption may also be useful for other rare diseases requiring multi-specialty care coordination.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-022-02196-x.

Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Stroke Care: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess patients' perception of health care. We aimed to identify all reported PREMs for stroke care and critically appraise psychometric properties of PREMs validated for patients with stroke.

METHODS

Studies on the development, validation, or utilization of PREMs for adult patients with stroke were systematically identified. The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments criteria were used to appraise psychometric performance.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies, examining 13 PREMs. Two PREMs had been developed for stroke care: Consumer Quality Index: Cerebrovascular Accident and Riksstroke. Consumer Quality Index: Cerebrovascular Accident was given a positive psychometric assessment, but its length and limited language applicability impede clinical implementation. Riksstroke was appraised as doubtful. Eleven PREMs were generic. The psychometric performance of 5 generic PREMS, validated for patients with stroke, received conflicting assessments. Six generic PREMs had not been validated in patients with stroke and were therefore not assessed for instrument performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Thirteen PREMs have been published for use in stroke care. The stroke-specific Consumer Quality Index: Cerebrovascular Accident has favorable psychometric performance but lacks practical feasibility. Other PREMs have inadequate or unknown psychometric properties. This indicates the need for developing stroke-specific PREMs to support quality improvement and enhance patient-centered care.

The association between patient experience and healthcare outcomes using SEER-CAHPS patient experience and outcomes among cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

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.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Patient-related Factors and Perioperative Outcomes Are Associated with Self-Reported Hospital Rating after Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Since 2013, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has tied a portion of hospitals' annual reimbursement to patients' responses to the Hospital Consumer Assessment and Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which is given to a random sample of inpatients after discharge. The most general question in the HCAHPS survey asks patients to rate their overall hospital experience on a scale of 0 to 10, with a score of 9 or 10 considered high, or "top-box." Previous work has suggested that HCAHPS responses, which are meant to be an objective measure of the quality of care delivered, may vary based on numerous patient factors. However, few studies to date have identified factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients undergoing spine surgery, and those that have are largely restricted to surgery of the lumbar spine. Consequently, patient and perioperative factors associated with HCAHPS scores among patients receiving surgery across the spine have not been well elucidated.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Among patients undergoing spine surgery, we asked if a "top-box" rating on the overall hospital experience question on the HCAHPS survey was associated with (1) patient-related factors present before admission; (2) surgical variables related to the procedure; and/or (3) 30-day perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Among 5517 patients undergoing spine surgery at a single academic institution from 2013 to 2017 and who were sent an HCAHPS survey, 27% (1480) returned the survey and answered the question related to overall hospital experience. A retrospective, comparative analysis was performed comparing patients who rated their overall hospital experience as "top-box" with those who did not. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables, and perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine patient demographics, comorbidities, and surgical variables associated with a top-box hospital rating. Additional multivariate logistic regression analyses controlling for these variables were performed to determine the association of any adverse event, major adverse events (such as myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism), and minor adverse events (such as urinary tract infection, pneumonia); reoperation; readmission; and prolonged hospitalization with a top-box hospital rating.

RESULTS

After controlling for potential confounding variables (including patient demographics), comorbidities that differed in incidence between patients who rated the hospital top-box and those who did not, and variables related to surgery, the patient factors associated with a top-box hospital rating were older age (compared with age ≤ 40 years; odds ratio 2.2, [95% confidence interval 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001 for 41 to 60 years; OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.6 to 3.9]; p < 0.001 for 61 to 80 years; OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.1]; p = 0.036 for > 80 years), and being a man (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.028). Further, a non-top-box hospital rating was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists Class II (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.024), Class III (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.020), or Class IV (OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.5]; p = 0.003). The only surgical factor positively associated with a top-box hospital rating was cervical surgery (compared with lumbar surgery; OR 1.4 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.9]; p = 0.016), while nonelective surgery (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.8]; p = 0.004) was associated with a non-top-box hospital rating. Controlling for the same set of variables, a non-top-box rating was associated with the occurrence of any adverse event (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.7]; p < 0.001), readmission (OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.9]; p = 0.023), and prolonged hospital stay (OR, 0.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 0.8]; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying patient factors present before surgery that are independently associated with HCAHPS scores underscores the survey's limited utility in accurately measuring the quality of care delivered to patients undergoing spine surgery. HCAHPS responses in the spine surgery population should be interpreted with caution and should consider the factors identified here. Given differing findings in the literature regarding the effect of adverse events on HCAHPS scores, future work should aim to further characterize this relationship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Does Care Transition Matter? Exploring the Newly Published HCAHPS Measure

In recent years, health care systems have undergone a consumer revolution—putting patients at the center. The study aim was to explore the association between care transition—the new measure proposed by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS)—and hospital patients’ overall rating based on their experience, along with hospitals’ internal characteristics and operational attributes. Using HCAHPS and American Hospital Association published databases, the authors examined the association between hospital characteristics and measures of patient experience, focusing on the care transition measure, in 2350 US hospitals. Positive significant association was found between care transition and overall rating ( P < .0001). An interaction regression model revealed that each of the following moderators—teaching affiliation, location, and membership in a health system—significantly (all P < .05) strengthens the association between care transition and overall rating in a positive direction. These findings may help improve hospital rating, value-based payments, and patient-centered outcomes.