The association between the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey and real-world clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery

Characterizing Negative Online Reviews of Spine Surgeons

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States.

SUMMARY

Physician rating websites significantly influence the selection of doctors by other patients. Negative experiences are impacted by various factors, both clinical and nonclinical, geography, and practice structure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and categorize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States, with a focus on surgical versus nonsurgical reviewers.

METHODS

Spine surgeons were selected from available online professional society membership directories. A search for reviews was performed on Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.com for the past 10 years. Free response reviews were coded by complaint, and qualitative analysis was performed. χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and multiple comparisons were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A binary logistic regression model was performed for the top three most mentioned nonclinical and clinical complaint labels. A P -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 16,695 online reviews were evaluated, including 1690 one-star reviews (10.1%). Among one-star reviews, 64.7% were written by nonsurgical patients and 35.3% by surgical patients. Nonclinical and clinical comments constituted 54.9% and 45.1% of reviews, respectively. Surgeons in the South had more "bedside manner" comments (43.3%, P <0.0001), while Northeast surgeons had more "poor surgical outcome" remarks compared with all other geographic regions (14.4%, P <0.001). Practicing in the South and Northeast were independent predictors of having complaints about "bedside manner" and "poor surgical outcome," respectively.

CONCLUSION

Most one-star reviews of spine surgeons were attributed to nonsurgical patients, who tended to be unsatisfied with nonclinical factors, especially "bedside manner." However, there was substantial geographic variation. These results suggest that spine surgeons could benefit from focusing on nonclinical factors (bedside manner), especially among nonoperative patients, and that regional nuances should be considered in delivering spine care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level- 5.

Assessing the Impact of a Service Excellence Program on Improving Patient Experience at Primary Health Care Centers

BACKGROUND

Frontline clinical staff play a crucial role in shaping patient experience and, therefore, require adequate training and education to deliver exceptional service. This study aimed to assess the impact of a service excellence and quality training program on frontline clinical staff's knowledge, perception, and attitude toward patient experience and service excellence. We also examined the effect of this intervention on patient experience scores.

METHODS

This study utilized a pre-post intervention design, where frontline clinical staff completed a questionnaire to establish baseline "knowledge and perception scores" and "attitude scores" related to patient experience. The same questionnaire was administered after the training program to measure any changes in scores. Patient experience scores were collected from existing data, comparing results from different quarters before and after the intervention. The training and education program covered various components, including effective communication, empathy, service standards, and service recovery.

RESULTS

A total of 256 staff members, including nurses, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals, participated in the training program. The study found statistically significant improvements in all components of staff knowledge, perception, and attitude. Specifically, there was a median improvement in knowledge and perception scores, which increased from 77.2% to 96.5%. Additionally, attitude scores showed a median improvement from 73.8% to 92.5%. Moreover, the overall patient experience score increased from 62% to 72.4%.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed significant improvements in staff knowledge, perception, and attitude, along with enhanced patient experience scores. These findings suggest a potential role for targeted interventions in enhancing patient experience and supporting ongoing quality improvement in primary healthcare settings.

Association of patient experience and the quality of hospital care

The association between patient experience and the quality of hospital care is controversial. We assess the association between clinical outcomes and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Knowledge on this issue informs value-based health-care reforms. A retrospective observational study was conducted in 17 hospitals in Saudi Arabia during the period of 2019-22. Hospital data were collected on PREMs, mortality, readmission, length of stay (LOS), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), and surgical site infection. Descriptive analysis was used to describe hospital characteristics. Spearman's rho correlation tests were used to assess the correlation between these measures, and multivariate generalized linear mixed model regression analysis was used to study associations while controlling for hospital characteristics and year. Our analysis showed that PREMs were negatively correlated with hospital readmission rate (r = -0.332, P ≤ .01), LOS (r = -0.299, P ≤ .01), CLABSI (r = -0.297, P ≤ .01), CAUTI (r = -0.393, P ≤ .01), and surgical site infection (r = -0.298, P ≤ .01). The results indicated that CAUTI and LOS converged negatively with PREMs (β = -0.548, P = .005; β = -0.873, P = .008, respectively) and that larger hospitals tended to have better patient experience scores (β =0.009, P = .003). Our findings suggest that better performance in clinical outcomes is associated with higher PREM scores. PREMs are not a substitute or surrogate for clinical quality. Yet, PREMs are complementary to other objective measures of patient-reported outcomes, the process of care, and clinical outcomes.

Identifying service quality gaps between patients and providers in a Native American outpatient clinic

Background

Native American communities in Montana reservations have reported low-level satisfaction in health services. This research explored if the services provided at a Blackfeet Indian Reservation outpatient clinic were designed to meet patient expectations.

Methods

Staff and patient interviews and surveys allowed service expectations to be assessed according to the clinic’s ability to meet those expectations. A total of 48 patients and ten staff members (83% of the staff at this clinic) participated in the study voluntarily.

Results

We found a disconnect between what patients anticipate for care and what staff think they are anticipating. We also found a discontent between what staff believes patients need versus what the patients feel is needed.

Conclusions

These gaps combine to increase the breach between patient expectations and perceptions of their healthcare services. With better insight that captures what patients are looking for from a service, the potential to meet those needs increases, and patients feel that their voice is respected and valued.

A Multivariable Model of Parent Satisfaction, Pain, and Opioid Administration in a Pediatric Emergency Department

Introduction

Children and adolescents are not impervious to the unprecedented epidemic of opioid misuse in the United States. In 2016 more than 88,000 adolescents between the ages of 12–17 reported misusing opioid medication, and evidence suggests that there has been a rise in opioid-related mortality for pediatric patients. A major source of prescribed opioids for the treatment of pain is the emergency department (ED). The current study sought to assess the complex relationship between opioid administration, pain severity, and parent satisfaction with children’s care in a pediatric ED.

Methods

We examined data from a tertiary pediatric care facility. A health survey questionnaire was administered after ED discharge to capture the outcome of parental likelihood of providing a positive facility rating. We abstracted patient demographic, clinical, and top diagnostic information using electronic health records. Data were merged and multivariable models were constructed.

Results

We collected data from 15,895 pediatric patients between the ages of 0–17 years (mean = 6.69; standard deviation = 5.19) and their parents. Approximately 786 (4.94%) patients were administered an opioid; 8212 (51.70%) were administered a non-opioid analgesic; and 3966 (24.95%) expressed clinically significant pain (pain score >/= 4). Results of a multivariable regression analysis from these pediatric patients revealed a three-way interaction of age, pain severity, and opioid administration (odds ratio 1.022, 95% confidence interval, 1.006, 1.038, P = 0.007). Our findings suggest that opioid administration negatively impacted parent satisfaction of older adolescent patients in milder pain who were administered an opioid analgesic, but positively influenced the satisfaction scores of parents of younger children who were administered opioids. When pain levels were severe, the relationship between age and patient experience was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

This investigation highlights the complexity of the relationship between opioid administration, pain severity, and satisfaction, and suggests that the impact of opioid administration on parent satisfaction is a function of the age of the child.

Smartphone GPS signatures of patients undergoing spine surgery correlate with mobility and current gold standard outcome measures

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are currently the gold standard to evaluate patient physical performance and ability to recover after spine surgery. However, PROMs have significant limitations due to the qualitative and subjective nature of the information reported as well as the impossibility of using this method in a continuous manner. The smartphone global positioning system (GPS) can be used to provide continuous, quantitative, and objective information on patient mobility. The aim of this study was to use daily mobility features derived from the smartphone GPS to characterize the perioperative period of patients undergoing spine surgery and to compare these objective measurements to PROMs, the current gold standard.

METHODS

Eight daily mobility features were derived from smartphone GPS data in a population of 39 patients undergoing spine surgery for a period of 2 months starting 3weeks before surgery. In parallel, three different PROMs for pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) and functional status (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]) were serially measured. Segmented linear regression analysis was used to assess trends before and after surgery. The Student paired t-test was used to compare pre- and postoperative PROM scores. Pearson's correlation was calculated between the daily average of each GPS-based mobility feature and the daily average of each PROM score during the recovery period.

RESULTS

Smartphone GPS features provided data documenting a reduction in mobility during the immediate postoperative period, followed by a progressive and steady increase with a return to baseline mobility values 1 month after surgery. PROMs measuring pain, physical performance, and disability were significantly different 1 month after surgery compared to the 2 immediate preoperative weeks. The GPS-based features presented moderate to strong linear correlation with pain VAS and PROMIS physical score during the recovery period (Pearson r > 0.7), whereas the ODI and PROMIS mental scores presented a weak correlation (Pearson r approximately 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Smartphone-derived GPS features were shown to accurately characterize perioperative mobility trends in patients undergoing surgery for spine-related diseases. Features related to time (rather than distance) were better at describing patient physical and performance status. Smartphone GPS has the potential to be used for the development of accurate, noninvasive and personalized tools for patient mobility monitoring after surgery.

A comprehensive approach to complementary and alternative medicine usage among patients from a vascular department

INTRODUCTION

Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies had been described in patients with disabling, chronic and painful conditions; these characteristics define the majority of vascular surgery (VS) entities. A lack of disclosure about CAM use from patients has been universally cited and may impact effective patient-doctor communication. Our primary objective was to describe CAM use, modalities, perceived benefits, safety, and associated factors among adult patients attending a VS outpatient clinic; we additionally explored patient's attitudes about CAM disclosure with their primary vascular surgeon.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study invited 223 consecutive outpatients to an interview where the ICAM-Q (International Complementary and Alternative Medicine Questionnaire) and the PDRQ-9 (Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire-9 items) were applied. In addition, sociodemographics, vascular disease and treatment-related information, comorbidity, and disease severity characteristics were obtained. Appropriated statistics was used; multiple logistic regression analysis identified factors associated to CAM use. All statistical tests were two-sided, and a p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. IRB approval was obtained.

RESULTS

Patients recruited were primary females (69%) and had a median age of 65 years (54-75). Most frequent vascular diagnoses were chronic venous insufficiency (36.2%) and peripheral artery disease (26%). There were 104 (46.6%) patients who referred CAM use, primarily self-helped practices (96%), and use of herbal, vitamins, or homeopathic medicines (23.7%). Overall, the majority of the patients perceived CAM modalities helpful and 94.6% denied any adverse event. Female sex (OR: 1.768, 95% CI: 0.997-3.135, p = 0.051) and hospitalization during the previous year (OR: 3.173, 95% CI: 1.492-6.748, p = 0.003) were associated to CAM use. The majority of the patients (77%) agreed about CAM disclosure with their primary vascular surgeon; meanwhile, among CAM users, up to 54.9% did not disclose it, and their main reasons were "Doctor didn't ask" (32%) and "I consider it unnecessary" (16%). The patient-doctor relationship was rated by the patients with high scores.

CONCLUSIONS

CAM use is frequent and perceived as safe and beneficial among VS outpatients; nonetheless, patients do not disclose CAM use with their primary vascular surgeons, and a wide range of reasons are given by the patients that prevent effective and open communication.

Variations in Patient Satisfaction Scores Between HCAHPS and a Novel Orthopedic Practice-Specific Survey

Performance on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey can affect up to 33% of a physician's reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. At this pseudo-private orthopedic practice, the authors characterized how physicians often achieve drastically different scores between HCAHPS and an Internal Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (IPSQ). Eighteen physicians were ranked separately according to percentage of top-box scores on HCAHPS and IPSQ. There was an inverse relationship between physician rank for the 2 surveys according to Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ = -0.36, P = .15). Qualitative subanalysis indicated that although "physician interaction" was the most common reason for negative comments on HCAHPS, "ancillary staff" and "workflow" concerns were common on IPSQ. The outpatient setting remains a critical component in achieving high-quality orthopedic care. Consequently, HCAHPS alone may not be a sufficient indicator of patient satisfaction for orthopedic and other subspecialty practices.

The association between patient rating of their spine surgeon and quality of postoperative outcome

OBJECTIVE

The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey was developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a result of their value-based purchasing initiative. It allows patients to rate their experience with their provider in the outpatient setting. This presents a unique situation in healthcare in which the patient experience drives the marketplace, and since its creation, providers have sought to improve patient satisfaction. Within the spine surgery setting, however, the question remains whether improved patient satisfaction correlates with improved outcomes.

METHODS

All patients who had undergone lumbar spine surgery between 2009 and 2017 and who completed a CG-CAHPS survey after their procedure were studied. Demographic and surgical characteristics were then obtained. The primary outcomes of this study include patient-reported health outcomes measures such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health (PROMIS-GH) surveys for both mental health (PROMIS-GH-MH) and physical health (PROMIS-GH-PH), and the visual analog scale for back pain (VAS-BP). A multivariable linear regression analysis was used to assess whether patient satisfaction with their provider was associated with changes in each health status measure after adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The study population included 647 patients who had undergone lumbar spine surgery. Of these, 564 (87%) indicated that they were satisfied with the care they received. Demographic and surgical characteristics were largely similar between the two groups. Multivariable linear regression demonstrated that patient satisfaction with their provider was not a significant predictor of change in two of the three patient-reported outcomes (PROMIS-GH-MH and PROMIS-GH-PH) assessed at 1 year. However, top-box patient satisfaction with their provider was a significant predictor of improvement in VAS-BP scores at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found that after adjusting for patient-level covariates such as age, diagnosis of disc displacement, self-reported mental health, self-reported overall health, and preoperative patient-reported outcome measure status, a significant association was observed between top-box overall provider rating and 1-year improvement in VAS-BP, but no such association was observed for PROMIS-GH-PH and PROMIS-GH-MH. This suggests that pain-related outcome measures may serve as better predictors of patients' satisfaction with their spine surgeons. Furthermore, this suggests that the current method by which patient satisfaction is being assessed and publicly reported may not necessarily correlate with validated measures that are used within the spine surgery setting to assess surgical efficacy.

Predictors of Patient Satisfaction in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been increased interest in patient satisfaction measures such as Press Ganey and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys. In this systematic review, the spine surgery literature is analyzed to evaluate factors predictive of patient satisfaction as measured by these surveys.

METHODS

A thorough literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases. All English-language articles from database inception to July 2020 were screened for study inclusion according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-four of the 1899 published studies were included for qualitative analysis. There has been a statistically significant increase in the number of publications across years (P = 0.04). Overall, the studies evaluated the relationship between patient satisfaction and patient demographics (71%), preoperative and intraoperative clinical factors (21%), and postoperative factors (33%). Top positive predictors of patient satisfaction were patient and nursing/medical staff relationship (n = 4; 17%), physician-patient relationship (n = 4; 17%), managerial oversight of received care (n = 3; 13%), same sex/ethnicity between patient and physician (n = 2; 8%), and older age (n = 2; 8%). Top negative predictors of patient satisfaction were high Charlson Comorbidity Index/high disability/worse overall health functioning (n = 7; 29%), increased length of hospital stay (n = 4; 17%), high rating for pain/complications/readmissions (n = 4; 17%), and psychosocial factors (n = 3; 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is heterogeneity in terms of different factors, both clinical and nonclinically related, that affect patient satisfaction ratings. More research is warranted to investigate the role of hospital consumer surveys in the spine surgical patient population.

The Association Between Physicians' Communication and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the association between satisfaction with physician communication and patient-reported outcomes in the inpatient spine surgery setting.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys measure the patient experience of care and influence reimbursement for hospital systems and providers in the United States. It is not known whether patient satisfaction with physician communication is associated with better outcomes after spine surgery. Therefore, we evaluated the association between patient satisfaction with physician communication on the HCAHPS survey and improvements in validated patient-reported outcomes measures in a spine surgery population.

METHODS

HCAHPS responses were obtained for patients undergoing elective cervical or lumbar spine surgery from 2013 to 2015. Patient-reported health status measures were the primary outcomes, including EuroQol Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and Visual Analog Scores for Back and Neck Pain (VAS-BP/NP). The association between satisfaction with communication and preoperative to 1 year postoperative changes in each health status measure was evaluated utilizing multivariable linear regression models.

RESULTS

Our study included 648 patients, of which, 479 (74.4%) created our satisfied cohort. Demographically, our two cohorts were similar with regards to preoperative clinical measures; however, the satisfied cohort had a higher self-rating of their mental health (P < 0.01), and overall health (P < 0.01). After adjusting for clinically relevant confounders, our results demonstrated no significant association between satisfaction with physician communication and improvement in EQ-5D (P = 0.312), PDQ (P = 0.498), or VAS pain scores (P = 0.592).

CONCLUSION

Patient satisfaction with physician communication was not associated with 1-year postoperative improvement in EQ-5D, PDQ, and VAS-Pain after spine surgery. These findings do not diminish the importance of effective communication between doctor and patient, but instead suggest that within the spine surgery setting, using only patient experience data may not accurately reflect the true quality of care received during their inpatient stay.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

The limited influence of neurosurgeons' behavior on inpatient satisfaction: a retrospective multihospital analysis

OBJECTIVE

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a survey that assesses patient satisfaction, which is an important measure of the quality of hospital care and ultimately the overall hospital rating (OHR). However, the survey covers several elements of patient satisfaction beyond the patient-surgeon interaction. In this study, authors investigated which admission and experience factors had the highest impact on the OHR.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of HCAHPS surveys from patients who, in the period between August 1, 2016, and January 31, 2018, had been discharged from the neurosurgical or orthopedic service at three hospitals serving a single metropolitan area. The top-box score was defined as the highest rating obtainable for each survey question. Baseline admission attributes were obtained, and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of the top-box OHR.

RESULTS

After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1470 patients remained in the analysis. Categories on the HCAHPS included OHR, communication, education, environment, pain management, and responsiveness. After excluding identifying questions from the survey and adjusting for subspecialty and hospital, 7 of 17 HCAHPS survey items were significant predictors of OHR. Only 2 of these were related to the surgeon: 1) discharge, "Did you get information in writing about what symptoms or health problems to look out for after you left the hospital?" (OR 5.93, 95% CI 2.52-13.94); and 2) doctor, "Did doctors explain things in a way you could understand?" (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.73-4.46). The top three strongest correlating items were 1) discharge; 2) nursing, "Did nurses treat you with courtesy and respect?" (OR 3.86, 95% CI 2.28-6.52); and 3) hospital environment, "Were your room and bathroom kept clean?" (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.96-4.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings demonstrated that there are several nonmodifiable factors (i.e., specialty, experience) and items that are not under the direct purview of the neurosurgeon (e.g., nursing communication, hospital environment) that are significant influences on overall inpatient satisfaction on the HCAHPS survey. Furthermore, components of the survey that ultimately influence the OHR vary across different hospitals. Hence, HCAHPS survey results should be broadly interpreted as a way to make health systems more aware of the overall hospital factors that can improve quality of care and patient experience.

Characteristics and Predictors of HCAHPS Nonresponse After Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess nonresponder biases for the HCAHPS survey following spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is a publicly reported patient satisfaction survey. In addition to having the potential of impacting a hospital's reputation, it is directly linked to government reimbursement. However, it is known that a minority of patients return this survey, and it is expected that there are nonresponder biases.

METHODS

All adult inpatient spine surgery patients at a single institution between January 2013 and August 2017 at a single institution were selected for retrospective analysis. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were assessed as potential predictors of not returning HCAHPS surveys. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 5517 spine surgeries analyzed, 1505 (27.3%) patients returned the HCAHPS survey. Response rate was variable based on patient characteristics (with statistically significant differences based on age, functional status, race, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score) but not variable based on anatomic region of the spine surgery. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients who did not return the HCAHPS survey were more likely to be black/African American (OR = 2.8, P < 0.001), have a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR 1.76, P < 0.001), and have had a major adverse event (OR = 1.66; P = 0.001), minor adverse event (OR = 2.50; P < 0.001), discharged to a destination other than home (OR = 2.16, P < 0.001), hospital readmission (OR = 2.58; P < 0.001), and a long hospital length of stay (OR = 1.28, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For spine surgery patients, patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were found to be significantly associated with the nonresponder bias for HCAHPS surveys. Although the potential resultant bias in HCAHPS scores cannot be directly determined, this must be considered in interpreting the results of such satisfaction surveys given that less than one-third of patients actually completed this survey in the study population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Clinic Satisfaction Tool Improves Communication and Provides Real-Time Feedback

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported assessments of the clinic experience are increasingly important for improving the delivery of care. The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey is the current standard for evaluating patients' clinic experience, but its format gives 2-mo delayed feedback on a small proportion of patients in clinic. Furthermore, it fails to give specific actionable results on individual encounters.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and assess the impact of a single-page Clinic Satisfaction Tool (CST) to demonstrate real-time feedback, individualized responses, interpretable and actionable feedback, improved patient satisfaction and communication scores, increased physician buy-in, and overall feasibility.

METHODS

We assessed CST use for 12 mo and compared patient-reported outcomes to the year prior. We assessed all clinic encounters for patient satisfaction, all physicians for CG-CAHPS global rating, and physician communication scores, and evaluated the physician experience 1 yr after implementation.

RESULTS

During implementation, 14 690 patients were seen by 12 physicians, with a 96% overall CST utilization rate. Physicians considered the CST superior to CG-CAHPS in providing immediate feedback. CG-CAHPS global scores trended toward improvement and were predicted by CST satisfaction scores (P < .05). CG-CAHPS physician communication scores were also predicted by CST satisfaction scores (P < .01). High CST satisfaction scores were predicted by high utilization (P < .05). Negative feedback dropped significantly over the course of the study (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The CST is a low-cost, high-yield improvement to the current method of capturing the clinic experience, improves communication and satisfaction between physicians and patients, and provides real-time feedback to physicians.

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.

Predictors of patient satisfaction and survey participation after spine surgery: a retrospective review of 17,853 consecutive spinal patients from a single academic institution. Part 1: Press Ganey

OBJECTIVEPress Ganey surveys are common modalities used to assess patient satisfaction scores in an outpatient setting. Despite the existence of data, neurosurgical and orthopedic literature on patient satisfaction following spinal surgery is scarce.METHODSA total of 17,853 patients who underwent spinal procedures at the authors' institution were analyzed retrospectively for Press Ganey survey participation. Appropriate demographic, surgical, comorbidity, and complication data were collected; 1936 patients had patient satisfaction survey data, and further survey metrics were collected for this subset of patients.RESULTSMale patients, patients with urgent/emergency procedures, and patients with longer length of stay (LOS) were less likely to fill out Press Ganey surveys (OR 0.822, p < 0.001; OR 0.781, p = 0.010; and OR 0.983, p < 0.001, respectively). Posterior approach was negatively associated with Press Ganey participation (OR 0.907, p = 0.055). Patients undergoing fusion procedures were more likely to participate in Press Ganey surveys (OR 1.419, p < 0.001). Of the patients who filled out surveys, there were no positive predictors associated with receiving perfect scores on Press Ganey surveys. High Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 0.959, p = 0.02), increasing elapsed time since surgery or discharge (OR 0.996, p = 0.03), and increasing LOS (OR 0.965, p = 0.009) were all negatively associated with receiving a perfect score. Patients who underwent a posterior-approach procedure compared with other approaches were less likely to report a low Press Ganey score (OR 0.297, p = 0.046). Patient sex and race did not influence the likelihood of receiving perfect or low Press Ganey scores. Finally, the perceived skill of the surgeon was not a significant predictor for perfect (p > 0.99) or low (p = 0.828) Press Ganey scores.CONCLUSIONSPatient participation in Press Ganey surveys strongly correlated with preoperative factors such as procedure approach and type, as well as postoperative factors such as LOS and complications. No factors were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving a perfect Press Ganey score. Similarly, LOS and time elapsed since surgery to survey completion were significant negative predictors of perfect Press Ganey scores. Skill of surgeon, sex, and race did not correlate with a predictive value for Press Ganey outcomes. In addition, overall comorbid disease burden was found to be a significant negative predictor for high patient satisfaction scores. Further study on predictors of patient satisfaction within spine surgery is needed to better assist physicians in improving the surgical experience for patients.

Predictors of patient satisfaction and survey participation after spine surgery: a retrospective review of 17,853 consecutive spinal patients from a single academic institution. Part 2: HCAHPS

OBJECTIVEPatient satisfaction is a new and important metric in the American healthcare system. The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) is a common modality used to assess patient satisfaction in inpatient settings. Despite the existence of data, neurosurgical literature on patient satisfaction following spinal surgery is scarce.METHODSA total of 17,853 patients who underwent spinal procedures at the authors' institution were analyzed retrospectively for HCAHPS survey participation. Appropriate demographic, surgical, comorbidity, and complication data were collected; 1118 patients had patient satisfaction survey data, and further survey metrics were collected for this subset of patients.RESULTSMale patients, patients with urgent/emergency procedures, and patients with a longer length of stay were less likely to complete an HCAHPS survey (OR 0.820, p < 0.001; OR 0.818, p = 0.042; and OR 0.983, p < 0.001, respectively). Posterior approach was negatively associated with HCAHPS survey participation (OR 0.868, p = 0.007). Patients undergoing fusion procedures were more likely to participate in HCAHPS surveys (OR 1.440, p < 0.001). Of the completed HCAHPS surveys, there were no positive predictors associated with perfect scores. High Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 0.931, p = 0.007), increasing elapsed time since surgery or discharge (OR 0.992, p = 0.004), and increasing length of stay (OR 0.928, p < 0.001) were all negatively associated with a perfect score. Finally, patient sex and race did not influence the likelihood of a perfect or low survey score.CONCLUSIONSParticipation in HCAHPS surveys was correlated with preoperative and postoperative factors. Among these, procedure approach and type, length of stay, and complications seemed to influence participation the most. No factors were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving a perfect score. Similarly, length of stay and time elapsed since surgery to survey completion were significant negative predictors of receiving perfect HCAHPS survey scores. Increasing comorbid burden was also found to be a negative predictor for high scores. Further study on predictors of inpatient satisfaction within spine surgery is needed.

Patient Satisfaction Surveys in the Outpatient Clinic Setting: The Variability of Response With Positively or Negatively Toned Questions

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a patient satisfaction survey in the outpatient clinic setting using questions with either a positive or negative tone would produce consistent responses. This was a prospective study using a 20-question paper survey delivered to medical students who were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 to what degree they either agree or disagree with statements regarding their most recent personal outpatient clinic health care visit (any medical specialty). The same survey was administered again through an e-mail link 1 week later. One hundred fifty (77%) students completed the 20-item survey and 53 (35%) of the participating students completed the follow-up e-mail survey. Seven of the 10 question pairs on the paper survey revealed statistically significant differences in responses based on tone, with greater values for disagreement with negatively toned questions than values representing agreement with positive-toned questions. The match rates for similar questions posed on the paper survey and then the e-mail survey 1 week later ranged between 27.8% and 56.6%. This study demonstrated that, with an outpatient health care patient satisfaction survey, disagreement with a negative-toned question was stronger than agreement with a positive-toned question. There was poor correlation between survey responses when first posed on a paper survey and then repeated on a digital survey 1 week later. These findings suggest that the wording of survey questions may affect responses and that survey answers change with time and across delivery platforms.

Patient Satisfaction After Lung Cancer Surgery: Do Clinical Outcomes Affect Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems Scores?

BACKGROUND

Little is known about patients' hospital experience and satisfaction after lung cancer surgery. We sought to determine how length of hospital stay (LOS) and postoperative complications affect hospital consumer assessment of health care providers and systems (HCAHPS) scores.

METHODS

Patients undergoing lung resection for cancer at a single academic cancer center between years 2014 and 2018 were analyzed. Clinical data were derived from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons institutional database and supplemented with HCAHPS survey data. Endpoints were "top-box" satisfaction scores and domain-specific scores for physicians and nurses communication.

RESULTS

In total, 181 of 478 patients (38%) who underwent pulmonary resection for lung cancer completed HCAHPS surveys. Median age was 65 years, and most patients underwent lobectomy (94%). The top-box rating for the overall hospital experience, physician communication, and nurse communication were 92%, 84%, and 69%, respectively. Overall and major complication rates were 43% and 3%, and were not associated with top-box HCAHPS scores. Increasing length of stay was associated with worse satisfaction with provider communication. Adjusted for patient factors, increasing length of stay was associated with worse patient satisfaction in the domains of communication with physicians and nurses. Patients with length of stay more than 6 days were less likely to endorse that doctors gave understandable explanations (odds ratio 0.15, 95% confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.56) and that nurses listened carefully (odds ratio 0.11, 95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall HCAHPS satisfaction scores after lung resection for cancer were high and were negatively associated with increasing length of stay. Patient satisfaction may be affected more by the perception of effective communication during prolonged hospitalizations than by complications.

Association Between Preoperative Narcotic Use with Perioperative Complication Rates, Patient Reported Pain Scores, and Ambulatory Status After Complex Spinal Fusion (≥5 Levels) for Adult Deformity Correction

OBJECTIVE

The widespread over-use of narcotics has been increasing. However, whether narcotic use impacts surgical outcomes after complex spinal fusion remains understudied. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is an association between preoperative narcotic use with perioperative complication rates, patient-reported pain scores, and ambulatory status after complex spinal fusions.

METHODS

The medical records of 134 adult (age ≥18 years) patients with spinal deformity undergoing elective, primary complex spinal fusion (≥5 levels) for deformity correction in a major academic institution from 2005-2015 were reviewed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, pain scores, and ambulatory status were collected for each patient.

RESULTS

Patient demographics and comorbidities were similar between both cohorts, except that the Narcotic-User cohort had a greater mean age (57.5 years vs. 50.7 years; P = 0.045) and prevalence of depression (39.4% vs. 16.2%; P = 0.003). Complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The Narcotic-User cohort had significantly higher pain scores at baseline (6.7 ± 2.4 vs. 4.0 ± 3.4; P < 0.001) and at the first postoperative pain score reported (6.7 ± 2.8 vs. 5.3 ± 2.9; P = 0.013), but had a significantly greater improvement from baseline to last pain score (Narcotic-User: -2.5 ± 3.9 vs. Non-User: -0.5 ± 4.7; P = 0.031). The Narcotic-User cohort had significantly greater ambulation on the first postoperative ambulatory day compared with the Non-User cohort (103.8 ± 144.4 vs. 56.4 ± 84.0; P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the preoperative use of narcotics may impact patient perception of pain and improvement after complex spinal fusions (≥5 levels). Consideration of patients' narcotic status preoperatively may facilitate tailored pain management and physical therapy regimens.

Patient-reported experience after outpatient breast surgery

BACKGROUND

Given the growing emphasis on patient-centered care, we determined contributory factors to a positive experience among patients undergoing outpatient breast procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients ≥18 years-old who underwent a breast operation 7/2015-12/2016 and completed a survey within two weeks. Univariate analyses evaluated associations of factors with top survey composite measures. Key driver analysis identified top-priority survey factors for improving the overall assessment measure.

RESULTS

Of 270 patients, patients who gave a top surgeon score were older (mean 62.5 vs 58.6 years, p = 0.048), more likely to report a pain score of 0 before discharge (87% vs 68%, p < 0.01), and were 30.8 times more likely to give a top rating overall (p < 0.01) than those who gave a lower surgeon score. Key driver analysis identified personal issues as the main target for improvement.

CONCLUSION

To achieve top outpatient ratings, providers should focus on personal issues, including pain control, especially in younger patients. Surgeons should consider focusing on involving the patient in treatment decisions and emphasizing pain control and overall needs to improve the patient experience.

The Association Between Readmission and Patient Experience in a Total Hip Arthroplasty Population

BACKGROUND

Our goal was to determine whether readmissions within 30 or 90 days following discharge are associated with Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores for total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients.

METHODS

HCAHPS surveys from all patients who underwent THA between January 2016 and September 2016 in our institution were analyzed. Readmissions, demographics, baseline joint pain, joint function, and Veterans RAND-12 scores were collected. Statistical analyses involved Pearson's chi-squared tests for categorical variables and Student's t-tests for continuous variables. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine whether 30-day or 90-day readmissions were independently associated with HCAHPS scores.

RESULTS

A total of 1868 patients were identified, the survey was sent to 969 patients and 578 completed the survey (59.6%). Eight patients (1.4%) were readmitted within 30 days, and 28 patients (4.8%) within 90 days. These patients were more likely to undergo revision THA (P < .001). For the 30-day readmission cohort, 4 of 8 patients (50.0%) rated the hospital a 9 or 10 out of 10 compared to 466 of 567 patients (82.2%) of the non-readmitted cohort (P = .019). Thirty-day readmissions were associated with significantly lower likelihood of rating the hospital a 9 or 10 out of 10 (odds ratio 0.18).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate a significant negative association between readmission and HCAHPS scores under several dimensions of the survey including nurse communication, doctor communication, pain management, and global satisfaction with the hospital experience.

Emergency department visits after lumbar spine surgery are associated with lower Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores

BACKGROUND

Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys are used to assess the quality of the patient experience following an inpatient stay. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores are used to determine reimbursement for hospital systems and incentivize spine surgeons nationwide. There are conflicting data detailing whether early readmission or other postdischarge complications are associated with patient responses on the HCAHPS survey. Currently, the association between postdischarge emergency department (ED) visits and HCAHPS scores following lumbar spine surgery is unknown.

PURPOSE

To determine whether ED visits within 30 days of discharge are associated with HCAHPS scores for patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 453 patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery who completed the HCAHPS survey between 2013 and 2015 at a single tertiary care center.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The HCAHPS survey-the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' official measure of patient experience-results for each patient were analyzed as the primary outcome of this study.

METHODS

All patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 who completed an HCAHPS survey were studied. Patients were excluded from the study if they had been diagnosed with spinal malignancy or scoliosis. Patients who had an ED visit at our institution within 30 days of discharge were included in the ED visit cohort. The primary outcomes of this study include 21 measures of patient experience on the HCAHPS survey. Statistical analysis included Pearson chi-square for categorical variables, Student t test for normally distributed continuous variables, and Mann-Whitney U test for nonparametric variables. Additionally, log-binomial regression models were used to analyze the association between ED visits within 30 days after discharge and odds of top-box HCAHPS scores. No funds were received in support of this study, and the authors report no conflict of interest-associated biases.

RESULTS

After adjusting for patient-level covariates using log-binomial regression models, we found postdischarge ED visits were independently associated with lower likelihood of top-box score for several individual questions on HCAHPS. Emergency department visits within 30 days of discharge were negatively associated with perceiving your doctor as "always" treating you with courtesy and respect (risk ratio [RR] 0.26, p<.001), as well as perceiving your doctor as "always" listeningcarefully to you (RR 0.40, p=.003). Also, patients with an ED visit were less likely to feel as if their preferences were taken into account when leaving the hospital (RR 0.61, p=.008), less likely to recommend the hospital to family or friends (RR 0.46, p=.020), and less likely to rate the hospital as a 9 or a 10 out of 10, the top-box score (RR 0.43, p=.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate a strong association between postdischarge ED visits and low HCAHPS scores for doctor communication, discharge information, and global measures of hospital satisfaction in a lumbar spine surgery population.