Improving patient experience in health care and oncology: A scoping review.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 209-209
Author(s):  
Petra Grendarova ◽  
Demetra Hariklea Yannitsos ◽  
Marcus Vaska ◽  
Lisa Catherine Barbera
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
English Language ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Systematic Change ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Care Surgery ◽  
Improve Patient

209 Background: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) gather information directly from patients and capture their perspectives on their health care. Deficiencies identified by PREMs can lead to quality improvement (QI) interventions. The purpose of this review was to identify published and unpublished evidence on initiatives aimed to improve patient experience, to identify their areas of application and their overall impact on patient experience. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review using MEDLINE (Ovid), EBM Reviews, HealthStar, PsycINFO, PubMed, PubMed Central, CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ebsco), Psychology & Behavioral Sciences, TRIP Database, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and several sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria required the studies to evaluate an intervention or a systematic change aimed to improve patient experience and measured by a specific PREM. The search was limited to English language reports published between 1998 and 2018. Of the initial 780 articles, 318 were included in abstract reviews. 304 abstracts were excluded leaving 44 records for full text review. Results: 21 records were included in the final analysis (20 journal articles and 1 web report). Publication dates ranged between 2007 and 2018 in the USA, UK, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Bangladesh. There were 8 QI initiatives, 6 randomized studies, 1 non-randomized trial, 3 mixed methods, 2 repeated cross-sectional studies and 1 national patient experience model. Areas of focus included hospital care, surgery, internal medicine, primary care and oncology. Nine studies had programmatic interventions and 12 had specific interventions. All specific interventions reported positive effects. Outcomes were variable in programmatic interventions, including 5 studies reporting positive effects, 3 neutral and 1 mixed effects. Conclusions: The effect of specific interventions aimed to improve patient experience is positive. There is limited data on the effect of programmatic initiatives and the factors that drive the improvement in patient experience. Such initiatives are needed to understand their impact on patient experience and person-centered care.

scholarly journals Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e042551
Author(s):  
Andrea L Hernan ◽  
Sally J Giles ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
Mark Morgan ◽  
Penny Lewis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
System Level ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Contributory Factors ◽  
Safety Incident ◽  
Patient Reported

BackgroundPatient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of two cross sectional studies.ParticipantsAdult patients from Australian and English primary care settings.MeasuresPatients’ self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented.ResultsA total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent.ConclusionsThe nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.

scholarly journals Measuring the Patient Experience of Mental Health Care: A Systematic and Critical Review of Patient-Reported Experience Measures

2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 2147-2161
Author(s):  
Sara Fernandes ◽  
Guillaume Fond ◽  
Xavier Y Zendjidjian ◽  
Karine Baumstarck ◽  
Christophe Lançon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals What Are the Risk Factors of Negative Patient Experience? A Cross-Sectional Study in Chinese Public Hospitals

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. 004695801984786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinzhu Xie ◽  
Yinhuan Hu ◽  
Chuntao Lu ◽  
Qiang Fu ◽  
Jason T. Carbone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Public Hospitals ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Negative Patient ◽  
Self Rated Health

Hospitals are struggling to involve patients and learn from their experience. The risk factor of patient experience is increasingly recognized as a critical component in improving patient experience. Our study explored risk factors of negative patient experience in order to improve the health-service quality of public hospitals. We conducted a cross-sectional study in Hubei province, China. A total of 583 respondents were surveyed by the Outpatient Experience Questionnaire with good validity and reliability in July 2015. T-tests were conducted to compare the experience scores among different outpatient groups. Multiple linear regression was performed to determine the significant factors that influenced the outpatient experience. Outpatients between 18 and 44 years old had the lowest experience scores (65.89 ± 0.79), whereas outpatients completely paying out-of-pocket had the lowest experience scores (64.68 ± 0.81) among all participants. Outpatients with poor self-rated health status had the lowest experience scores (66.14 ± 1.61) among different self-rated health status groups. While age, type of payment, and self-rated health status were significantly risk factors that influenced outpatient experience in the multiple linear regression. Thus, health-care providers should pay more attention to outpatients who are young (age <45), completely out-of-pocket and poor health status, and provide precision health care to improve outpatient experience.

Self-reported patient experience and quality of care among elderly patients with colon cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 33-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca A Snyder ◽  
Rebecca Wardrop ◽  
Alexander Mclain ◽  
Alexander A. Parikh ◽  
Anna Cass
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Experience Of Care ◽  
Patient Reported

33 Background: Although studies have identified demographic and clinical factors associated with quality colorectal cancer care, the association between patient-reported experience of care and quality of care is unknown. Our primary aim was to assess the relationship between patient-reported experience of care and receipt of guideline-concordant colon cancer (CC) treatment. Methods: Fee-For-Service Medicare beneficiaries with resected stage I-III CC (2003-2013) were identified in the linked SEER registry and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient experience survey (SEER-CAHPS) dataset. Patient-reported ratings were compared based on receipt of care consistent with recommended treatment guidelines [resection of ≥ 12 lymph nodes (LN) (stage I-III) and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (stage III)]. Linear regression was performed to compare mean patient experience scores by receipt of guideline concordant care, adjusting for patient and hospital factors. Results: 1010 patients with stage I-III CC were identified (mean age 76.7, SE 6.9). Of these, 58.4% of stage I (n = 192/329) and 73.4% of stage II (n = 298/406) patients underwent resection of ≥ 12 LN. Among stage III patients, 76.0% (n = 209/275) underwent resection of ≥ 12 LN and 52.4% (n = 144/275) received adjuvant chemotherapy. By multivariable analysis, patient-reported ratings of health care quality, personal and specialty physicians, customer service, physician communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly were similar among patients who received guideline-concordant treatment compared to those who did not. However, mean ratings of overall health care quality [91.3 (SE 2.0) vs. 82.4 (SE 1.7), p = 0.0004] and getting needed care [92.8 (SE 2.4) vs. 86.8 (SE 2.0), p = 0.047] were higher among stage III patients who received guideline concordant care compared to those who did not. Conclusions: Patient-reported ratings of health care quality and ability to get needed care are associated with guideline concordant cancer care among elderly patients with stage III CC. Further investigation is needed to determine if patient-reported experience correlates with other clinical measures of quality of colorectal cancer care.

scholarly journals Understanding the use of patient-reported data by health care insurers: A scoping review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0244546
Author(s):  
Anne Neubert ◽  
Óscar Brito Fernandes ◽  
Armin Lucevic ◽  
Milena Pavlova ◽  
László Gulácsi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health System ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Process Indicators ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
And Function ◽  
Health Insurers

Background Patient-reported data are widely used for many purposes by different actors within a health system. However, little is known about the use of such data by health insurers. Our study aims to map the evidence on the use of patient-reported data by health insurers; to explore how collected patient-reported data are utilized; and to elucidate the motives of why patient-reported data are collected by health insurers. Methods The study design is that of a scoping review. In total, 11 databases were searched on. Relevant grey literature was identified through online searches, reference mining and recommendations from experts. Forty-two documents were included. We synthesized the evidence on the uses of patient-reported data by insurers following a structure-process-outcome approach; we also mapped the use and function of those data by a health insurer. Results Health insurers use patient-reported data for assurance and improvement of quality of care and value-based health care. The patient-reported data most often collected are those of outcomes, experiences and satisfaction measures; structure indicators are used to a lesser extent and often combined with process indicators. These data are mainly used for the purposes of procurement and purchasing of services, quality assurance, improvement and reporting, and strengthening the involvement of insured people. Conclusions The breadth to which insurers use patient-reported data in their business models varies greatly. Some hindering factors to the uptake of such data are the varying and overlapping terminology in use in the field and the limited involvement of insured people in a health insurer’s business. Health insurers are advised to be more explicit in regard to the role they want to play within the health system and society at large, and accommodate implications for the use of patient-reported data accordingly.

scholarly journals The value of Facebook in nation-wide hospital quality assessment: a national mixed-methods study in Norway

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-224
Author(s):  
Oyvind Bjertnaes ◽  
Hilde Hestad Iversen ◽  
Katrine Damgaard Skyrud ◽  
Kirsten Danielsen
Keyword(s):  
Patient Experience ◽  
Quality Measurement ◽  
Hospital Quality ◽  
Separate Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Hospital Size ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Official Site ◽  
Facebook Pages

ObjectivesThe objective was to assess the possibility of using a combination of official and unofficial Facebook ratings and comments as a basis for nation-wide hospital quality assessments in Norway.MethodsAll hospitals from a national cross-sectional patient experience survey in 2015 were matched with corresponding Facebook ratings. Facebook ratings were correlated with both case-mix adjusted and unadjusted patient-reported experience scores, with separate analysis for hospitals with official site ratings and hospitals with unofficial site ratings. Facebook ratings were also correlated with patient-reported incident scores, hospital size, 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission. Facebook comments from 20 randomly selected hospitals were analysed, contrasting the content and sentiments of official versus unofficial Facebook pages.ResultsFacebook ratings were significantly correlated with most patient-reported indicators, with the highest correlations relating to unadjusted scores for organisation (0.60, p<0.000) and nursing services (0.57, p<0.000). Facebook ratings were significantly correlated with hospital size (−0.40, p=0.003) and 30-day mortality (0.31, p=0.040). Sentiment analysis showed that 84.7% of the comments from unofficial Facebook sites included neutral comments that did not give any specific description of experiences of the quality of care at the hospital. Content analysis identified common themes on official and unofficial Facebook pages.ConclusionsFacebook ratings were associated with patient-reported indicators, hospital size, and 30-day mortality. Qualitative comments from official Facebook are more relevant for hospital evaluation than unofficial sites. More research is needed on using Facebook ratings as a standalone indicator of patient experiences in national quality measurement, and such ratings should be reported together with research-based patient experience indicators and with explicit criteria for the inclusion of unofficial sites.

scholarly journals Inpatients’ assessment of outcome at psychiatric institutions: an analysis of predictors following a national cross-sectional survey in Norway

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e023587
Author(s):  
Oyvind Bjertnaes ◽  
Hilde Hestad Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Psychiatric Inpatient ◽  
Process Variables ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Background Factors ◽  
Current State ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Scale Estimate

ObjectivesThe objective was to assess the importance of different types of predictors for patient-reported outcome, both background factors at the patient level and healthcare predictors related to structure and processes of healthcare.DesignCross-sectional patient experience survey.SettingAll 280 secondary care institutions in Norway providing inpatient care for adult psychiatric patients.Participants1683 inpatients responded to the questionnaire on-site (73.4%).Primary outcome measuresThe outcome scale of the Psychiatric Inpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire–On-Site was the primary dependent variable. The scale consists of five items relating to overall patient satisfaction, benefit of treatment and patient enablement. Regressions were used to assess predictors, for all patients and for five different patient groups reported by the patients including anxiety/depression, drug-related problems and eating disorders.ResultsMultilevel linear regression for all patients showed that background factors related to overall current state, self-perceived mental health before admission and admission type were the most important predictors for patient-assessed outcome. Poor current state was associated with poor assessment of outcome (estimate: 8.64, p<0.001), poor health before admission was associated with better outcome (estimate: −6.89, p<0.001) and patients with urgent admission had poorer scores on the outcome scale (estimate: 4.40, p<0.001). A range of structure and healthcare variables were related to patient-assessed outcome, the most important being clinicians/personnel understanding your situation, treatment adjusted to your situation and adequate information about mental health condition.ConclusionsSelf-perceived mental health before admission, current overall state and type of admission were the most important background factors for patient-assessed outcome. The most important structure and process variables were related to patient-centred interaction. The background factors should be considered in case-mix adjustments of quality indicators, while the process variables could be used as focus areas in work aiming to improve patients’ assessment of outcome.

scholarly journals Review of patient-reported experience within Patient-Centered Medical Homes: insights for Australian Health Care Homes

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary O'Loughlin ◽  
Jane Mills ◽  
Robyn McDermott ◽  
Linton Harriss
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Health Service Delivery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Qualitative Approaches ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Health Care Home

Understanding patient experience is necessary to advance the patient-centred approach to health service delivery. Australia’s primary healthcare model, the ‘Health Care Home’, is based on the ‘Patient-Centered Medical Home’ (PCMH) model developed in the United States. Both these models aim to improve patient experience; however, the majority of existing PCMH model evaluations have focussed on funding, management and quality assurance measures. This review investigated the scope of evidence reported by adult patients using a PCMH. Using a systematic framework, the review identified 39 studies, sourced from 33 individual datasets, which used both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Patient experience was reported for model attributes, including the patient–physician and patient–practice relationships; care-coordination; access to care; and, patient engagement, goal setting and shared decision-making. Results were mixed, with the patient experience improving under the PCMH model for some attributes, and some studies indicating no difference in patient experience following PCMH implementation. The scope and quality of existing evidence does not demonstrate improvement in adult patient experience when using the PCMH. Better measures to evaluate patient experience in the Australian Health Care Home model are required.

scholarly journals HEARING LOSS AND HEALTH CARE SATISFACTION

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S43-S43
Author(s):  
Nicholas Reed ◽  
Nicholas Reed ◽  
Amber Willink ◽  
Jennifer Deal ◽  
Frank R lin
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Patient Provider Communication ◽  
Adjusted Logistic Regression

Abstract Hearing loss (HL) impacts two-thirds of adults over 70 years and affects patient-provider communication which could limit satisfaction. We used two cross-sectional cohorts, The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC, n=250) and the Medicare Current Beneficiaries Survey (MCBS, n=12,311) to examine the relationship between HL (subjective and objective measures) and self-report satisfaction with quality of health care using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression. In ARIC, there was an interaction between HL and age such that HL had a greater impact on odds of dissatisfaction as age increased. In an 85-year-old, for every 10 dB increase in HL, the odds of being dissatisfied increased 1.33 (95% Confidence Interval [CI]:0.96-1.83). In MCBS, compared to participants with no trouble hearing, those with a lot of trouble hearing had 1.7 times the odds ( 95% CI = 1.150-2.623) of being dissatisfied. This has implications for patient-centered care planning given that Medicare ties reimbursement to patient-reported satisfaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document