BACKGROUND: Many different surveys have been used to evaluate the performance of medical groups, but there is a growing recognition that standardization could be helpful to consumers, purchasers, and others. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a version of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) survey for use with medical groups (G-CAHPS) and assess its reliability and validity. RESEARCH DESIGN: The research team reviewed existing instruments and conducted patient focus groups in 4 sites to identify aspects of care that were especially important to patients when evaluating medical groups. We tested a draft instrument in 75 cognitive interviews with adults 18 years of age or older in Knoxville, St. Louis, and California and pretests in 4 groups of adults in Boston and Denver. We then surveyed random samples of patients from medical groups and practice sites in California, Knoxville, St. Louis, and Denver. We analyzed the psychometric characteristics of the instrument. RESULTS: Data support the reliability and validity of 3 multi-item measures of access, office staff service, and patient clinician communication. Measures related to specialty care and preventive counseling did not differentiate among medical groups. CONCLUSIONS: The G-CAHPS instrument provides an assessment of selected aspects of care that are important to consumers and could be a useful complement to the plan-level CAHPS instrument.
BACKGROUND: Many different surveys have been used to evaluate the performance of medical groups, but there is a growing recognition that standardization could be helpful to consumers, purchasers, and others. OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop a version of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) survey for use with medical groups (G-CAHPS) and assess its reliability and validity. RESEARCH DESIGN: The research team reviewed existing instruments and conducted patient focus groups in 4 sites to identify aspects of care that were especially important to patients when evaluating medical groups. We tested a draft instrument in 75 cognitive interviews with adults 18 years of age or older in Knoxville, St. Louis, and California and pretests in 4 groups of adults in Boston and Denver. We then surveyed random samples of patients from medical groups and practice sites in California, Knoxville, St. Louis, and Denver. We analyzed the psychometric characteristics of the instrument. RESULTS: Data support the reliability and validity of 3 multi-item measures of access, office staff service, and patient clinician communication. Measures related to specialty care and preventive counseling did not differentiate among medical groups. CONCLUSIONS: The G-CAHPS instrument provides an assessment of selected aspects of care that are important to consumers and could be a useful complement to the plan-level CAHPS instrument.
Authors: Onyebuchi A Arah; A H A ten Asbroek; Diana M J Delnoij; Johan S de Koning; Piet J A Stam; Aldien H Poll; Barbara Vriens; Paul F Schmidt; Niek S Klazinga Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Mark Meterko; Gary J Young; Bert White; Barbara G Bokhour; James F Burgess; Dan Berlowitz; Matthew R Guldin; Marjorie Nealon Seibert Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays; William G Lehrman; Lise Rybowski; Susan Edgman-Levitan; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Katherine A Auger; Tamara D Simon; David Cooperberg; James Gay; Dennis Z Kuo; Michele Saysana; Christopher J Stille; Erin Stucky Fisher; Sowdhamini Wallace; Jay Berry; Daniel Coghlin; Vishu Jhaveri; Steven Kairys; Tina Logsdon; Ulfat Shaikh; Rajendu Srivastava; Amy J Starmer; Victoria Wilkins; Mark W Shen Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: D Keith McInnes; Julie A Brown; Ron D Hays; Patricia Gallagher; James D Ralston; Mildred Hugh; Michael Kanter; Carl A Serrato; Carol Cosenza; John Halamka; Lin Ding; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.983