BACKGROUND: Patients are hospitalized for disparate conditions and procedures. Patient experiences with care may depend on hospitalization type (HT). OBJECTIVES: Determine whether the contributions of patient experience composite measures to overall hospital ratings on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey vary by HT. RESEARCH DESIGN: In cross-sectional observational data, we defined 24 HTs using major diagnostic category and service line (medical, surgical, or obstetrical). To assess the importance of each composite for each HT, we calculated the simultaneous partial correlations of 7 composite scores with an overall hospital rating, controlling for patient demographics. SUBJECTS: Nineteen thousand seven hundred twenty English- or Spanish-speaking adults with nonpsychiatric primary diagnoses discharged home 12/02-1/03 after an overnight inpatient stay in any of 132 general acute care hospitals in 3 states. MEASURES: Patient-reported doctor communication, nurse communication, staff responsiveness, physical environment, new medicines explained, pain control, and postdischarge information; overall 0 to 10 rating of care. RESULTS: Nurse communication was most important overall, with a 0.34 average partial correlation (range: 0.17-0.49; P < 0.05 and among the 3 most important composites for all HTs). Discharge information was least important (0.05 average partial correlation; P < 0.05 for 10 of 24 HTs). Interactions demonstrated significant (P < 0.05) variation in partial correlations by HT for 5 of 7 composites (all but responsiveness and environment), with nurse communication, doctor communication, and pain control showing the most variation (F > 2, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The importance of patient experience dimensions differs substantially and varies by HT. Quality improvement efforts should target those aspects of patient experience that matter most for each HT.
BACKGROUND:Patients are hospitalized for disparate conditions and procedures. Patient experiences with care may depend on hospitalization type (HT). OBJECTIVES: Determine whether the contributions of patient experience composite measures to overall hospital ratings on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey vary by HT. RESEARCH DESIGN: In cross-sectional observational data, we defined 24 HTs using major diagnostic category and service line (medical, surgical, or obstetrical). To assess the importance of each composite for each HT, we calculated the simultaneous partial correlations of 7 composite scores with an overall hospital rating, controlling for patient demographics. SUBJECTS: Nineteen thousand seven hundred twenty English- or Spanish-speaking adults with nonpsychiatric primary diagnoses discharged home 12/02-1/03 after an overnight inpatient stay in any of 132 general acute care hospitals in 3 states. MEASURES: Patient-reported doctor communication, nurse communication, staff responsiveness, physical environment, new medicines explained, pain control, and postdischarge information; overall 0 to 10 rating of care. RESULTS: Nurse communication was most important overall, with a 0.34 average partial correlation (range: 0.17-0.49; P < 0.05 and among the 3 most important composites for all HTs). Discharge information was least important (0.05 average partial correlation; P < 0.05 for 10 of 24 HTs). Interactions demonstrated significant (P < 0.05) variation in partial correlations by HT for 5 of 7 composites (all but responsiveness and environment), with nurse communication, doctor communication, and pain control showing the most variation (F > 2, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The importance of patient experience dimensions differs substantially and varies by HT. Quality improvement efforts should target those aspects of patient experience that matter most for each HT.
Authors: Victoria Wilkins; Marc N Elliott; Andrea Richardson; Paula Lozano; Rita Mangione-Smith Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Rachel Grob; Mark Schlesinger; Lacey Rose Barre; Naomi Bardach; Tara Lagu; Dale Shaller; Andrew M Parker; Steven C Martino; Melissa L Finucane; Jennifer L Cerully; Alina Palimaru Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Marc N Elliott; William G Lehrman; Megan K Beckett; Elizabeth Goldstein; Katrin Hambarsoomian; Laura A Giordano Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Jeremy Y Feng; Sara L Toomey; Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Sarah E Onorato; Mark A Schuster Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Grant R Martsolf; Teresa B Gibson; Richele Benevent; H Joanna Jiang; Carol Stocks; Emily D Ehrlich; Ryan Kandrack; David I Auerbach Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-02-21 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Robert Weech-Maldonado; Marc Elliott; Rohit Pradhan; Cameron Schiller; Allyson Hall; Ron D Hays Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Charlotte A M Paddison; Gary A Abel; Martin O Roland; Marc N Elliott; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; John L Campbell Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Denise D Quigley; Marc N Elliott; Donna O Farley; Q Burkhart; Samuel A Skootsky; Ron D Hays Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 5.128