BACKGROUND: Payers are increasingly holding hospitals accountable for patients' experiences with their care. This may conflict with another trend among US hospitals-greater hospitalist care-as hospitalists may have less familiarity with the history and preferences of their patients compared with primary-care physicians. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to better understand the relationship between hospitalist care and patients' experiences with their care. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The setting was 2843 US acute-care hospitals (bottom tertile or "non-hospitalist" hospitals: median of 0% of general-medicine patients cared for by hospitalists; middle tertile or "mixed" hospitals: median of 39.5%; top tertile or "hospitalist" hospitals: median of 76.5%). PATIENTS: The patients were 132,814 hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries cared for by a general medicine physician in 2009. MEASUREMENTS: The measurements were hospitalist use, based on Medicare claims data, and patient satisfaction, as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. RESULTS: "Hospitalist" hospitals had better performance on global measures of patient satisfaction than "mixed" or "non-hospitalist" hospitals (overall satisfaction: 65.6% vs 63.9% vs 63.9%, respectively, P value for difference < 0.001). Hospitalist hospitals performed better in 6 specific domains of care, with the largest difference in satisfaction with discharge compared with mixed or non-hospitalist hospitals (80.3% vs 79.1% vs 78.1%, P < 0.001). Hospitalist care was not associated with patient satisfaction in 2 domains of care: cleanliness of room and communication with physician. CONCLUSION: For most measures of patient satisfaction, greater hospitalist care was associated with modestly better patient-centered care.
BACKGROUND: Payers are increasingly holding hospitals accountable for patients' experiences with their care. This may conflict with another trend among US hospitals-greater hospitalist care-as hospitalists may have less familiarity with the history and preferences of their patients compared with primary-care physicians. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to better understand the relationship between hospitalist care and patients' experiences with their care. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The setting was 2843 US acute-care hospitals (bottom tertile or "non-hospitalist" hospitals: median of 0% of general-medicine patients cared for by hospitalists; middle tertile or "mixed" hospitals: median of 39.5%; top tertile or "hospitalist" hospitals: median of 76.5%). PATIENTS: The patients were 132,814 hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries cared for by a general medicine physician in 2009. MEASUREMENTS: The measurements were hospitalist use, based on Medicare claims data, and patient satisfaction, as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. RESULTS: "Hospitalist" hospitals had better performance on global measures of patient satisfaction than "mixed" or "non-hospitalist" hospitals (overall satisfaction: 65.6% vs 63.9% vs 63.9%, respectively, P value for difference < 0.001). Hospitalist hospitals performed better in 6 specific domains of care, with the largest difference in satisfaction with discharge compared with mixed or non-hospitalist hospitals (80.3% vs 79.1% vs 78.1%, P < 0.001). Hospitalist care was not associated with patient satisfaction in 2 domains of care: cleanliness of room and communication with physician. CONCLUSION: For most measures of patient satisfaction, greater hospitalist care was associated with modestly better patient-centered care.
Authors: Marc N Elliott; William G Lehrman; Elizabeth H Goldstein; Laura A Giordano; Megan K Beckett; Christopher W Cohea; Paul D Cleary Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: William G Lehrman; Marc N Elliott; Elizabeth Goldstein; Megan K Beckett; David J Klein; Laura A Giordano Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Laura A Giordano; Marc N Elliott; Elizabeth Goldstein; William G Lehrman; Patrice A Spencer Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Adrianne Seiler; Paul Visintainer; Richard Brzostek; Michael Ehresman; Evan Benjamin; Winthrop Whitcomb; Michael B Rothberg Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2011-10-31 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Eduard E Vasilevskis; David Meltzer; Jeffrey Schnipper; Peter Kaboli; Tosha Wetterneck; David Gonzales; Vineet Arora; James Zhang; Andrew D Auerbach Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Elizabeth Goldstein; William Lehrman; Katrin Hambarsoomians; Megan K Beckett; Laura Giordano Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Vincenza Snow; Dennis Beck; Tina Budnitz; Doriane C Miller; Jane Potter; Robert L Wears; Kevin B Weiss; Mark V Williams Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Chaim M Bell; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Andrew D Auerbach; Peter J Kaboli; Tosha B Wetterneck; David V Gonzales; Vineet M Arora; James X Zhang; David O Meltzer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-12-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Susan L Calcaterra; Anne D Drabkin; Sarah E Leslie; Reina Doyle; Stephen Koester; Joseph W Frank; Jennifer A Reich; Ingrid A Binswanger Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Charlie M Wray; Andrea Flores; William V Padula; Micah T Prochaska; David O Meltzer; Vineet M Arora Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Saul Blecker; Daniel Shine; Naeun Park; Keith Goldfeld; R Scott Braithwaite; Martha J Radford; Marc N Gourevitch Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Erin Yildirim Rieger; Josef N S Kushner; Veena Sriram; Abbie Klein; Lauren O Wiklund; David O Meltzer; Joyce W Tang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692