Naomi S Bardach1,2, Audrey Lyndon3, Renée Asteria-Peñaloza2, L Elizabeth Goldman4, Grace A Lin2,4, R Adams Dudley2,4. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. 3. Family Health Care Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains. DESIGN: We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate). SETTING: We identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital. EXCLUSIONS: Outpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words. RESULTS: 50.0% (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1% (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0% (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2% (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVE:Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains. DESIGN: We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate). SETTING: We identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital. PARTICIPANTS: We included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital. EXCLUSIONS: Outpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words. RESULTS: 50.0% (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1% (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0% (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2% (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: M G Marmot; G D Smith; S Stansfeld; C Patel; F North; J Head; I White; E Brunner; A Feeney Journal: Lancet Date: 1991-06-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Felix Greaves; Antony A Laverty; Daniel Ramirez Cano; Karo Moilanen; Stephen Pulman; Ara Darzi; Christopher Millett Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-04-19 Impact factor: 7.035
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: Mark Schlesinger; Rachel Grob; Dale Shaller; Steven C Martino; Andrew M Parker; Lise Rybowski; Melissa L Finucane; Jennifer L Cerully Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Daniel C Stokes; Rachel Kishton; Haley J McCalpin; Arthur P Pelullo; Zachary F Meisel; Rinad S Beidas; Raina M Merchant Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Y Alicia Hong; Chen Liang; Tiffany A Radcliff; Lisa T Wigfall; Richard L Street Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jing Liu; Shengchao Hou; Richard Evans; Chenxi Xia; Weidong Xia; Jingdong Ma Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Steven C Martino; Dale Shaller; Mark Schlesinger; Andrew M Parker; Lise Rybowski; Rachel Grob; Jennifer L Cerully; Melissa L Finucane Journal: J Patient Exp Date: 2017-01-01