Literature DB >> 30208398

Patient-Reported Experiences of Dialysis Care Within a National Pay-for-Performance System.

Brian M Brady1,2, Bo Zhao3, Jingbo Niu3, Wolfgang C Winkelmayer3, Arnold Milstein2, Glenn M Chertow1, Kevin F Erickson3,4.   

Abstract

Importance: Medicare's End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program incorporates measures of perceived value into reimbursement calculations. In 2016, patient experience became a clinical measure in the Quality Incentive Program scoring system. Dialysis facility performance in patient experience measures has not been studied at the national level to date. Objective: To examine associations among dialysis facility performance with patient experience measures and patient, facility, and geographic characteristics. Design: In this cross-sectional analysis, patients from a national end-stage renal disease registry receiving in-center hemodialysis in the United States on December 31, 2014, were linked with dialysis facility scores on the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS) survey. Of 4977 US dialysis facilities, 2939 (59.1%) reported ICH-CAHPS scores from April 8, 2015, through January 11, 2016. Multivariable linear regression models with geographic random effects were used to examine associations of facility ICH-CAHPS scores with patient, dialysis facility, and geographic characteristics and to identify the amount of total between-facility variation in patient experience scores explained by these categories. Data were analyzed from September 15, 2017, through June 1, 2018. Exposures: Dialysis facility, geographic characteristic, and 10% change in patient characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dialysis facility ICH-CAHPS scores and the total between-facility variation explained by different categories of characteristics.
Results: Of the 2939 facilities included in the analysis, adjusted mean ICH-CAHPS scores were 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) lower in for-profit facilities, 1.6 percentage points (95% CI, 0.9-2.2) lower in facilities owned by large dialysis organizations, and 2.3 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-4.2) lower in free-standing facilities compared with their counterparts. More nurses per patient was associated with 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.03-0.3) higher scores; a privately insured patient population was associated with 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2-2.2) higher scores. Facilities with higher proportions of black patients had 0.95 percentage points (95% CI, 0.78-1.12) lower scores; more Native American patients, 1.00 percentage point (95% CI, 0.39-1.60) lower facility scores. Geographic location and dialysis facility characteristics explained larger proportions of the overall between-facility variation in ICH-CAHPS scores than did patient characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that for-profit operation, free-standing status, and large dialysis organization designation were associated with less favorable patient-reported experiences of care. Patient experience scores varied geographically, and black and Native American populations reported less favorable experiences. The study findings suggest that perceived quality of care delivered in these settings are of concern, and that there may be opportunities for improved implementation of patient experience surveys as is highlighted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30208398      PMCID: PMC6233760          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3756

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  44 in total

1.  Clarifying sources of geographic differences in Medicare spending.

Authors:  Stephen Zuckerman; Timothy Waidmann; Robert Berenson; Jack Hadley
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The Value-Based Payment Modifier: Program Outcomes and Implications for Disparities.

Authors:  Eric T Roberts; Alan M Zaslavsky; J Michael McWilliams
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  R L Kane; M Maciejewski; M Finch
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 4.  The ESRD Quality Incentive Program-Can We Bridge the Chasm?

Authors:  Daniel Weiner; Suzanne Watnick
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 10.121

5.  Consolidation in the Dialysis Industry, Patient Choice, and Local Market Competition.

Authors:  Kevin F Erickson; Yuanchao Zheng; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Vivian Ho; Jay Bhattacharya; Glenn M Chertow
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 8.237

6.  SOURCES OF GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN HEALTH CARE: EVIDENCE FROM PATIENT MIGRATION.

Authors:  Amy Finkelstein; Matthew Gentzkow; Heidi Williams
Journal:  Q J Econ       Date:  2016-07-19

7.  How end-stage renal disease (ESRD)-medicare developed.

Authors:  G E Schreiner
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 8.860

Review 8.  Measuring patient experience in dialysis: a new paradigm of quality assessment.

Authors:  Connie M Rhee; Steven M Brunelli; Lalita Subramanian; Francesca Tentori
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.902

9.  Access to kidney transplantation among remote- and rural-dwelling patients with kidney failure in the United States.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Scott Klarenbach; Caren Rose; Natasha Wiebe; John Gill
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Patients' Experience With Skilled Home Health Care Services.

Authors:  Laura M Smith; Wayne L Anderson; Anne Kenyon; Elizabeth Kinyara; Sarah K With; Lori Teichman; Debra Dean-Whittaker; Elizabeth Goldstein
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 3.929

View more
  9 in total

1.  Health Policy for Dialysis Care in Canada and the United States.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Raymond Vanholder; Jonathan Himmelfarb
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 8.237

2.  Integrated Care for People with Kidney Disease: The Perspective of a Nonprofit Dialysis Provider.

Authors:  Douglas S Johnson; Klemens B Meyer
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 8.237

3.  The "Advancing American Kidney Health" Executive Order: Challenges and Opportunities for the Large Dialysis Organizations.

Authors:  Eugene Lin; Paul B Ginsburg; Glenn M Chertow; Jeffrey S Berns
Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 8.860

4.  Patient-Reported Experiences with Dialysis Care and Provider Visit Frequency.

Authors:  Brian M Brady; Bo Zhao; Bich N Dang; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Glenn M Chertow; Kevin F Erickson
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 10.614

5.  Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into dialysis policy: Current initiatives, challenges, and opportunities.

Authors:  Ebele M Umeukeje; Devika Nair; Rachel B Fissell; Kerri L Cavanaugh
Journal:  Semin Dial       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.455

6.  Conflicts of interest in dialysis: A barrier to policy reforms.

Authors:  Aaron Glickman; Eugene Lin; Jeffrey S Berns
Journal:  Semin Dial       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 3.455

7.  Comparing For-Profit and Nonprofit Mental Health Services in County Jails.

Authors:  Erin Comartin; Victoria Nelson; Nanci Hambrick; Sheryl Kubiak; Emily Sightes; Bradley Ray
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.505

8.  Contributions of treatment centre and patient characteristics to patient-reported experience of haemodialysis: a national cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Janine Hawkins; Nigel Smeeton; Amanda Busby; David Wellsted; Beth Rider; Julia Jones; Retha Steenkamp; Catherine Stannard; Rachel Gair; Sabine N van der Veer; Claire Corps; Ken Farrington
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Hemodialysis patient characteristics associated with better experience as measured by the In-center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey.

Authors:  Taimur Dad; Hocine Tighiouart; Eduardo Lacson; Klemens B Meyer; Daniel E Weiner; Michelle M Richardson
Journal:  BMC Nephrol       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 2.388

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.