Matthew Cefalu1, Marc N Elliott1, Ron D Hays2. 1. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine & Health Services Research, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient surveys are the primary tool to measure patient experiences of care. Caution must be taken when analyzing these data, as responses can be influenced by factors that do not reflect the quality of care received. OBJECTIVES: To provide a practical overview of adjusting patient experience survey results to address bias related to patient case-mix, extreme response tendency, and mode of survey administration. RESEARCH DESIGN: We discuss options for adjustment for biases in how people respond to patient experience surveys. RESULTS: Case-mix adjustment (CMA) aims to compare provider performance that would have been observed if all providers had treated the same set of patients by removing the effects of patient characteristics that vary across providers. Extreme response tendency can bias the measurement of the disparities in patient experiences even after typical CMAs, since differences in patients' use of extreme response options may affect patient experience scores when they have a skewed distribution. Survey mode may affect scores for the provider entity being evaluated (eg, hospital) more than CMA if survey mode differs at the provider level. CONCLUSIONS: It is best practice to evaluate known source of bias when analyzing patient experience surveys. Failure to adjust for patient case-mix, extreme response tendency, and survey mode in patient experience surveys may lead to erroneous comparisons of providers.
BACKGROUND: Patient surveys are the primary tool to measure patient experiences of care. Caution must be taken when analyzing these data, as responses can be influenced by factors that do not reflect the quality of care received. OBJECTIVES: To provide a practical overview of adjusting patient experience survey results to address bias related to patient case-mix, extreme response tendency, and mode of survey administration. RESEARCH DESIGN: We discuss options for adjustment for biases in how people respond to patient experience surveys. RESULTS: Case-mix adjustment (CMA) aims to compare provider performance that would have been observed if all providers had treated the same set of patients by removing the effects of patient characteristics that vary across providers. Extreme response tendency can bias the measurement of the disparities in patient experiences even after typical CMAs, since differences in patients' use of extreme response options may affect patient experience scores when they have a skewed distribution. Survey mode may affect scores for the provider entity being evaluated (eg, hospital) more than CMA if survey mode differs at the provider level. CONCLUSIONS: It is best practice to evaluate known source of bias when analyzing patient experience surveys. Failure to adjust for patient case-mix, extreme response tendency, and survey mode in patient experience surveys may lead to erroneous comparisons of providers.
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: A James O'Malley; Alan M Zaslavsky; Marc N Elliott; Lawrence Zaborski; Paul D Cleary Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Frances M Yang; Kevin C Heslin; Kala M Mehta; Cheng-Wu Yang; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Marjorie Kleinman; Leo S Morales; Ron D Hays; Anita L Stewart; Dan Mungas; Richard N Jones; Jeanne A Teresi Journal: Psychol Test Assess Model Date: 2011
Authors: Robert Weech-Maldonado; Marc N Elliott; Leo S Morales; Karen Spritzer; Grant N Marshall; Ron D Hays Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Elizabeth Davies; Dale Shaller; Susan Edgman-Levitan; Dana G Safran; Gary Oftedahl; John Sakowski; Paul D Cleary Journal: Health Expect Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.377
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: Maria DeYoreo; Rebecca Anhang Price; Cheryl K Montemayor; Anagha Tolpadi; Melissa Bradley; Danielle Schlang; Joan M Teno; Paul D Cleary; Marc N Elliott Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 2.947