Care experiences of managed care Medicare enrollees near the end of life

Which medicare advantage enrollees are at highest one-year mortality risk?

BACKGROUND

While a number of tools exist to predict mortality among older adults, less research has described the characteristics of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees at higher risk for 1 year mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the characteristics of MA enrollees at higher mortality risk using patient survey data.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SUBJECTS

MA enrollees completing the 2019 MA Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey.

MEASURES

Linked demographic, health, and mortality data from a sample of MA enrollees were used to predict 1-year mortality risk and describe enrollee characteristics across levels of predicted mortality risk.

RESULTS

The mortality model had a 0.80 c-statistic. Mortality risks were skewed: 6 % of enrollees had a ≥ 10 % 1-year mortality risk, while 45 % of enrollees had 1 % to < 5 % 1-year mortality risk. Among the high-risk (≥10 %) group, 47 % were age 85+ versus 12 % among those with mortality risk <5 %. 79 % were in fair or poor self-rated health versus 29 % among those with mortality risk of <5 %. 71 % reported needing urgent care in the prior 6 months versus 40 % among those with a mortality risk of 1 to<5 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively few older adults enrolled in MA are at high 1-year mortality risk. Nonetheless, MA enrollees over age 85, in fair or poor health, or with recent urgent care needs are far more likely to be in a high mortality risk group.

Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess quality-of-care from patients' perspectives. PREMs can be used to enhance patient-centered care and facilitate patient engagement in care. With increasing quality improvement studies in clinical practice, the use of PREMs has surged. As a result, knowledge about stakeholder experiences of using PREMs to assess quality of care across diverse clinical settings is needed to inform PREM implementation efforts. To address this, this review examines the qualitative literature on patient and healthcare provider experiences of using PREMs in clinical practice.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to May 2021. Additional searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles were performed. Retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and 25% cross-checked by a second reviewer across all stages of the review. Full texts meeting eligibility criteria were appraised against the COREQ checklist for quality assessment and thematic analysis was used to analyze textual data extracted from the results.

RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 2683 records, of which 20 studies met eligibility criteria. Extracted data were synthesized into six themes: facilitators to PREM implementation; barriers to PREM implementation; healthcare providers' perspectives towards using PREMs; patients' perspectives towards using PREMs; advantages of using PREMs in clinical practice; limitations and practical considerations to reduce resistance of PREM usage. The primary factors facilitating and impeding the use of PREMs include organizational-, staff- and patient-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Results can be used to guide the usage and implementation of PREMs in clinical settings by addressing the identified barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PREMs. Results around facilitators to PREM implementation and practical considerations could also promote appropriate use of PREMs by healthcare providers, helping to improve practice and the quality of care based on patient feedback.

Charting a path to high-quality end-of-life care for children with cancer

There are currently no quality measures for end-of-life (EOL) care for children with cancer. In this commentary, we address why it is essential that we develop quality measures for EOL care for children with cancer, review the progress made to date, and chart the course for future work in this area.

Refining Patient-Centered Measures of End-of-Life Care Quality for Children With Cancer

PURPOSE

There are no existing quality measures (QMs) to optimize end-of-life care for children with cancer. Previously, we developed a set of 26 candidate QMs. Our primary objective in this study was to achieve stakeholder consensus on priority measures.

METHODS

We conducted an iterative, cross-sectional electronic survey, using a modified Delphi method to build consensus among clinician and family stakeholders. In each of the two rounds of surveys, stakeholders were asked to rate QMs on a 9-point Likert scale, on the basis of perceived importance. Health care professionals were additionally asked to rate measures on perceived feasibility. After each round, we computed median scores on importance and feasibility of measurement, retaining QMs with median importance scores ≥ 8.

RESULTS

Twenty-five participants completed both rounds of the survey. In round 1, participants were asked to rate 26 QMs; nine QMs, including QMs pertaining to health care use, were removed because of median importance scores < 8. Two new measures were proposed for consideration in round 2, on the basis of participant feedback. Following round 2, 17 QMs were ultimately retained. QMs related to symptom screening and palliative care consultation were rated highly in importance and feasibility. QMs related to communication were rated highly important, yet less feasible. Measuring whether a patient's needs were heard by their health care team was rated among the least feasible.

CONCLUSION

Childhood cancer stakeholders prioritized QMs pertaining to patient-reported outcomes, deeming measures of health care resource use less important. Future research should seek to develop novel tools for quality assessment to enhance feasibility of implementing priority measures.

Are care experiences associated with survival among cancer patients? An analysis of the SEER-CAHPS data resource

PURPOSE

Cancer patients' care experiences encompass the range of interactions with the health care system and are an important indicator of care quality, which may influence survival outcomes. This study evaluates relationships between care experiences and survival using a large, nationally representative sample of cancer patients.

METHODS

We used linked SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results)-CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) data to identify people diagnosed 8/2006-12/2013, focusing on 10 solid tumor cancer sites with the highest mortality rates among those > 65. CAHPS measures included 5 global ratings and 3 composite scores. We used survey-weighted Cox proportional hazard models comparing survival time for those who had lower (0-8) vs higher ratings (9-10) and lower (0-89) vs higher (90-100) composite scores, adjusting for case-mix and additional covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 2,263 eligible people; 26% died by 5-year post-survey completion or end of follow-up (12/31/2017). We found lower Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) ratings were significantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR = 0.67, p = 0.03). Lower Getting Needed Care scores were also significantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR = 0.79, p = 0.04). For other care experience measures, general health status, cancer stage, and comorbidities were more predictive of survival (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Except for PDP and Getting Needed Care, survival was similar for those with worse versus better care experiences. Patients with poorer cancer prognoses may perceive better services from their drug plan and more responsive care from clinical providers compared to those with better prognoses. Further research is needed examining processes underlying perceptions of care experiences and survival.

The association between patient experience and healthcare outcomes using SEER-CAHPS patient experience and outcomes among cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

To understand the relationship between patient experience, as measured by scores on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) survey, and clinical and financial outcomes among older cancer survivors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the records of all Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries 66 years and older who completed one CAHPS survey from 2001 to 2004 or 2007-2013 with one of the five following cancer types: breast, bladder, colorectal, lung, or prostate; and completed a CAHPS survey within 5 years of cancer diagnosis date. We conducted a multivariate analysis, controlling for clinical and demographic variables, to evaluate the association between excellent CAHPS scores and the following clinical and financial outcomes: mortality, emergency department visits, and total healthcare expenditures.

RESULTS

A total of 7395 individuals were present in our cohort, with 57% being male and 85.7% non-Hispanic White. Breakdown of the cohort by cancer site is as follows: prostate (40.4%), breast (28.6%), colorectal (14.0%), lung (9.4%), and bladder (7.6%). When looking at the relationship between CAHPS scores and clinical outcomes, there was no significant difference between excellent and non-excellent CAHPS score respondents in all three of the clinical outcomes studied. Furthermore, there was no association between ED utilization and patient experience scores when stratifying by cancer site and race/ethnicity among this cohort.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort, a highly rated patient experience, as measured by responses on the CAHPS survey, is not associated with improved clinical outcomes among older cancer survivors.

Hospital quality indicators are not unidimensional: A reanalysis of Lieberthal and Comer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the dimensionality of hospital quality indicators treated as unidimensional in a prior publication.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY DESIGN

Pooled cross-sectional 2010-2011 Hospital Compare data (10/1/10 and 10/1/11 archives) and the 2012 American Hospital Association Annual Survey.

DATA EXTRACTION

We used 71 indicators of structure, process, and outcomes of hospital care in a principal component analysis of Ridit scores to evaluate the dimensionality of the indicators. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis using only the indicators in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Value-Based Purchasing.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

There were four underlying dimensions of hospital quality: patient experience, mortality, and two clinical process dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital quality should be measured using a variety of indicators reflecting different dimensions of quality. Treating hospital quality as unidimensional leads to erroneous conclusions about the performance of different hospitals.

Quantifying Magnitude of Group-Level Differences in Patient Experiences with Health Care

OBJECTIVE

Review approaches assessing magnitude of differences in patient experience scores between different providers.

DATA SOURCES

1990-2016 literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

Of 812 articles mentioning "CAHPS," "patient experience," "patient satisfaction," "important(ce)," "difference," or "significance," we identified 79 possible articles, yielding 35 for data abstraction. We included 22 articles measuring magnitude of differences in patient experiences.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified three main ways of estimating magnitude of differences in patient experience scores: (1) by distribution/range of patient experience variable, (2) against external anchor, and (3) comparing a difference in patient experience on one covariate to differences in patient experience on other covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest routine estimation of magnitude in patient experience research. More work is needed documenting magnitude of differences between providers to make patient experience data more interpretable and usable.

The risk-outcome-experience triad: Mortality risk and the hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems survey

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown an association between the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (HCAHPS) scores and clinical quality. The mortality risk on admission predicts adverse events. It is not known if this risk also portends a suboptimal patient experience.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the admission mortality risk identifies an experience of care risk.

DESIGN

A retrospectively assembled cohort in which individual HCAHPS survey responses were linked to the admission risk of dying.

SETTING

Five community hospitals of various sizes in Michigan.

PATIENTS

There were 17,509 HCAHPS medical and surgical respondents; 2513 (14.4%) were at high risk of dying.

MEASUREMENTS

Odds ratio (OR) (high-risk patients to low-risk patients) for providing a top box score for HCAHPS dimensions, controlling for hospital and the standard HCAHPS patient mix adjustment factors.

RESULTS

High-risk respondents were less likely to provide the most favorable response (unadjusted) for all HCAHPS domains, although the difference was not significant (P = 0.09) for discharge information. Multivariable analyses indicated that high-risk patients were less likely to report a top box experience for doctor communication (OR: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.94) and responsiveness of hospital staff (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69-0.85), but were more likely to have received adequate discharge information (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.14-1.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at high risk of dying who completed surveys were less likely to report favorable physician communication and staff responsiveness. Further understanding of these relationships may help design a care model to improve both outcomes and experience. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:628-635. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Methodological Considerations When Studying the Association between Patient-Reported Care Experiences and Mortality

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate methodological considerations when assessing the relationship between patient care experiences and mortality.

DATA SOURCE

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2000-2005) linked to National Health Interview Survey and National Death Index mortality data through December 31, 2006.

STUDY DESIGN

We estimated Cox proportional hazards models with mortality as the dependent variable and patient experience measures as independent variables and assessed consistency of experiences over time.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

We used data from respondents age 18 or older with at least one doctor's office or clinic visit during the year prior to the round 2 interview. We excluded subjects who died in the baseline year.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The association between overall care experiences and mortality was significant for deaths not amenable to medical care and all-cause mortality, but not for amenable deaths. More than half of respondents were in a different care experience quartile over a 1-year period. In the five individual experience questions we analyzed, only time spent with the patient was significantly associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Deaths not amenable to medical care and the time-varying and multifaceted nature of patient care experience are important issues to consider when assessing the relationship between care experience and mortality.

Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: a new data resource for quality of care research

BACKGROUND

Since 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data.

DESIGN

This is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort.

MAIN MEASURES

The data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys.

KEY RESULTS

Sizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

SEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

Is there a relationship between patient satisfaction and favorable outcomes?

OBJECTIVE

Patient satisfaction with the health care experience has become a top priority for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. With resources and efforts directed at patient satisfaction, we evaluated whether high patient satisfaction measured by HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) surveys correlates with favorable outcomes.

METHODS

Medical centers were identified from the University HealthSystem Consortium database from 2011 to 2012. Variables included hospital characteristics, process measure compliance, and surgical outcomes. Chi-squared analysis was used to evaluate for variables associated with high patient satisfaction (defined as hospitals that scored above the 50th percentile of top box scores).

RESULTS

We identified 171 hospitals with complete data. The following variables were significantly associated with high overall patient satisfaction: large hospitals, high surgical volume, and low mortality (P < 0.001). Compliance with process measures and patient safety indicators, as well as length of stay, did not correlate with overall satisfaction. The presence of complications (P = 0.491) or increased rate of readmission (P = 0.056) were not found to affect patient satisfaction. Low mortality index was consistently found to be associated with high satisfaction across 9 of 10 HCAHPS domains.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that hospital size, surgical volume, and low mortality were associated with high overall patient satisfaction. However, with the exception of low mortality, favorable surgical outcomes were not consistently associated with high HCAHPS scores. With existing satisfaction surveys, we conclude that factors outside of surgical outcomes appear to influence patients' perceptions of their care.

Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality

Patient care experience surveys evaluate the degree to which care is patient-centered. This article reviews the literature on the association between patient experiences and other measures of health care quality. Research indicates that better patient care experiences are associated with higher levels of adherence to recommended prevention and treatment processes, better clinical outcomes, better patient safety within hospitals, and less health care utilization. Patient experience measures that are collected using psychometrically sound instruments, employing recommended sample sizes and adjustment procedures, and implemented according to standard protocols are intrinsically meaningful and are appropriate complements for clinical process and outcome measures in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.

Can patients reliably identify safe, high quality care?

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is a publicly reported tool that measures patient satisfaction. As both patients and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement rely on survey results as a metric of quality of care, we reviewed the current literature to determine if patient satisfaction correlates with quality, safety, or patient outcomes. We found varying associations between safety culture, process of care measure compliance, and patient outcomes with patient satisfaction on the HCAHPS survey. Some studies found inverse relationships between quality and safety metrics and patient satisfaction. The measure that most reliably correlated with high patient satisfaction was low readmission rate. Future studies using patient specific data are needed to better identify which factors most influence patient satisfaction and to determine if patient satisfaction is a marker of safer and better quality care. Furthermore, the HCAHPS survey should continue to undergo evaluations to assure it generates predictable results.