Learning from patients: The impact of using patients' narratives on patient experience scores.

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm has grown about using patients' narratives-stories about care experiences in patients' own words-to advance organizations' learning about the care that they deliver and how to improve it, but studies confirming association have not been published. PURPOSE: We assessed whether primary care clinics that frequently share patients' narratives with their staff have higher patient experience survey scores. APPROACH: We conducted a 1-year study of 5,545 adult patients and 276 staff affiliated with nine clinics in one health system. We used multilevel models to analyze survey data from patients about their experiences and from staff about exposure to useful narratives. We examined staff confidence in own knowledge as a moderator because confidence can influence use of new information sources. RESULTS: Frequency of sharing useful narratives with staff was associated with patient experience scores for all measures, conditional on staff confidence in own knowledge ( p < .01). For operational measures (e.g., care coordination), increased sharing correlated with subsequently higher performance for more confident staff and lower performance or no difference for less confident staff, depending on measure. For relational measures (e.g., patient-provider communication), increased sharing correlated with higher scores for less confident staff and lower scores for more confident staff. CONCLUSION: Sharing narratives with staff frequently is associated with better patient experience survey scores, conditional on confidence in knowledge. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Frequently sharing useful patient narratives should be encouraged as an organizational improvement strategy. However, organizations need to address how narrative feedback interacts with their staff's confidence to realize higher experience scores across domains.

Improving Patients' Choice of Clinician by Including Roll-up Measures in Public Healthcare Quality Reports: an Online Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Public reports on healthcare quality typically include complex data. To lower the cognitive burden of interpreting these data, some report designers create summary, or roll-up, measures combining multiple indicators of quality into one score. Little is known about how the availability of roll-ups affects clinician choice. OBJECTIVE: To determine how presenting quality scores at different levels of aggregation affects patients' clinician choices. DESIGN: We conducted a simulated clinician-choice experiment, randomizing participants to three versions of a public reporting website and comparing their clinician choices. One version aggregated all clinician-level quality measures into roll-ups, the second provided disaggregated (drill-down) scores only, and the third offered both roll-ups and drill-downs. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred fifty panelists drawn from a probability-based Internet panel. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed the amount of effort participants exerted by tracking the length of time spent on the website and the number of concrete actions taken on the website (e.g., clicking items). We evaluated decision quality by measuring whether participants selected a clinician who performed more poorly than others and incongruence between participants' stated preferences for dimensions of quality and their chosen clinician's performance on those dimensions. KEY RESULTS: Participants seeing drill-downs alone (mean = 14.9) or with roll-ups (mean = 19.2) took more actions than those who saw roll-ups alone (mean = 10.5) (ps < 0.05). However, participants seeing only drill-downs made poorer choices than those who saw roll-ups alone or with drill-downs. More participants seeing drill-downs chose a clinician who was outperformed (36.3% versus 23.4% [roll-up] and 25.6% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05) and made choices incongruent with stated preferences (51.2% versus 45.6% [roll-up] and 47.5% [drill-down + roll-up], ps < 0.05). The distinction between roll-up and drill-down was somewhat stronger for sicker participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that roll-ups in healthcare quality reports, alone or as a complement to drill-downs, can help patients make better decisions for themselves.

The heart of patient-centered care.

This article examines the multiple aspirations and practices subsumed under the rubric "patient-centered care." Clarifying the term's meaning is essential to understanding its impact on policy discourse and health care.

CAHPS and Comments: How Closed-Ended Survey Questions and Narrative Accounts Interact in the Assessment of Patient Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether content from patient narratives explains variation in patients' primary care provider (PCP) ratings beyond information from the closed-ended questions of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey and whether the relative placement of closed- and open-ended survey questions affects either the content of narratives or the CAHPS composite scores. METHODS: Members of a standing Internet panel (N = 332) were randomly assigned to complete a CAHPS survey that was either preceded or followed by a set of open-ended questions about how well their PCP meets their expectations and how they relate to their PCP. RESULTS: Narrative content from healthier patients explained only an additional 2% beyond the variation in provider ratings explained by CAHPS composite measures. Among sicker patients, narrative content explained an additional 10% of the variation. The relative placement of closed- and open-ended questions had little impact on narratives or CAHPS scores. CONCLUSION: Incorporating a protocol for eliciting narratives into a patient experience survey results in minimal distortion of patient feedback. Narratives from sicker patients help explain variation in provider ratings.