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.

Incomplete Markets and Imperfect Institutions: Some Challenges Posed by Trust for Contemporary Health Care and Health Policy.

As contemporary health policy promotes evidence-based practices using targeted incentives, policy makers may lose track of vital aspects of care that are difficult to measure. For more than a half century, scholars have recognized that these latter aspects play a crucial role in high-quality care and equitable health system performance but depend on the potentially frail reed of providers' trustworthiness: that is, their commitment to facets and outcomes of care not easily assessed by external parties. More recently, early experience with pay for performance in health settings suggests that enhancing financial rewards for the measurable undermines providers' commitment to the unmeasurable, degrading the trustworthiness of their practices. Reformers have looked to revised professional norms or reorganized practice arrangements to bolster the intrinsic motivations required for trustworthiness. We suggest here that these responses are likely to prove inadequate. We propose that they be complemented by a renewed policy-making commitment to nonprofit ownership among health care providers, insurers, and integrated delivery systems. We identify some of the concerns raised in the past with ownership-based policies and propose a set of responses. If these are pursued in combination, they hold the promise of a sustainable ownership-based policy reform for the United States.

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.

Translating research into practice: speeding the adoption of innovative health care programs.

For this study, the authors conducted case studies of four varied clinical programs to learn key factors influencing the diffusion and adoption of evidence-based innovations in health care. They found that the success and speed of the adoption/diffusion process depend on: the roles of senior management and clinical leadership; the generation of credible supportive data; an infrastructure dedicated to translating the innovation from research into practice; the extent to which changes in organizational culture are required; and the amount of coordination needed across departments or disciplines. The translation process also depends on the characteristics and resources of the adopting organization, and on the degree to which people believe that the innovation responds to immediate and significant pressures in their environment.

Context-based strategies for engaging consumers with public reports about health care providers.

Efforts to engage consumers in the use of public reports on health care provider performance have met with limited success. Fostering greater engagement will require new approaches that provide consumers with relevant content at the time and in the context they need to make a decision of consequence. To this end, we identify three key factors influencing consumer engagement and show how they manifest in different ways and combinations for four particular choice contexts that appear to offer realistic opportunities for engagement. We analyze how these engagement factors play out differently in each choice context and suggest specific strategies that sponsors of public reports can use in each context. Cross-cutting lessons for report sponsors and policy makers include new media strategies such as a commitment to adaptive web-based reporting, new metrics with richer emotional content, and the use of navigators or advocates to assist consumers with interpreting reports.

Complexity, public reporting, and choice of doctors: a look inside the blackest box of consumer behavior.

Health care consumers often make choices that are imperfectly informed and inconsistent with their expressed preferences. Past research suggests that these shortcomings become more pronounced as choices become more complex, through either additional options or more performance metrics. But it is unclear why this is true: Consumer choice remains a "black box" that research has scarcely illuminated. In this article, we identify four pathways through which complexity may impair consumer choice. We examine these pathways using data from an experiment in which consumers (hypothetically) selected a primary care physician. Some of the loss of decision quality accompanying more complex choice sets can be explained by consumers' skills and decision-making style, but even after accounting for these factors, complexity undermines the quality of decision making in ways that cannot be fully explained. We conclude by discussing implications for report designers, sponsors, and policy makers aspiring to promote consumer empowerment and health care quality.

Choice cuts: parsing policymakers' pursuit of patient empowerment from an individual perspective.

In this commentary I explore several ways in which the psychology of individual decision-making shapes consumers' choices in medical settings and the potential for choice-based policies to improve the performance of the health care system. This analysis draws some crucial distinctions among the various pathways though which policymakers expect choice to improve outcomes and the various forms of support that might enhance patients' engagement with choice. I also consider how choice-promoting policies interact with other strategies for patient empowerment and depend crucially on the ways in which individual patients develop the capacity to make sense of their experiences with medical care. Drawing largely on data and studies from medical consumerism in the US, I identify a number of choice 'pathologies' that might compromise the influence or beneficial effects of choice-promoting initiatives. Though these limitations are unlikely to turn public officials away from their consumerist policy aspirations, identifying the realistic limitations of such initiatives makes clear the need to complement them with other strategies for enhancing patients' well being and encouraging a more responsive health care system.

Regulating palliative care: the case of hospice.

Palliative care services provided to patients and families vary substantially across hospices. Literature suggests regulation can act as a standardizing force in health care delivery. However, little is known about the effect of regulation on the delivery of palliative care in hospice and whether its effect differs for different types of hospice providers. We estimated the association between regulation, defined as Medicare hospice certification, and the delivery of palliative care in hospice using a nationally representative data set of 9,409 patients from 2,066 hospices surveyed in the National Home and Hospice Care Survey, 1992-2000. Using multivariable analysis, we found Medicare hospice certification was associated with a significantly broader range of services provided to patients (odds ratio [OR]=2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 5.17). This effect was significantly more pronounced (P-value for interaction=0.001) among for-profit hospices (OR=15.24; 95% CI: 4.06, 57.17) than among nonprofit hospices (OR=1.53; 95% CI: 0.75, 3.14). The effect of ownership on certification differences was most apparent for the provision of skilled nursing (prevalence difference in difference=52.4%), spiritual care (prevalence difference in difference=49.6%), and social services (prevalence difference in difference=48.1%). This study is the first to demonstrate the substantial association between the regulation of hospices and the provision of a multidisciplinary range of services to patients and families. It provides valuable insights regarding the potential role of regulation in standardizing the quality of palliative care across the increasingly diverse palliative care programs developing outside of hospice.