Leveraging Patients' Creative Ideas for Innovation in Health Care.

Policy Points Patients' creative ideas may inform learning and innovation that improve patient-centered care. Routinely collected patient experience surveys provide an opportunity to invite patients to share their creative ideas for improvement. We develop and assess a methodological strategy that validates question wording designed to elicit creative ideas from patients. Health care organizations should consider how to report and use these data in health care delivery and quality improvement, and policymakers should consider promoting the use of narrative feedback to better understand and respond to patients' experiences. CONTEXT: Learning health systems (LHSs) have been promoted for a decade to achieve high-quality, patient-centered health care. Innovation driven by knowledge generated through day-to-day health care delivery, including patient insights, is critical to LHSs. However, the pace of translating patient insights into innovation is slow and effectiveness inadequate. This study aims to evaluate a method for systematically eliciting patients' creative ideas, examine the value of such ideas as a source of insight, and examine patients' creative ideas regarding how their experiences could be improved within the context of their own health systems. METHODS: The first stage of the study developed a survey and tested strategies for elicitation of patients' creative ideas with 600 patients from New York State. The second stage deployed the survey with the most generative open-ended question sequence within a health care system and involved analysis of 1,892 patients' responses, including 2,948 creative ideas. FINDINGS: Actionable, creative feedback was fostered by incorporating a request for transformative feedback into a sequence of narrative elicitation questions. Patients generate more actionable and creative ideas when explicitly invited to share such ideas, especially patients with negative health care experiences, those from minority racial/ethnic backgrounds, and those with chronic illness. The most frequently elicited creative ideas focused on solving challenges, proposing interventions, amplifying exceptional practices, and conveying hopes for the future. CONCLUSIONS: A valid and reliable method for eliciting creative ideas from patients can be deployed as part of routine patient experience surveys that include closed-ended survey items and open-ended narrative items in which patients share their experiences in their own words. The elicited creative ideas are promising for patient engagement and innovation efforts. This study highlights the benefits of engaging patients for quality improvement, offers a rigorously tested method for cultivating innovation using patient-generated knowledge, and outlines how creative ideas can enable organizational learning and innovation.

Long-Term Stability of Coverage Among Michigan Medicaid Beneficiaries : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid, the primary source of insurance coverage for disadvantaged Americans, was originally designed as a temporary safety-net program. No studies have used long-run data to assess the recent use of the program by beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of short- and long-term enrollment among beneficiaries, using a 10-year longitudinal panel of Michigan Medicaid eligibility data. DESIGN: Primary analyses assessing trends in Medicaid enrollment among cohorts of existing and new beneficiaries. SETTING: Administrative records from Michigan Medicaid for the period 2011 to 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 3.97 million Medicaid beneficiaries. MEASUREMENTS: Short- and long-term enrollment in the program. RESULTS: The sample includes 3.97 million unique beneficiaries enrolled at some point between 2011 and 2020. Among a cohort of 1.23 million beneficiaries enrolled in 2011, over half (53%) were also enrolled in Medicaid in June 2020, spending, on average, two-thirds of that period (67%) on Medicaid. These beneficiaries, however, experienced substantial lapses in coverage, as only 25% were continuously enrolled throughout the period. Enrollment was less stable when assessed from the perspective of newly enrolled beneficiaries, of whom only 37% remained enrolled at the end of the study period. LIMITATION: Primary estimates from a single state. CONCLUSION: For many beneficiaries, Medicaid has served as their primary source of coverage for at least a decade. This pattern would justify increasing investments in the program to improve long-term health outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Self-funded.

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.

Stumbling Into Adulthood: Learning From Depression While Growing Up.

Depression manifests in distinct ways across the life course. Recent research emphasizes how depression impedes development during emerging adulthood. However, our study-based on 40 interviews with emerging adults from multiple regions in the United States, analyzed following grounded theory-suggests a more complex narrative. Increasing experience with cycles of depression can also catalyze (a) mature perspectives and coping mechanisms that protect against depression's lowest lows; (b) deeper self-knowledge and direction, which in turn promoted a coherent personal identity; and (c) emergence of a life purpose, which fostered attainment of adult roles, skill development, greater life satisfaction, and enriched identity. Our synthesis reveals how depression during emerging adulthood can function at once as toxin, potential antidote, and nutritional supplement fostering healthy development. Our central finding that young adults adapt to rather than recover from depression can also enrich resilience theory, and inform both social discourse and clinical practice.

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.

What Words Convey: The Potential for Patient Narratives to Inform Quality Improvement.

Policy Points Narratives about patients' experiences with outpatient care are essential for quality improvement because they convey ample actionable information that both elaborates on existing domains within patient experience surveys and describes multiple additional domains that are important to patients. The content of narrative feedback from patients can potentially be translated to improved quality in multiple ways: clinicians can learn from their own patients, groups of clinicians can learn from the experience of their peers' patients, and health system administrators can identify and respond to patterns in patients' accounts that reflect systemic challenges to quality. Consistent investment by payers and providers is required to ensure that patient narratives are rigorously collected, analyzed fully, and effectively used for quality improvement. CONTEXT: For the past 25 years, health care providers and health system administrators have sought to improve care by surveying patients about their experiences. More recently, policymakers have acted to promote this learning by deploying financial incentives tied to survey scores. This article explores the potential of systematically elicited narratives about experiences with outpatient care to enrich quality improvement. METHODS: Narratives were collected from 348 patients recruited from a nationally representative Internet panel. Drawing from the literature on health services innovation, we developed a two-part coding schema that categorized narrative content in terms of (a) the aspects of care being described, and (b) the actionability of this information for clinicians, quality improvement staff, and health system administrators. Narratives were coded using this schema, with high levels of reliability among the coders. FINDINGS: The scope of outpatient narratives divides evenly among aspects of care currently measured by patient experience surveys (35% of content), aspects related to measured domains but not captured by existing survey questions (31%), and aspects of care that are omitted from surveys entirely (34%). Overall, the narrative data focused heavily on relational aspects of care (43%), elaborating on this aspect of experience well beyond what is captured with communication-related questions on existing surveys. Three-quarters of elicited narratives had some actionable content, and almost a third contained three or more separate actionable elements. CONCLUSIONS: In a health policy environment that incentivizes attention to patient experience, rigorously elicited narratives hold substantial promise for improving quality in general and patients' experiences with care in particular. They do so in two ways: by making concrete what went wrong or right in domains covered by existing surveys, and by expanding our view of what aspects of care matter to patients as articulated in their own words and thus how care can be made more patient-centered. Most narratives convey experiences that are potentially actionable by those committed to improving health care quality in outpatient settings.

A cross-sectional study assessing the association between online ratings and clinical quality of care measures for US hospitals: results from an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the usefulness of online ratings when searching for a hospital. We therefore assess the association between quantitative and qualitative online ratings for US hospitals and clinical quality of care measures. METHODS: First, we collected a stratified random sample of 1000 quantitative and qualitative online ratings for hospitals from the website RateMDs. We used an integrated iterative approach to develop a categorization scheme to capture both the topics and sentiment in the narrative comments. Next, we matched the online ratings with hospital-level quality measures published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Regarding nominally scaled measures, we checked for differences in the distribution among the online rating categories. For metrically scaled measures, we applied the Spearman rank coefficient of correlation. RESULTS: Thirteen of the twenty-nine quality of care measures were significantly associated with the quantitative online ratings (Spearman p = ±0.143, p < 0.05 for all). Thereof, eight associations indicated better clinical outcomes for better online ratings. Seven of the twenty-nine clinical measures were significantly associated with the sentiment of patient narratives (p = ±0.114, p < 0.05 for all), whereof four associations indicated worse clinical outcomes in more favorable narrative comments. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be some association between quantitative online ratings and clinical performance measures. However, the relatively weak strength and inconsistency of the direction of the association as well as the lack of association with several other clinical measures may not enable the drawing of strong conclusions. Narrative comments also seem to have limited potential to reflect the clinical quality of care in its current form. Thus, online ratings are of limited usefulness in guiding patients towards high-performing hospitals from a clinical point of view. Nevertheless, patients might prefer different aspects of care when choosing a hospital.

"Oh, the Places You'll Go" by Bringing Developmental Science Into the World!

Urie Bronfenbrenner and Ernest Boyer argued for leaving the laboratory to conduct rigorous developmental research in the real world where children are found-in the places they go. Contributions to this special issue meet Bronfenbrenner and Boyer's call while at the same time recognizing the continued importance of laboratory research. These articles range from a review of research on the arts to a language intervention in Senegal to large-scale dissemination and intervention projects designed to communicate the best developmental science to families, public agencies, and schools. Together these articles illustrate how we can study development in the world and enrich our work on the factors that promote development. Taking this path presents us with a set of additional hurdles to be addressed, such as how to communicate with the public and how to scale up our interventions in the face of diversity along many dimensions.

Playing With Ideas: Evaluating the Impact of the Ultimate Block Party, a Collective Experiential Intervention to Enrich Perceptions of Play.

Parental attitudes shape play opportunities afforded to children in home, community, and school settings. This study presents evaluation of an intervention designed to enrich parent's conception of play and its relationship with socially valued skills and capacities. On the basis of data from 291 racially and ethnically diverse parents/caregivers of young children (median age between 3 and 6) attending an event in NYC, we find the intervention helped parents conceptualize play in complex ways and altered perceptions of its impact on children's current-but not future-lives. Multivariate analyses reveal the causal pathway for these changes as exposure to multiple play sites, rather than time at the event-a finding with direct implications for exposing parents to developmental science in community settings.

Association Between Health Plan Exit From Medicaid Managed Care and Quality of Care, 2006-2014.

Importance: State Medicaid programs have increasingly contracted with insurers to provide medical care services for enrollees (Medicaid managed care plans). Insurers that provide these plans can exit Medicaid programs each year, with unclear effects on quality of care and health care experiences. Objective: To determine the frequency and interstate variation of health plan exit from Medicaid managed care and evaluate the relationship between health plan exit and market-level quality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort of all comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans (N = 390) during the interval 2006-2014. Exposures: Plan exit, defined as the withdrawal of a managed care plan from a state's Medicaid program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Eight measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set were used to construct 3 composite indicators of quality (preventive care, chronic disease care management, and maternity care). Four measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems were combined into a composite indicator of patient experience, reflecting the proportion of beneficiaries rating experiences as 8 or above on a 0-to-10-point scale. Outcome data were available for 248 plans (68% of plans operating prior to 2014, representing 78% of beneficiaries). Results: Of the 366 comprehensive Medicaid managed care plans operating prior to 2014, 106 exited Medicaid. These exiting plans enrolled 4 848 310 Medicaid beneficiaries, with a mean of 606 039 beneficiaries affected by plan exits annually. Six states had a mean of greater than 10% of Medicaid managed care recipients enrolled in plans that exited, whereas 10 states experienced no plan exits. Plans that exited from a state's Medicaid market performed significantly worse prior to exiting than those that remained in terms of preventive care (57.5% vs 60.4%; difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.3% to 5.5%]), maternity care (69.7% vs 73.6%; difference, 3.8% [95% CI, 1.7% to 6.0%]), and patient experience (73.5% vs 74.8%; difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.6% to 1.9%]). There was no significant difference between exiting and nonexiting plans for the quality of chronic disease care management (76.2% vs 77.1%; difference, 1.0% [95% CI, -2.1% to 4.0%]). There was also no significant change in overall market performance before and after the exit of a plan: 0.7-percentage point improvement in preventive care quality (95% CI, -4.9 to 6.3); 0.2-percentage point improvement in chronic disease care management quality (95% CI, -5.8 to 6.2); 0.7-percentage point decrease in maternity care quality (95% CI, -6.4 to 5.0]); and a 0.6-percentage point improvement in patient experience ratings (95% CI, -3.9 to 5.1). Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in exiting plans had access to coverage for a higher-quality plan, with 78% of plans in the same county having higher quality for preventive care, 71.1% for chronic disease management, 65.5% for maternity care, and 80.8% for patient experience. Conclusions and Relevance: Between 2006 and 2014, health plan exit from the US Medicaid program was frequent. Plans that exited generally had lower quality ratings than those that remained, and the exits were not associated with significant overall changes in quality or patient experience in the plans in the Medicaid market.

How Patient Comments Affect Consumers' Use of Physician Performance Measures.

BACKGROUND: Patients' comments about doctors are increasingly available on the internet. The effects of these anecdotal accounts on consumers' engagement with reports on doctor quality, use of more statistically reliable performance measures, and ability to choose doctors wisely are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of providing patient comments along with standardized performance information in a web-based public report. DESIGN: Participants were randomly assigned to view 1 of 6 versions of a website presenting comparative performance information on fictitious primary care doctors. Versions varied by the combination of information types [Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS), Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), and patient comments] and number of doctors. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of working-age adults (N=848) from an online panel representing the noninstitutionalized population of the United States. MAIN MEASURES: Time spent and actions taken on the website, probing of standardized measures, and decision quality (chosen doctor rated highest on quantifiable metrics, chosen doctor not dominated by another choice). Secondary outcomes were perceived usefulness and trustworthiness of performance metrics and evaluations of the website. KEY RESULTS: Inclusion of patient comments increased time spent on the website by 35%-42% and actions taken (clicks) by 106%-117% compared with versions presenting only CAHPS and HEDIS measures (P<0.01). It also reduced participants' attention to standardized measures (eg, percentage of time probing HEDIS measures dropped by 67%, P<0.01). When patient comments were present, fewer participants chose the doctor scoring highest on standardized metrics (44%-49% vs. 61%-62%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Including patient comments in physician performance reports enhances consumers' engagement but reduces their attention to standardized measures and substantially increases suboptimal choices. More research is needed to explore whether integrated reporting strategies could leverage the positive effects of patient comments on consumer engagement without undermining consumers' use of other important metrics for informing choice among doctors.

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.

Alternative Payment Models and Performance in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Importance: Several state Medicaid agencies have transitioned from traditional fee-for-service to a value-centric alternative payment model (APM) to reimburse federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Little is known about the effects of this shift on FQHC performance. Objective: To assess the association between APMs and the clinical performance, payer mix, risk profile, and financial sustainability of FQHCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed in 684 FQHCs (representing 37 states plus the District of Columbia) that continuously operated between January 2009 and December 2021. Data on payer mix (eg, type of insurance) and risk profile (eg, proportion of patients with chronic conditions) of FQHC patients were obtained from the Uniform Data System, and clinic-level financial data (eg, revenue) were obtained from Internal Revenue Service form 990 tax documents. Data were analyzed between November 2022 and October 2023. Exposure: Initial rollout of a value-based payment model (ie, an APM) for FQHCs, as offered by state Medicaid program, between January 2013 and December 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 4 audited process measures of health care quality (cervical and colorectal cancer screening and body mass index [BMI] assessment for adults and children) and 2 intermediate health outcome measures (hypertension control and diabetes control). A difference-in-differences design was used with staggered implementation comparing FQHCs before and after the initial APM rollout vs contemporaneous changes in FQHCs in states without APMs. Results: A total of 684 FQHCs (8892 FQHC-years) that served 17 823 959 patients in 2021 (57.3% female) were included in the study. Among FQHCs in states implementing APMs, significant differential increases in 3 of the 4 process quality measures were observed compared with FQHCs in states that did not implement an APM: colorectal cancer screening (3.24 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.40-5.08 pp), adult BMI (3.19 pp; 95% CI, 0.70-5.68 pp), and child BMI (4.50 pp; 95% CI, 1.83-7.17 pp). There were also modest differential improvements in blood pressure control for individuals with hypertension (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.04-2.00 pp) and blood glucose control for individuals with type 2 diabetes (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.02-2.02 pp) compared with FQHCs in states without an APM. There was no evidence that the APM rollout was associated with clinics selecting healthier patients (-0.01 pp; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.19 pp) or stinting on care (-0.02 visits; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04 visits). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, introduction of Medicaid APM options for FQHCs was associated with modest, statistically significant increases in quality concentrated among FQHCs with APM models that explicitly incentivized quality. This finding suggests that APMs can be both a financially viable and a health-promoting model for reimbursement in the health care safety net.

"Nothing Is More Powerful than Words:" How Patient Experience Narratives Enable Improvement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient experience narratives (narratives) are an increasingly important element of both measurement approaches and improvement efforts in healthcare. Prior studies show that narratives are considered by both clinicians and staff to be an appealing, meaningful, and credible form of evidence on performance. They also suggest that making concrete use of narratives within organizational settings to improve care can be complex and challenging. Our qualitative study was designed to explore how middle managers working in a health system's outpatient clinics value and use written narratives in their day-to-day work. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 middle managers working in 8 outpatient clinics. Interviews were fully transcribed, loaded into MAX-QDA software, and coded using thematic analysis techniques. Code reports were extracted and reanalyzed for subthemes related to the objectives of this paper. RESULTS: Middle managers across sites described valuing narratives as a tool to: enable better patient experience assessment by augmenting data from patient experience scores; deepen understanding of and relationships with patients; provide insight about operational issues; identify areas for needed improvement and potential solutions; and facilitate strategic work. They reported using narratives for a range of activities related to their roles as supervisors, such as focusing attention on positive practices and needed improvements, promoting deeper group learning, motivating change, reinforcing sense of purpose for staff, recognizing staff strengths and training needs, and inspiring transformational thinking. Finally, interviewees reported numerous specific quality improvement projects (both short- and longer-term) that were informed by narratives-for example, by identifying an issue to be addressed or by suggesting a workable solution. Together, these interviews suggest a collective "narrative about narratives" woven by these organizational actors-a story which illustrates how narratives are highly relevant for how middle managers derive meaning from their work, put organizational values such as responsive service provision into practice, and enact their roles as supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results add to the nascent literature a detailed description of how narratives can be used both as a tool for middle managers in their leadership and supervisory roles, and as a blueprint for improvement work within outpatient settings. They also illuminate why patient experience scores may improve when narrative data are collected and used. Finally, our results suggest that for middle managers, perhaps "nothing is more powerful than words" because narratives function as both an insight provider and a compelling tool that adds direction and meaning to workplace endeavors.

Assessing an innovative method to promote learning from patient narratives: Findings from a field experiment in ambulatory care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether an online interactive report designed to facilitate interpretation of patients' narrative feedback produces change in ambulatory staff learning, behavior at the individual staff and practice level, and patient experience survey scores. DATA SOURCES AND SETTING: We studied 22 ambulatory practice sites within an academic medical center using three primary data sources: 333 staff surveys; 20 in-depth interviews with practice leaders and staff; and 9551 modified CG-CAHPS patient experience surveys augmented by open-ended narrative elicitation questions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a cluster quasi-experimental study, comparing 12 intervention and 10 control sites. At control sites, narratives were delivered free-form to site administrators via email; at intervention sites, narratives were delivered online with interactive tools for interpretation, accompanied by user training. We assessed control-versus-intervention site differences in learning, behavior, and patient experience scores. DATA COLLECTION: Staff surveys and interviews were completed at intervention and control sites, 9 months after intervention launch. Patient surveys were collected beginning 4 months pre-launch through 9 months post-launch. We used control-versus-intervention and difference-in-difference analyses for survey data and thematic analysis for interview data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Interviews suggested that the interface facilitated narrative interpretation and use for improvement. Staff survey analyses indicated enhanced learning from narratives at intervention sites (29% over control sites' mean of 3.19 out of 5 across eight domains, p < 0.001) and greater behavior change at staff and practice levels (31% and 21% over control sites' means of 3.35 and 3.39, p < 0.001, respectively). Patient experience scores for interactions with office staff and wait time information increased significantly at intervention sites, compared to control sites (3.7% and 8.2%, respectively); however, provider listening scores declined 3.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Patient narratives presented through structured feedback reporting methods can catalyze positive changes in staff learning, promote behavior change, and increase patient experience scores in domains of non-clinical interaction.

Measuring handoff quality in labor and delivery: development, validation, and application of the Coordination of Handoff Effectiveness Questionnaire (CHEQ).

BACKGROUND: A prospective, nonblinded intervention study was conducted (1) to evaluate the psychometric properties of a new questionnaire, the CHEQ (Coordination of Handoff Effectiveness Questionnaire) for measuring the quality of handoff interactions in labor and delivery (L&D) and (2) to demonstrate the utility of the CHEQ in evaluating the effectiveness of a previously described intervention, the tangible handoff, for standardizing handoffs in L&D. METHODS: The CHEQ incorporates three existing handoff-related scales: teamwork climate, job satisfaction, and burnout. Two new scales--information quality and process quality--were developed, refined, and evaluated. The CHEQ was administered to 56 eligible L&D nurses pre- and post-implementation of the tangible handoff intervention. RESULTS: Baseline and postintervention response rates for the CHEQ were 98% and 84%, respectively. Overall, the teamwork climate scale significantly improved from 57.17% to 68.35% (t = -2.84, p = .006), and the burnout scale significantly decreased from 49.70% to 36.21% (t = -2.56, p = .012) following implementation of the tangible handoff. Job satisfaction improved, although not at a statistically significant level. Cronbach's alpha results ranged from .68 to .96 for all scales, both pre- and post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The CHEQ is psychometrically sound for evaluating handoffquality, is practical to administer, achieves high response rates, and is amenable to straightforward statistical analysis. The CHEQ is useful for evaluating handoff quality and gauging the responsiveness to a unit-level intervention in the scope of unit-level climate. The CHEQ may be replicated or adapted for other clinical areas to investigate handoffs and inform the design and evaluation of handoff interventions.

When Mistakes Multiply: How Inadequate Responses to Medical Mishaps Erode Trust in American Medicine.

In this essay, we explore consequences of the systemic failure to track and to publicize the prevalence of patient-safety threats in American medicine. Tens of millions of Americans lose trust in medical care every year due to safety shortfalls. Because this loss of trust is long-lasting, the corrosive effects build up over time, yielding a collective maelstrom of mistrust among the American public. Yet no one seems to notice that patient safety is a root cause, because no one is counting. In addition to identifying the origins of this purblindness, we offer an alternative policy approach. This would call for government to transparently track safety threats through the systematic collection and reporting of patients' experiences. This alternative strategy offers real promise for stemming the erosion of trust that currently accompanies patient-safety shortfalls while staying consistent with Americans' preferences for a constrained government role with respect to medical care.

How exposure to patient narratives affects stereotyped choices of primary care clinicians.

In this paper, we examine whether patient narratives alter the impact of stereotyping on choice of primary care clinicians: in this case, the common presumption that female doctors will be more attentive to empathic relationships with patients. 1052 individuals were selected from a nationally representative Internet panel to participate in a survey experiment. Participants were given performance data about 12 fictitious primary care physicians, including a randomized set of narrative feedback from patients. We compared the choice of clinician made by participants who value bedside manner and were exposed to narratives in the experiment, compared to those valuing bedside manner who had not had this exposure. We estimated multivariate logistic regressions to assess whether exposure to patient comments that "disrupt" stereotypes influenced choice of physicians. Participants who saw patient comments and had previously reported caring about bedside manner had a 67% higher odds of choosing a female physician than those participants that did not see a patient comments, controlling for the content of the narratives themselves. When participants were exposed to patient comments that disrupt gendered stereotypes, they had a 40% lower odds of choosing a female physician. Simple exposure to patient narratives that do not clearly disrupt gendered stereotypes increased the likelihood of choosing a female clinician by priming attention to relational aspects of care. However, when the content of a sufficient proportion of patient comments runs counter stereotypes, even a minority of narratives is sufficient to disrupt gendered-expectations and alter choices.

Gaps in benefits, awareness, and comprehension that leave those with long COVID vulnerable.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has left many suffering from long COVID, an episodic and debilitating chronic condition affecting people's ability to work and manage medical expenses. Though the Biden Administration has committed to conducting research and building support programs to alleviate the strain on those affected, in practice, static eligibility criteria for unemployment and disability benefits, patchy insurance coverage, and insufficient paid leave programs have left many people vulnerable. Given the magnitude of long COVID and the dearth to date of large-scale studies about its financial consequences, a focused qualitative analysis of lived experiences is warranted to understand and highlight gaps in the policy landscape. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews from 2020 to 2022 with 25 people with experience of long COVID living predominately in the Midwest. RESULTS: Our inductive analysis revealed ways people became financially exhausted by uncertain medical care costs and precarious employment that left them trying, often alone, to access benefits. People described both experiences with workplace benefits and attempts to access federal benefits to address unstable employment situations created by protracted and uncertain functional impairments. DISCUSSION: We explore pre- and post-pandemic era unemployment, disability, and insurance policies and offer recommendations for better supporting people with long COVID.