Survey Protocols, Response Rates, and Representation of Underserved Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Surveys often underrepresent certain patients, such as underserved patients. Methods that improve their response rates (RRs) would help patient surveys better represent their experiences and assess equity and equity-targeted quality improvement efforts. Objective: To estimate the effect of adding an initial web mode to existing Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey protocols and extending the fielding period on RR and representativeness of underserved patient groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 36 001 patients discharged from 46 US hospitals from May through December 2021. Data analysis was performed from May 2022 to September 2023. Exposures: Patients were randomized to 1 of 6 survey protocols: 3 standard HCAHPS protocols (mail only, phone only, mail-phone) plus 3 web-enhanced protocols (web-mail, web-phone, web-mail-phone). Main Outcomes and Measures: RR and number of respondents per 100 survey attempts (yield) were calculated and compared for each of the 6 survey protocols, overall, and by patient age, service line, sex, and race and ethnicity. Results: A total of 34 335 patients (median age range, 55-59 years; 59.3% female individuals and 40.7% male individuals) were eligible and included in the study. Of the respondents, 6.9% were Asian American or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.7% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 11.5% were Black, 17.4% were Hispanic, 61.0% were White, and 2.6% were multiracial. Of the 6 protocols, RRs were highest in web-mail-phone (36.5%), intermediate for the 3 two-mode survey protocols (mail-phone, web-mail, web-phone, 30.3%-31.1%), and lowest for the 2 single-mode protocols (mail only, phone only, 22.1%-24.3%). Web-mail-phone resulted in the highest yield for 3 racial and ethnic groups (Black, Hispanic, and White patients) and second highest for another (multiracial patients). Otherwise, the highest or second highest yield was almost always a 2-mode protocol. Mail only was the lowest-yield protocol for Black, Hispanic, and multiracial patients and phone-only was the lowest-yield protocol for White patients; these 2 protocols tied for lowest-yield for Asian American or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Gains from multimode approaches were often 2 to 3 times as large for Asian American or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and multiracial patients as for White patients. Web-mail-phone had the highest RR for 6 of 8 age groups and 4 of 5 combinations of service line and sex. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, web-first multimode survey protocols significantly improved the RR and representativeness of patient surveys. The best-performing protocol based on RR and representativeness was web-mail-phone. Web-phone performed well for young and diverse patient populations, and web-mail for older and less diverse patient populations. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow hospitals to use the web-mail, web-phone, and web-mail-phone protocols for HCAHPS administration beginning in 2025.

Interventions and Hospital Characteristics Associated With Patient Experience: An Update of the Evidence.

Patient experience is a key hospital quality measure. We review and characterize the literature on interventions, care and management processes, and structural characteristics associated with better inpatient experiences as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. Prior reviews identified several promising interventions. We update these previous efforts by including more recent peer-reviewed literature and expanding the review's scope to include observational studies of HCAHPS measures with process measures and structural characteristics. We used PubMed to identify U.S. English-language peer-reviewed articles published in 2017 to 2020 and focused on hospital patient experience. The two HCAHPS domains for which we found the fewest potential quality improvement interventions were Communication with Doctors and Quietness. We identified several modifiable processes that could be rigorously evaluated in the future, including electronic health record patient engagement functionality, care management processes, and nurse-to-patient ratios. We describe implications for future policy, practice, and research.

Changes in Patient Experiences of Hospital Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: It is important to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic was adversely associated with patients' care experiences. Objective: To describe differences in 2020 to 2021 patient experiences from what would have been expected from prepandemic (2018-2019) trends and assess correlates of changes across hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared 2020 to 2021 data with 2018 to 2019 data from 3 900 887 HCAHPS respondents discharged from 3381 HCAHPS-participating US hospitals. The data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was an HCAHPS summary score (HCAHPS-SS), which averaged 10 HCAHPS measures. The primary analysis estimated whether HCAHPS scores from patients discharged from 2020 to 2021 differed from scores that would be expected based on quarterly and linear trends from 2018 to 2019 discharges. Secondary analyses stratified hospitals by prepandemic overall star ratings and staffing levels. Results: Of the 3 900 887 HCAHPS 2020 to 2021 respondents, 59% were age 65 years or older, and 35% (11%) were in the surgical (maternity) service lines. Compared with trends expected based on prepandemic (2018-2019) data, HCAHPS-SS was 1.2 percentage points (pp) lower for quarter (Q) 2/2020 discharges and -1.9 to -2.0 pp for Q3/2020 to Q1/2021, which then declined to -3.6 pp by Q4/2021. The most affected measures (Q4/2021) were staff responsiveness (-5.6 pp) and cleanliness (-4.9 pp); the least affected were discharge information (-1.6 pp) and quietness (-1.8 pp). Overall rating and hospital recommendation measures initially exhibited smaller-than-average decreases, but then fell as much as the more specific experience measures by Q2/2021. Quietness did not decline until Q2/2021. The HCAHPS-SS fell most for hospitals with the lowest prepandemic staffing levels; hospitals with bottom-quartile staffing showed the largest decrements, whereas top-quartile hospitals showed smaller decrements in most quarters. Hospitals with better overall prepandemic quality showed consistently smaller HCAHPS-SS drops, with effects for 5-star hospitals about 25% smaller than for 1-star and 2-star hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study of HCAHPS-participating hospitals found that patient experience scores declined during 2020 to 2021. By Q4/2021, the HCAHPS-SS was 3.6 pp lower than would have been expected, a medium effect size. The most affected measures (staff responsiveness and cleanliness) showed large effect sizes, possibly reflecting high illness-associated hospital workforce absenteeism. Hospitals that were lower performing and less staffed prepandemic may have been less resilient to reduced staff availability and other pandemic-associated challenges. However, by Q4/2021, even prepandemic high-performing hospitals had similar declines.

Inpatient care experiences differ by preferred language within racial/ethnic groups.

OBJECTIVE: To describe differences in patient experiences of hospital care by preferred language within racial/ethnic groups. DATA SOURCE: 2014-2015 HCAHPS survey data. STUDY DESIGN: We compared six composite measures for seven languages (English, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Other) within applicable subsets of five racial/ethnic groups (Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Blacks, and Whites). We measured patient-mix adjusted overall, between- and within-hospital differences in patient experience by language, using linear regression. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Surveys from 5 480 308 patients discharged from 4517 hospitals 2014-2015. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Within each racial/ethnic group, mean reported experiences for non-English-preferring patients were almost always worse than their English-preferring counterparts. Language differences were largest and most consistent for Care Coordination. Within-hospital differences by language were often larger than between-hospital differences and were largest for Care Coordination. Where between-hospital differences existed, non-English-preferring patients usually attended hospitals whose average patient experience scores for all patients were lower than the average scores for the hospitals of their English-preferring counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts should be made to increase access to better hospitals for language minorities and improve care coordination and other facets of patient experience in hospitals with high proportions of non-English-preferring patients, focusing on cultural competence and language-appropriate services.

Medicare Advantage and Fee-for-Service Performance on Clinical Quality and Patient Experience Measures: Comparisons from Three Large States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare performance between Medicare Advantage (MA) and Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare during a time of policy changes affecting both programs. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Performance data for 16 clinical quality measures and 6 patient experience measures for 9.9 million beneficiaries living in California, New York, and Florida. STUDY DESIGN: We compared MA and FFS performance overall, by plan type, and within service areas associated with contracts between CMS and MA organizations. Case mix-adjusted analyses (for measures not typically adjusted) were used to explore the effect of case mix on MA/FFS differences. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Performance measures were submitted by MA organizations, obtained from the nationwide fielding of the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) Survey, or derived from claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall, MA outperformed FFS on all 16 clinical quality measures. Differences were large for HEDIS measures and small for Part D measures and remained after case mix adjustment. MA enrollees reported better experiences overall, but FFS beneficiaries reported better access to care. Relative to FFS, performance gaps were much wider for HMOs than PPOs. Excluding HEDIS measures, MA/FFS differences were much smaller in contract-level comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare Advantage/Fee-for-Service differences are often large but vary in important ways across types of measures and contracts.

Understanding The Role Played By Medicare's Patient Experience Points System In Hospital Reimbursement.

In 2015 the Medicare Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program paid hospitals $1.4 billion in performance-based incentives; 30 percent of a hospital's VBP Total Performance Score was based on performance on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) measures of the patient experience of care. Hospitals receive patient experience points based on three components: achievement, improvement, and consistency. For 2015 we examined how the three components affected reimbursement for 3,152 hospitals, including their impact on low-performing and high-minority hospitals. Achievement accounted for 96 percent of the differences among hospitals in total HCAHPS points. Although achievement had the biggest influence on payments, payments related to improvement and consistency were more beneficial for low-performing hospitals that disproportionately served minority patients. The findings highlight the important inducement that paying for improvement provides to initially low-performing hospitals to improve care and the role this incentive structure plays in minimizing resource redistributions away from hospitals serving minority populations. Additional emphasis on improvement points could benefit hospitals serving disadvantaged patients.

Accelerating Improvement and Narrowing Gaps: Trends in Patients' Experiences with Hospital Care Reflected in HCAHPS Public Reporting.

OBJECTIVE: Measure HCAHPS improvement in hospitals participating in the second and fifth years of HCAHPS public reporting; determine whether change is greater for some hospital types. DATA: Surveys from 4,822,960 adult inpatients discharged July 2007-June 2008 or July 2010-June 2011 from 3,541 U.S. hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Linear mixed-effect regression models with fixed effects for time, patient mix, and hospital characteristics (bedsize, ownership, Census division, teaching status, Critical Access status); random effects for hospitals and hospital-time interactions; fixed-effect interactions of hospital characteristics and patient characteristics (gender, health, education) with time predicted HCAHPS measures correcting for regression-to-the-mean biases. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: National probability sample of adult inpatients in any of four approved survey modes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: HCAHPS scores increased by 2.8 percentage points from 2008 to 2011 in the most positive response category. Among the middle 95 percent of hospitals, changes ranged from a 5.1 percent decrease to a 10.2 percent gain overall. The greatest improvement was in for-profit and larger (200 or more beds) hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Five years after HCAHPS public reporting began, meaningful improvement of patients' hospital care experiences continues, especially among initially low-scoring hospitals, reducing some gaps among hospitals.

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.

A randomized experiment investigating the suitability of speech-enabled IVR and Web modes for publicly reported surveys of patients' experience of hospital care.

The HCAHPS Survey obtains hospital patients' experiences using four modes: Mail Only, Phone Only, Mixed (mail/phone follow-up), and Touch-Tone (push-button) Interactive Voice Response with option to transfer to live interviewer (TT-IVR/Phone). A new randomized experiment examines two less expensive modes: Web/Mail (mail invitation to participate by Web or request a mail survey) and Speech-Enabled IVR (SE-IVR/Phone; speaking to a voice recognition system; optional transfer to an interviewer). Web/Mail had a 12% response rate (vs. 32% for Mail Only and 33% for SE-IVR/Phone); Web/Mail respondents were more educated and less often Black than Mail Only respondents. SE-IVR/Phone respondents (who usually switched to an interviewer) were less often older than 75 years, more often English-preferring, and reported better care than Mail Only respondents. Concerns regarding inconsistencies across implementations, low adherence to primary modes, or low response rate may limit the applicability of the SE-IVR/Phone and Web/Mail modes in HCAHPS and similar standardized environments.

Hospital survey shows improvements in patient experience.

Hospitals are improving the inpatient care experience. A government survey that measures patients' experiences with a range of issues from staff responsiveness to hospital cleanliness-the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey-is showing modest but meaningful gains. Using data from the surveys reported in March 2008 and March 2009, we present the first comprehensive national assessment of changes in patients' experiences with inpatient care since public reporting of the results began. We found improvements in all measures of patient experience, except doctors' communication. These improvements were fairly uniform across hospitals. The largest increases were in measures related to staff responsiveness and the discharge information that patients received.