Development and evaluation of the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey for in-center hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services assess patient experiences of care as part of the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system and Quality Incentive Program. This article describes the development and evaluation of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) In-Center Hemodialysis Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted formative research to generate survey questions and performed statistical analyses to evaluate the survey's measurement properties. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Formative research included focus groups, cognitive interviews, and field testing the survey with dialysis patients. MEASUREMENTS & OUTCOMES: We assessed internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) and center-level reliability for 3 multi-item scales. We evaluated construct validity using correlations of the scales with global ratings of the kidney doctor, staff, and dialysis center. RESULTS: Response rate was 46% (1,454 completed surveys). Analyses support 3 multi-item scales: Nephrologists' Communication and Caring (7 items, alpha=0.89), Quality of Dialysis Center Care and Operations (22 items, alpha=0.93), and Providing Information to Patients (11 items, alpha=0.75). The communication scale was correlated the most strongly with the global rating of the "kidney doctor" (r=0.78). The Dialysis Center Care and Operations scale was correlated most strongly with global ratings of staff (r=0.75) and the center (r=0.69). Providing Information to Patients was correlated most strongly with the global rating of the staff (r=0.41). LIMITATIONS: A relatively small number of patients completed the survey in Spanish. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the reliability and validity of the CAHPS In-Center Hemodialysis Survey for assessing patient experiences of care at dialysis facilities. The survey can be used to compare care provided at different facilities.

Staying at the cutting edge: a review and analysis of evidence reporting and grading; the recommendations of the American Urological Association.

The American Urological Association (AUA), as the premier urological organization in the USA, has been a pioneering force in the development of practice guidelines. Recently the AUA evaluated their guidelines development procedures and implemented several changes that resulted in more scientifically rigorous, transparent and efficient processes. These changes include narrowing the scope of the guideline, strengthening the systematic literature review, updating data-analysis capabilities, altering panel members' roles to exclude laborious data extraction, and identifying and specifying levels of evidence for guideline recommendations. In addition to a more scientifically sound guideline, the outcome of these modifications is a timely, less costly document involving fewer burdens on panel members.

Perceptions and competence in evidence-based medicine: a survey of the American Urological Association Membership.

PURPOSE: We investigated the attitudes and opinions of urologists toward evidence-based medicine to help guide future efforts of the American Urological Association and other organizations vested in the education and training of urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August to November 2006 we performed a mail survey of a random sample of 2,000 members of the American Urological Association. Questions in the survey addressed the role of evidence-based medicine in urology, participants' self-assessed understanding of evidence-based medicine related terminology, their familiarity with and use of web based evidence-based medicine resources, as well as their evidence-based medicine competence based on their understanding of core concepts such as randomization and blinding. RESULTS: A total of 889 respondents completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 45%. There was widespread agreement that practicing evidence-based medicine improves patient care (median score 8; IQR 7, 10) and that every urologist should be familiar with critical appraisal techniques (median score 9; IQR 8, 10). The percentage of respondents who indicated that they "understand and could explain to others" the terms number needed to treat, power and level of evidence was 42%, 29% and 18%, respectively. The American Urological Association Guidelines were used regularly by 35% and on occasion by 51% of respondents. Of the participants 44% were unaware of the PubMed(R) search engine and only 14% used it regularly, while 76% were unaware of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and only 8% had ever used it. The mean evidence-based medicine competence score for all respondents was 67.2% +/- 17.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this survey confirm that urologists have a favorable attitude toward evidence-based medicine. However, understanding of evidence-based medicine terminology, concepts and use of related resources among American Urological Association members leaves room for improvement. Increased efforts to promote an understanding of evidence-based medicine through workshops, publications and web based resources specifically for a urological audience appear indicated.

Pay for performance: rationale and potential implications for urology.

PURPOSE: Pay for performance represents a new paradigm for physician reimbursement based on the value based purchasing of health care services. Government and private payers have expressed an interest in moving toward this system with several pay for performance programs already in place. The rationale behind this initiative and what it means for the practicing urologist are discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and Internet based research focusing on the topics of health care quality, measures used to implement pay for performance, and private and public sector experience with pay for performance to date were reviewed. RESULTS: Health care quality can be assessed through 3 types of measures, including structure, process and outcome. Structure measures involve the environment where services are provided, whereas process measures capture how a particular provider delivers health care. Outcome assessment involves the results of the services provided. These measures are best used when they are used in coordination with each other, and when they are risk adjusted. Most pay for performance systems in use today are based on these measures. However, there are little data that show whether this reimbursement paradigm actually improves the quality of heath care provided. CONCLUSIONS: Many questions remain regarding the implementation of a pay for performance system in the field of urology. Government and private payers are motivated to implement pay for performance. However, specific evidence based metrics for urology that fairly and accurately define quality are currently lacking. Given that implementation of a nationwide pay for performance system appears to be inevitable, urology involvement in the development and implementation of these health care quality metrics is essential.

Quality of health care for older women: what do we know?

As the proportion of the population age 65 and over continues to grow--to a projected 20.5% or 77.2 million by the year 2040--tracking the quality, access, and receipt of care for older women becomes more important, since the majority of older citizens are women. This article establishes a rough baseline for the quality of care, primarily preventive care, received by older women compared to older men, using selected measures and data of the 2004 National Healthcare Quality Report and National Healthcare Disparities Report. It highlights significant differences between women and men, as well as differences for racial, ethnic, and educational subgroups. Generally, older non-Hispanic white women frequently score higher than their Hispanic and non-Hispanic black counterparts, and more educated women often score significantly higher than their less-educated peers on several measures of quality of care. Compared to their male counterparts, older women are significantly less likely to have any colorectal screening test, to keep high blood pressure under control, and to receive aspirin or beta-blockers upon hospital admission or discharge for acute myocardial infarction. Results are mixed for the process measures related to diabetes, but improvements are clearly needed toward increased rates of eye and foot examinations. Rates of influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are low but can be improved through Medicare-covered services. We also found that older women are screened less often for breast cancer than those ages 40 to 64. There is still a pervasive lack of knowledge in the research and clinical communities about the unique health care needs of and appropriate processes of care for older adults. More research needs to focus on the quality of care for this growing population in order to allow the development of geriatric-based quality measures and models of care that will set the standards of healthcare for older adults in general, and older women in particular.

Health insurance knowledge among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of new consumer information materials about the Medicare program on beneficiary knowledge of their health care coverage under the Medicare system. DATA SOURCE: A telephone survey of 2,107 Medicare beneficiaries in the 10-county Kansas City metropolitan statistical area. STUDY DESIGN: Beneficiaries were randomly assigned to a control group and three treatment groups each receiving a different set of Medicare informational materials. The "handbook-only" group received the Health Care Financing Administration's new Medicare & You 1999 handbook. The "bulletin" group received an abbreviated version of the handbook, and the "handbook + CAHPS" group received the Medicare & You handbook plus the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans (CAHPS) survey report comparing the quality of health care provided by Medicare HMOs. Beneficiaries interested in receiving information were oversampled. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Data were collected during two separate telephone surveys of Medicare beneficiaries: one survey of new beneficiaries and another survey of experienced beneficiaries. The intervention materials were mailed to sample members in advance of the interviews. Knowledge for the treatment groups was measured shortly after beneficiaries received the intervention materials. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Respondents' knowledge was measured using a psychometrically valid and reliable 15-item measure. Beneficiaries who received the intervention materials answered significantly more questions correctly than control group members. The effect on beneficiary knowledge of providing the information was modest for all intervention groups but varied for experienced beneficiaries only, depending on the intervention they received. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that all of the new materials had a positive effect on beneficiary knowledge about Medicare and the Medicare + Choice program. While the absolute gain in knowledge was modest, it was greater than increases in knowledge associated with traditional Medicare information sources.

What does voluntary disenrollment from Medicare+Choice plans mean to beneficiaries?

The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 required CMS to report publicly Medicare managed care (MMC) plan voluntary disenrollment rates. To ensure disenrollment rates would be meaningful to beneficiaries in health plan choice, CMS funded the development of surveys and reporting formats to identify and present the reasons that beneficiaries voluntarily leave plans. Public reporting of reasons on the Medicare Web site began in 2002. We discuss results from extensive audience testing of disenrollment rates and reasons materials. Medicare beneficiaries do not easily understand disenrollment. We also discuss challenges in presenting useful disenrollment information and policy implications for public reporting.