Content Analysis of Negative Online Reviews of Hospice Agencies in the United States.

Importance: As online reviews of health care become increasingly integral to patient decision-making, understanding their content can help health care practices identify and address patient concerns. Objective: To identify the most frequently cited complaints in negative (ie, 1-star) online reviews of hospice agencies across the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study conducted a thematic analysis of online reviews of US hospice agencies posted between August 2011 and July 2019. The sample was selected from a Hospice Analytics database. For each state, 1 for-profit (n = 50) and 1 nonprofit (n = 50) hospice agency were randomly selected from the category of extra-large hospice agencies (ie, serving >200 patients/d) in the database. Data analysis was conducted from January 2019 to April 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reviews were analyzed to identify the most prevalent concerns expressed by reviewers. Results: Of 100 hospice agencies in the study sample, 67 (67.0%) had 1-star reviews; 33 (49.3%) were for-profit facilities and 34 (50.7%) were nonprofit facilities. Of 137 unique reviews, 68 (49.6%) were for for-profit facilities and 69 (50.4%) were for nonprofit facilities. A total of 5 themes emerged during the coding and analytic process, as follows: discordant expectations, suboptimal communication, quality of care, misperceptions about the role of hospice, and the meaning of a good death. The first 3 themes were categorized as actionable criticisms, which are variables hospice organizations could change. The remaining 2 themes were categorized as unactionable criticisms, which are factors that would require larger systematic changes to address. For both for-profit and nonprofit hospice agencies, quality of care was the most frequently commented-on theme (117 of 212 comments [55.2%]). For-profit hospice agencies received more communication-related comments overall (34 of 130 [26.2%] vs 9 of 82 [11.0%]), while nonprofit hospice agencies received more comments about the role of hospice (23 of 33 [69.7%] vs 19 of 31 [61.3%]) and the quality of death (16 [48.5%] vs 12 [38.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Regarding actionable criticisms, hospice agencies could examine their current practices, given that reviewers described these issues as negatively affecting the already difficult experience of losing a loved one. The findings indicated that patients and their families, friends, and caregivers require in-depth instruction and guidance on what they can expect from hospice staff, hospice services, and the dying process. Several criticisms identified in this study may be mitigated through operationalized, explicit conversations about these topics during hospice enrollment.

Centers of excellence: Are there standards?

INTRODUCTION: Centers of Excellence (CoEs) are intended to label hospitals that have met certain quality, process, volume and infrastructure guidelines. However, there are largely no standardized metrics to designate what qualifies as a CoE, leading to entities across the healthcare spectrum creating their own designations. Empirical studies on the impact of CoEs on quality do not consistently show improved care. Given the variability in definitions and outcomes for CoEs, the study evaluated the current status of defining and using CoE designations. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with executives from 10 healthcare organizations (including hospitals, insurers, employers, and benefits managers) who have a role in determining or using CoE designations to make decisions for their organizations. The interviews were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: We found that there is significant variability in the process for defining CoEs. There are also many operational challenges that hinder the success of a CoE program, including how patients access care at a CoE, the right geographical distribution of CoEs in a network, and coordinating care between the CoE and local providers. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standardization for designating CoEs not only prevents CoEs from fully achieving their intended effects of signaling "excellent" hospitals, but also causes confusion for patients, employers and payers, which dilutes the meaning of the CoE label. IMPLICATIONS: We suggest that the designation and implementation of CoEs should be standardized in healthcare.

Rehab MATRIX: Content Validity of a Nursing-Led Patient Assignment Algorithm.

PURPOSE: The provision of conscientious nursing care is at the forefront of health quality. Unfortunately, a lack of standardization in the assignment of patients to nurses can lead to care inequities. Rehab MATRIX is a nursing-led tool that equitably assigns patients using select acuity variables. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this initial study, we asked focus groups of 19 registered nurses and 8 patient care assistants to identify medical interventions that increase the effort of nursing care at a 24-bed inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF). This IRF is affiliated with a comprehensive heart and vascular institute, a level I trauma center, and a The Joint Commission (TJC) Comprehensive Stroke Center. FINDINGS: Thirteen acuity variables were included in the Rehab MATRIX patient assignment grid. High-acuity patients with greater than 6 variables were color-coded "red," medium-acuity patients with 3 to 5 variables were color-coded "yellow," and low-acuity patients with less than 3 variables were color-coded "green." Each registered nurse and patient care assistant were assigned an equitable number of red-, yellow-, and green-coded patients per shift. New admissions were Rehab MATRIX color-coded during nursing report and assigned objectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing staff at a wide-ranging IRF created Rehab MATRIX, an equitable patient assignment tool, representative of nursing effort needed to provide quality care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nursing-led patient assignment tools increase autonomy and provide the opportunity for all nursing staff to influence healthcare practice. These factors may lead to increased nursing satisfaction and decreased burnout.

Risk Adjustment for Hospital Characteristics Reduces Unexplained Hospital Variation in Pressure Injury Risk.

BACKGROUND: Research investigating risk factors for hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) has primarily focused on the characteristics of patients and nursing staff. Limited data are available on the association of hospital characteristics with HAPI. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify the association of hospital characteristics with HAPI and their effect on residual hospital variation in HAPI risk. METHODS: We employed a retrospective cohort study design with split validation using hierarchical survival analysis. This study extends the analysis "Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury (HAPI): Risk Adjusted Comparisons in an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System" by Rondinelli et al. (2018) to include hospital-level factors. We analyzed 1,661 HAPI episodes among 728,266 adult hospitalization episodes across 35 California Kaiser Permanente hospitals, an integrated healthcare delivery system between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2015. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level variables, 2 out of 12 candidate hospital variables were statistically significant predictors of HAPI. The hazard for HAPI decreased by 4.8% for every 0.1% increase in a hospital's mean mortality ([6.3%, 2.6%], p < .001), whereas every 1% increase in a hospital's proportion of patients with a history of diabetes increased HAPI hazard by 5% ([-0.04%, 10.0%], p = .072). Addition of these hierarchical variables decreased unexplained hospital variation of HAPI risk by 35%. DISCUSSION: We found hospitals with higher patient mortality had lower HAPI risk. Higher patient mortality may decrease the pool of patients who live to HAPI occurrence. Such hospitals may also provide more resources (specialty staff) to care for frail patient populations. Future research should aim to combine hospital data sets to overcome power limitations at the hospital level and should investigate additional measures of structure and process related to HAPI care.

Do the stars align? Distribution of high-quality ratings of healthcare sectors across US markets.

BACKGROUND: The US government created five-star rating systems to evaluate hospital, nursing homes, home health agency and dialysis centre quality. The degree to which quality is a property of organisations versus geographical markets is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether high-quality healthcare service sectors are clustered within US healthcare markets. DESIGN: Using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital, Dialysis, Nursing Home and Home Health Compare databases, we calculated the mean star ratings of four healthcare sectors in 304 US hospital referral regions (HRRs). For each sector, we ranked HRRs into terciles by mean star rating. Within each HRR, we assessed concordance of tercile rank across sectors using a multirater kappa. Using t-tests, we compared characteristics of HRRs with three to four top-ranked sectors, one to two top-ranked sectors and zero top-ranked sectors. RESULTS: Six HRRs (2.0% of HRRs) had four top-ranked healthcare sectors, 38 (12.5%) had three top-ranked health sectors, 71 (23.4%) had two top-ranked sectors, 111 (36.5%) had one top-ranked sector and 78 (25.7%) HRRs had no top-ranked sectors. A multirater kappa across all sectors showed poor to slight agreement (K=0.055). Compared with HRRs with zero top-ranked sectors, those with three to four top-ranked sectors had higher median incomes, fewer black residents, lower mortality rates and were less impoverished. Results were similar for HRRs with one to two top-ranked sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Few US healthcare markets exhibit high-quality performance across four distinct healthcare service sectors, suggesting that high-quality care in one sector may not be dependent on or improve care quality in other sectors. Policies that promote accountability for quality across sectors (eg, bundled payments and shared quality metrics) may be needed to systematically improve quality across sectors.

Patient experience and process measures of quality of care at home health agencies: Factors associated with high performance.

We examined the effects of provider characteristics on home health agency performance on patient experience of care (Home Health CAHPS) and process (OASIS) measures. Descriptive, multivariate, and factor analyses were used. While agencies score high on both domains, factor analyses showed that the underlying items represent separate constructs. Freestanding and Visiting Nurse Association agencies, higher number of home health aides per 100 episodes, and urban location were statistically significant predictors of lower performance. Lack of variation in composite measures potentially led to counterintuitive results for effects of organizational characteristics. This exploratory study showed the value of having separate quality domains.

[Variation in hospital performance according to payment sources in the states of São Paulo and do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil]. / Variação do desempenho hospitalar segundo fontes de pagamento nos estados de São Paulo e Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

In Brazil, the combined presence of public and private interests in financing and provision of healthcare services stands out clearly in hospital care. Financing arrangements adopted by hospitals (the public Brazilian Unified National Health System - SUS and/or health plans and/or out-of-pocket payment) can affect quality of care. Studies have analyzed the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) in relation to quality improvements. The objective was to analyze HSMR according to source of payment for the hospitalization and the hospital's financing arrangement. The study analyzed secondary data and causes that accounted for 80% of hospital deaths. HSMR was calculated for each hospital and payment source. Hospitals with worse-than-expected performance (HSMR > 1) were mostly large public hospitals. HSMR was higher in the SUS, including between admissions in the hospital. Despite the study's limitations, the findings point to inequalities in results of care. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of hospital services, regardless of the payment sources.

What Influences How Patients Rate Their Hospital After Total Knee Arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing pressure from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to report quality measures for all hospitalizations. These quality measures are determined based on results from satisfaction surveys, such as Press Ganey® (PG) (Press Ganey® Performance Solutions, Wakefield, Massachusetts). Included in this particular survey element are questions regarding staff, including nurses and doctors, as well as items such as pain control. The results of these surveys will dictate the amount doctors are compensated for their services. Therefore, this study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of treating orthopaedists and nurses, as well as pain control, on PG surveys in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Specifically, we aimed to ascertain the effect of these factors on how post-TKA patients perceive: 1) their orthopaedist, and 2) their overall surgical experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the Press Ganey® Database for all patients who underwent a TKA at our institution between November 2009 and January 2015. A weighted mean of question domains was utilized since each had multiple questions. In order to assess if pain management influences orthopaedist perception, a correlation analysis was performed between pain control and perception. In order to assess the influence of pain management on surgical experience, we performed a correlation analysis between pain control and overall hospital rating. A multiple regression analysis was performed using the hospital rating as the dependent variable to determine the most influential factors on surgical experience. RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrated a significantly positive correlation between patient perception of their pain control and their orthopaedist. There was a significant positive correlation between patient's perception of their pain control and their overall surgical experience. Multiple regression analysis using overall surgical experience as the dependent variable demonstrated a significant positive influence of perception of nurses and orthopaedists. Pain management positively influenced surgical experience; however, this was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: We found that perception of pain control in post-TKA patients affects perception of the treating orthopaedists, as well as their overall surgical experience. In addition, perception of orthopaedists and nurses both outweigh perception of pain control on overall surgical experience, with nurses being the most important. Orthopaedists should focus on staff education-particularly nurses-and educate them in order to optimize results on PG surveys and, ultimately, improve patient satisfaction. Further studies should correlate current standardized scoring systems and questionnaires for TKA with PG surveys in order to recognize gaps that need to be bridged to improve post-TKA patient satisfaction.

Variação do desempenho hospitalar segundo fontes de pagamento nos estados de São Paulo e Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil / Variation in hospital performance according to payment sources in the states of São Paulo and do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil / Variación del desempeño hospitalario según fuentes de pago en los estados de São Paulo y de Río Grande do Sul, Brasil

Resumo: No Brasil, a convivência público-privado no financiamento e na prestação do cuidado ganha nítidos contornos na assistência hospitalar. Os arranjos de financiamento adotados pelos hospitais (Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS e/ou planos de saúde e/ou pagamento particular) podem afetar a qualidade do cuidado. Alguns estudos buscam associar a razão de mortalidade hospitalar padronizada (RMHP) a melhorias na qualidade. O objetivo foi analisar a RMHP segundo fonte de pagamento da internação e arranjo de financiamento do hospital. Analisaram-se dados secundários e causas responsáveis por 80% dos óbitos hospitalares. A RMHP foi calculada para cada hospital e fonte de pagamento. Hospitais com desempenho pior que o esperado (RMHP > 1) foram majoritariamente públicos de maior porte. A RMHP nas internações SUS foi superior, inclusive entre internações no mesmo hospital. Apesar dos limites, os achados indicam iniquidades no resultado do cuidado. Esforços voltados para a melhoria da qualidade de serviços hospitalares, independentemente das fontes de pagamento, são prementes.

Abstract: In Brazil, the combined presence of public and private interests in financing and provision of healthcare services stands out clearly in hospital care. Financing arrangements adopted by hospitals (the public Brazilian Unified National Health System - SUS and/or health plans and/or out-of-pocket payment) can affect quality of care. Studies have analyzed the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) in relation to quality improvements. The objective was to analyze HSMR according to source of payment for the hospitalization and the hospital's financing arrangement. The study analyzed secondary data and causes that accounted for 80% of hospital deaths. HSMR was calculated for each hospital and payment source. Hospitals with worse-than-expected performance (HSMR > 1) were mostly large public hospitals. HSMR was higher in the SUS, including between admissions in the hospital. Despite the study's limitations, the findings point to inequalities in results of care. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of hospital services, regardless of the payment sources.

Resumen: En Brasil, la convivencia público-privada en la financiación y en la prestación del cuidado empieza a definirse nítidamente en la asistencia hospitalaria. Los acuerdos de financiación adoptados por los hospitales (Sistema Único de Salud - SUS y/o planes de salud y/o pago particular) pueden afectar a la calidad del cuidado. Algunos estudios buscan asociar la razón de mortalidad hospitalaria padronizada (RMHP) a mejorías en la calidad. El objetivo fue analizar la RMHP según la fuente de pago del internamiento y acuerdos de financiación del hospital. Se analizaron datos secundarios y causas responsables de un 80% de los óbitos hospitalarios. La RMHP se calculó para cada hospital y fuente de pago. Los hospitales con un desempeño peor que el esperado (RMHP > 1) fueron mayoritariamente públicos y con un mayor número de pacientes. La RMHP en los internamientos SUS fue superior, incluyendo internamientos en el mismo hospital. A pesar de los límites, los hallazgos indican inequidades en el resultado del cuidado. Son necesarios esfuerzos dirigidos a la mejoría de la calidad de servicios hospitalarios, independientemente de las fuentes de pago de los mismos.

Case Numbers and Process Quality in Breast Surgery in Germany: A Retrospective Analysis of Over 150,000 Patients From 2013 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies from around the world have shown a positive association between case numbers and the quality of medical care. The evidence to date suggests that conformity to guidelines for the treatment of patients with breast cancer is better in German hospitals that have higher case numbers. METHODS: We used data obtained by an external program for quality assurance in inpatient care (externe stationäre Qualitätssicherung, esQS) for the years 2013 and 2014 to investigate seven process indicators in the area of breast surgery, including histologic confirmation of the diagnosis before definitive treatment, axillary dissection as recommended by the guidelines, and an appropriate temporal interval between diagnosis and operation. Case numbers were categorized with the aid of various threshold values. Moreover, subgroup analyses were carried out for patients under age 65, patients in good general health, patients without lymph-node involvement, and patients with a tumor size pT0 or pT1 or an overall tumor size less than 5 cm. RESULTS: Data on 153,475 patients from 939 hospitals were analyzed. Six of seven indicators had values that were better overall, to a statistically significant extent, in hospitals with higher case numbers. Although this relationship was not consistently seen, the worst results were generally found in the category with the lowest case numbers. Similar though less striking results were obtained in the subgroup analyses. An exception to the general finding was that, in hospitals with higher case numbers, the interval between diagnosis and operation was more often longer than three weeks. CONCLUSION: Guideline adherence is higher in hospitals that treat more cases. The present study does not address the question whether this, in turn, affects morbidity or mortality. To improve process quality in peripheral hospitals, the quality assurance program should be continued.

[Commonwealth Fund Survey 2012: Survey of Primary Care Doctors in 11 Countries: Use of Health Information Technology and Important Aspects of Care]. / Commonwealth Fund Survey 2012: Befragung von Primärärzten in 11 Ländern zur Nutzung von Informationstechnologie und zu wichtigen Versorgungsaspekten.

BACKGROUND: In 2006 and 2009 the US-American Commonwealth Fund (CMWF) already conducted international surveys with primary care physicians regarding their daily work and important aspects of care. In 2012 a third survey took place in 11 countries, with an emphasis on use of information technology. METHODS: There was a written survey and a telephone survey of primary care physicians conducted in eleven industrial countries. In Germany, a random sample of 4 500 primary care physicians out of all 16 federal states were contacted by mail between April and July 2012. The data acquisition in Germany was conducted by the BQS Institute for Quality and Patient Safety and funded by the Federal Ministry of Health. The results were weighted by age, sex, region and medical specialty of the participating doctors. RESULTS: 9 776 primary care physicians participated; 909 of them in Germany. The response rate in Germany was 20%. 80% of the primary care physicians in Germany are using electronic patient records. But special IT functions, with the exception of electronic prescriptions and ordering of laboratory tests, are little used compared to other countries. Even in countries with a wide use of special IT functions within the practices, the possibility of communicating with colleagues and patients electronically is often lacking. 35% of the German primary care physicians think the quality of care has declined since the last survey in 2009. Only in France do more primary care physicians share that feeling (37%). In 2012 a lot more German primary care physicians stated to have problems with long waiting times for specialist consults (2009: 10%; 2012: 68%).

[Linking claims data and beneficiary survey information to report on the quality of health care: potential, pitfalls, and perspectives]. / Routinedaten der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung und Versichertenbefragungen in der Qualitätsberichterstattung - Potenzial, Probleme und Perspektiven.

Reports on the quality of care aim at health and patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical care. To achieve meaningful information the study designs must be robust against bias through highly selected patient populations or health care providers but also allow for adequate control of confounding. The article describes the potential and pitfalls of administrative claims data and surveys of beneficiaries. The large potential of using both sources is illustrated in the primary inpatient treatment for prostate cancer. However, linking claims data and patient survey data still leaves some problems to be addressed in the final section. Linking claims data and beneficiary survey information on patient reported outcomes overcomes sectoral barriers and allows for an integrated evaluation of pathways of care in the short-, mid- and long-term. It is economical and well suited for a variety, but not all health care problems. Future efforts might be directed towards more collaboration among sickness funds.

"Phenotyping" hospital value of care for patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize hospitals based on patterns of their combined financial and clinical outcomes for heart failure hospitalizations longitudinally. DATA SOURCE: Detailed cost and administrative data on hospitalizations for heart failure from 424 hospitals in the 2005-2011 Premier database. STUDY DESIGN: Using a mixture modeling approach, we identified groups of hospitals with distinct joint trajectories of risk-standardized cost (RSC) per hospitalization and risk-standardized in-hospital mortality rate (RSMR), and assessed hospital characteristics associated with the distinct patterns using multinomial logistic regression. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: During 2005-2011, mean hospital RSC decreased from $12,003 to $10,782, while mean hospital RSMR declined from 3.9 to 3.2 percent. We identified five distinct hospital patterns: highest cost and low mortality (3.2 percent of the hospitals), high cost and low mortality (20.4 percent), medium cost and low mortality (34.6 percent), medium cost and high mortality (6.2 percent), and low cost and low mortality (35.6 percent). Longer hospital stay and greater use of intensive care unit and surgical procedures were associated with phenotypes with higher costs or greater mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals vary substantially in the joint longitudinal patterns of cost and mortality, suggesting marked difference in value of care. Understanding determinants of the variation will inform strategies for improving the value of hospital care.

Surgical pathology report defects: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 73 institutions.

CONTEXT: The rate of surgical pathology report defects is an indicator of quality and it affects clinician satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: To establish benchmarks for defect rates and defect fractions through a large, multi-institutional prospective application of standard taxonomy. DESIGN: Participants in a 2011 Q-Probes study of the College of American Pathologists prospectively reviewed all surgical pathology reports that underwent changes to correct defects and reported details regarding the defects. RESULTS: Seventy-three institutions reported 1688 report defects discovered in 360,218 accessioned cases, for an aggregate defect rate of 4.7 per 1000 cases. Median institutional defect rate was 5.7 per 1000 (10th to 90th percentile range, 13.5-0.9). Defect rates were higher in institutions with a pathology training program (8.5 versus 5.0 per 1000, P = .01) and when a set percentage of cases were reviewed after sign-out (median, 6.7 versus 3.8 per 1000, P = .10). Defect types were as follows: 14.6% misinterpretations, 13.3% misidentifications, 13.7% specimen defects, and 58.4% other report defects. Overall, defects were most often detected by pathologists (47.4%), followed by clinicians (22.0%). Misinterpretations and specimen defects were most often detected by pathologists (73.5% and 82.7% respectively, P < .001), while misidentifications were most often discovered by clinicians (44.6%, P < .001). Misidentification rates were lower when all malignancies were reviewed by a second pathologist before sign-out (0.0 versus 0.6 per 1000, P < .001), and specimen defect rates were lower when intradepartmental review of difficult cases was conducted after sign-out (0.0 versus 0.4 per 1000, P = .02). CONCLUSION: This study provides benchmarking data on report defects and defect fractions using standardized taxonomy.

Adherence to performance measures and outcomes among men treated for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We assessed the relationship between health care system performance on nationally endorsed prostate cancer quality of care measures and prostate cancer treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 48,050 men from SEER-Medicare linked data diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2009, and followed through 2010. Based on a composite quality measure we categorized the health care systems in which these men were treated into 1-star (bottom 20%), 2-star (middle 60%) and 3-star (top 20%) systems. We then examined the association of health care system level quality of care with outcomes using multivariable logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS: Patients who underwent prostatectomy in 3-star vs 1-star health care systems were at lower risk for perioperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-1.00). However, they were more likely to undergo a procedure addressing treatment related morbidity, eg for sexual morbidity (11.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.043). In patients who received radiotherapy star ranking was not associated with treatment related morbidity. In all patients star ranking was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84-1.15) or secondary cancer therapy (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: We found no consistent association between health care system quality and outcomes, which questions how meaningful these measures ultimately are for patients. Thus, future studies should focus on developing more discriminative quality measures.