Trends in HCAHPS Survey Scores, 2008-2019: A Quality Improvement Perspective.

BACKGROUND: HCAHPS' 2008 initial public reporting, 2012 inclusion in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP), and 2015 inclusion in Hospital Star Ratings were intended to improve patient experiences. OBJECTIVES: Characterize pre-COVID-19 (2008-2019) trends in hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (HCAHPS) scores. RESEARCH DESIGN: Describe HCAHPS score trends overall, by phase: (1) initial public reporting period (2008-2013), (2) first 2 years of HVBP (2013-2015), and (3) initial HCAHPS Star Ratings reporting (2015-2019); and by hospital characteristics (HCAHPS decile, ownership, size, teaching affiliation, and urban/rural). SUBJECTS: A total of 3909 HCAHPS-participating US hospitals. MEASURES: HCAHPS summary score (HCAHPS-SS) and 9 measures. RESULTS: The mean 2007-2019 HCAHPS-SS improvement in most-positive-category ("top-box") responses was +5.2 percentage points/pp across all hospitals (where differences of 5pp, 3pp, and 1pp are "large," "medium," and "small"). Improvement rate was largest in phase 1 (+0.8/pp/year vs. +0.2pp/year and +0.1pp/year for phases 2 and 3, respectively). Improvement was largest for Overall Rating of Hospital (+8.5pp), Discharge Information (+7.3pp), and Nurse Communication (+6.5pp), smallest for Doctor Communication (+0.8pp). Some measures improved notably through phases 2 and 3 (Nurse Communication, Staff Responsiveness, Overall Rating of Hospital), but others slowed or reversed in Phase 3 (Communication about Medicines, Quietness). Bottom-decile hospitals improved more than other hospitals for all measures. CONCLUSIONS: All HCAHPS measures improved rapidly 2008-2013, especially among low-performing (bottom-decile) hospitals, narrowing the range of performance and improving scores overall. This initial improvement may reflect widespread, general quality improvement (QI) efforts in lower-performing hospitals. Subsequent slower improvement following the introduction of HVBP and Star Ratings may have reflected targeted, resource-intensive QI in higher-performing hospitals.

Effect of interventions to improve safety culture on healthcare workers in hospital settings: a systematic review of the international literature.

BACKGROUND: In an era of safety systems, hospital interventions to build a culture of safety deliver organisational learning methodologies for staff. Their benefits to hospital staff are unknown. We examined the literature for evidence of staff outcomes. Research questions were: (1) how is safety culture defined in studies with interventions that aim to enhance it?; (2) what effects do interventions to improve safety culture have on hospital staff?; (3) what intervention features explain these effects? and (4) what staff outcomes and experiences are identified? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review of published literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Health Business Elite and Scopus. We adopted a convergent approach to synthesis and integration. Identified intervention and staff outcomes were categorised thematically and combined with available data on measures and effects. RESULTS: We identified 42 articles for inclusion. Safety culture outcomes were most prominent under the themes of leadership and teamwork. Specific benefits for staff included increased stress recognition and job satisfaction, reduced emotional exhaustion, burnout and turnover, and improvements to working conditions. Effects were documented for interventions with longer time scales, strong institutional support and comprehensive theory-informed designs situated within specific units. DISCUSSION: This review contributes to international evidence on how interventions to improve safety culture may benefit hospital staff and how they can be designed and implemented. A focus on staff outcomes includes staff perceptions and behaviours as part of a safety culture and staff experiences resulting from a safety culture. The results generated by a small number of articles varied in quality and effect, and the review focused only on hospital staff. There is merit in using the concept of safety culture as a lens to understand staff experience in a complex healthcare system.

Associations between patient safety culture and workplace safety culture in hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Strong cultures of workplace safety and patient safety are both critical for advancing safety in healthcare and eliminating harm to both the healthcare workforce and patients. However, there is currently minimal published empirical evidence about the relationship between the perceptions of providers and staff on workplace safety culture and patient safety culture. METHODS: This study examined cross-sectional relationships between the core Surveys on Patient Safety Culture™ (SOPS®) Hospital Survey 2.0 patient safety culture measures and supplemental workplace safety culture measures. We used data from a pilot test in 2021 of the Workplace Safety Supplemental Item Set, which consisted of 6,684 respondents from 28 hospitals in 16 states. We performed multiple regressions to examine the relationships between the 11 patient safety culture measures and the 10 workplace safety culture measures. RESULTS: Sixty-nine (69) of 110 associations were statistically significant (mean standardized ß = 0.5; 0.58 < standardized ß < 0.95). The largest number of associations for the workplace safety culture measures with the patient safety culture measures were: (1) overall support from hospital leaders to ensure workplace safety; (2) being able to report workplace safety problems without negative consequences; and, (3) overall rating on workplace safety. The two associations with the strongest magnitude were between the overall rating on workplace safety and hospital management support for patient safety (standardized ß = 0.95) and hospital management support for workplace safety and hospital management support for patient safety (standardized ß = 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Study results provide evidence that workplace safety culture and patient safety culture are fundamentally linked and both are vital to a strong and healthy culture of safety.

Hospital performance evaluation indicators: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are the biggest consumers of health system budgets and hence measuring hospital performance by quantitative or qualitative accessible and reliable indicators is crucial. This review aimed to categorize and present a set of indicators for evaluating overall hospital performance. METHODS: We conducted a literature search across three databases, i.e., PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using possible keyword combinations. We included studies that explored hospital performance evaluation indicators from different dimensions. RESULTS: We included 91 English language studies published in the past 10 years. In total, 1161 indicators were extracted from the included studies. We classified the extracted indicators into 3 categories, 14 subcategories, 21 performance dimensions, and 110 main indicators. Finally, we presented a comprehensive set of indicators with regard to different performance dimensions and classified them based on what they indicate in the production process, i.e., input, process, output, outcome and impact. CONCLUSION: The findings provide a comprehensive set of indicators at different levels that can be used for hospital performance evaluation. Future studies can be conducted to validate and apply these indicators in different contexts. It seems that, depending on the specific conditions of each country, an appropriate set of indicators can be selected from this comprehensive list of indicators for use in the performance evaluation of hospitals in different settings.

Past, present, and future of sustainable intensive care: narrative review and a large hospital system experience.

Healthcare systems are large contributors to global emissions, and intensive care units (ICUs) are a complex and resource-intensive component of these systems. Recent global movements in sustainability initiatives, led mostly by Europe and Oceania, have tried to mitigate ICUs' notable environmental impact with varying success. However, there exists a significant gap in the U.S. knowledge and published literature related to sustainability in the ICU. After a narrative review of the literature and related industry standards, we share our experience with a Green ICU initiative at a large hospital system in Texas. Our process has led to a 3-step pathway to inform similar initiatives for sustainable (green) critical care. This pathway involves (1) establishing a baseline by quantifying the status quo carbon footprint of the affected ICU as well as the cumulative footprint of all the ICUs in the healthcare system; (2) forming alliances and partnerships to target each major source of these pollutants and implement specific intervention programs that reduce the ICU-related greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste; and (3) finally to implement a systemwide Green ICU which requires the creation of multiple parallel pathways that marshal the resources at the grass-roots level to engage the ICU staff and institutionalize a mindset that recognizes and respects the impact of ICU functions on our environment. It is expected that such a systems-based multi-stakeholder approach would pave the way for improved sustainability in critical care.

Effect on hospital incentive payments and quality performance of a hospital pay for performance (P4P) programme in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Belgium initiated a hospital pay for performance (P4P) programme after a decade of fixed bonus budgets for "quality and safety contracts". This study examined the effect of P4P on hospital incentive payments, performance on quality measures, and the association between changes in quality performance and incentive payments over time. METHODS: The Belgian government provided information on fixed bonus budgets in 2013-2017 and hospital incentive payments as well as hospital performance on quality measures for the P4P programmes in 2018-2020. Descriptive analyses were conducted to map the financial repercussion between the two systems. A difference-in-difference analysis evaluated the association between quality indicator performance and received incentive payments over time. RESULTS: Data from 87 acute-care hospitals were analyzed. In the transition to a P4P programme, 29% of hospitals received lower incentive payments per bed. During the P4P years, quality performance scores increased yearly for 55% of hospitals and decreased yearly for 5% of hospitals. There was a significant larger drop in incentive payments for hospitals that scored above median with the start of the P4P programme. CONCLUSIONS: The transition from fixed bonus budgets for quality efforts to a new incentive payment in a P4P programme has led to more hospitals being financially impacted, although the effect is marginal given the small P4P budget. Quality indicators seem to improve over the years, but this does not correlate with an increase in reward per bed for all hospitals due to the closed nature of the budget.

A Longitudinal Study of Hospital Safety From Disasters in Kermanshah Province, Iran: Insights for Disaster Risk Reduction.

OBJECTIVE: The Hospital Safety Index (HSI) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) was adopted by most countries to evaluate the safety of hospitals against disasters. This study aimed to assess the status of hospital safety from disasters between 2016 and 2022 in Kermanshah province in Iran. METHODS: This is a retrospective longitudinal study which investigated HSI data from 23 hospitals. Data were gathered by Farsi Hospital Safety Index (FHSI) and analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The risk of hydro-meteorological (from 43.1 to 32.7) and biological hazards (51.3 to 35.5) significantly decreased. Although structural safety remained constant (from 67.8 to 70.1), nonstructural (from 51.5 to 71.2), and functional (from 47.1 to 71.2) safety scores increased significantly over study period. CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed hospitals safety in Kermanshah province gradually improved. However, the health-care stakeholders should pay the necessary attention to improving the structural safety of hospitals.

A multiphase, multicentre development and validation of two maturity tools assessing the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap.

As part of the new Flanders Quality Model (FlaQuM) towards sustainable quality management systems, a co-creation roadmap with 6 primary drivers and 19 building blocks that guides healthcare organizations has been developed. Currently, no assessment tool is available to monitor hospitals' quality management systems implementation according to this co-creation roadmap. Therefore, we aimed to measure the maturity of the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap in hospitals. A three-phase approach in co-design with 19 hospitals started with defining the scope, followed by establishing content validity through a literature review, involvement of content experts (n = 47), 20 focus groups with content experts (n = 79), and a Delphi round with healthcare quality managers (n = 19) to test the content validity index. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analyses and convergent validity by Spearman's ρ correlation coefficients. Based on 17 included existing maturity instruments and subcomponents of content experts, two maturity tools were developed according to the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap: (i) a maturity matrix with 52 subcomponents and (ii) a co-creation scan with 19 statements. The overall scale-content validity index varied between 93.3% and 90.0% in terms of relevance and clarity, respectively. In a sample of 119 healthcare professionals, factor analyses revealed a six-factor structure and 16 (84.2%) of the 19 hypothesis for testing convergent validity between both maturity tools were statistically significant. Measuring the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap and monitoring its maturity over time should be feasible by using these comprehensive maturity tools in hospitals. Results of both tools should be able to describe the current state of hospitals' implementation of the co-creation roadmap as basis for strategic improvement plans and next steps.

Quality indicators for appropriate in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship: An international modified Delphi study.

AIMS: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT). RESULTS: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered. CONCLUSIONS: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing Hospital Participation in the Healthcare Equality Index.

ABSTRACT: Gender and sexual minority individuals experience higher rates of mistreatment and discrimination in healthcare compared with their non-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other nonheterosexual (LGBTQ+) peers. The Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) aims to create more inclusive environments and to provide metrics for quality improvement. Currently, only one adult hospital in the District of Columbia has earned the highest recognition from the HEI. Our institution is part of the same regional health system as this hospital, yet has never been evaluated by the HEI. This study explores the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions surrounding the HEI at our institution to assess the feasibility of its participation. During the study period of July 2021 to June 2022, a total of 12 physicians, administrators, and educators from both hospitals and our affiliated school of medicine were interviewed. All participants expressed support after HEI requirements and improving inclusivity for LGBTQ+ patients. Participants at the other hospital cited unanimous support amongst hospital administrators as key for successful HEI implementation. Participants also mentioned cost, staff shortages, and the school of medicine's religious affiliation as potential barriers to this goal. Ultimately, hospital implementation of HEI guidelines is feasible despite shifting institutional priorities and resource limitations through greater stakeholder buy-in and streamlining a systemwide approach.

[Comparison of hospital rating websites among each other and with data from hospital quality reports and quality assurance based on routine data]. / Vergleich von Patientenbewertungen auf Online-Portalen untereinander und mit Qualitätsberichten der Krankenhäuser und der Qualitätssicherung mit Routinedaten.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the objectifiable treatment quality, patients' perspectives are gaining relevance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize available hospital rating websites (HRW) with regards to patient ratings and to compare them with data from hospital quality reports and quality assurance based on routine data (QSR) for urological departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a structured online search for HRWs, websites were compared based on patient ratings from the 10 urologic departments with the largest intervention rates in 2021 using generalized estimated equations. For radical prostatectomy (RPE), quantitative comparison of patient ratings (klinikbewertungen.de) and QSR-based ratings was performed using Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: Of 1845 hits, 25 portals were analyzed. The department-wise comparison of HRWs resulted in significantly different patient ratings (p < 0.001). Patient ratings (klinikbewertungen.de) and QSR data (AOK-Gesundheitsnavigator) showed no significant correlation. An internal comparison of QSR data and patient ratings from the AOK-Gesundheitsnavigator on RPE showed a significant negative correlation between the overall rating and unplanned reoperations (r = -0.81) or other complications (r = -0.91). There was no significant correlation with the recommendation rate by patients. CONCLUSION: Hospital rating websites show considerable heterogeneity regarding patient ratings of the same urology department in different portals. Furthermore, based on the selected examples, there seems to be no correlation between subjective and objective evaluations between different websites or within one website.

Reported Variation in Hospital Billing Quality.

This study examines how US hospitals perform on billing quality measures, including legal actions taken by a hospital to collect medical debt, the timeliness of sending patients an itemized billing statement, and patient access to a qualified billing representative.

Optimising ePrescribing in hospitals through the interoperability of systems and processes: a qualitative study in the UK, US, Norway and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Investment in the implementation of hospital ePrescribing systems has been a priority in many economically-developed countries in order to modernise the delivery of healthcare. However, maximum gains in the safety, quality and efficiency of care are unlikely to be fully realised unless ePrescribing systems are further optimised in a local context. Typical barriers to optimal use are often encountered in relation to a lack of systemic capacity and preparedness to meet various levels of interoperability requirements, including at the data, systems and services levels. This lack of systemic interoperability may in turn limit the opportunities and benefits potentially arising from implementing novel digital heath systems. METHODS: We undertook n = 54 qualitative interviews with key stakeholders at nine digitally advanced hospital sites across the UK, US, Norway and the Netherlands. We included hospitals featuring 'standalone, best of breed' systems, which were interfaced locally, and multi-component and integrated electronic health record enterprise systems. We analysed the data inductively, looking at strategies and constraints for ePrescribing interoperability within and beyond hospital systems. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis identified 4 main drivers for increasing ePrescribing systems interoperability: (1) improving patient safety (2) improving integration & continuity of care (3) optimising care pathways and providing tailored decision support to meet local and contextualised care priorities and (4) to enable full patient care services interoperability in a variety of settings and contexts. These 4 interoperability dimensions were not always pursued equally at each implementation site, and these were often dependent on the specific national, policy, organisational or technical contexts of the ePrescribing implementations. Safety and efficiency objectives drove optimisation targeted at infrastructure and governance at all levels. Constraints to interoperability came from factors such as legacy systems, but barriers to interoperability of processes came from system capability, hospital policy and staff culture. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving interoperability is key in making ePrescribing systems both safe and useable. Data resources exist at macro, meso and micro levels, as do the governance interventions necessary to achieve system interoperability. Strategic objectives, most notably improved safety, often motivated hospitals to push for evolution across the entire data architecture of which they formed a part. However, hospitals negotiated this terrain with varying degrees of centralised coordination. Hospitals were heavily reliant on staff buy-in to ensure that systems interoperability was built upon to achieve effective data sharing and use. Positive outcomes were founded on a culture of agreement about the usefulness of access by stakeholders, including prescribers, policymakers, vendors and lab technicians, which was reflected in an alignment of governance goals with system design.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements.

This Viewpoint discusses Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements, a set of guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help hospitals develop multiprofessional programs that monitor and optimize management and outcomes of sepsis.

The Volume and Cost of Quality Metric Reporting.

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known. Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type. Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.