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.

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.

The hospital care experiences of older patients compared to younger patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals may provide less positive patient experiences for older than younger patients. METHODS: We used 2019 HCAHPS data from 4358 hospitals to compare patient-mix adjusted HCAHPS Survey scores for 19 experience of care items for patients ages 75+ versus 55-74 years and tested for interactions of age group with patient and hospital characteristics. We contrasted the age patterns observed for inpatient experiences with those among respondents to the 2019 Medicare CAHPS (MCAHPS) Survey of overall experience. RESULTS: Patients 75+ years (31% of all HCAHPS respondents) reported less-positive experiences than those 55-74 (46% of respondents) for 18 of 19 substantive HCAHPS items (mean difference -3.3% points). Age differences in HCAHPS top-box scores were large (>5 points) for 1 of 3 Nurse Communication items, 1 of 3 Doctor Communication, 2 of 2 Communication about Medication items, 1 of 2 Discharge Information items, and 2 of 3 Care Transition items. In contrast, for MCAHPS, those 75+ reported similar experiences to younger adults. The magnitude of age differences varied considerably across hospitals; some hospitals had very large age disparities for older patients (age 75+ vs. ages 55-74), while others had none. These age differences were generally smaller for patients in government and non-profit than in for-profit hospitals, and in the Pacific region than in other parts of the United States. This variation in age disparities across hospitals may help to identify best practices. CONCLUSIONS: Patients ages 75+ reported less-positive experiences than patients ages 55-74, especially for measures of communication. These differences may be specific to inpatient care. Further study should investigate the effectiveness of hospital staffs' communication with older patients. Hospital protocols designed for younger patients may need to be adjusted to meet the needs of older patients. There may also be opportunities to learn from outpatient interactions with older patients.

Individual and geographic disparities in human papillomavirus types 16/18 in high-grade cervical lesions: Associations with race, ethnicity, and poverty.

BACKGROUND: Current vaccines protect against 2 human papillomavirus (HPV) types, HPV 16 and 18, which are associated with 70% of cervical cancers and 50% of high-grade cervical lesions. HPV type distribution was examined among women with high-grade lesions by individual and area-based measures of race, ethnicity, and poverty. METHODS: This analysis included 832 women aged 18 to 39 years reported to a surveillance registry in Connecticut during 2008 to 2010. Diagnostic specimens were obtained for HPV DNA testing. Individual measures were obtained from surveillance reports, medical records, and patient interviews. Cases were geocoded to census tracts and linked to area-based measures of race, ethnicity, and poverty. Statistical analysis included use of generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Overall, 44.8% of women had HPV 16/18. In a multivariate model controlled for confounding by age and diagnosis grade, black race (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34-0.88), Hispanic ethnicity (aPR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.40-0.88), and higher area-based poverty (aPR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.40-0.87) were associated with a lower likelihood of HPV 16/18 positivity. Black and Hispanic women were less likely to have HPV 16/18 than white women across all levels of area-based measures. CONCLUSIONS: Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and higher area-based poverty are salient predictors of lower HPV 16/18 positivity among women with high-grade cervical lesions. These data suggest that HPV vaccines might have lower impact among black and Hispanic women and those living in high poverty areas. These findings have implications for vaccine impact monitoring, vaccination programs, and new vaccine development.