Investigating the Potential Contribution of Patient Rating Sites to Hospital Supervision: Exploratory Results From an Interview Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decades, the patient perspective on health care quality has been unconditionally integrated into quality management. For several years now, patient rating sites have been rapidly gaining attention. These offer a new approach toward hearing the patient's perspective on the quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to explore whether and how patient reviews of hospitals, as reported on rating sites, have the potential to contribute to health care inspector's daily supervision of hospital care. METHODS: Given the unexplored nature of the topic, an interview study among hospital inspectors was designed in the Netherlands. We performed 2 rounds of interviews with 10 senior inspectors, addressing their use and their judgment on the relevance of review data from a rating site. RESULTS: All 10 Dutch senior hospital inspectors participated in this research. The inspectors initially showed some reluctance to use the major patient rating site in their daily supervision. This was mainly because of objections such as worries about how representative they are, subjectivity, and doubts about the relevance of patient reviews for supervision. However, confrontation with, and assessment of, negative reviews by the inspectors resulted in 23% of the reviews being deemed relevant for risk identification. Most inspectors were cautiously positive about the contribution of the reviews to their risk identification. CONCLUSIONS: Patient rating sites may be of value to the risk-based supervision of hospital care carried out by the Health Care Inspectorate. Health care inspectors do have several objections against the use of patient rating sites for daily supervision. However, when they are presented with texts of negative reviews from a hospital under their supervision, it appears that most inspectors consider it as an additional source of information to detect poor quality of care. Still, it should always be accompanied and verified by other quality and safety indicators. More research on the value and usability of patient rating sites in daily hospital supervision and other health settings is needed.

E-consulting in a medical specialist setting: Medicine of the future?

OBJECTIVE: Today's technology provides new ways of consulting between patients and medical specialists in health care, such as videoconferencing and web-messaging. In this systematic review we assessed the effects of e-consulting between medical specialists and patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychlit and Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials assessing the use of e-consulting methods (videoconferencing (VC) or web-messaging (WM)), as compared to conventional care (face-to-face (FF) or telephone consultations (TC)) in a medical specialist setting. We extracted patient-related, physician-related, cost, time and follow-up outcomes. RESULTS: We included 21 trials, of which 17 addressed VC compared to FF, two compared WM with FF, one VC with TC, and one WM with TC. Physicians appeared to prefer face-to-face consultations over videoconferencing. Patients appeared to be as satisfied with videoconferencing as with face-to-face contacts, but preferred videoconferencing and web-messaging over telephone consultations. Videoconferencing was more expensive regarding equipment, but saved patient-related costs in terms of time, transportation, and missed work. Variable results were found for consult time and follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We cautiously conclude that e-consulting seems a feasible alternative to medical specialists' face-to-face follow-up or telephone appointments, but may be less suitable for initial consultations requiring physical examination.

Trends in patient satisfaction in Dutch university medical centers: room for improvement for all.

BACKGROUND: Results of patient satisfaction research provide hospitals areas for quality improvement. Although it may take several years to achieve such improvement, not all hospitals analyze changes in patient satisfaction over time structurally. Consequently, they lack information from patients' perspective on effectiveness of improvement programs. This study presents a trend analysis of the patient satisfaction scores in the eight university medical centers in the Netherlands. We focus on the trends, effect size and its consequences for improving patient-centered care. METHODS: The Core Questionnaire for the assessment of Patient satisfaction (COPS) was used in four large-scale nationwide comparative studies (2003-2009). Data were analyzed at a national level, and for each academic hospital separately. We analyzed the polynomial contrasts in the four measurements by performing an univariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). The trend lines are presented graphically, with the means, SD, F-statistics and the standardized effect size including confidence intervals expressed by Cohen's d. By analyzing the (logit transformed) percentages of very satisfied patients we examined the change scores. RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 58,055 inpatients and 79,498 outpatients. Significant positive trends were found on national level and hospital level, especially in outpatient departments. Improvement was especially seen on the dimensions "information" and "discharge and aftercare". Not only university medical centers with a lower score at the start, but surprisingly some best practices and university medical centers with a high initial score improved. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that significant trends in patient satisfaction can be identified on a national and a hospital level, in inpatient and outpatient departments. The observed effect size expressed by Cohen's d is rather small. Hospitals have found room for improvement, even hospitals with initial high satisfaction scores. We recommend that hospitals monitor their patient satisfaction scores over time and relate these to quality interventions and organizational changes. Furthermore, we recommend to expand the research to subgroups of unsatisfied patients to improve patient-centered care for all patients.

Do radiation oncologists tailor information to patients needs? And, if so, does it affect patients?

BACKGROUND: Our study aims to investigate whether information given by radiation oncologists to their patients is tailored to the patient's desired level of information and, if so, what the effect of tailoring is on patient-reported outcomes, i.e. satisfaction, health, anxiety and self-efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Consecutive radiotherapy patients (n = 150) completed a baseline questionnaire one week before their initial consultation, immediately following this consultation, and again one week prior to their first follow-up visit. The initial consultation was videotaped and 10 radiation oncologists' information giving behavior (content and duration) analyzed. RESULTS: The overall amount of information provided by the radiation oncologists matched with patients' information needs in 50.8% (k = 0.07) of the consultations. No significant associations between tailored information giving and patient-reported outcomes were found, except for tailoring of information on procedures, and patients' anxiety and global health. These associations were no longer significant when correcting for patients' background characteristics. CONCLUSION: This study shows that radiation oncologists poorly tailor their information to the needs of their patients. However, lack of tailoring is not associated with worse patient-reported outcomes. Until more evidence is available, radiation oncologists may explicitly ask patients about their information preferences and tailor the information provided accordingly.

The information needs of new radiotherapy patients: how to measure? Do they want to know everything? And if not, why?

PURPOSE: To establish 1) further psychometric properties of the information preference for radiotherapy patients scale (IPRP); 2) what information new radiotherapy patients want to receive; 3) which patients have a lower information need. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients (n = 159; response rate 54%) of 15 radiation oncologists completed the IPRP and provided background characteristics before their first radiotherapy consultation. Exclusion criteria were: age <18 years, having undergone radiotherapy before, unable to read and write Dutch, cognitive problems or a brain tumor. RESULTS: Reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.84-0.97) and concurrent validity (r from .39 to .57, p < 0.001) of the subscales of the IPRP were good. New radiotherapy patients want extensive information about their disease, treatment, procedures, side effects, and prognosis (mean scores between 4.1 and 4.4 on a scale from 1 to 5) but less information about psychosocial issues (mean = 3.4). Patients who are older and male, have lung or rectal cancer, more difficulty understanding and a higher trait anxiety level, need less information. CONCLUSIONS: The IPRP can reliably and validly address information needs of patients undergoing radiation treatment. Most new radiotherapy patients want much information. Yet, information giving should be tailored according to their background, understanding and anxiety.

Further validation of the 5-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-5) scale in patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the structural validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the 5-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI-5) scale in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 224 outpatients with OA completed a survey containing the Dutch PEPPI-5 and other standardized measures assessing perceived health-management skills, general self-efficacy, social support, and health-related quality of life. A subsample of 100 patients completed the PEPPI-5 again approximately 3 weeks later. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good fit for a unidimensional model of the PEPPI-5. Additionally, the scale showed high internal consistency (α=0.92) and fair test-retest reliability (ICC=0.68). As hypothesized, the PEPPI-5 was strongly correlated with perceived health-management skills, moderately with social support and psychosocial aspects of health, and not with physical aspects of health. Contrary to expectations, however, it was not correlated with general self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: The Dutch PEPPI-5 demonstrated adequate validity and reliability in patients with OA. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PEPPI-5 is a brief and appropriate tool for measuring self-efficacy of patients with OA to interact with their physicians. Additional research into its sensitivity to change is needed before it can be confidently recommended as an outcome measure in intervention studies.

Do patients' information needs decrease over the course of radiotherapy?

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate if cancer patients' information needs decrease during radiotherapy and if so, which patient, consultation and radiation oncologist characteristics are associated with a decrease in information needs over time. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, patients (n = 104) completed a baseline questionnaire a week before the initial radiotherapy consultation, immediately following this initial consultation, and 1 week prior to the first follow-up visit, which took place on average 3-5 weeks after the initial visit. Besides information needs, measured by the Information Preference for Radiotherapy Patients scale, the questionnaire assessed patient, consultation and radiation oncologist characteristics. RESULTS: Information needs decreased over time, but remained at a high level. Being religious, being male, having low health literacy and higher perceived involvement during the consultation were all statistically significantly associated to a decrease in information needs on specific domains (e.g. procedures or side effects). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients' information needs decline between the initial consultation and the first follow-up visit, but remain high. It is therefore advised to investigate the patients' information needs at every radiotherapy visit and not rely on giving information just once. Furthermore, radiation oncologists should check if the information given at first consultation is understood and remembered. By those means, tailored information giving becomes possible.

Measuring cancer patients' reasons for their information preference: construction of the Considerations Concerning Cancer Information (CCCI) questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the further development and psychometric properties of an instrument to measure cancer patients' reasons to want complete or limited information: the Considerations Concerning Cancer Information questionnaire (CCCI). Understanding cancer patients' reasons to want complete or limited information will provide the physician with information that enables him or her to tailor information giving. METHODS: CCCI's content validity, internal structure, and convergent validity were investigated among 145 cancer patients, new to radiotherapy. RESULTS: Underlying reasons for information preference among cancer patients were derived from existing qualitative studies, narratives, and interviews. This resulted in the CCCI containing two parts: reasons to favor complete information disclosure and reasons to prefer only limited information about disease and treatment. The four identified dimensions to prefer information consist of: sense of control, expectations of others, anxiety, and autonomy. The four dimensions for reasons to give up on acquiring information consist of: avoidance, optimism, comprehension, and not wanting to be a burden. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the measurement model provided good fit to the data. Scales had good internal consistency, satisfactory item-total correlations corrected for overlap and satisfactory convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm evidence of the reliability and validity of the CCCI for use in cancer care. Researchers and health-care providers can use the instrument to assess cancer patients' reasons to want complete or limited information and provide tailored care.

Assessment of physician competency in patient education: reliability and validity of a model-based instrument.

OBJECTIVE: Establish the inter-rater reliability and the concept, convergent and construct validity of an instrument for assessing the competency of physicians in patient education. METHODS: Three raters assessed the quality of patient education in 30 outpatient consultations with the CELI instrument. This instrument is based on a goal-directed model of patient education and assesses distinctive skills for patient education categorized in four subcompetencies. The inter-rater reliability was calculated. The concept validity was explored by factor analysis. The convergent validity was established by a comparison with two measures of patient-centred behaviour. The construct validity was explored by relating the subcompetencies with physician gender and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The inter-rater reliability for the subcompetencies varied between 0.65 and 0.91. The factor analysis distinguished the four subcompetencies. All subcompetencies correlated with the measures of patient-centred behaviour. Female physicians performed better than male physicians on three subcompetencies. Positive correlations were found for three subcompetencies and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The CELI instrument appears to be a reliable and valid instrument. However, further research is needed to establish the generalizability and construct validity. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The CELI instrument is a useful tool for assessment and feedback in medical education since it assesses the performance of distinctive skills.

Medical specialists' patient-centered communication and patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' patient-centered communication in the medical consultation is generally expected to improve patient outcomes. However, empirical evidence is contradictory so far, and most studies were done in primary care. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the association of specialists' patient-centered communication with patient satisfaction, adherence, and health status. METHODS: Residents and specialists in internal medicine (n = 30) and their patients (n = 323) completed a questionnaire before a (videotaped) follow-up encounter. Patients' satisfaction was assessed immediately after the consultation and their self-reported treatment adherence, symptoms, and distress 2 weeks later. Specialists' patient-centered communication was assessed by coding behaviors that facilitate or rather inhibit patients to express their perspective. Patient participation was assessed by determining their relative contribution to the conversation and their active participation behavior. Outcomes were assessed using standard questionnaires. Analyses accounted for relevant patient, visit and physician characteristics. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists' facilitating behavior was associated with greater satisfaction in patients who were less confident in communicating with their doctor. Patient-centered communication was not associated with patients' health status or adherence in general, but facilitating behavior was positively related to the adherence of patients with a foreign primary language. In general, patients appeared to be more satisfied after an encounter with a more-facilitating and a less-inhibiting physician, but these associations diminished when controlling for background characteristics. We conclude that the absence of strong associations between patient-centered communication and patient-reported outcomes may be explained by medical specialists being responsive to patients' characteristics.

Patient participation in the medical specialist encounter: does physicians' patient-centred communication matter?

OBJECTIVE: Physicians' patient-centred communication is assumed to stimulate patients' active participation, thus leading to more effective and humane exchange in the medical consultation. We investigated the relationship between physicians' patient-centred communication and patient participation in a medical specialist setting. METHODS: Participants were 30 residents and specialists in internal medicine, and 323 of their patients. Participants completed a questionnaire prior to a (videotaped) follow-up consultation. Physicians' patient-centred communication was assessed by coding behaviours that facilitate or rather inhibit patients to express their perspective. Patient participation was determined by assessing (a) their relative contribution to the conversation, and (b) their active participation behaviour. Analyses accounted for relevant background characteristics. RESULTS: Physicians' facilitating behaviour was found to be positively associated with patients' relative contribution to the conversation as well as patients' active participation behaviour. Physicians' inhibiting behaviour was not related to patients' relative contribution, and was, unexpectedly, positively associated with patients' active participation behaviour. Physicians' behaviour was particularly associated with patients' expression of concerns and cues. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians in internal specialist medicine appear to be able to facilitate patients' active participation in the visit. The findings indicate that inhibiting behaviour may not have the expected blocking effect on patient participation: patients voiced their perspectives just the same and expressed even more concerns. Showing inhibiting behaviour may, alternatively, be a physician's response to the patient's increased participation in the encounter. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The results may give directions for future medical education and specialist training.

Determinants of physicians' patient-centred behaviour in the medical specialist encounter.

It has been suggested that patient-centred communication does not necessarily translate into a 'one-size fits all' approach, but rather that physicians should use a flexible style and adapt to the particular needs of their patients. This paper examines variability in physicians' patient-centred behaviour in medical specialist encounters, and determines whether patient, visit, and physician characteristics influence this variability. Participants were 30 residents and specialists in internal medicine at an academic teaching hospital in The Netherlands, and 323 patients having a (videotaped) outpatient follow-up appointment. Physicians and patients completed a questionnaire prior to the encounter. Consultations were coded using the Patient-centred Behaviour Coding Instrument (PBCI); physicians' patient-centred behaviour was determined by behaviours that facilitated rather than inhibited the patient's expression of his/her perspective. The results show that physicians differ in their communicative behaviour (i.e. inter-individual variability): some internists had a more 'patient-centred' communication style and others less so. At the same time, physicians show intra-individual variation; apparently they adjust their style according to the situation. Physicians displayed more facilitating behaviour when patients were older, reported more physical symptoms, when they rated patients' health condition as more severe and when the physician was a woman. Physicians also displayed more inhibiting behaviour when patients reported more physical symptoms and when the physician rated patients' health condition as more severe. Apparently, sicker patients were targets of both greater facilitation and greater inhibition. Variability in physicians' facilitating and inhibiting behaviour was explained by patient characteristics, i.e. patients' age and health condition, and-with the exception of physician gender-not by physician or visit characteristics. This indicates that physician patient-centred behaviour is related to the type of patient visiting, especially in relation to the seriousness of symptoms.

Coding patient-centred behaviour in the medical encounter.

A patient-centred approach is increasingly advocated and incorporated in medical education. Due to its multi-dimensionality, however, the concept of patient-centredness appears to be hard to measure and, consequently, to evaluate. The objective of this study was to develop an instrument to measure patient-centredness in line with one central dimension, i.e. physicians' explorative communication skills: the tendency to encourage (or discourage) patients to express their perspective on illness and treatment, by displaying facilitating and inhibiting behaviours. The paper describes the development of the patient-centred behaviour coding instrument (PBCI), and first results of validity and reliability of the instrument. The study was conducted in the outpatient division of an academic teaching hospital in The Netherlands, where follow-up encounters were videotaped and coded. Participants were 30 residents and specialists in general internal medicine, rheumatology and gastro-enterology, and 323 patients having a (video-taped) follow-up appointment with one of these physicians. All recorded consultations were coded using the PBCI. Statistical analyses verified the existence of two dimensions of the PBCI: facilitating and inhibiting behaviours. Interestingly, open and closed questions generally appeared to be indicative of both the facilitating and the inhibiting dimension; only open and closed questions with a psycho-social content were unambiguously classified as facilitating behaviours. Reliability of the facilitating behaviours was high, while reliability of the inhibiting behaviours was moderate. Besides infrequent observations of the inhibiting behaviours, low reliability was partly due to individual inter-rater variability. A global rating of patient-centredness appeared to correlate with the two dimensions in the expected direction: positively with the facilitating and negatively with the inhibiting dimension, indicating the convergent validity of the instrument.

Satisfaction with the outpatient encounter: a comparison of patients' and physicians' views.

OBJECTIVE: To compare patients' and physicians' visit-specific satisfaction in an internal medicine outpatient setting, and to explain their respective views. DESIGN: Patients' and physicians' background characteristics were assessed prior to outpatient encounters. Immediately after the encounter, both patients and physicians completed a questionnaire assessing satisfaction with the visit. SETTING: The outpatient division of an academic teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty residents and specialists in general internal medicine, rheumatology, and gastroenterology, and 330 patients having a follow-up appointment with one of these physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients' and physicians' visit-specific satisfaction was assessed using 5 Visual Analogue Scales (0 to 100). Patients' overall satisfaction was higher than physicians' satisfaction (mean 81 vs. 66), and correlation of patients' and physicians' overall satisfaction with the specific visit was medium sized (r= .28, P < .001). Patients' satisfaction ratings were associated with their previsit self-efficacy in communicating with their physician (P < .001) and with visiting a female physician (P < .01). Physicians' satisfaction was associated with patients' higher educational level (P < .05), primary language being Dutch (P < .001), better mental health (P < .05), and preference for receiving less than full information (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In an outpatient setting, patients' visit-specific satisfaction ratings were substantially higher than, and only moderately associated with, physicians' ratings of the same visit. The dissimilar predictors explaining patients' and physicians' satisfaction suggest that patients and physicians form their opinion about a consultation in different ways. Hence, when evaluating outpatient encounters, physicians' satisfaction has additional value to patients' satisfaction in establishing quality of care.