Association of Hospice Profit Status With Family Caregivers' Reported Care Experiences.

Importance: Expansive growth in the US hospice market has been driven almost exclusively by an increase in for-profit hospices. Prior research found that, in contrast to not-for-profit hospices, for-profit hospices focus on delivering care to patients in nursing homes, provide fewer nursing visits, and use less skilled staff. However, prior studies have not reported on the associations of these differences in care patterns with hospice care quality. Patient- and family-centeredness is a core element of hospice care quality that is measured through surveys of care experiences. Objective: To examine whether differences in profit status are associated with family caregivers' reports of hospice care experiences and assess factors that may be associated with observed differences in care experiences by profit status. Design, Setting, and Participants: Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey data from 653 208 caregiver respondents, reflecting care received from 3107 hospices between April 2017 and March 2019, were used for a cross-sectional examination of hospice care experiences by profit status. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to November 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were case-mix-adjusted and mode-adjusted top-box scores for 8 measures of hospice care experiences, including communication, timely care, symptom management, and emotional and religious support, as well as a summary score averaging across measures. Linear regression examined the association between profit status and hospice-level scores, adjusting for other organizational and structural hospice characteristics. Results: There were 906 not-for-profit and 1761 for-profit hospices with mean (SD) time in operation of 25.7 (7.8) years and 13.8 (8.0) years, respectively. Mean (SD) decedent age at death was 82.8 (2.3) years, similar for not-for-profit and for-profit hospices. The mean proportion of patients who were Black, Hispanic, and White was 4.9%, 0.9%, and 91.4% for not-for-profit hospices and 9.0%, 2.2%, and 85.4% for for-profit hospices, respectively. Family caregivers reported worse care experiences at for-profit hospices than at not-for-profit hospices for all measures. Significant differences in average hospice performance by profit status remained after adjusting for hospice characteristics. However, for-profit hospice performance varied, with 548 of 1761 (31.1%) for-profit hospices scoring 3 or more points below the national hospice average of overall performance and 386 of 1761 (21.9%) scoring 3 or more points above the average. In contrast, only 113 of 906 (12.5%) not-for-profit hospices scored 3 or more points below the average, and 305 of 906 (33.7%) scored 3 or more points above the average. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of CAHPS Hospice Survey data, caregivers of patients receiving hospice care reported substantially worse care experiences in for-profit than in not-for-profit hospices; however, there was variation in reported experiences among both types of hospices. Public reporting of hospice quality is important.

Variation in Hospice Experiences by Care Setting for Patients With Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Use of hospice care among patients with dementia has been steadily increasing. Our objectives were to characterize quality of hospice care experiences among decedents who had a primary diagnosis of dementia and their caregivers and investigate differences across settings of hospice care. DESIGN: We analyzed Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Hospice Survey data from caregiver respondents whose family members received hospice care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data from 96,845 caregiver respondents whose family members had a primary diagnosis of dementia and died in 2017 or 2018 while receiving hospice care in 2829 hospices. METHODS: We calculated quality measure scores overall and stratified by setting, adjusting for mode of survey administration and differences in case mix, and examined variability in hospice-level scores among decedents with dementia. RESULTS: Mean quality measure scores ranged from 69.0 (Getting Hospice Care Training) to 90.9 (Getting Emotional Support). Measure scores varied significantly across settings, with caregivers of decedents who received care in a nursing home (NH), acute care hospital (ACH), or assisted living facility (ALF) consistently reporting poorer quality of care. Hospice-level scores varied substantially, with a wide range between the 10th and 90th percentiles of hospice performance (eg, 25 points). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There are important opportunities to improve hospice care for patients with dementia and their caregivers, particularly with respect to caregiver training, symptom management, and across all dimensions within the NH, ACH, and ALF settings. Variability in care experiences across hospices, as well as long lengths of stay for those with dementia, highlight the importance of informed and timely hospice referral.

Actions to improve quality: results from a national hospital survey.

OBJECTIVES: CMS measures and reports hospital performance to drive quality improvement (QI), but information on actions that hospitals have taken in response to quality measurement is lacking. We aimed to develop national estimates of QI actions undertaken by hospitals and to explore their relationship to performance on CMS quality measures. STUDY DESIGN: Nationally representative cross-sectional survey of acute care hospitals in 2016 (n = 1313 respondents; 64% response rate). METHODS: We assessed 23 possible QI changes. Using multivariate linear regression, we estimated the relationship between reported QI changes and performance on composite measures derived from 26 Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program measures (scaled 0-100), controlling for case mix and facility characteristics. RESULTS: Hospitals reported implementing a mean of 17 QI changes (median [interquartile range], 17 [15-20]). Large hospitals reported significantly higher adoption rates than small hospitals for 18 QI changes. Most hospitals that reported making QI changes (63%-96% for the 23 changes) responded that the specific change made helped improve performance. In multivariate regression analyses, adoption of 92% of QI changes (90th percentile among hospitals), compared with adoption of 50% of QI changes (10th percentile), was associated with a 2.3-point higher overall performance score (95% CI, 0.7-4.0) and higher process (8.7 points; 95% CI, 5.7-11.7) and patient experience (3.0 points; 95% CI, 0.1-5.9) composite scores. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals reported widespread adoption of QI changes in response to CMS quality measurement and reporting. Higher QI adoption rates were associated with modestly higher process, patient experience, and overall performance composite scores.

Hospice Care Experiences Among Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the current quality of care for hospice cancer patients and how it varies across hospice programs in the USA. OBJECTIVE: To examine hospice care experiences among decedents with a primary cancer diagnosis and their family caregivers, comparing quality across settings of hospice care. DESIGN: We analyzed data from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Hospice Survey (32% response rate). Top-box outcomes (0-100) were calculated overall and by care setting, adjusting for survey mode and patient case mix. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventeen thousand five hundred ninety-six caregiver respondents whose family member had a primary cancer diagnosis and died in 2017 or 2018 while receiving hospice care from 2,890 hospices nationwide. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes (0-100 scale) included 8 National Quality Forum-endorsed quality measures, as well as responses to 4 survey questions assessing whether needs were met for specific symptoms (pain, dyspnea, constipation, anxiety/sadness). KEY RESULTS: Quality measure scores ranged from 74.9 (Getting Hospice Care Training measure) to 89.5 (Treating Family Member with Respect measure). The overall score for Getting Help for Symptoms was 75.1 with item scores within this measure ranging from 60.6 (getting needed help for feelings of anxiety or sadness) to 84.5 (getting needed help for pain). Measure scores varied significantly across settings and differences were large in magnitude, with caregivers of decedents who received care in a nursing home (NH) or assisted living facility (ALF) setting consistently reporting poorer quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Important opportunities exist to improve hospice care for symptom palliation and providing training for caregivers when their family members are at home or in an ALF setting. Efforts to improve care for cancer patients in the NH and ALF setting are especially needed.

Nursing Home Responses to Performance-based Accountability: Results of a National Survey.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing Home Quality Initiative aims to improve quality through performance measurement. We describe quality improvement (QI) changes that skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) reported making in response to CMS performance measurements and whether reported QI changes were associated with better performance on CMS performance measures. DESIGN: Nationally representative survey. SETTING: A total of 15,475 SNFs that reported quality performance on Nursing Home Compare in 2016. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,182 SNFs (58% of random sample of 2,045 SNFs). MEASUREMENTS: Adoption of 22 possible QI changes, grouped into seven categories (organizational culture, health information technology, care process redesign, provider incentives, changes to staffing responsibilities, performance monitoring, and measure-specific QI initiatives and technical assistance); performance on the CMS Nursing Home Compare Five-Star Quality Rating System's quality measure rating. RESULTS: SNFs reported making an average of 13 QI changes (interquartile range = 11-16 changes). SNFs mostly commonly reported becoming a learning organization (87%) and providing training to staff on QI strategies (87%). After controlling for patient and facility characteristics, larger SNFs were more likely to obtain assistance on measure reporting from QI organizations and use provider champions than smaller SNFs by 14 and 11 percentage points, respectively. Rural SNFs and SNFs with higher proportions of disabled, black, or Hispanic residents adopted QI changes at similar rates as other SNFs. Of the 22 QI changes, 20 were considered at least somewhat helpful by more than 80% of adopting SNFs. Implementation of all 22 QI changes (vs no changes) was associated with a .48-star higher quality measure rating (95% confidence interval = .003-.98 stars; P = .05). CONCLUSION: In response to CMS measurement programs, SNFs reported making substantial QI investments that were associated with better performance on CMS quality measures. To guide future SNF investments in QI, work is needed to identify the QI changes that yield the greatest performance improvements.