What Words Convey: The Potential for Patient Narratives to Inform Quality Improvement.

Policy Points Narratives about patients' experiences with outpatient care are essential for quality improvement because they convey ample actionable information that both elaborates on existing domains within patient experience surveys and describes multiple additional domains that are important to patients. The content of narrative feedback from patients can potentially be translated to improved quality in multiple ways: clinicians can learn from their own patients, groups of clinicians can learn from the experience of their peers' patients, and health system administrators can identify and respond to patterns in patients' accounts that reflect systemic challenges to quality. Consistent investment by payers and providers is required to ensure that patient narratives are rigorously collected, analyzed fully, and effectively used for quality improvement. CONTEXT: For the past 25 years, health care providers and health system administrators have sought to improve care by surveying patients about their experiences. More recently, policymakers have acted to promote this learning by deploying financial incentives tied to survey scores. This article explores the potential of systematically elicited narratives about experiences with outpatient care to enrich quality improvement. METHODS: Narratives were collected from 348 patients recruited from a nationally representative Internet panel. Drawing from the literature on health services innovation, we developed a two-part coding schema that categorized narrative content in terms of (a) the aspects of care being described, and (b) the actionability of this information for clinicians, quality improvement staff, and health system administrators. Narratives were coded using this schema, with high levels of reliability among the coders. FINDINGS: The scope of outpatient narratives divides evenly among aspects of care currently measured by patient experience surveys (35% of content), aspects related to measured domains but not captured by existing survey questions (31%), and aspects of care that are omitted from surveys entirely (34%). Overall, the narrative data focused heavily on relational aspects of care (43%), elaborating on this aspect of experience well beyond what is captured with communication-related questions on existing surveys. Three-quarters of elicited narratives had some actionable content, and almost a third contained three or more separate actionable elements. CONCLUSIONS: In a health policy environment that incentivizes attention to patient experience, rigorously elicited narratives hold substantial promise for improving quality in general and patients' experiences with care in particular. They do so in two ways: by making concrete what went wrong or right in domains covered by existing surveys, and by expanding our view of what aspects of care matter to patients as articulated in their own words and thus how care can be made more patient-centered. Most narratives convey experiences that are potentially actionable by those committed to improving health care quality in outpatient settings.

Breaking Narrative Ground: Innovative Methods for Rigorously Eliciting and Assessing Patient Narratives.

OBJECTIVE: To design a methodology for rigorously eliciting narratives about patients' experiences with clinical care that is potentially useful for public reporting and quality improvement. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Two rounds of experimental data (N = 48 each) collected in 2013-2014, using a nationally representative Internet panel. STUDY DESIGN: Our study (1) articulates and operationalizes criteria for assessing narrative elicitation protocols; (2) establishes a "gold standard" for assessment of such protocols; and (3) creates and tests a protocol for narratives about outpatient treatment experiences. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We randomized participants between telephone and web-based modalities and between protocols placed before and after a closed-ended survey. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Elicited narratives can be assessed relative to a gold standard using four criteria: (1) meaningfulness, (2) completeness, (3) whether the narrative accurately reflects the balance of positive and negative events, and (4) representativeness, which reflects the protocol's performance across respondent subgroups. We demonstrate that a five-question protocol that has been tested and refined yields three- to sixfold increases in completeness and four- to tenfold increases in meaningfulness, compared to a single open-ended question. It performs equally well for healthy and sick patients. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative elicitation protocols suitable for inclusion in extant patient experience surveys can be designed and tested against objective performance criteria, thus advancing the science of public reporting.