National Evaluation of Patient Preferences in Selecting Hospitals and Health Care Providers.

BACKGROUND: Patient utilization of public reporting has been suboptimal despite attempts to encourage use. Lack of utilization may be due to discordance between reported metrics and what patients want to know when making health care choices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify measures of quality that individuals want to be presented in public reporting and explore factors associated with researching health care. RESEARCH DESIGN: Patient interviews and focus groups were conducted to develop a survey exploring the relative importance of various health care measures. SUBJECTS: Interviews and focus groups conducted at local outpatient clinics. A survey administered nationally on an anonymous digital platform. MEASURES: Likert scale responses were compared using tests of central tendency. Rank-order responses were compared using analysis of variance testing. Associations with binary outcomes were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 4672 responses were received (42.0% response rate). Census balancing yielded 2004 surveys for analysis. Measures identified as most important were hospital reputation (considered important by 61.9%), physician experience (51.5%), and primary care recommendations (43.2%). Unimportant factors included guideline adherence (17.6%) and hospital academic affiliation (13.3%, P<0.001 for all compared with most important factors). Morbidity and mortality outcome measures were not among the most important factors. Patients were unlikely to rank outcome measures as the most important factors in choosing health care providers, irrespective of age, sex, educational status, or income. CONCLUSIONS: Patients valued hospital reputation, physician experience, and primary care recommendations while publicly reported metrics like patient outcomes were less important. Public quality reports contain information that patients perceive to be of relatively low value, which may contribute to low utilization.

Gender Differences in Utilization of Duty-hour Regulations, Aspects of Burnout, and Psychological Well-being Among General Surgery Residents in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to (1) assess differences in how male and female general surgery residents utilize duty-hour regulations and experience aspects of burnout and psychological well-being, and (2) to explore reasons why these differing experiences exist. BACKGROUND: There may be differences in how women and men enter, experience, and leave residency programs. METHODS: A total of 7395 residents completed a survey (response rate = 99%). Logistic regression models were developed to examine the association between gender and resident outcomes. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 42 faculty and 56 residents. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: Female residents reported more frequently staying in the hospital >28 hours or working >80 hours in a week (≥3 times in a month, P < 0.001) and more frequently feeling fatigued and burned out from their work (P < 0.001), but less frequently "treating patients as impersonal objects" or "not caring what happens" to them (P < 0.001). Women reported more often having experienced many aspects of poor psychological well-being such as feeling unhappy and depressed or thinking of themselves as worthless (P < 0.01). In adjusted analyses, associations remained significant. Themes identified in the qualitative analysis as possible contributory factors to gender differences include a lack of female mentorship/leadership, dual-role responsibilities, gender blindness, and differing pressures and approaches to patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Female residents report working more, experiencing certain aspects of burnout more frequently, and having poorer psychological well-being. Qualitative themes provide insights into possible cultural and programmatic shifts to address the concerns for female residents.