Evaluation of a Care Coordination Measure for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS(R)) Medicare Survey.

Medical Care Research and Review (Impact Factor: 2.57). 11/2013; DOI: 10.1177/1077558713508205
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is widespread interest in assessing care coordination to improve overall care quality. We evaluated a five-item measure of care coordination included in the 2012 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Medicare survey (n = 326,194 respondents, 46% response rate). This measure includes patient reports of whether their personal doctor discusses their medicines, has medical records and other relevant information, and is informed about care from specialists, and whether the patient gets help in managing care and timely follow-up on test results. A one-factor categorical confirmatory factor analytic model indicated that five items constituted a coherent scale. Estimated health-plan-level reliability was 0.70 at about 102 responses per plan. The composite had a strong unique association with the CAHPS global rating of health care, controlling for the CAHPS core composite scores. This measure can be used to evaluate relative plan performance and characteristics associated with better care coordination.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) survey. We conducted a field test of the CAHPS PCMH survey with 2740 adults. We collected information by mail (n = 1746), telephone (n = 672), and from the Web (n = 322) from 6 sites of care affiliated with a West Coast staff model health maintenance organization. An overall response rate of 37% was obtained. Internal consistency reliability estimates for 7 multi-item scales were as follows: access to care, 5 items, α = 0.79; communication with providers, 6 items, α = 0.93; office staff courtesy and respect, 2 items, α = 0.80; shared decision making about medicines, 3 items, α = 0.67; self-management support, 2 items, α = 0.61; attention to mental health issues, 3 items, α = 0.80; and care coordination, 4 items, α = 0.58. The number of responses needed to get reliable information at the site of care level for the composites was generally acceptable (<300 for 0.70 reliability-level) except for self-management support and shared decision making about medicines. Item-scale correlations provided support for distinct composites except for access to care and shared decision making about medicines, which overlapped with the communication with providers scale. Shared decision making and self-management support were significantly, uniquely associated with the global rating of the provider (dependent variable), along with access and communication in a multiple regression model. This study provides further support for the reliability and validity of the CAHPS PCMH survey, but refinement of the self-management support and shared decision-making scales is needed. The survey can be used to provide information about the performance of different health plans on multiple domains of health care, but future efforts to improve some of the survey items is needed.
    Clinical Therapeutics 05/2014; 36(5). DOI:10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.004 · 2.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient care experience surveys evaluate the degree to which care is patient-centered. This article reviews the literature on the association between patient experiences and other measures of health care quality. Research indicates that better patient care experiences are associated with higher levels of adherence to recommended prevention and treatment processes, better clinical outcomes, better patient safety within hospitals, and less health care utilization. Patient experience measures that are collected using psychometrically sound instruments, employing recommended sample sizes and adjustment procedures, and implemented according to standard protocols are intrinsically meaningful and are appropriate complements for clinical process and outcome measures in public reporting and pay-for-performance programs.
    Medical Care Research and Review 07/2014; 71(5). DOI:10.1177/1077558714541480 · 2.57 Impact Factor