Development of a New Patient-Based Measure of Pediatric Ambulatory Care

Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.47). 10/2009; 124(5):1348-54. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-0495
Source: PubMed


In 1995, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research initiated the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) project to develop and evaluate survey protocols for collecting reliable and valid assessments of health care from consumers. CAHPS surveys are used throughout the United States for evaluating ambulatory and hospital care experiences, including a version for assessing pediatric ambulatory care; however, pediatric experts thought that the existing pediatric instruments did not adequately assess developmental and preventive care. The objective of this study was to develop and test an Ambulatory Pediatric CAHPS survey that focuses on clinicians and groups and includes measures of developmental and preventive care.
To develop the survey, we conducted 2 focus groups and conducted 9 cognitive interviews. We conducted a telephone pretest with 20 parents and coded potential problems with the interview (behavioral coding). We conducted a dual-language field test of the instrument with 670 parents who reported about their children's ambulatory care. We used data from that survey to assess the reliability and validity of the measures.
Questions about developmental monitoring and preventive care were developed and tested. Two scales that were based on those new questions had good internal consistency (coefficient alpha) and inter-physician reliability. A consortium of CAHPS investigators and federal sponsors have approved the resulting instrument as a national measure of pediatric care.
A new instrument for assessing ambulatory pediatric care by clinicians and groups that includes questions about developmental and preventive care is now available for use.

6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the perspectives of publicly insured adolescents and their parents on ways to encourage adolescent utilization of preventive health services. We conducted eight focus groups with 77 adolescents enrolled in a large Medicaid managed care plan in Los Angeles County, California, and two focus groups with 21 of their parents. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Adolescents and parents reported that the most effective way to encourage preventive care utilization among teens was to directly address provider-level barriers related to the timeliness, privacy, confidentiality, comprehensiveness, and continuity of their preventive care. They reported that incentives (e.g., cash, movie tickets, gift cards) might also be an effective way to increase preventive care utilization. To improve adolescent receipt of surveillance and guidance on sensitive health-related topics, most adolescents suggested that the best way to encourage clinician-adolescent discussion was to increase private face-to-face discussions with a clinician with whom they had a continuous and confidential relationship. Adolescents reported that the use of text messaging, e-mail, and Internet for providing information and counseling on various sensitive health-related topics would also encourage adolescent utilization of preventive health services. Parents, however, more often preferred that their teen receive these services through in-office discussions and clinician-provided brochures. State agencies, health plans, clinics, and individual providers may consider focusing their efforts to improve adolescents' utilization of preventive services on basic structural and quality of care issues related to the clinician-patient relationship, access to services, and confidentiality.
    Journal of Adolescent Health 08/2010; 47(2):133-42. DOI:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.01.005 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Institute of Medicine considers patient centeredness a core dimension of quality. Several patient/family surveys exist to assess pediatric health care. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act mandates strengthening quality measurement for children, including for patient/family experience of care. The aim of this study was to determine what instruments exist for measuring patient/family experience of pediatric health care and which should be included in the core measurement set for assessing Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs; to identify gaps in measurement; and to provide recommendations for measure development. We developed a conceptual framework for measuring patient/family experience of care. We conducted a review of national measure clearinghouses and of the literature to assess validity, reliability, and feasibility of existing measures, and how these measures address the conceptual framework. We found valid and reliable instruments for measuring patient/family experience of care include the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) instruments, Promoting Healthy Development Survey (PHDS), Young Adult Health Care Survey (YAHCS), and the National Research Corporation Picker Pediatric Inpatient Survey (NRC Picker). We identified the need for matching patients with providers and groups as a barrier for widespread use of the CAHPS® pediatric clinician & group instrument. We recommended to the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality Subcommittee on Children's Healthcare Quality Measures for Medicaid and Child Health Insurance Programs (SNAC) the CAHPS® Child Medicaid 4.0 and pediatric Clinician & Group Survey for inclusion in the initial recommended list of core measures for voluntary use by Medicaid and CHIP. The Clinician and Group Survey was not included in the list posted for public comment due to concerns at that time (December 2009) about feasibility. We also recommended that development of a child version of the CAHPS® behavioral and mental health survey now used in the adult population and of a pediatric hospital CAHPS® measure be considered high priorities for development in the next phase of Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act measurement activity. This phase should also explore methods to increase response rates and lower costs of obtaining consumer feedback.
    Academic pediatrics 05/2011; 11(3 Suppl):S59-67. DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2011.01.009 · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : Consumer assessment of health care is an important metric for evaluating quality of care. These assessments can help purchasers, health plans, and providers deliver care that fits patients' needs. : To examine differences in reports and ratings of care delivered to adults and children and whether they vary by site. : This observational study compares adult and child experiences with care at a large west coast medical center and affiliated clinics and a large mid-western health plan using Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician & Group 1.0 Survey data. : Office staff helpfulness and courtesy was perceived more positively for adult than pediatric care in the west coast site. In contrast, more positive perceptions of pediatric care were observed in both sites for coordination of care, shared decision making, overall rating of the doctor, and willingness to recommend the doctor to family and friends. In addition, pediatric care was perceived more positively in the mid-west site for access to care, provider communication, and office staff helpfulness and courtesy. The differences between pediatric care and adult care were larger in the mid-western site than the west coast site. : There are significant differences in the perception of care for children and adults with care provided to children tending to be perceived more positively. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for these differences and provide more definitive information at sites throughout the United States.
    Medical care 11/2012; 50 Suppl(11):S35-9. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182610a88 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications