Using Standardized Encounters to Understand Reported Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Patient Experiences with Care

The RAND Corporation, Arlington VA 22202, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.78). 12/2010; 46(2):491-509. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01214.x
Source: PubMed


To assess the extent to which racial/ethnic differences in ratings of patient experiences with health care represent true differences versus differences in expectations, how scales are used, or how identical physician-patient interactions are perceived by members of different groups.
Primary data collection from a nationally representative online panel (n=567), including white, African American, and Latino respondents.
We administered questions on expectations of care, a series of written vignettes, a video-depicted doctor-patient interaction, and modified CAHPS Clinician and Group Doctor Communication items.
Different groups reported generally similar expectations regarding physicians' behaviors and provided similar mean responses to CAHPS communication items in response to standardized encounters.
Preliminary evidence suggests that unlike more subjective global ratings, reported disparities in more specific and objective CAHPS composites may primarily reflect differences in experiences, rather than differences in expectations and scale use, adding to our confidence in using the latter to assess disparities.

Download full-text


Available from: Mark Schlesinger,
  • Source
    • "innovative study was designed to assess the extent to which racial/ethnic differences in ratings of patient experience represent true differences or perceptions (Weinick et al. 2011). Taking advantage of a nationally representative online panel, the investigators developed a video that simulated CG-CAHPS items with varying degrees of physician responsiveness for a patient with a headache. "

    Health Services Research 04/2011; 46(2):389-93. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01254.x · 2.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient satisfaction and experiences are important parts of healthcare quality, but patient expectations are seldom included in quality assessments. The objective of this study was to estimate the effects of different predictors of overall patient satisfaction with hospitals, including patient-reported experiences, fulfilment of patient expectations and socio-demographic variables. Data were collected using a national patient-experience survey of 63 hospitals in the five health regions in Norway during the autumn of 2006. Postal questionnaires were mailed to 24 141 patients after their discharge from hospital. Non-respondents were sent a reminder after 4 weeks. Multivariate linear regression analysis including multilevel regression was used to assess the predictors of overall patient satisfaction with hospitals. Thirteen variables were significantly associated with overall patient satisfaction: two variables about fulfilment of expectations, eight about patient-reported experiences and three socio-demographic variables. The regression model explained 59% of the variation in overall patient satisfaction. The most important predictor of patient satisfaction with hospitals was patient-reported experiences with the nursing services (β=0.27, p<0.001), followed by fulfilment of patient expectations (β=0.21, p<0.001), experiences with doctor services (β=0.12, p<0.001) and perceived incorrect treatment (β=-0.12, p<0.001). Multilevel regression analysis confirmed most of the findings, but revealed that age was not a significant predictor of overall patient satisfaction. The study showed that both fulfilment of expectations and patient-reported experiences are distinct from but related to overall patient satisfaction. The most important predictors for overall patient satisfaction with hospitals are patient-reported experiences and fulfilment of expectations.
    BMJ quality & safety 08/2011; 21(1):39-46. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000137 · 3.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ethnic minorities and some other patient groups consistently report lower scores on patient surveys, but the reasons for this are unclear. This study examined whether low scores of ethnic minority and other socio-demographic groups reflect their concentration in poorly performing primary care practices, and whether any remaining differences are consistent across practices. Using data from the 2009 English General Practice Patient Survey (2 163 456 respondents from 8267 general practices) this study examined associations between patient socio-demographic characteristics and 11 measures of patient-reported experience. South Asian and Chinese patients, younger patients, and those in poor health reported a less positive primary care experience than White patients, older patients and those in better health. For doctor communication, about half of the overall difference associated with South Asian patients (ranging from -6 to -9 percentage points) could be explained by their concentration in practices with low scores, but the other half arose because they reported less positive experiences than White patients in the same practices. Practices varied considerably in the direction and extent of ethnic differences. In some practices ethnic minority patients reported better experience than White patients. Differences associated with gender, Black ethnicity and deprivation were small and inconsistent. Substantial ethnic differences in patient experience exist in a national healthcare system providing universal coverage. Improving the experience of patients in low-scoring practices would not only improve the quality of care provided to their White patients but it would also substantially reduce ethnic group differences in patient experience. There were large variations in the experiences reported by ethnic minority patients in different practices: practices with high patient experience scores from ethnic minority patients could be studied as models for quality improvement.
    BMJ quality & safety 09/2011; 21(1):21-9. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000088 · 3.99 Impact Factor
Show more