Article

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: 2.49). 12/2010; 46(2):491-509. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01214.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Followers
 · 
115 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Providing a good patient experience is a key part of providing high-quality medical care. This paper explains why patient experience is important in its own right, and its relationship to other domains of quality. We describe methods of measuring patient experience, including issues relating to validity, reliability and response bias. Differences in reported patient experience may sometimes reflect differences in expectations of different population groups and we describe the arguments for and against adjusting patient experience data for population characteristics. As with other quality improvement strategies, feeding back patient experience data on its own is unlikely to improve quality: sustained and multiple interventions are usually required to deliver sustained improvements in care.
    The patient 05/2014; 7(3). DOI:10.1007/s40271-014-0060-5 · 1.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due to migration, doctors see patients from different ethnic backgrounds. This causes challenges for the communication. To develop training programs for doctors in intercultural communication (ICC), it is important to know which barriers and facilitators determine the quality of ICC. This study aimed to provide an overview of the literature and to explore how ICC works. A systematic search was performed to find literature published before October 2012. The search terms used were cultural, communication, healthcare worker. A realist synthesis allowed us to use an explanatory focus to understand the interplay of communication. In total, 145 articles met the inclusion criteria. We found ICC challenges due to language, cultural and social differences, and doctors' assumptions. The mechanisms were described as factors influencing the process of ICC and divided into objectives, core skills and specific skills. The results were synthesized in a framework for the development of training. The quality of ICC is influenced by the context and by the mechanisms. These mechanisms translate into practical points for training, which seem to have similarities with patient-centered communication. Training for improving ICC can be developed as an extension of the existing training for patient-centered communication. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Patient Education and Counseling 12/2014; 98(4). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2014.11.018 · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient experience is a critical dimension of cancer care quality. Understanding variation in experience among patients with different cancers and characteristics is an important first step for designing targeted improvement interventions. We analysed data from the 2011/2012 English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n = 69 086) using logistic regression to explore inequalities in care experience across 64 survey questions. We additionally calculated a summary measure of variation in patient experience by cancer, and explored inequalities between patients with cancers treated by the same specialist teams. We found that younger and very old, ethnic minority patients and women consistently reported worse experiences across questions. Patients with small intestine/rarer lower gastrointestinal, multiple myeloma and hepatobiliary cancers were most likely to report negative experiences whereas patients with breast, melanoma and testicular cancer were least likely (top-to-bottom odds ratio = 1.91, P < 0.0001). There were also inequalities in experience among patients with cancers treated by the same specialty for five of nine services (P < 0.0001). Specifically, patients with ovarian, multiple myeloma, anal, hepatobiliary and renal cancer reported notably worse experiences than patients with other gynaecological, haematological, gastrointestinal and urological malignancies respectively. Initiatives to improve cancer patient experience across oncology services may be suitably targeted on patients at higher risk of poorer experience.
    European Journal of Cancer Care 11/2014; 24(1). DOI:10.1111/ecc.12267 · 1.76 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
54 Downloads
Available from
Jun 6, 2014