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.

  • 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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To explore why patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse experiences of care compared with those treated in other English regions. Secondary analysis of the 2011/2012 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (n=69 086). Patients with cancer treated by the English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. 64 patient experience measures covering all aspects of cancer care (pre-diagnosis to discharge). Using mixed effects logistic regression, we explored whether poorer scores in London hospitals could be explained by patient case-mix (age, gender, ethnicity and cancer type). Because patients referred to tertiary centres and/or with complex medical problems may report more critical experiences, we also explored whether the experiences reported in London may reflect higher concentration of teaching hospitals in the capital. Finally, using the data from the (general) Adult Inpatients Survey, we explored whether the extent of poorer experience reported by London patients was similar for respondents to either survey. For 52/64 questions, there was evidence of poorer experience in London, with the percentage of patients reporting a positive experience being lower compared with the rest of England by a median of 3.7% (IQR 2.5-5.4%). After case-mix adjustment there was still evidence for worse experience in London for 44/64 questions. In addition, adjusting for teaching hospital status made trivial difference to the case-mix-adjusted findings. There was evidence that London versus rest-of-England differences were greater for patients with cancer compared with (general) hospital inpatients for 10 of 16 questions in both the Cancer Patient Experience and the Adult Inpatients Surveys. Patients with cancer treated by London hospitals report worse care experiences and by and large these differences are not explained by patient case-mix or teaching hospital status. Efforts to improve care in London should aim to meet patient expectations and improve care quality.
    BMJ Open 01/2014; 4(1):e004039. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004039 · 2.06 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)

Available from
Jun 6, 2014