استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

Interrupted time series (ITS) is a powerful and increasingly popular design for evaluating public health and health service interventions. The design involves analyzing trends in the outcome of interest and estimating the change in trend following an intervention relative to the counterfactual (the expected ongoing trend if the intervention had not occurred). There are two key components to modeling this effect: first, defining the counterfactual; second, defining the type of effect that the intervention is expected to have on the outcome, known as the impact model. The counterfactual is defined by extrapolating the underlying trends observed before the intervention to the postintervention period. In doing this, authors must consider the preintervention period that will be included, any time-varying confounders, whether trends may vary within different subgroups of the population and whether trends are linear or nonlinear. Defining the impact model involves specifying the parameters that model the intervention, including for instance whether to allow for an abrupt level change or a gradual slope change, whether to allow for a lag before any effect on the outcome, whether to allow a transition period during which the intervention is being implemented, and whether a ceiling or floor effect might be expected. Inappropriate model specification can bias the results of an ITS analysis and using a model that is not closely tailored to the intervention or testing multiple models increases the risk of false positives being detected. It is important that authors use substantive knowledge to customize their ITS model a priori to the intervention and outcome under study. Where there is uncertainty in model specification, authors should consider using separate data sources to define the intervention, running limited sensitivity analyses or undertaking initial exploratory studies.

Little is known about how real-time online rating platforms such as Yelp may complement the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which is the US standard for evaluating patients' experiences after hospitalization. We compared the content of Yelp narrative reviews of hospitals to the topics in the HCAHPS survey, called domains in HCAHPS terminology. While the domains included in Yelp reviews covered the majority of HCAHPS domains, Yelp reviews covered an additional twelve domains not found in HCAHPS. The majority of Yelp topics that most strongly correlate with positive or negative reviews are not measured or reported by HCAHPS. The large collection of patient- and caregiver-centered experiences found on Yelp can be analyzed with natural language processing methods, identifying for policy makers the measures of hospital quality that matter most to patients and caregivers. The Yelp measures and analysis can also provide actionable feedback for hospitals.

Background: The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS ® ) Clinician and Group Adult Visit Survey enables patients to report their experiences with outpatient medical offices. Objective: To evaluate the factor structure and reliability of the CAHPS Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) Adult Visit Survey. Data Source: Data from 21,318 patients receiving care in 450 clinical practice sites collected from March 2010 to December 2010 were analyzed from the CG-CAHPS Database. Research Design and Participants: Individual level and multilevel confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine CAHPS survey responses at the patient and practice site levels. We also estimated internal consistency reliability and practice site level reliability. Correlations among multi-item composites and correlations between the composites and 2 global rating items were examined. Measures: Scores on CG-CAHPS composites assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, Courteous/Helpful Staff, and 2 global ratings of whether one would Recommend their Doctor, and an Overall Doctor Rating. Results: Analyses provide support for the hypothesized 3-factor model assessing Access to Care, Doctor Communication, and Courteous/Helpful Staff. In addition, the internal consistency reliabilities were ≥ 0.77 and practice site level reliabilities for sites with > 4 clinicians were ≥ 0.75. All composites were positively and significantly correlated with the 2 global rating items, with Doctor Communication having the strongest relationship with the global ratings. Conclusions: The CG-CAHPS Adult Visit Survey has acceptable psychometric properties at the individual level and practice site level. The analyses suggest that the survey items are measuring their intended concepts and yield reliable information.

BackgroundMany hospital systems seek to improve patient satisfaction as assessed by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys. A systematic review of the current experimental evidence could inform these efforts and does not yet exist.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature by searching electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, the six databases of the Cochrane Library and grey literature databases. We included studies involving hospital patients with interventions targeting at least 1 of the 11 HCAHPS domains, and that met our quality filter score on the 27-item Downs and Black coding scale. We calculated post hoc power when appropriate.ResultsA total of 59 studies met inclusion criteria, out of these 44 did not meet the quality filter of 50% (average quality rating 27.8%±10.9%). Of the 15 studies that met the quality filter (average quality rating 67.3%±10.7%), 8 targeted the Communication with Doctors HCAHPS domain, 6 targeted Overall Hospital Rating, 5 targeted Communication with Nurses, 5 targeted Pain Management, 5 targeted Communication about Medicines, 5 targeted Recommend the Hospital, 3 targeted Quietness of the Hospital Environment, 3 targeted Cleanliness of the Hospital Environment and 3 targeted Discharge Information. Significant HCAHPS improvements were reported by eight interventions, but their generalisability may be limited by narrowly focused patient populations, heterogeneity of approach and other methodological concerns.ConclusionsAlthough there are a few studies that show some improvement in HCAHPS score through various interventions, we conclude that more rigorous research is needed to identify effective and generalisable interventions to improve patient satisfaction.

While underscoring the need for timely, nationally representative data in ambulatory, hospital, and long-term-care settings, the COVID-19 pandemic posed many challenges to traditional methods and mechanisms of data collection. To continue generating data from health care and long-term-care providers and establishments in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Center for Health Statistics had to modify survey operations for several of its provider-based National Health Care Surveys, including quickly adding survey questions that captured the experiences of providing care during the pandemic. With the aim of providing information that may be useful to other health care data collection systems, this article presents some key challenges that affected data collection activities for these national provider surveys, as well as the measures taken to minimize the disruption in data collection and to optimize the likelihood of disseminating quality data in a timely manner. ( . 2021;111(12):2141-2148. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306514).

The universal definition of myocardial infarction (UDMI) standardizes the approach to the diagnosis and management of myocardial infarction. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing is recommended because these assays have improved precision at low concentrations, but concerns over specificity may have limited their implementation. We undertook a global survey of 1902 medical centers in 23 countries evenly distributed across 5 continents to assess adoption of key recommendations from the UDMI. Respondents involved in the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome completed a structured telephone questionnaire detailing the primary biomarker, diagnostic thresholds, and clinical pathways used to identify myocardial infarction. Cardiac troponin was the primary diagnostic biomarker at 96% of surveyed sites. Only 41% of centers had adopted high-sensitivity assays, with wide variation from 7% in North America to 60% in Europe. Sites using high-sensitivity troponin more frequently used serial sampling pathways (91% vs 78%) and the 99th percentile diagnostic threshold (74% vs 66%) than sites using previous-generation assays. Furthermore, high-sensitivity institutions more often used earlier serial sampling (≤3 h) and accelerated diagnostic pathways. Fewer than 1 in 5 high-sensitivity sites had adopted sex-specific thresholds (18%). There has been global progress toward the recommendations of the UDMI, particularly in the use of the 99th percentile diagnostic threshold and serial sampling. However, high-sensitivity assays are still used by a minority of sites, and sex-specific thresholds by even fewer. Additional efforts are required to improve risk stratification and diagnosis of patients with myocardial infarction.

Surveys of doctors are an important data collection method in health services research. Ways to improve response rates, minimise survey response bias and item non-response, within a given budget, have not previously been addressed in the same study. The aim of this paper is to compare the effects and costs of three different modes of survey administration in a national survey of doctors. A stratified random sample of 4.9% (2,702/54,160) of doctors undertaking clinical practice was drawn from a national directory of all doctors in Australia. Stratification was by four doctor types: general practitioners, specialists, specialists-in-training, and hospital non-specialists, and by six rural/remote categories. A three-arm parallel trial design with equal randomisation across arms was used. Doctors were randomly allocated to: online questionnaire (902); simultaneous mixed mode (a paper questionnaire and login details sent together) (900); or, sequential mixed mode (online followed by a paper questionnaire with the reminder) (900). Analysis was by intention to treat, as within each primary mode, doctors could choose either paper or online. Primary outcome measures were response rate, survey response bias, item non-response, and cost. The online mode had a response rate 12.95%, followed by the simultaneous mixed mode with 19.7%, and the sequential mixed mode with 20.7%. After adjusting for observed differences between the groups, the online mode had a 7 percentage point lower response rate compared to the simultaneous mixed mode, and a 7.7 percentage point lower response rate compared to sequential mixed mode. The difference in response rate between the sequential and simultaneous modes was not statistically significant. Both mixed modes showed evidence of response bias, whilst the characteristics of online respondents were similar to the population. However, the online mode had a higher rate of item non-response compared to both mixed modes. The total cost of the online survey was 38% lower than simultaneous mixed mode and 22% lower than sequential mixed mode. The cost of the sequential mixed mode was 14% lower than simultaneous mixed mode. Compared to the online mode, the sequential mixed mode was the most cost-effective, although exhibiting some evidence of response bias. Decisions on which survey mode to use depend on response rates, response bias, item non-response and costs. The sequential mixed mode appears to be the most cost-effective mode of survey administration for surveys of the population of doctors, if one is prepared to accept a degree of response bias. Online surveys are not yet suitable to be used exclusively for surveys of the doctor population.

Objective: To develop and evaluate survey questions that assess processes of care relevant to Patient-Centered Medical Homes (PCMHs). Research Design: We convened expert panels, reviewed evidence on effective care practices and existing surveys, elicited broad public input, and conducted cognitive interviews and a field test to develop items relevant to PCMHs that could be added to the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS ® ) Clinician & Group (CG-CAHPS) 1.0 Survey. Surveys were tested using a 2-contact mail protocol in 10 adults and 33 pediatrie practices (both private and community health centers) in Massachusetts. A total of 4875 completed surveys were received (overall response rate of 25%). Analyses: We calculated the rate of valid responses for each item. We conducted exploratory factor analyses and estimated itemto-total correlations, individual and site-level reliability, and correlations among proposed multi-item composites. Results: Ten items in 4 new domains (Comprehensiveness, Information, Self-Management Support, and Shared Decision-Making) and 4 items in 2 existing domains (Access and Coordination of Care) were selected to be supplemental items to be used in conjunction with the adult CG-CAHPS 1.0 Survey. For the child version, 4 items in each of 2 new domains (Information and Self-Management Support) and 5 items in existing domains (Access, Comprehensiveness-Prevention, Coordination of Care) were selected. Conclusions: This study provides support for the reliability and validity of new items to supplement the CG-CAHPS 1.0 Survey to assess aspects of primary care that are important attributes of PCMHs.