Evaluation of non-response to the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) survey

被引:17
|
作者
Dad, Taimur [1 ,2 ]
Tighiouart, Hocine [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Fenton, Joshua J. [5 ]
Lacson, Eduardo, Jr. [1 ,2 ,6 ]
Meyer, Klemens B. [1 ,2 ]
Miskulin, Dana C. [1 ,2 ]
Weiner, Daniel E. [1 ,2 ]
Richardson, Michelle M. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Tufts Med Ctr, 800 Washington St,Box 391, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[2] Tufts Univ, Sch Med, 800 Washington St,Box 391, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[3] Tufts Med Ctr, Inst Clin Res & Hlth Policy Studies, Boston, MA USA
[4] Tufts Univ, Tufts Clin & Translat Sci Inst, BERD Ctr, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[5] Univ Calif Davis, Ctr Healthcare Policy & Res, Dept Family & Community Med, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[6] Dialysis Clin Inc, Nashville, TN USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Hemodialysis; CAHPS; ICH CAHPS; Patient reported outcome; Patient satisfaction; Patient experience; Survey; BIAS; PATIENT; RATES;
D O I
10.1186/s12913-018-3618-4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (ICH CAHPS) Survey is the first patient reported outcome measure included in the U.S. Medicare End Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program. Administered twice yearly, it assesses in-center dialysis experience and survey responses are tied to dialysis facility payments. Low response rates, currently approximately 35%, raise concern for possible underrepresentation of patient groups. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of survey administration in 2012 to all in-center hemodialysis patients in Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (DCI) facilities nationally over 18 years old who received hemodialysis at their facility for at least 3 months. Patient-level covariates included demographic, clinical, laboratory, and functional characteristics. Random effects multivariable logistic regression was used to assess survey non-response. Results: Among 11,055 eligible patients 6541 (59%) were non-responders. Of the remaining 4514 responders, 549 (14%) surveys were not usable due to presence of proxy help or incomplete responses. Non-responders were more likely to be men, non-white, younger, single, dual Medicare/Medicaid eligible, less educated, non-English speaking, and not active on the transplant list; non-responders had longer ESRD vintage, lower body mass index, lower serum albumin, worse functional status, and more hospitalizations, missed treatments, and shortened treatments. Similar associations were found using more parsimonious multivariable analyses and after imputing missing data. Conclusions: Non-responders to the ICH CAHPS significantly differed from responders, broadly spanning individuals with fewer socioeconomic advantages and greater illness burden, raising limitations in interpreting facility survey results. Future research should assess reasons for non-response to improve ICH CAHPS generalizability and utility.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Using administrative data to identify eligible patients for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey for cancer care prototype
    Yost, Kathleen J.
    Visscher, Sue
    Frost, Marlene
    Jenkins, Sarah
    Evensen, Christian
    Robertson, Melissa
    Naessens, James
    Egginton, Jason
    Van Such, Monica
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2015, 24 : 127 - 127
  • [32] The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) approach to assessing patient experiences with care in the United States
    Hays, Ron
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2018, 27 : S12 - S12
  • [33] Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS)
    Schmocker, Ryan K.
    Stafford, Linda M. Cherney
    Siy, Alexander B.
    Leverson, Glen E.
    Winslow, Emily R.
    [J]. SURGERY, 2015, 158 (06) : 1725 - 1734
  • [34] Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care Survey: Benefits and Challenges
    Schulz, Kristine A.
    Rhee, John S.
    Brereton, Jean M.
    Zema, Carla L.
    Witsell, David L.
    [J]. OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2012, 147 (04) : 671 - 677
  • [35] Patient Comments on the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) Survey Reflect Improvements in Provider Behaviors From Coaching
    Quigley, Denise D.
    Predmore, Zachary
    Martino, Steven
    Qureshi, Nabeel
    Hays, Ron D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, 2023, 68 (04) : 251 - 267
  • [36] Associations of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician and Group Survey Scores with Interventions and Site, Provider, and Patient Factors: A Systematic Review of the Evidence
    Quigley, Denise D.
    Elliott, Marc N.
    Qureshi, Nabeel
    Predmore, Zachary
    Hays, Ron D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PATIENT EXPERIENCE, 2024, 11
  • [37] Translating and validating the Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey in Japan
    Inata, Yu
    Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko
    [J]. PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL, 2023, 65 (01)
  • [38] Hospice Glassdoor and CAHPS® Scores - Glassdoor Scores and Hospice Financial Characteristics Predict Hospice Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Scores
    Hotchkiss, Jason
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2023, 40 (03): : 311 - 321
  • [39] Postoperative Opioid Prescribing and the Pain Scores on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey
    Lee, Jay S.
    Hu, Hsou M.
    Brummett, Chad M.
    Syrjamaki, John D.
    Dupree, James M.
    Englesbe, Michael J.
    Waljee, Jennifer F.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2017, 317 (19): : 2013 - 2015
  • [40] Decision aids improve patient-reported shared decision making: an analysis of surgical consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems (cahps) data
    Lane, Giulia I.
    Berlin, Nicholas L.
    Ellimoottil, Chad
    Lenherr, Sara M.
    Clemens, J. Quentin
    [J]. NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2020, 39 : S182 - S183