患者意见和患者体验评分与急诊科等候时间密切相关。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality Management in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000460
Diane Kuhn, Peter S Pang, Benton R Hunter, Paul I Musey, Karl Y Bilimoria, Xiaochun Li, Thomas Lardaro, Daniel Smith, Christian C Strachan, Sean Canfield, Patrick O Monahan
{"title":"患者意见和患者体验评分与急诊科等候时间密切相关。","authors":"Diane Kuhn, Peter S Pang, Benton R Hunter, Paul I Musey, Karl Y Bilimoria, Xiaochun Li, Thomas Lardaro, Daniel Smith, Christian C Strachan, Sean Canfield, Patrick O Monahan","doi":"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Hospitals and clinicians increasingly are reimbursed based on quality of care through financial incentives tied to value-based purchasing. Patient-centered care, measured through patient experience surveys, is a key component of many quality incentive programs. We hypothesize that operational aspects such as wait times are an important element of emergency department (ED) patient experience. The objectives of this paper are to determine (1) the association between ED wait times and patient experience and (2) whether patient comments show awareness of wait times.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a cross-sectional observational study from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, across 16 EDs within a regional health care system. Patient and operations data were obtained as secondary data through internal sources and merged with primary patient experience data from our data analytics team. Dependent variables are (1) the association between ED wait times in minutes and patient experience ratings and (2) the association between wait times in minutes and patient comments including the term wait (yes/no). Patients rated their \"likelihood to recommend (LTR) an ED\" on a 0 to 10 scale (categories: \"Promoter\" = 9-10, \"Neutral\" = 7-8, or \"Detractor\" = 0-6). Our aggregate experience rating, or Net Promoter Score (NPS), is calculated by the following formula for each distinct wait time (rounded to the nearest minute): NPS = 100* (# promoters - # detractors)/(# promoters + # neutrals + # detractors). Independent variables for patient age and gender and triage acuity, were included as potential confounders. We performed a mixed-effect multivariate ordinal logistic regression for the rating category as a function of 30 minutes waited. We also performed a logistic regression for the percentage of patients commenting on the wait as a function of 30 minutes waited. Standard errors are adjusted for clustering between the 16 ED sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 833 unique participants completed an experience survey, representing a response rate of 8.1%. Of these respondents, 28.1% included comments, with 10.9% using the term \"wait.\" The odds ratio for association of a 30-minute wait with LTR category is 0.83 [0.81, 0.84]. As wait times increase, the odds of commenting on the wait increase by 1.49 [1.46, 1.53]. We show policy-relevant bubble plot visualizations of these two relationships.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients were less likely to give a positive patient experience rating as wait times increased, and this was reflected in their comments. Improving on the factors contributing to ED wait times is essential to meeting health care systems' quality initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":20986,"journal":{"name":"Quality Management in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Comments and Patient Experience Ratings Are Strongly Correlated With Emergency Department Wait Times.\",\"authors\":\"Diane Kuhn, Peter S Pang, Benton R Hunter, Paul I Musey, Karl Y Bilimoria, Xiaochun Li, Thomas Lardaro, Daniel Smith, Christian C Strachan, Sean Canfield, Patrick O Monahan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/QMH.0000000000000460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Hospitals and clinicians increasingly are reimbursed based on quality of care through financial incentives tied to value-based purchasing. Patient-centered care, measured through patient experience surveys, is a key component of many quality incentive programs. We hypothesize that operational aspects such as wait times are an important element of emergency department (ED) patient experience. The objectives of this paper are to determine (1) the association between ED wait times and patient experience and (2) whether patient comments show awareness of wait times.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a cross-sectional observational study from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, across 16 EDs within a regional health care system. Patient and operations data were obtained as secondary data through internal sources and merged with primary patient experience data from our data analytics team. Dependent variables are (1) the association between ED wait times in minutes and patient experience ratings and (2) the association between wait times in minutes and patient comments including the term wait (yes/no). Patients rated their \\\"likelihood to recommend (LTR) an ED\\\" on a 0 to 10 scale (categories: \\\"Promoter\\\" = 9-10, \\\"Neutral\\\" = 7-8, or \\\"Detractor\\\" = 0-6). Our aggregate experience rating, or Net Promoter Score (NPS), is calculated by the following formula for each distinct wait time (rounded to the nearest minute): NPS = 100* (# promoters - # detractors)/(# promoters + # neutrals + # detractors). Independent variables for patient age and gender and triage acuity, were included as potential confounders. We performed a mixed-effect multivariate ordinal logistic regression for the rating category as a function of 30 minutes waited. We also performed a logistic regression for the percentage of patients commenting on the wait as a function of 30 minutes waited. Standard errors are adjusted for clustering between the 16 ED sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 833 unique participants completed an experience survey, representing a response rate of 8.1%. Of these respondents, 28.1% included comments, with 10.9% using the term \\\"wait.\\\" The odds ratio for association of a 30-minute wait with LTR category is 0.83 [0.81, 0.84]. As wait times increase, the odds of commenting on the wait increase by 1.49 [1.46, 1.53]. We show policy-relevant bubble plot visualizations of these two relationships.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients were less likely to give a positive patient experience rating as wait times increased, and this was reflected in their comments. Improving on the factors contributing to ED wait times is essential to meeting health care systems' quality initiatives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality Management in Health Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality Management in Health Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000460\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality Management in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000460","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目标:通过与基于价值的采购挂钩的经济激励措施,医院和临床医生越来越多地获得基于医疗质量的补偿。通过患者体验调查来衡量的以患者为中心的护理是许多质量激励计划的重要组成部分。我们假设,等待时间等操作方面是急诊科(ED)患者体验的一个重要因素。本文的目的是确定:(1) 急诊室等待时间与患者体验之间的关联;(2) 患者的评论是否显示出对等待时间的认识:这是一项横断面观察研究,研究时间为 2019 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 12 月 31 日,涉及一个地区医疗保健系统内的 16 个急诊室。患者和运营数据作为二级数据通过内部来源获得,并与数据分析团队提供的主要患者体验数据合并。因变量包括:(1) 以分钟为单位的急诊室等待时间与患者体验评分之间的关联;(2) 以分钟为单位的等待时间与包括 "等待 "一词(是/否)在内的患者评论之间的关联。患者对其 "推荐 (LTR) 急诊室的可能性 "的评分为 0-10 分(类别:"促进者"=9-10 分,"中立者"=7-8 分,或 "反对者"=0-6 分)。我们的综合体验评级或净促进者得分 (NPS) 是根据每个不同的等待时间(四舍五入到最接近的分钟)按以下公式计算得出的:NPS = 100* (# 促进者 - # 反对者)/(#促进者 + #中立者 + #反对者)。患者年龄、性别和分诊严重程度等独立变量被列为潜在混杂因素。我们对评级类别与 30 分钟等待时间的函数关系进行了混合效应多变量序数逻辑回归。我们还对对等待时间发表评论的患者比例与等待时间 30 分钟的函数关系进行了逻辑回归。标准误差根据 16 个急诊室之间的聚类情况进行了调整:共有 50 833 名参与者完成了体验调查,回复率为 8.1%。其中,28.1%的受访者发表了评论,10.9%的受访者使用了 "等待 "一词。等待 30 分钟与 LTR 类别相关的几率比为 0.83 [0.81, 0.84]。随着等待时间的增加,对等待发表评论的几率增加了 1.49 [1.46, 1.53]。我们展示了这两种关系的政策相关气泡图可视化:结论:随着等待时间的延长,患者给予积极的患者体验评价的可能性降低,这一点也反映在他们的评论中。改善导致急诊室等候时间延长的因素对于实现医疗系统的质量目标至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Patient Comments and Patient Experience Ratings Are Strongly Correlated With Emergency Department Wait Times.

Background and objectives: Hospitals and clinicians increasingly are reimbursed based on quality of care through financial incentives tied to value-based purchasing. Patient-centered care, measured through patient experience surveys, is a key component of many quality incentive programs. We hypothesize that operational aspects such as wait times are an important element of emergency department (ED) patient experience. The objectives of this paper are to determine (1) the association between ED wait times and patient experience and (2) whether patient comments show awareness of wait times.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, across 16 EDs within a regional health care system. Patient and operations data were obtained as secondary data through internal sources and merged with primary patient experience data from our data analytics team. Dependent variables are (1) the association between ED wait times in minutes and patient experience ratings and (2) the association between wait times in minutes and patient comments including the term wait (yes/no). Patients rated their "likelihood to recommend (LTR) an ED" on a 0 to 10 scale (categories: "Promoter" = 9-10, "Neutral" = 7-8, or "Detractor" = 0-6). Our aggregate experience rating, or Net Promoter Score (NPS), is calculated by the following formula for each distinct wait time (rounded to the nearest minute): NPS = 100* (# promoters - # detractors)/(# promoters + # neutrals + # detractors). Independent variables for patient age and gender and triage acuity, were included as potential confounders. We performed a mixed-effect multivariate ordinal logistic regression for the rating category as a function of 30 minutes waited. We also performed a logistic regression for the percentage of patients commenting on the wait as a function of 30 minutes waited. Standard errors are adjusted for clustering between the 16 ED sites.

Results: A total of 50 833 unique participants completed an experience survey, representing a response rate of 8.1%. Of these respondents, 28.1% included comments, with 10.9% using the term "wait." The odds ratio for association of a 30-minute wait with LTR category is 0.83 [0.81, 0.84]. As wait times increase, the odds of commenting on the wait increase by 1.49 [1.46, 1.53]. We show policy-relevant bubble plot visualizations of these two relationships.

Conclusions: Patients were less likely to give a positive patient experience rating as wait times increased, and this was reflected in their comments. Improving on the factors contributing to ED wait times is essential to meeting health care systems' quality initiatives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality Management in Health Care
Quality Management in Health Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
108
期刊介绍: Quality Management in Health Care (QMHC) is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for our readers to explore the theoretical, technical, and strategic elements of health care quality management. The journal''s primary focus is on organizational structure and processes as these affect the quality of care and patient outcomes. In particular, it: -Builds knowledge about the application of statistical tools, control charts, benchmarking, and other devices used in the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of care and of patient outcomes; -Encourages research in and evaluation of the results of various organizational strategies designed to bring about quantifiable improvements in patient outcomes; -Fosters the application of quality management science to patient care processes and clinical decision-making; -Fosters cooperation and communication among health care providers, payers and regulators in their efforts to improve the quality of patient outcomes; -Explores links among the various clinical, technical, administrative, and managerial disciplines involved in patient care, as well as the role and responsibilities of organizational governance in ongoing quality management.
期刊最新文献
Improving Linkages Between Sexual and Reproductive Health and Substance Use Providers: The Partnership to Advance Integrated Referrals. The Human-Technology Continuum. Information Overload-Do We Read All the Posters Displayed Across the Walls on Hospital Wards? Leadership Strategies to Increase Psychological Safety of Nurses: A Longitudinal Study. Patient-Engagement Health Information Technology and Quality Process Outcomes in Federally Qualified Health Centers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1