医疗保健提供者和系统消费者评估(CAHPS)临床医生和团体调查得分与干预措施及医疗机构、提供者和患者因素的关系:证据的系统回顾。

IF 1.6 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Experience Pub Date : 2024-10-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23743735241283204
Denise D Quigley, Marc N Elliott, Nabeel Qureshi, Zachary Predmore, Ron D Hays
{"title":"医疗保健提供者和系统消费者评估(CAHPS)临床医生和团体调查得分与干预措施及医疗机构、提供者和患者因素的关系:证据的系统回顾。","authors":"Denise D Quigley, Marc N Elliott, Nabeel Qureshi, Zachary Predmore, Ron D Hays","doi":"10.1177/23743735241283204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. Since the 2007 release of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) survey, no systematic review of factors associated with CG-CAHPS scores has been reported. We reviewed 52 peer-reviewed English language articles published in the United States using CG-CAHPS data. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. We identified several interventions (eg, adding a care coordinator focused on chronic care management) associated with improved overall provider rating and 2 interventions (eg, peer shadow coaching) that improved provider communication scores. Studies evaluating the implementation of patient-centered medical homes or patient-reported outcomes found mixed results. We identified site-level factors (eg, better team communication) and provider-level factors (eg, physician empathy) associated with better patient experience. In contrast, patient-level factors (eg, medication adherence) found mixed associations with patient experience. Policymakers, clinicians, and healthcare leaders can leverage this evidence for quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.</p>","PeriodicalId":45073,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Experience","volume":"11 ","pages":"23743735241283204"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11472368/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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.\",\"authors\":\"Denise D Quigley, Marc N Elliott, Nabeel Qureshi, Zachary Predmore, Ron D Hays\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23743735241283204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. Since the 2007 release of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) survey, no systematic review of factors associated with CG-CAHPS scores has been reported. We reviewed 52 peer-reviewed English language articles published in the United States using CG-CAHPS data. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. We identified several interventions (eg, adding a care coordinator focused on chronic care management) associated with improved overall provider rating and 2 interventions (eg, peer shadow coaching) that improved provider communication scores. Studies evaluating the implementation of patient-centered medical homes or patient-reported outcomes found mixed results. We identified site-level factors (eg, better team communication) and provider-level factors (eg, physician empathy) associated with better patient experience. In contrast, patient-level factors (eg, medication adherence) found mixed associations with patient experience. Policymakers, clinicians, and healthcare leaders can leverage this evidence for quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient Experience\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"23743735241283204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11472368/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient Experience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735241283204\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Experience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735241283204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

患者体验是医疗质量的一个重要方面。自 2007 年发布 "医疗服务提供者和系统消费者评估临床医师和小组"(CG-CAHPS)调查以来,尚未有关于 CG-CAHPS 评分相关因素的系统性综述报告。我们利用 CG-CAHPS 数据对 52 篇在美国发表的同行评审英文文章进行了审查。我们遵循了《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南,并使用了《分析性横断面研究核对表》。我们发现一些干预措施(如增加一名专注于慢性病护理管理的护理协调员)与改善医疗服务提供者的总体评分有关,还有两项干预措施(如同伴影子辅导)可改善医疗服务提供者的沟通评分。评估 "以患者为中心的医疗之家 "实施情况或患者报告结果的研究结果不一。我们发现了与改善患者体验相关的医疗机构层面的因素(如更好的团队沟通)和医疗服务提供者层面的因素(如医生的同理心)。相比之下,患者层面的因素(如服药依从性)与患者体验的关系不一。政策制定者、临床医生和医疗保健领导者可以利用这些证据来开展质量改进工作和干预措施,支持以患者为中心的护理。
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
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.

Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. Since the 2007 release of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS) survey, no systematic review of factors associated with CG-CAHPS scores has been reported. We reviewed 52 peer-reviewed English language articles published in the United States using CG-CAHPS data. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. We identified several interventions (eg, adding a care coordinator focused on chronic care management) associated with improved overall provider rating and 2 interventions (eg, peer shadow coaching) that improved provider communication scores. Studies evaluating the implementation of patient-centered medical homes or patient-reported outcomes found mixed results. We identified site-level factors (eg, better team communication) and provider-level factors (eg, physician empathy) associated with better patient experience. In contrast, patient-level factors (eg, medication adherence) found mixed associations with patient experience. Policymakers, clinicians, and healthcare leaders can leverage this evidence for quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.

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
Journal of Patient Experience
Journal of Patient Experience HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
178
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
"It was not normal, and I had to find a doctor and tell him." Kenyan Women's Response to Cervical Cancer Symptoms. Factors Associated With Psychiatry Consultation for Musculoskeletal Trauma Patients. Does an "EZ" Survey Improve the Data Quality of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) Clinician and Group Survey 3.1? An Adaptive Pacing Intervention for Adults Living With Long COVID: A Narrative Study of Patient Experiences of Using the PaceMe app. Behind the Scenes of Isotretinoin: My Journey and Recommendations.
×
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