大型临终关怀机构中的护理人员和员工体验根据三项质量指标对美国最大临终关怀机构进行排名。

Jason Hotchkiss, Emily Ridderman, Brendan Hotchkiss
{"title":"大型临终关怀机构中的护理人员和员工体验根据三项质量指标对美国最大临终关怀机构进行排名。","authors":"Jason Hotchkiss, Emily Ridderman, Brendan Hotchkiss","doi":"10.1177/10499091231206481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies chronicle profit-making negatively impacting US hospice care quality. However, no study has reported on caregiver satisfaction expressed online by hospice.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Assess the relationship between online caregiver sentiment, market share, profit status, and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS<b>®)</b> scores among the 50 largest US hospices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective mixed methods of sentiment and multivariate regression analysis. Data sources were online caregiver reviews, provider CAHPS hospice survey data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Being a larger, for-profit predicted diminished caregiver and employee satisfaction. <i>Caregiver Sentiment</i> and <i>CAHPS Composite</i> were so highly associated (<i>r</i> = .862, <i>P</i> < .001), that they are converging on overall caregiver satisfaction. With large effect, <i>CAHPS Star Rating</i> was significantly higher than <i>Review Star Rating</i>. For-profits had significantly higher overall <i>Emotional Intensity</i> than non-profit hospices, again with large effect. <i>Caregiver Sentiment</i>, <i>Review Star Rating,</i> and <i>Glassdoor Composite</i> each predicted <i>CAHPS Composite. Lack of staffing</i> was more frequent among for-profits (13%) than non-profits (6%). <i>Out-of-scope expectations</i> prevalence was 9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Caregiver and employees had better experiences with non-profits than for-profits. Anger and frustration was expressed toward large, for-profit providers more focused on admissions, profiteering, and paying dividends than actual care. The CAHPS appears to draw more satisfied caregivers. Whereas, online reviewing provides open-ended, real-time voicing of care quality concerns. Even with distinct methods, CAHPS survey and review sentiment analysis converge on caregiver satisfaction, yet CAHPS paints a much rosier picture of hospice quality than online reviews. Future research should explore sentiments by topic and hospice to increase customer advocacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94222,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Caregiver and Employee Experience Among Big Hospices-Ranking of the Largest US Hospices by Three Quality Indicators.\",\"authors\":\"Jason Hotchkiss, Emily Ridderman, Brendan Hotchkiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091231206481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies chronicle profit-making negatively impacting US hospice care quality. However, no study has reported on caregiver satisfaction expressed online by hospice.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Assess the relationship between online caregiver sentiment, market share, profit status, and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS<b>®)</b> scores among the 50 largest US hospices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective mixed methods of sentiment and multivariate regression analysis. Data sources were online caregiver reviews, provider CAHPS hospice survey data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Being a larger, for-profit predicted diminished caregiver and employee satisfaction. <i>Caregiver Sentiment</i> and <i>CAHPS Composite</i> were so highly associated (<i>r</i> = .862, <i>P</i> < .001), that they are converging on overall caregiver satisfaction. With large effect, <i>CAHPS Star Rating</i> was significantly higher than <i>Review Star Rating</i>. For-profits had significantly higher overall <i>Emotional Intensity</i> than non-profit hospices, again with large effect. <i>Caregiver Sentiment</i>, <i>Review Star Rating,</i> and <i>Glassdoor Composite</i> each predicted <i>CAHPS Composite. Lack of staffing</i> was more frequent among for-profits (13%) than non-profits (6%). <i>Out-of-scope expectations</i> prevalence was 9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Caregiver and employees had better experiences with non-profits than for-profits. Anger and frustration was expressed toward large, for-profit providers more focused on admissions, profiteering, and paying dividends than actual care. The CAHPS appears to draw more satisfied caregivers. Whereas, online reviewing provides open-ended, real-time voicing of care quality concerns. Even with distinct methods, CAHPS survey and review sentiment analysis converge on caregiver satisfaction, yet CAHPS paints a much rosier picture of hospice quality than online reviews. Future research should explore sentiments by topic and hospice to increase customer advocacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American journal of hospice & palliative care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American journal of hospice & palliative care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231206481\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of hospice & palliative care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231206481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:几项研究记录了营利对美国临终关怀质量的负面影响。然而,没有研究报告临终关怀机构在网上表达的护理者满意度。目的:评估美国50家最大医院中在线护理人员情绪、市场份额、利润状况和医疗保健提供商和系统消费者评估(CAHPS®)评分之间的关系。方法:采用回顾性混合情感分析法和多元回归分析法。数据来源为在线护理人员评估、提供者CAHPS临终关怀调查数据。结果:作为一个更大的营利性组织,护理人员和员工的满意度会下降。照顾者情绪和CAHPS复合物高度相关(r=.862,P<.001),它们与照顾者的整体满意度一致。影响较大的是,CAHPS星级显著高于Review星级。营利性收容所的总体情绪强度明显高于非营利收容所,再次产生了巨大的影响。护理人员情绪、评论星级和Glassdoor综合指数分别预测了CAHPS综合指数。在营利组织(13%)中,人员配备不足的情况比非营利组织(6%)更为常见。超出预期的发生率为9%。结论:护理人员和员工对非营利组织的体验比对营利组织的更好。对更专注于入院、牟取暴利和支付股息而非实际护理的大型营利性提供者表示愤怒和沮丧。CAHPS似乎吸引了更满意的护理人员。然而,在线审查提供了对护理质量问题的开放式实时表达。即使使用不同的方法,CAHPS的调查和评论情绪分析也会集中在照顾者的满意度上,但CAHPS对临终关怀质量的描述比在线评论要好得多。未来的研究应该通过主题和临终关怀来探索情感,以加强客户宣传。
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
Caregiver and Employee Experience Among Big Hospices-Ranking of the Largest US Hospices by Three Quality Indicators.

Background: Several studies chronicle profit-making negatively impacting US hospice care quality. However, no study has reported on caregiver satisfaction expressed online by hospice.

Objectives: Assess the relationship between online caregiver sentiment, market share, profit status, and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) scores among the 50 largest US hospices.

Methods: Retrospective mixed methods of sentiment and multivariate regression analysis. Data sources were online caregiver reviews, provider CAHPS hospice survey data.

Results: Being a larger, for-profit predicted diminished caregiver and employee satisfaction. Caregiver Sentiment and CAHPS Composite were so highly associated (r = .862, P < .001), that they are converging on overall caregiver satisfaction. With large effect, CAHPS Star Rating was significantly higher than Review Star Rating. For-profits had significantly higher overall Emotional Intensity than non-profit hospices, again with large effect. Caregiver Sentiment, Review Star Rating, and Glassdoor Composite each predicted CAHPS Composite. Lack of staffing was more frequent among for-profits (13%) than non-profits (6%). Out-of-scope expectations prevalence was 9%.

Conclusion: Caregiver and employees had better experiences with non-profits than for-profits. Anger and frustration was expressed toward large, for-profit providers more focused on admissions, profiteering, and paying dividends than actual care. The CAHPS appears to draw more satisfied caregivers. Whereas, online reviewing provides open-ended, real-time voicing of care quality concerns. Even with distinct methods, CAHPS survey and review sentiment analysis converge on caregiver satisfaction, yet CAHPS paints a much rosier picture of hospice quality than online reviews. Future research should explore sentiments by topic and hospice to increase customer advocacy.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Symptoms and Prognoses of Patients With Breast Cancer and Malignant Wounds in Palliative Care Units: The Multicenter, Prospective, Observational EASED Study. Development and Validation of the Home Hospice Care Needs Questionnaire for the Dying Old Adult (HHCNQ-DE) in Mainland China. Long-Term Impact of the End-of-Life Care Nursing Education Consortium on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice (KAP) of Indian Nurses Working in Non-Palliative Care Settings: A KAP-GAP Analysis. The Perspective of Cancer Patients in Palliative Care on Unmet Needs: A Qualitative Synthesis Using Meta-Ethnography. Caring for Patients Requiring Venous Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Can Upstream Palliative Care Make a Difference?
×
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