Suppr超能文献

医疗服务提供者是否应对患者的就医体验负责?

Should health care providers be accountable for patients' care experiences?

作者信息

Anhang Price Rebecca, Elliott Marc N, Cleary Paul D, Zaslavsky Alan M, Hays Ron D

机构信息

RAND Corporation, 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA, 22202, USA,

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Feb;30(2):253-6. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3111-7. Epub 2014 Nov 22.

Abstract

Measures of patients' care experiences are increasingly used as quality measures in accountability initiatives. As the prominence and financial impact of patient experience measures have increased, so too have concerns about the relevance and fairness of including them as indicators of health care quality. Using evidence from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys, the most widely used patient experience measures in the United States, we address seven common critiques of patient experience measures: (1) consumers do not have the expertise needed to evaluate care quality; (2) patient "satisfaction" is subjective and thus not valid or actionable; (3) increasing emphasis on improving patient experiences encourages health care providers and plans to fulfill patient desires, leading to care that is inappropriate, ineffective, and/or inefficient; (4) there is a trade-off between providing good patient experiences and providing high-quality clinical care; (5) patient scores cannot be fairly compared across health care providers or plans due to factors beyond providers' control; (6) response rates to patient experience surveys are low, or responses reflect only patients with extreme experiences; and (7) there are faster, cheaper, and more customized ways to survey patients than the standardized approaches mandated by federal accountability initiatives.

摘要

患者护理体验的衡量指标在问责制举措中越来越多地被用作质量衡量标准。随着患者体验指标的重要性和财务影响不断增加,人们对将其作为医疗质量指标的相关性和公平性也越来越担忧。我们利用美国使用最广泛的患者体验衡量指标——医疗服务提供者与系统消费者评估(CAHPS®)调查的证据,回应了对患者体验指标的七种常见批评:(1)消费者没有评估护理质量所需的专业知识;(2)患者“满意度”是主观的,因此无效或无法采取行动;(3)对改善患者体验的日益重视促使医疗服务提供者和计划满足患者的需求,导致护理不适当、无效和/或低效;(4)提供良好的患者体验与提供高质量的临床护理之间存在权衡;(5)由于提供者无法控制的因素,患者评分在不同医疗服务提供者或计划之间无法进行公平比较;(6)患者体验调查的回复率很低,或者回复仅反映有极端体验的患者;(

相似文献

5
Differential item functioning of the CAHPS® In-Center Hemodialysis Survey.CAHPS® 中心血液透析调查的项目差异功能。
Qual Life Res. 2019 Nov;28(11):3117-3135. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02250-5. Epub 2019 Jul 26.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

7
Hospital survey shows improvements in patient experience.医院调查显示患者体验有所改善。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Nov;29(11):2061-7. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0876.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验