Mode Adjustment of the CAHPS Hospital Survey



Similar documents
Mode and Patient-mix Adjustment of the CAHPS Hospital Survey (HCAHPS)

Technical Notes for HCAHPS Star Ratings

Technical Notes for HCAHPS Star Ratings

Understanding Patient Satisfaction Reporting in the Era of HCAHPS Robert J. Ogden

Under Medicare s value-based purchasing (VBP) program,

Patient Survey (HHCAHPS) Star Ratings Frequently Asked Questions

HCAHPS Survey: Patients Perspectives of Care

2015 Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Adult Medicaid Health Plan CAHPS Report

HCAHPS Active Interactive Voice Response Script

CAHPS Hospital Survey (HCAHPS) Quality Assurance. Guidelines. Version 4.0. February 2009

Evaluating Mode Effects in the Medicare CAHPS Fee-For-Service Survey

Quality Star Ratings on Medicare.gov

CALCULATIONS & STATISTICS

CMS Initiatives Involving Patient Experience Surveying FAQs

2014 Ohio Medicaid Managed Care Program CAHPS Member Satisfaction Survey Methodology Report

CAHPS Survey for the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Pioneer Model ACOs. Report for: ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATION

Patient Experience/ Satisfaction What s at Stake? Customer Service at UAMS

Analyzing and interpreting data Evaluation resources from Wilder Research

Home Health Care CAHPS Survey

CDPHP CAHPS 4.0 Adult Medicaid Health Plan Survey

03 The full syllabus. 03 The full syllabus continued. For more information visit PAPER C03 FUNDAMENTALS OF BUSINESS MATHEMATICS

IBM SPSS Statistics 20 Part 4: Chi-Square and ANOVA

Council of Ambulance Authorities

Canadian Patient Experiences Survey Inpatient Care: Frequently Asked Questions

CAHPS Database Interactive Chartbook/Reporting System

Justin Pestrue, Director Clinical Analytics and Business Intelligence Akron General Health System

Danny R. Childers and Howard Hogan, Bureau of the,census

CAHPS Hospice Survey. What the Heck Does That Mean? What we will discuss today. Direction of CMS Policy THE ROAD TO PUBLIC REPORTING IN HOSPICE

Relationship between patient reported experience (PREMs) and patient reported outcomes (PROMs) in elective surgery

What is an ACO? What forms of organizations may become an ACO? IAMSS 30 th Annual Education Conference Pearls of Wisdom

Experiment #1, Analyze Data using Excel, Calculator and Graphs.

and the implementation of a training program for staff. The process and progress to-date has been gratifying, and the commitment to ongoing

HCAHPS Survey SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS

Multiple Optimization Using the JMP Statistical Software Kodak Research Conference May 9, 2005

Scientific Method. 2. Design Study. 1. Ask Question. Questionnaire. Descriptive Research Study. 6: Share Findings. 1: Ask Question.

H-CAHPS Quality Plus-Hospital Patient Experience Survey Massachusetts General Hospital

Five Star Rating System Tip Sheet

WHITE PAPER. 9 Steps to Better Patient Flow and Decreased Readmissions in Your Emergency Department

Credit Risk Analysis Using Logistic Regression Modeling

Council of Ambulance Authorities

MEDSAFE Annual Conference Prescribed Strategies for Today s Challenges October 4, 2012

WVU STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION REPORT OF RESULTS INTERPRETIVE GUIDE

Listening to the Voice of the Patient: Using CAHPS for Improving Care in Minnesota s Health Care Homes Dale Shaller, MPA Shaller Consulting Group

Measure Information Form (MIF) #275, adapted for quality measurement in Medicare Accountable Care Organizations

HCAHPS Survey SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS

Patient Experience Measures from the CAHPS Clinician & Group Surveys

WHITE PAPER. How a multi-tiered strategy can reduce readmission rates and significantly enhance patient experience

Guided Reading 9 th Edition. informed consent, protection from harm, deception, confidentiality, and anonymity.

Jon A. Krosnick and LinChiat Chang, Ohio State University. April, Introduction

Appendix I: Methodology

CAHPS : Assessing Health Care Quality From the Patient s Perspective

Missing data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can

HEDIS/CAHPS 101. August 13, 2012 Minnesota Measurement and Reporting Workgroup

2015 Medicaid Child CAHPS 5.0H. At-A-Glance Report

A Comparison of Level of Effort and Benchmarking Approaches for Nonresponse Bias Analysis of an RDD Survey

Final Report. TRICARE Inpatient Satisfaction Survey

Hospital Value-based Purchasing Specifications 2016 Updated August 2015

Monte Carlo Simulation. SMG ITS Advanced Excel Workshop

2015 Medicare CAHPS At-A-Glance Report

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Home Health Compare (HHC) Star Ratings

Integrated Health Partnerships (IHP) Quality Measurement

MA & PDP CAHPS Survey Vendor Training. November 2011

ENERGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Electricity Supply in Hong Kong: Establishment Survey

TRUSTED PATIENT EDUCATION FOR BETTER OUTCOMES. MICROMEDEX Patient Connect. Patient Education & Engagement

MEASURES OF VARIATION

Patient Experience Measures for the CAHPS Dental Plan Survey

Three-Star Composite Rating Method

BNG 202 Biomechanics Lab. Descriptive statistics and probability distributions I

Statistical & Technical Team

Case Study High-Performing Health Care Organization December 2008

Descriptive Methods Ch. 6 and 7

!"!!"#$$%&'()*+$(,%!"#$%$&'()*""%(+,'-*&./#-$&'(-&(0*".$#-$1"(2&."3$'45"

James E. Bartlett, II is Assistant Professor, Department of Business Education and Office Administration, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Transcription:

of the CAHPS Hospital Survey December 21, 2006 Abstract A randomized Experiment of 27,229 discharges from 45 hospitals was used to develop adjustments for the effects of survey mode (Mail Only, Telephone Only, Mixed, or Active Interactive Voice Response) on responses to the CAHPS Hospital Survey (also known as Hospital CAHPS or HCAHPS). In general, patients randomized to the Telephone Only and Active Interactive Voice Response modes provided more positive evaluations than patients randomized to Mail Only and Mixed (Mail with Telephone follow-up) modes. These mode effects varied little by hospital, and were strongest for global items (Rating and Recommendation) and the Cleanliness & Quiet, Responsiveness, Pain Management, and Discharge Information composites. s for these mode effects are necessary to make the reported scores independent of the survey mode that was used. Introduction The intent of the CAHPS 1 Hospital Survey, also known as Hospital CAHPS or HCAHPS, is to provide a standardized survey instrument and data collection methodology for measuring patients perspectives of hospital care. One of the methodological issues associated with making comparisons across hospitals is the need to adjust appropriately for patient-mix differences, survey mode, and non-response. In order to ensure that HCAHPS scores are being fairly and accurately compared across hospitals, CMS conducted a Experiment in early 2006 to examine whether mode of data collection systematically affects survey results and to develop any needed statistical adjustments. Patient-mix refers to patient characteristics that are not under the control of the hospital that may affect measures of patient experiences. These include demographic characteristics and general health status. The basic goal of adjusting for patient-mix is to estimate how different hospitals would be rated if they all provided care to comparable groups of patients. It is necessary to adjust for survey mode because hospitals participating in the HCAHPS survey have the option of choosing among four different modes of data collection: Mail, Telephone, Mail combined with Telephone follow-up (also known as Mixed mode), and Active Interactive Voice Response (IVR). A random sample of 45 hospitals from across the United States participated in the Experiment in early 2006. Each hospital provided a sample of discharged patients who met HCAHPS-eligibility criteria. These samples were randomly allocated to each of the four 1 CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) is a registered trademark of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a U.S. Government agency.

modes in equal numbers within each hospital and the patients were then surveyed accordingly. Sample selection and surveying for the Experiment were conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) of the University of Chicago. Analysis of Experiment data and construction of the adjustment algorithms were performed by the RAND Corporation. The HCAHPS Experiment This document describes the derivation of mode adjustments for HCAHPS on the basis of a randomized Experiment. To assess the effect of mode of data collection, an experiment was conducted to compare four different modes of data collection: Telephone interview only; Mail questionnaire only; Mixed mode (Mail questionnaire with Telephone follow up if needed); and Active IVR. In the Active IVR mode, live telephone interviewers contact the patients and invite them to participate in an automated IVR interview using their telephone keypads. Certain patient characteristics, such as age and education, are not under the control of the hospital, but are related to the patient's experiences and survey responses. For example, several studies have found that younger and more educated patients provide less positive evaluations of healthcare. Thus, one should adjust for such respondent characteristics when comparing hospitals' CAHPS results. Similarly, the randomized test of the HCAHPS survey has found that patients tend to report more positive healthcare experiences when they are surveyed over the Telephone (including IVR) than when they are surveyed by Mail. One should adjust for the survey approach that a hospital uses, so that the reported scores are not affected by the hospital's choice of what is called survey mode. Table 1 describes response rates from the HCAHPS Experiment. As can be seen, the response rate was highest for Mixed mode (41.2%) and lowest for IVR (20.7%). Although there was some variation in response rate by hospital (the hospital-level standard deviation in response rates was 5.6%), the response rate patterns by mode were consistent across hospitals. While hospitals should base their anticipated response rates in part on their own experiences, it should be noted that in the HCAHPS Experiment, it was necessary to field about 2.73 discharges in the Mixed mode (1/0.366) and 5.59 discharges in the IVR mode (1/0.179) for every completed survey. The last row of Table 1 suggests that, as a starting point, one might field 820 eligible discharges in Mixed mode and 1676 surveys in IVR mode in order to achieve the required 300 completed surveys over four quarters.

Table 1 Comparison of Patient Response Rates by Survey Discharges Randomized to Cases Determined to be Ineligible in the Field MAIL ONLY TELEPHONE ONLY MIXED ACTIVE IVR OVERALL 6806 6808 6808 6807 27,229 23 (0.3%) 928 (13.6%) 761 (11.2%) 900 (13.2%) 2612 (9.6%) Completed Surveys 2239 1607 2489 1220 7555 Response Rate of Eligible Patients (Completes/Eligible) Yield (Completes/ Randomized) Expected Discharges Needed for 300 Completes (300/Yield) 33.0% 27.3% 41.2% 20.7% 30.7% 32.9% 23.6% 36.6% 17.9% 27.7% 912 1271 820 1676 Approach Although the HCAHPS Experiment involves randomization to mode within hospitals, CMS estimates mode effects in linear models that include both hospital fixed effects and patient-mix adjustment (PMA) 2 for demographic factors associated with response tendency in order to maximize the precision of mode effects estimates and adjustments. 3 For each HCAHPS rating or report item, a linear regression model consisting of mode fixed effects, hospital fixed effects, and patient-mix adjusters was estimated. of composite scores takes place through adjustment of individual constituent report items and consists of an average of those effects. 2 Also known as case-mix adjustment (CMA) in other parts of the CAHPS literature. CMS uses the term patient-mix adjustment here to distinguish this adjustment from severity adjustments for clinical outcomes or payment. 3 Forthcoming (2007) documents will discuss the nature of the PMA, which made little difference in calculating mode adjustments, but which will have more of a role in adjusting reported scores.

CMS selected the Mail Only mode as the reference mode of survey administration. Surveys conducted in the Mail Only mode are not adjusted further for mode after PMA. Surveys conducted in any of the other three modes (Telephone Only, Mixed, and IVR) are further adjusted according to the difference in mode effects between that mode and the Mail Only mode, as estimated through the HCAHPS Experiment. This approach results in estimates for hospitals that correspond to the score the hospital would have received if it had the same patients as other hospitals and conducted the survey in the Mail Only mode, regardless of patient mix or mode of administration. Results The HCAHPS Experiment found that, in general, patients provided more positive responses in the Telephone Only and IVR modes than in the Mail Only and Mixed modes. There were very few differences in responses between the Mail Only and Mixed modes. effects were largely independent of PMA and varied little by hospital. effects were strongest for global items (Rating and Recommendation), and the Cleanliness & Quiet, Responsiveness, Pain Management, and Discharge Information composites. Table 2 presents mode adjustments derived from the HCAHPS Experiment for the top category, or top box, proportion (e.g., the proportion of desirable always responses for items on the Nurse Communication composite). As an example, a patientmix adjusted score of 84.2% always for the Nurse Communication composite for a survey conducted by Telephone Only mode would be further adjusted to (84.2% - 4.2% = ) 80.0% in order to account for the fact that 80.0% is the corresponding expected score for that composite had the survey been conducted in Mail Only mode. Here, 4.2% represents the increase in the proportion of patients responding always that would be expected from the same patients had they been surveyed by Telephone Only mode (when compared to Mail Only reference mode). The standard error of a patient-mix adjusted estimate can also be updated to take into account mode adjustment. The new standard error is simply the square root of the sum of the squared standard error before mode adjustment (SEold), and the square of the standard error that appears in Table 2, as follows (SEmode_exp): SEnew = SQRT (SEold 2 + SEmode_exp 2 ). The Spreadsheet and the CAHPS Analysis Program In early 2007, CMS will make available adjustments for both mean scoring and topcategory percentages. At that time, an Excel spreadsheet model that performs mode adjustments will also be provided. This spreadsheet takes as inputs patient-mix adjusted hospital-level means or percentages and their associated standard errors prior to mode adjustment. These patient-mix adjusted means, percentages, and standard errors can be produced by a variety of means. The most straightforward way of obtaining these values may be the CAHPS Analysis Programs (also known as the CAHPS Macro ), which are publicly available SAS programs maintained by Harvard Medical School and available for download at https://www.cahps.ahrq.gov/cahpskit/healthplan/hpchooseqx2.asp.

These programs require the exact specification of patient-mix adjustors (called case-mix adjustors in that program), which will also be supplied by CMS in early 2007. The Excel mode-adjustment spreadsheet will then convert the patient-mix adjusted scores and standard errors into fully adjusted scores that incorporate mode-adjustment into the patient-mix adjustment that has already been performed. This spreadsheet is unnecessary for surveys conducted in Mail Only mode, which is the reference mode. For each of the other three modes, the spreadsheet displays the fully-adjusted scores and standard errors, which will allow a hospital to find its final adjusted scores in the columns corresponding to the survey mode it employed. s will be available for individual items, as well as for composites. Hospitals can then compare these fully-adjusted scores to other hospitals, national or regional averages, or their own past performance, regardless of which of the four survey modes were employed. Table 2 s of Top Category Percentages (after any PMA) to Adjust Other s to a Reference of Mail Only HCAHPS Composite or Rating Nurse Communication Doctor Communication Cleanliness and Quiet of Hospital Environment Responsiveness of Hospital Staff Telephone Only Mixed IVR -4.2% 1.2% -0.4% 1.1% -1.9% 1.3% -1.4% 1.1% +0.9% 1.0% -0.5% 1.3% -5.9% 1.2% -2.6% 1.1% -6.2% 1.4% -4.8% 1.6% +0.1% 1.4% -2.1% 1.7% Pain Management -4.9% 1.5% -2.4% 1.4% -3.6% 1.7% Communication -4.0% 1.8% -0.9% 1.5% -1.9% 2.0% about Medicines Discharge -1.4% 1.1% +0.1% 1.0% -3.2% 1.2% Information Recommendation -4.5% 1.5% -1.5% 1.3% -2.3% 1.6% Rating 4-3.0% 1.6% -1.9% 1.4% -1.7% 1.7% 4 Beginning 2007, the top category for 0-10 ratings will be the proportion of ratings that are 9 or 10, as reflected here.