Background

Asian Americans (hereafter "Asians") generally report worse experiences with care than non-Latino whites (hereafter "whites"), which may reflect differential use of response scales. Past studies indicate that Asians exhibit lower Extreme Response Tendency (ERT)-they less frequently use responses at extreme ends of the scale than whites.

Objective

To explore whether lower ERT is observed for Asians than whites in response to standardized vignettes depicting patient experiences of care and whether ERT might in part explain Asians reporting worse care than whites.

Procedure

A representative US sample (n=575 Asian; n=505 white) was presented with 5 written vignettes describing doctor-patient encounters with differing levels of physician responsiveness. Respondents evaluated the encounters using modified CAHPS communication questions.

Results

Case-mix-adjusted repeated-measures multivariate models show that Asians provided more positive responses than whites to several vignettes with less-responsive physicians but less positive responses than whites for the vignette with the most physician responsiveness (P<0.01 for each). While all respondents provided more positive ratings for vignettes with greater physician responsiveness, the increase was 15% less for Asian than white respondents.

Conclusions

Asians exhibit lower ERT than whites in response to standardized scenarios. Because CAHPS reponses are predominantly near the positive end of the scale and the most responsive scenario is most typical of the score observed in real-world settings, lower ERT in Asians may partially explain observations of lower observed mean CAHPS scores for Asians in real-world settings. Case-mix adjustment for Asian race/ethnicity or its correlates may improve quality of care measurement.

Background

Payers and policy makers across the international healthcare market are increasingly using publicly available summary measures to designate providers as "high-performing", but no consistently-applied approach exists to identifying high performers. This paper uses publicly available data to examine how different classification approaches influence which providers are designated as "high-performers".

Methods

We conducted a quantitative analysis of cross-sectional publicly-available performance data in the U.S. We used 2014 Minnesota Community Measurement data from 58 medical groups to classify performance across 4 domains: quality (two process measures of cancer screening and 2 composite measures of chronic disease management), total cost of care, access (a composite CAHPS measure), and patient experience (3 CAHPS measures). We classified medical groups based on performance using either relative thresholds or absolute values of performance on all included measures.

Results

Using relative thresholds, none of the 58 medical groups achieved performance in the top 25% or 35% in all 4 performance domains. A relative threshold of 40% was needed before one group was classified as high-performing in all 4 domains. Using absolute threshold values, two medical groups were classified as high-performing across all 4 domains. In both approaches, designating "high performance" using fewer domains led to more groups designated as high-performers, though there was little to moderate concordance across identified "high-performing" groups.

Conclusions

Classification of medical groups as high performing is sensitive to the domains of performance included, the classification approach, and choice of threshold. With increasing focus on achieving high performance in healthcare delivery, the absence of a consistently-applied approach to identify high performers impedes efforts to reliably compare, select and reward high-performing providers.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE:Care coordination among health care providers is essential for high-quality care and it is strongly associated with overall ratings of doctors. Care coordination may be especially important for sicker and chronically ill patients because of the multiple providers involved in their care. This study examines whether the association of care coordination with global ratings of one's personal doctor varies by number of chronic conditions and self-rated health. STUDY DESIGN:We used nationally representative Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data to evaluate care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, getting care quickly, count of 6 chronic conditions (angina, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart attack, stroke), self-rated general health (5-point scale, poor to excellent, scored linearly), and interactions among them as predictors of the CAHPS global rating of personal doctor (scored 0-100 with 100 being best possible personal doctor) using linear regression models. The analytic sample included 242,871 Medicare fee-for-service and managed care beneficiaries in 2013: 56% female; 14% 18-64, 47% 65-74, 27% 75-84, and 11% 85 and older; and 48% high school education or less. RESULTS:The CAHPS composites (of care coordination, doctor communication, getting needed care, and getting care quickly) and number of chronic conditions were significantly positively associated with ratings of personal doctor (P<0.05). Care coordination and doctor communication had a stronger association with positive ratings of the personal doctor among those with worse self-rated health (P<0.001). DISCUSSION:Results were consistent with the hypothesis that patients in worse health weigh care coordination more heavily in global physician assessments than patients in better health. Emphasis on improving care coordination, especially for patients in poorer health, may improve patients' overall assessments of their providers. The study provides further evidence for the importance of care coordination experiences in the era of patient-centered care.

Background

A decade ago, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement pioneered a quality improvement (QI) campaign, leveraging organizational and personal social networks to disseminate new practices. There have been few rigorous studies of the QI campaign approach.

Methods

Project JOINTS (Joining Organizations IN Tackling SSIs) engaged a network of state-based organizations and professionals in a 6-month QI campaign promoting adherence to three new evidence-based practices known to reduce the risk of infection after joint replacement. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial including ten states (five campaign states and five non-campaign states) with 188 hospitals providing joint replacement to Medicare. We measured adherence to the evidence-based practices before and after the campaign using a survey of surgical staff and a difference-in-difference design with multivariable adjustment to compare adherence to each of the relevant practices and an all-or-none composite measure of the three new practices.

Results

In the campaign states, there were statistically significant increases in adherence to the three new evidence-based practices promoted by the campaign. Compared to the non-campaign states, the relative increase in adherence to the three new practices in the campaign states ranged between 1.9 and 15.9 percentage points, but only one of these changes (pre-operative nasal screening for Staphylococcus aureus carriage and decolonization prior to surgery) was statistically significant (p < 0.05). On the all-or-none composite measure, adherence to all three evidence-based practices increased from 19.6 to 37.9% in the campaign states, but declined slightly in the comparison states, yielding a relative increase of 23 percentage points (p = 0.004). In the non-campaign states, changes in adherence were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Within 6 months, in a cluster-randomized trial, a multi-state campaign targeting hospitals and professionals involved in surgical care and infection control was associated with an increase in adherence to evidence-based practices that can reduce surgical site infection.

Following the publication of the original article [1], it was brought to our attention that the title contained an error: "The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Project JOINTS" was incorrectly included as "the Institute for Health Improvement's Project JOINTS". The title has been corrected to read: "Does a quality improvement campaign accelerate take-up of new evidence? A ten-state cluster-randomized controlled trial of the IHI's Project JOINTS". The corrected title has been included in this erratum and updated in the original article.