A Qualitative Exploration to Understand Hospitalists’ Attitude toward the Patient Experience Scoring System

Patient’s perception of their inpatient experience is measured by the Center for Medical Services’ (CMS) administered Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (HCAHPS) survey. There is scant existing literature on physicians’ perceptions toward the HCAHPS scoring system. Understanding hospitalist knowledge and attitude toward the HCAHPS survey can help guide efforts to impact HCAHPS survey scores by improving the patient’s perception of their hospital experience. The goal of this study is to explore hospitalists’ knowledge and perspective of the physician communication domain of the HCAHPS survey at an academic medical center. Seven hospitalists at an academic medical center were interviewed for this report using a semistructured interview. Thematic analysis approach was used to analyze data. Open, line-by-line coding was performed on all 7 transcripts. Categories were derived in an inductive fashion. Categories were refined using the techniques of constant comparison and axial coding. We generated themes reflecting hospitalists’ knowledge of the HCAHPS scoring system, their perception of the HCAHPS scoring system and the impact of the HCAHPS scoring system on their practice. While hospitalists acknowledged physician–patient communication is a challenging area to study, they are unlikely to embrace the feedback provided by HCAHPS surveys. There is a need to deploy tactics that provide timely and actionable feedback to providers on their bedside communication skills

A Qualitative Exploration to Understand Hospitalists’ Attitude Toward the Patient Experience Scoring System

Patient’s perception of their inpatient experience is measured by the Center for Medical Services’ (CMS) administered Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers &amp; Systems (HCAHPS) survey. There is scant existing literature on physicians’ perceptions toward the HCAHPS scoring system. Understanding hospitalist knowledge and attitude toward the HCAHPS survey can help guide efforts to impact HCAHPS survey scores by improving the patient’s perception of their hospital experience. The goal of this study is to explore hospitalists’ knowledge and perspective of the physician communication domain of the HCAHPS survey at an academic medical center. Seven hospitalists at an academic medical center were interviewed for this report using a semistructured interview. Thematic analysis approach was used to analyze data. Open, line-by-line coding was performed on all 7 transcripts. Categories were derived in an inductive fashion. Categories were refined using the techniques of constant comparison and axial coding. We generated themes reflecting hospitalists’ knowledge of the HCAHPS scoring system, their perception of the HCAHPS scoring system and the impact of the HCAHPS scoring system on their practice. While hospitalists acknowledged physician–patient communication is a challenging area to study, they are unlikely to embrace the feedback provided by HCAHPS surveys. There is a need to deploy tactics that provide timely and actionable feedback to providers on their bedside communication skills. </jats:p

Two-Year Experience of 14 French Pigtail Catheters Placed by Procedure-Focused Hospitalists

BACKGROUND: Recent studies show small-bore chest tubes, commonly 14 French pigtail catheters (PCs), are noninferior to large-bore chest tubes for treating various conditions, and they are associated with better patient comfort. The Medical College of Wisconsin implemented a bedside procedure service (BPS) that has been trained in the placement of PCs as an adjunct to its interventional radiology department. METHODS: The data regarding consults for PC placement was collected by the BPS over a 2-year period. Primary outcomes reviewed were insertion-related complications (IRCs), unsuccessful attempts (UAs), and adverse outcomes (AOs) because the authors believe these represent the safety and effectiveness of the group. It was determined which services consulted the BPS for PC placement, the indications for consults, and a brief review of declined PC consults. RESULTS: Of the 124 accepted consults, the service had 3 IRCs (2.4%), 2 UAs (1.6%), and 3 AOs (2.4%). A total of 18 consults were declined. The BPS was consulted by 12 services with 8 primary reasons for PC placement. CONCLUSIONS: At high-volume, tertiary care centers, and with the support of cardiothoracic surgical and interventional radiology services, procedure-focused hospitalists can safely serve as an adjunct service for PC placement in selected hospitalized patients.</jats:p

Creating a culture of quality: our experience with providing feedback to frontline hospitalists

BackgroundOne way to provide performance feedback to hospitalists is through the use of dashboards, which deliver data based on agreed-upon standards. Despite the growing trend on feedback performance on quality metrics, there remain limited data on the means, frequency and content of feedback that should be provided to frontline hospitalists.ObjectiveThe objective of our research is to report our experience with a comprehensive feedback system for frontline hospitalists, as well as report the change in our quality metrics after implementation.Design, setting and participantsThis quality improvement project was conducted at a tertiary academic medical centre among our hospitalist group consisting of 46 full-time faculty members.Intervention or exposureA monthly performance feedback report was distributed to provide ongoing feedback to our hospitalist faculty, including an individual dashboard and a peer comparison report, complemented by coaching to incorporate process improvement tactics into providers’ daily workflow.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome of our study is the change in quality metrics after implementation of the monthly performance feedback reportResultsThe dashboard and rank order list were sent to all faculty members every month. An improvement was seen in the following quality metrics: length of stay index, 30-day readmission rate, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections, provider component of Healthcare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores, attendance at care coordination rounds and percentage of discharge orders placed by 10:00.ConclusionsImplementation of a monthly performance feedback report for hospitalists, complemented by peer comparison and guidance on tactics to achieve these metrics, created a culture of quality and improvement in the quality of care delivered.</jats:sec

Creating a culture of quality: our experience with providing feedback to frontline hospitalists

Background One way to provide performance feedback to hospitalists is through the use of dashboards, which deliver data based on agreed-upon standards. Despite the growing trend on feedback performance on quality metrics, there remain limited data on the means, frequency and content of feedback that should be provided to frontline hospitalists.Objective The objective of our research is to report our experience with a comprehensive feedback system for frontline hospitalists, as well as report the change in our quality metrics after implementation.Design, setting and participants This quality improvement project was conducted at a tertiary academic medical centre among our hospitalist group consisting of 46 full-time faculty members.Intervention or exposure A monthly performance feedback report was distributed to provide ongoing feedback to our hospitalist faculty, including an individual dashboard and a peer comparison report, complemented by coaching to incorporate process improvement tactics into providers’ daily workflow.Main outcomes and measures The main outcome of our study is the change in quality metrics after implementation of the monthly performance feedback reportResults The dashboard and rank order list were sent to all faculty members every month. An improvement was seen in the following quality metrics: length of stay index, 30-day readmission rate, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections, provider component of Healthcare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores, attendance at care coordination rounds and percentage of discharge orders placed by 10:00.Conclusions Implementation of a monthly performance feedback report for hospitalists, complemented by peer comparison and guidance on tactics to achieve these metrics, created a culture of quality and improvement in the quality of care delivered

The Impact of Dynamic Real-Time Feedback on Patient Satisfaction Scores.

INTRODUCTION: Providers communication skills have a significant impact on patients satisfaction. Improved patients satisfaction has been positively correlated with various healthcare and financial outcomes. Patients satisfaction in the inpatient setting is measured using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey. In this study, we evaluated the impact of dynamic real-time feedback to the providers on the HCAHPS scores. METHODS: This was a randomized study conducted at our 550-bed level-1 tertiary care center. Twenty-six out of 27 hospitalists staffing our 12 medicine teams (including teams containing advanced practice providers (APPs) and house-staff teams) were randomized into intervention and control groups. Our research assistant interviewed 1110 patients over a period of 7 months and asked them the three provider communication-specific questions from the HCAHPS survey. Our intervention was a daily computer-generated email which alerted providers to their performance on HCAHPS questions (proportions of always responses) along with the performance of their peers and Medicare benchmarks. RESULTS: The intervention and control groups were similar with regard to baseline HCAHPS scores and clinical experience. The proportion of always responses to the three questions related to provider communication was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control group (86% vs 80.5%, p-value 0.00001). It was also noted that the HCAHPS scores were overall lower on the house-staff teams and higher on the teams with APPs. CONCLUSION: Real-time patients feedback to inpatient providers with peer comparison via email has a positive impact on the provider-specific HCAHPS scores