Myths about patient experience surveys: learning from CAHPS surveys
Joint seminar with ECOHOST and EUROPEAN OBSERVATORY
Common current myths about national patient experience surveys and why they are wrong: Learning from research on US's CAHPS surveys
Abstract: Starting 20 years ago, US patient satisfaction surveys evolved into more standardized, research-based CAHPS patient experience surveys. National implementation of these surveys has led to their linkage to public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives. Many misconceptions and myths have arisen as a consequence, including that: a) Consumers lack expertise to evaluate care quality; b) Patient “satisfaction” is neither valid nor actionable; c) Emphasis on improving patient experiences leads to inappropriate, ineffective, inefficient care; d) There are inevitable trade-offs between good patient experience and high-quality clinical care; e) Patient scores cannot be fairly compared across hospitals, insurance plans, or providers; f) Patient experience surveys response rates are low; only patients with extreme experiences respond; g) There are faster, cheaper, and better ways to survey patients.
The evidence bearing on these claims will be discussed and the myths challenged.
Speaker: Marc N. Elliott is a leading authority in US health services research and the RAND Distinguished Chair in Statistics. His areas of interest and experience include health disparities, patient experiences surveys, organisational variation, sampling, experimental designs, casual inference for observational data, and case-mix adjustment. Since 2005, he has been the principal investigator of the Medicare CAHPS® (Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems) Analysis project, assessing the care experience of 400,000 patients annually by geography and patient characteristics. He has published more than 290 peer-reviewed articles, including in NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, AJPH, Medical Care, Pediatrics, Public Opinion Quarterly, Statistics in Medicine, Survey Methodology, and Chance. He is one of the Top 1% of Cited Researchers during 2002-2012 (Thomas Reuters).