ED Patient Experience: Does Day of the Week or Time of the Day Matter?

The effect of the arrival day of the week, arrival time of the day, or discharge time of the day on emergency department (ED) patient experience (PE) scores has not been well studied. We performed a retrospective analysis of ED patients between July 1st, 2018 through March 31st, 2021. We recorded demographics, PE scores, arrival day, arrival and discharge times, and total ED and perceived ED times. We performed univariate and multivariable analyses. We sent 49,849 surveys and received back 2423 that we included in our study. The responding patients' median age was 52, with a majority of female gender (62%) and white race (57%). The average arrival time was 1:40 PM, and the average discharge time 2:38 PM. The average total ED time was 261 minutes, while the average perceived ED time was 540 minutes. We found a statistical association between worse PE scores and longer actual ED time but not longer perceived time. A later arrival time was significantly associated with worse PE scores on 4 out of 6 domains of the PE questionnaire. The discharge time and the day of the week were not significantly associated with PE scores. Conclusion: Actual longer ED time was significantly associated with worse PE scores, but not perceived time. Later arrival time was associated with worse PE scores, but not later discharge time. The arrival day of the week was not statistically associated with differences in PE. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Association of Emergency Department Waiting Times With Patient Experience in Admitted and Discharged Patients.

Prolonged waiting times are associated with worse patient experience in patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). However, it is unclear which component of the waiting times is most impactful to the patient experience and the impact on hospitalized patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of ED patients between July 2018 and March 30, 2020. In all, 3278 patients were included: 1477 patients were discharged from the ED, and 1680 were admitted. Discharged patients had a longer door-to-first provider and door-to-doctor time, but a shorter doctor-to-disposition, disposition-to-departure, and total ED time when compared to admitted patients. Some, but not all, components of waiting times were significantly higher in patients with suboptimal experience (<100th percentile). Prolonged door-to-doctor time was significantly associated with worse patient experience in discharged patients and in patients with hospital length of stay ≤4 days. Prolonged ED waiting times were significantly associated with worse patient experience in patients who were discharged from the ED and in inpatients with short length of stay. Door-to-doctor time seems to have the highest impact on the patient's experience of these 2 groups.

Development and Validation of a Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinical Compassion.

Importance: Clinician compassion is a vital element of health care quality. Currently, there appears to be no validated and feasible method for health care organizations to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion on a large scale. Objective: To develop and validate a tool for measuring patient assessment of clinician compassion that can be used in conjunction with the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study took place from June 1 to August 30, 2018, at a US academic health care system among a pilot cohort consisting of 3325 adult patients and a validation cohort consisting of 3483 adult patients, both of whom had an outpatient clinic visit and completed the CG-CAHPS survey. Main Outcomes and Measurements: After a comprehensive literature review, 12 candidate survey items were developed. Face and construct validity were performed. Candidate items were disseminated to patients in conjunction with the CG-CAHPS survey in a series of 2 studies: (1) exploratory factor analysis in one cohort to determine the factor structure and the most parsimonious set of items; and (2) validity testing in a second cohort using confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was tested using Cronbach α. Convergent validity was tested with patient assessment of clinician communication and overall satisfaction questions from CG-CAHPS survey. Results: Overall, 6493 patient responses were analyzed. The mean (SD) age was 60 (15) years, 4239 patients (65.3%) were women, and 5079 (78.2%) were white. Exploratory factor analyses identified a 5-item compassion measure to be the most parsimonious. Confirmatory factor analyses found good fit. The compassion measure demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.94) and convergent validity (clinician communication: ρ = 0.44; overall satisfaction: ρ = 0.52) but reflected a patient experience domain (compassionate care) distinct from what is currently captured in the CG-CAHPS survey. Conclusions and Relevance: A simple 5-item tool to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion was developed and validated for use in conjunction with CG-CAHPS survey.

Association Between Medicare Star Ratings for Patient Experience and Medicare Spending per Beneficiary for US Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To test the association between patient experience and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) spending at the hospital level. METHODS: Using CMS Hospital Compare data set, we analyzed 2014 data for CMS patient experience star ratings and the hospital Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB) Measure, which assesses price-standardized, risk-adjusted payments for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries for an episode of care from 3 days before hospital admission to 30 days following discharge. We tested the association using linear regression, adjusting for complexity of care using hospital Case Mix Index (CMI) and for socioeconomic status of the hospital patient population using Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) status. RESULTS: The MSPB decreased with increasing hospital patient experience ratings. After adjustment for CMI and DSH, better hospital patient experience was associated with lower spending per episode (5.6% decrease from the lowest to highest patient experience star rating). CONCLUSION: We found that better hospital patient experience was associated with lower health-care spending. Further research is needed to define what specific elements and phases of the episode of care are driving the association.

Association Between Medicare Summary Star Ratings for Patient Experience and Clinical Outcomes in US Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released new summary star ratings for US hospitals based on patient experience. We aimed to test the association between CMS patient experience star ratings and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed risk-adjusted data for more than 3000 US hospitals from CMS Hospital Compare using linear regression. RESULTS: We found that better patient experience was associated with favorable clinical outcomes. Specifically, a higher number of stars for patient experience had a statistically significant association with lower rates of many in-hospital complications. A higher patient experience star rating also had a statistically significant association with lower rates of unplanned readmissions to the hospital within 30 days. CONCLUSION: Better patient experience according to the CMS star ratings is associated with favorable clinical outcomes. These results support the inclusion of patient experience data in the framework of how hospitals are paid for services.