MEASURING PATIENT EXPERIENCE OF ORAL HEALTH CARE: A CALL TO ACTION.

BACKGROUND: Surveys to measure patients' experiences of health care are common practice in general medical care to improve patient centered care. However, such questionnaires are not consistently used to capture the patient's experience of oral health care. Because patient experience is an important component of oral health care, there is an urgent need to measure it in the oral health care setting. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to illustrate the need for patient experience measurement in oral health care, highlight the challenges such measurement in this setting faces, and provide a set of next steps to advance care experience measurement for dental patients. BASIC PROCEDURES: We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature examining patient experience measurement in medical and oral health care. This focused on studies aimed at understanding the current measurement landscape and existing measurement tools. We also gathered additional information and perspectives through discussions with key informants and stakeholders. MAIN FINDINGS: There is a critical need for patient experience measurement in oral health care. To develop a program to measure patient experiences of oral care, the following should be done: (1) convene stakeholders and get their buy-in; (2) develop a patient experiences of oral health conceptual framework; (3) develop a survey tool that captures key aspects of patient experiences of oral health; (4) pilot the survey tool; (5) assess the survey tool...s psychometric properties; and (6) refine and finalize the survey tool. PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS: To advance the measurement of the quality of oral health care, we outline a stepwise methodology that captures dental patient experiences of oral health care.

Patient Engagement Activities and Patient Experience: Are Patients With a History of Depression the Canary in the Coal Mine?

Little is known about the effectiveness of primary care practices' efforts to engage patients in their health and health care. We examine the association between patient engagement efforts and patients' experiences of care. We found no association between an unweighted count of patient engagement activities and patient experience. Compared with the bottom quartile of practices, however, the top quartile had better performance on patient experience domains of communication, front-office staff, and organizational access (out of nine domains). Furthermore, patients reporting a diagnosis of depression have higher ratings across five domains of patient experience when in practices with higher levels of patient engagement activities measured using an unweighted scale. Future research is needed to understand how the benefits of patient engagement activities can accrue to more patient subgroups. These promising results suggest that payers and policy makers should continue to support implementation and benchmarking of patient engagement efforts across practices.

The response of physician groups to P4P incentives.

OBJECTIVES: Despite substantial enthusiasm among insurers and federal policy makers for pay-for-performance incentives, little is known about the current scope of these incentives or their influence on the delivery of care. To assess the scope and magnitude of pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives among physician groups and to examine whether such incentives are associated with quality improvement initiatives. STUDY DESIGN: Structured telephone survey of leaders of physician groups delivering primary care in Massachusetts. ASSESSED METHODS: Prevalence of P4P incentives among physician groups tied to specific measures of quality or utilization and prevalence of physician group quality improvement initiatives. RESULTS: Most group leaders (89%) reported P4P incentives in at least 1 commercial health plan contract. Incentives were tied to performance on Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures (89% of all groups), utilization measures (66%), use of information technology (52%), and patient satisfaction (37%). Among the groups with P4P and knowledge of all revenue streams, the incentives accounted for 2.2% (range, 0.3%-8.8%) of revenue. P4P incentives tied to HEDIS quality measures were positively associated with groups' quality improvement initiatives (odds ratio, 1.6; P = .02). Thirty-six percent of group leaders with P4P incentives reported that they were very important or moderately important to the group's financial success. CONCLUSIONS: P4P incentives are now common among physician groups in Massachusetts, and these incentives most commonly reward higher clinical quality or lower utilization of care. Although the scope and magnitude of incentives are still modest for many groups, we found an association between P4P incentives and the use of quality improvement initiatives.