ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Routinely collected patient experience scores may inform risk of patient outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the risk of hospital admission within 30-days following third-party receipt of the patient experience survey and guide interventions. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys, January 2016-July 2019, from an institution's 20 hospitals in four U.S. states. Surveys were routinely sent to patients using census sampling. We analyzed surveys received ≤60 days following discharge from patients living ≤60 miles of any of the institution's hospitals. The exposures were 19 survey items. The outcome was hospital admission within 30 days after third-party receipt of the survey. We evaluated the association of favorable (top-box) vs unfavorable (non-top-box) score for survey items with risk of 30-day hospital admission in models including patient and hospitalization characteristics and reported adjusted odds ratios (aOR [95% confidence interval]). RESULTS: Among 40,162 respondents (mean age ± standard deviation: 68.1 ± 14.0 years), 49.8% were women and 4.3% had 30-day hospital admission. Patients with 30-day hospital admission, compared to those not admitted, were more likely to be discharged from a medical service line (62.9% vs 42.3%; P < 0.001) and have a higher Elixhauser index. Favorable vs unfavorable score for hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the overall cohort (0.88 [0.77-0.99]; P = 0.04), medical service line (0.81 [0.70-0.94]; P = 0.007), and upper tertile of Elixhauser index (0.79 [0.67-0.92]; P = 0.003). Favorable score for recommend hospital was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the medical service line (0.83 [0.71-0.97]; P = 0.02) but for others (e.g. cleanliness of hospital environment) showed no association. CONCLUSION: In routinely collected patient experience scores, favorable hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission and may inform risk stratification and interventions. Evidence-based survey items linked to patient outcomes may also inform future surveys.
Subject(s)
Hospitalization , Patient Satisfaction , Humans , Female , Male , Retrospective Studies , Hospitals , Patient Outcome Assessment , Patient ReadmissionABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the introduction of telemedicine as an alternative to the traditional face-to-face encounters with vascular surgery patients in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on face-to-face and telemedicine interactions was conducted at a multisite health care system from January to August 2020 in vascular surgery patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The end point is direct patient satisfaction comparison between face-to-face and telemedicine encounters/interactions prior and during the pandemic. RESULTS: There were 6262 patient encounters from January 1, 2020, to August 6, 2020. Of the total encounters, 790 (12.6%) were via telemedicine, which were initiated on March 11, 2020, after the World Health Organization's declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. These telemedicine encounters were readily adopted and embraced by both the providers and patients and remain popular as an option to patients for all types of visits. Of these patients, 78.7% rated their overall health care experience during face-to-face encounters as very good and 80.6% of patients rated their health care experience during telemedicine encounters as very good (P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has produced unprecedented consequences to the practice of medicine and specifically of vascular surgery, our multisite health care system has been able to swiftly adapt and adopt telemedicine technologies for the care of our complex patients. Most important, the high quality of patient-reported satisfaction and health care experience has remained unchanged.
