Patient attitudes and preferences regarding treatment: GH therapy for childhood short stature.

This paper examines the role of parents' attitudes and preferences regarding growth hormone therapy for childhood short stature. Four main questions are addressed. First, what are the demographic characteristics of families seeking medical advice for their child's short stature? Second, what are parents' attitudes towards short stature? Third, what are parents' treatment preferences (i.e. what characteristics of growth treatments are important to parents)? Finally, how do the attitudes of parents affect physician decision making? Several studies are reviewed and data are presented to answer these questions.

Patient assessments of hospital maternity care: a useful tool for consumers?

OBJECTIVE: To examine three issues related to using patient assessments of care as a means to select hospitals and foster consumer choice-specifically, whether patient assessments (1) vary across hospitals, (2) are reproducible over time, and (3) are biased by case-mix differences. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Surveys that were mailed to 27,674 randomly selected patients admitted to 18 hospitals in a large metropolitan region (Northeast Ohio) for labor and delivery in 1992-1994. We received completed surveys from 16,051 patients (58 percent response rate). STUDY DESIGN: Design was a repeated cross-sectional study. DATA COLLECTION: Surveys were mailed approximately 8 to 12 weeks after discharge. We used three previously validated scales evaluating patients' global assessments of care (three items)as well as assessments of physician (six items) and nursing (five items) care. Each scale had a possible range of 0 (poor care) to 100 (excellent care). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patient assessments varied (p<.001) across hospitals for each scale. Mean hospital scores were higher or lower (p<.01) than the sample mean for seven or more hospitals during each year of data collection. However, within individual hospitals, mean scores were reproducible over the three years. In addition, relative hospital rankings were stable; Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.96 when rankings during individual years were compared. Patient characteristics (age, race, education, insurance status, health status, type of delivery) explained only 2-3 percent of the variance in patient assessments, and adjusting scores for these factors had little effect on hospitals' scores. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that patient assessments of care may be a sensitive measure for discriminating among hospitals. In addition, hospital scores are reproducible and not substantially affected by case-mix differences. If our findings regarding patient assessments are generalizable to other patient populations and delivery settings, these measures may be a useful tool for consumers in selecting hospitals or other healthcare providers.

Patient and hospital characteristics associated with patient assessments of hospital obstetrical care.

OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to examine the relationship of patient assessments of hospital care with patient and hospital characteristics. In addition, the authors sought to assess relationships between patient assessments and other patient-derived measures of care (eg, how much they were helped by the hospitalization and amount of pain experienced). METHODS: The authors surveyed 16,051 women (response rate, 58%) discharged after labor and delivery from 18 hospitals during the study period of 1992 to 1994. Patient assessments were obtained using a previously validated survey instrument, Patient Judgment of Hospital Quality, that includes eight scales assessing different aspects of the process of care (eg, physician care, discharge procedures) and other single item assessments (eg, overall quality). For this study, we utilized five of the scales (physician care, nursing care, information, discharge preparation, global assessments [willingness to brag, recommend or return to the hospital]). For analysis, items were rated on a five-point ordinal scale from poor to excellent. For scoring purposes, responses were transformed to linear ratings, ranging from 0 to 100 (eg, 0 = poor care, 100 = excellent care). RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, the authors found that patients who were older, white, not married, uninsured or had commercial insurance, and in better health status were significantly more likely to give higher assessments (P < 0.01), although very little of the variance in assessment scores was explained by these characteristics (2%-3%). In bivariate analyses, patient assessments were higher in nonteaching hospitals and those with fewer beds, fewer deliveries, lower cesarean-section (C-section) rates, fewer patients with Medicaid, and higher rates of vaginal births after C-section deliveries. When these variables were utilized as independent predictors in multivariable analyses using adjusted nested linear regression (to account for clustering of patients), few of the hospital characteristics reached a level of statistical significance. Finally, correlations between the five scales and other patient assessments of quality, such as how much they were helped by the hospitalization, were statistically significant (P < 0.01) and high in magnitude, ranging from 0.47 to 0.61. CONCLUSIONS: Although hospital scores differed according to several patient and hospital characteristics, the magnitude of the associations was relatively small. The findings suggest that, with respect to obstetric care, patient assessments may represent a robust measure that can be applied to diverse hospitals and patient casemix.

Insurance coverage, physician recommendations, and access to emerging treatments: growth hormone therapy for childhood short stature.

CONTEXT: There is concern in both the medical community and the general public about mechanisms of medical decision making and the interplay of physician and insurer decisions in determining access to care. OBJECTIVE: To examine the medical process influencing access to growth hormone (GH) therapy for childhood short stature by comparing coverage policies of US insurers with the treatment recommendations of US physicians. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Independent national representative surveys were mailed to insurers (private, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, health maintenance organizations, programs for Children with Special Health Care Needs, and Medicaid programs, n=113), primary care physicians (n=1504), and pediatric endocrinologists (n=534) with response rates of 75%, 60%, and 81%, respectively. Each survey included identical case scenarios. Primary care physicians were asked decisions about referrals to pediatric endocrinologists. Endocrinologists were asked GH treatment recommendations. Insurers were asked coverage decisions for GH therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Insurer coverage decisions for GH in specific case scenarios were compared with the recommendations of primary care physicians and pediatric endocrinologists. RESULTS: Physician recommendations and insurance coverage decisions differed strikingly. For example, while 96% of pediatric endocrinologists recommended GH therapy for children with Turner syndrome, insurer policies covered GH therapy for only 52% of these children. Overall, referral and treatment decisions by physicians resulted in recommendations for GH therapy in 78% of children with GH deficiency, Turner syndrome, or renal failure; of those recommended for treatment, 28% were denied coverage by insurers. Similarly, GH therapy would be recommended by physicians for only 9% of children with idiopathic short stature, but insurers would not cover GH for the vast majority of these children. Furthermore, the data indicated considerable variation among insurers regarding coverage policies for GH (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Access to GH therapy differs depending on the type of insurance coverage. The deep discord between physician recommendations and insurance coverage decisions, exemplified by these findings, represents a major challenge to mechanisms of health care decision making, access, and costs.

Does length of hospital stay during labor and delivery influence patient satisfaction? Results from a regional study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between patients' satisfaction with hospital obstetric care, length of stay, and patients' perceived appropriateness of the length of stay. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed 27,789 women (a 58% response rate) discharged after labor and delivery from 18 hospitals in a large metropolitan region from 1992 through 1994. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Patient Judgment System, a previously validated instrument. Our analysis focused on four scales evaluating specific aspects of care (physician care, nursing care, provision of information, and preparation for discharge) and two single-item indicators of satisfaction (overall quality and willingness to return to the hospital). RESULTS: Patients with shorter lengths of stay were more likely (P < 0.001) to perceive their stays as "too short." In addition, the six measures of satisfaction were lower (P < 0.001) in patients who perceived their stays as too short. However, the hypothesized lower satisfaction in patients with shorter stays was not observed; differences in satisfaction according to length of stay were small and of questionable practical significance. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that patients' satisfaction with obstetric care may not depend on the absolute duration of stay but rather on whether patients perceive the length of stay to be adequate. The results are timely because of recent legislation that mandates minimum hospital stays for labor and delivery.