Investigating the Potential Contribution of Patient Rating Sites to Hospital Supervision: Exploratory Results From an Interview Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decades, the patient perspective on health care quality has been unconditionally integrated into quality management. For several years now, patient rating sites have been rapidly gaining attention. These offer a new approach toward hearing the patient's perspective on the quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to explore whether and how patient reviews of hospitals, as reported on rating sites, have the potential to contribute to health care inspector's daily supervision of hospital care. METHODS: Given the unexplored nature of the topic, an interview study among hospital inspectors was designed in the Netherlands. We performed 2 rounds of interviews with 10 senior inspectors, addressing their use and their judgment on the relevance of review data from a rating site. RESULTS: All 10 Dutch senior hospital inspectors participated in this research. The inspectors initially showed some reluctance to use the major patient rating site in their daily supervision. This was mainly because of objections such as worries about how representative they are, subjectivity, and doubts about the relevance of patient reviews for supervision. However, confrontation with, and assessment of, negative reviews by the inspectors resulted in 23% of the reviews being deemed relevant for risk identification. Most inspectors were cautiously positive about the contribution of the reviews to their risk identification. CONCLUSIONS: Patient rating sites may be of value to the risk-based supervision of hospital care carried out by the Health Care Inspectorate. Health care inspectors do have several objections against the use of patient rating sites for daily supervision. However, when they are presented with texts of negative reviews from a hospital under their supervision, it appears that most inspectors consider it as an additional source of information to detect poor quality of care. Still, it should always be accompanied and verified by other quality and safety indicators. More research on the value and usability of patient rating sites in daily hospital supervision and other health settings is needed.

Influence of Intensified Supervision by Health Care Inspectorates on Online Patient Ratings of Hospitals: A Multilevel Study of More Than 43,000 Online Ratings.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, hospitals with quality or safety issues are put under intensified supervision by the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate, which involves frequent announced and unannounced site visits and other measures. Patient rating sites are an upcoming phenomenon in health care. Patient reviews might be influenced by perceived quality including the media coverage of health care providers when the health care inspectorate imposes intensified supervision, but no data are available to show how these are related. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether and how being under intensified supervision of the health care inspectorate influences online patient ratings of hospitals. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal study using data from the patient rating site Zorgkaart Nederland, from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. We compared data of 7 hospitals under intensified supervision with a control group of 28 hospitals. The dataset contained 43,856 ratings. We performed a multilevel logistic regression analysis to account for clustering of ratings within hospitals. Fixed effects in our analysis were hospital type, time, and the period of intensified supervision. Random effect was the hospital. The outcome variable was the dichotomized rating score. RESULTS: The period of intensified supervision was associated with a low rating score for the hospitals compared with control group hospitals; both 1 year before intensified supervision (odds ratio, OR, 1.67, 95% CI 1.06-2.63) and 1 year after (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.14-2.81) the differences are significant. For all periods, the odds on a low rating score for hospitals under intensified supervision are higher than for the control group hospitals, corrected for time. Time is also associated with low rating scores, with decreasing ORs over time since 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that are confronted with intensified supervision by the health care inspectorate have lower ratings on patient rating sites. The scores are independent of the period: before, during, or just after the intervention by the health care inspectorate. Health care inspectorates might learn from these results because they indicate that the inspectorate identifies the same hospitals as "at risk" as the patients rate as underperformers.

Patient satisfaction revisited: a multilevel approach.

Patient satisfaction surveys are increasingly used for benchmarking purposes. In the Netherlands, the results of these surveys are reported at the univariate level without taking case mix factors into account. The first objective of the present study was to determine whether differences in patient satisfaction are attributed to the hospital, department or patient characteristics. Our second aim was to investigate which case mix variables could be taken into account when satisfaction surveys are carried out for benchmarking purposes. Patients who either were discharged from eight academic and fourteen general Dutch hospitals or visited the outpatient departments of the same hospitals in 2005 participated in cross-sectional satisfaction surveys. Satisfaction was measured on six dimensions of care and one general dimension. We used multilevel analysis to estimate the proportion of variance in satisfaction scores determined by the hospital and department levels by calculating intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Hospital size, hospital type, population density and response rate are four case mix variables we investigated at the hospital level. We also measured the effects of patient characteristics (gender, age, education, health status, and mother language) on satisfaction. We found ICCs on hospital and department levels ranging from 0% to 4% for all dimensions. This means that only a minor part of the variance in patient satisfaction scores is attributed to the hospital and department levels. Although all patient characteristics had some statistically significant influence on patient satisfaction, age, health status and education appeared to be the most important determinants of patient satisfaction and could be considered for case mix correction. Gender, mother language, hospital type, hospital size, population density and response rate seemed to be less important determinants. The explained variance of the patient and hospital characteristics ranged from 3% to 5% for the different dimensions. Our conclusions are, first, that a substantial part of the variance is on the patient level, while only a minor part of the variance is at the hospital and department levels. Second, patient satisfaction outcomes in the Netherlands can be corrected by the case mix variables age, health status and education.