From the closest observers of patient care: A thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals

Naomi S. Bardach, Audrey Lyndon, Renée Asteria-Peñaloza, L. Elizabeth Goldman, Grace A. Lin, R. Adams Dudley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains. Design: We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate). Setting: We identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital. Participants: We included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital. Exclusions: Outpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words. Results: 50.0% (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1% (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0% (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2% (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)889-897
Number of pages9
JournalBMJ Quality and Safety
Volume25
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Patient Care
Health Personnel
Delivery of Health Care
Safety
American Hospital Association
Patient-Centered Care
Health Expenditures
Hospital Emergency Service
Outpatients
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

From the closest observers of patient care : A thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals. / Bardach, Naomi S.; Lyndon, Audrey; Asteria-Peñaloza, Renée; Goldman, L. Elizabeth; Lin, Grace A.; Dudley, R. Adams.

In: BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol. 25, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 889-897.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bardach, Naomi S. ; Lyndon, Audrey ; Asteria-Peñaloza, Renée ; Goldman, L. Elizabeth ; Lin, Grace A. ; Dudley, R. Adams. / From the closest observers of patient care : A thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals. In: BMJ Quality and Safety. 2016 ; Vol. 25, No. 11. pp. 889-897.
@article{37118b48315a4215aa11d8fb8662afa5,
title = "From the closest observers of patient care: A thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals",
abstract = "Objective: Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains. Design: We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate). Setting: We identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital. Participants: We included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital. Exclusions: Outpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words. Results: 50.0{\%} (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1{\%} (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0{\%} (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2{\%} (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety.",
author = "Bardach, {Naomi S.} and Audrey Lyndon and Ren{\'e}e Asteria-Pe{\~n}aloza and Goldman, {L. Elizabeth} and Lin, {Grace A.} and Dudley, {R. Adams}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004515",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "889--897",
journal = "BMJ Quality and Safety",
issn = "2044-5415",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - From the closest observers of patient care

T2 - A thematic analysis of online narrative reviews of hospitals

AU - Bardach, Naomi S.

AU - Lyndon, Audrey

AU - Asteria-Peñaloza, Renée

AU - Goldman, L. Elizabeth

AU - Lin, Grace A.

AU - Dudley, R. Adams

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Objective: Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains. Design: We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate). Setting: We identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital. Participants: We included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital. Exclusions: Outpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words. Results: 50.0% (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1% (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0% (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2% (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety.

AB - Objective: Patient-centred care has become a priority in many countries. It is unknown whether current tools capture aspects of care patients and their surrogates consider important. We investigated whether online narrative reviews from patients and surrogates reflect domains in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and we described additional potential domains. Design: We used thematic analysis to assess online narrative reviews for reference to HCAHPS domains and salient non-HCAHPS domains and compared results by reviewer type (patient vs surrogate). Setting: We identified hospitals for review from the American Hospital Association database using a stratified random sampling approach. This approach ensured inclusion of reviews of a diverse set of hospitals. We searched online in February 2013 for narrative reviews from any source for each hospital. Participants: We included up to two narrative reviews for each hospital. Exclusions: Outpatient or emergency department reviews, reviews from self-identified hospital employees, or reviews of <10 words. Results: 50.0% (n=122) of reviews (N=244) were from patients and 38.1% (n=93) from friends or family members. Only 57.0% (n=139) of reviews mentioned any HCAHPS domain. Additional salient domains were: Financing, including unexpected out-of-pocket costs and difficult interactions with billing departments; system-centred care; and perceptions of safety. These domains were mentioned in 51.2% (n=125) of reviews. Friends and family members commented on perceptions of safety more frequently than patients. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of consumer reviews do not mention HCAHPS domains. Surrogates appear to observe care differently than patients, particularly around safety.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994691887&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994691887&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004515

DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004515

M3 - Article

C2 - 26677215

AN - SCOPUS:84994691887

VL - 25

SP - 889

EP - 897

JO - BMJ Quality and Safety

JF - BMJ Quality and Safety

SN - 2044-5415

IS - 11

ER -