The Future Impact of Patient Experience 4/3/2013 for

The Future Impact of Patient Experience

for Audiology

Recorded April 6, 2013

4/3/2013

1

The Future Impact of Patient Experience for Audiology: Improving collection and use of patient experience data today in preparation for tomorrow’s reimbursement climate

AudiologyNow! April 6, 2013 Anaheim, California

Keri Kwarta, AuD

Briana Jegier, PhD

Francis Fullam, MA

Introduction

Keri Kwarta, AuD

Instructor of Audiology at of the Department of Communications Disorders and Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Rush University Medical Center. She received her AuD from

the University of Florida

Briana Jegier, PhD

Assistant professor in the department of Health Systems Management and Women,

Children and Family Nursing at Rush University Medical Center. Dr. Jegier received her

PhD in Public Health Studies with an emphasis in management and policy from Saint Louis

University

Francis Fullam, MA

Senior Director for Marketing Research, and Patient Relations and an assistant professor

in the department of Health Systems Management at Rush University Medical Center. He

has a BA from Colgate University and an MA from the University of Chicago in survey

research

2

Agenda and Objectives

• Part I

– The changing healthcare landscape

– The patient experience

– Drivers of patient experience

– Tools for measuring patient experience

• Part II

– The Rush experience: A case study of the

efficacy of patient measurement tools in a

practice setting

– Incorporating measurement in your practice3


for Audiology


4/3/2013

2

The changing healthcare environment

Healthcare Environment and Policy

• Increased demand for services

• Changing technology

• New payment systems

• New federal approach - Value Based Purchasing

• Increased direct to consumer sales

• Increased “Do it Yourself” services and options

• Emphasis on value over volume

Audiology Specific Example

• Improved technology of Personal Sound Amplifier Products (PSAP's)

4

Move Towards Lower Cost Self Service

A number of procedures and services that once required much hands

professional expertise are now are now “do-it-yourself”

Home pregnancy tests

Custom orthotic inserts

Improvements in over the counter Personal Sound Amplifier Products now may

offer increased alternatives in consumers‘ minds to visits to an Audiologist

5

Emphasis on value

Thus, we are embarking on the era of “Value”

Value

Providing affordable, efficient and acceptable care to

patients, their families and the community at large.

6


for Audiology


4/3/2013

3

What is Patient Experience?

The Picker Institute developed a concept “patient centered care” that had 7 dimensions – based on series of focus groups with patients and providers

in the 1980’s. The seminal book, “Though the Patient’s Eyes” defined

these as:

•Respect for patients’ values, preferences and expressed needs

•Coordination and integration of care

•Information, communication and education

•Physical comfort

•Emotional support and alleviation of fear and anxiety

•Involvement of family and friends

•Transition and continuity

This definition is the basis on which the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare

Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey program about the “patient experience” is

built.....but not copied. 7

Built On, Not Copied

The CMS program is based on the work of the Picker Institute but there are some difference.

The CAHPS survey is based on the survey developed by the Picker

Institute – similar question formats and “domains”

Picker Institute explicitly incorporates patient’s emotional response to

health, CMS does not make this explicit in questions.

8

Measuring Patient Experience:Welcome to the “Caps” Family of surveys!

The “Consumer

Assessment of Healthcare

Providers and Systems”

(CAHPS) family9

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Nursing Home

(NH-CAHPS)

Hospital

(H-CAHPS)

Home Health

(HH-CAHPS)

Prescription Drug

(PD-CAHPS

Dialysis Center

(ICH-CAHPS)

Medicare Shared

Saving & Pioneer

ACO

(ACO CG-CAHPS)

Medical Group

(PQRS CG-CAHPS)

Under

Consideration

Hospice

ED

Hospital Outpatient

Under

Consideration

Ambulatory

Surgery Centers


for Audiology


4/3/2013

4

Three Goals of H-CAHPS

1. Create standardized data about the patient experience

2. Create financial incentives to improve the quality of the patient experience along with clinical processes/ outcomes

3. Create transparency in this information by making it available to the public

From “HCAHPS Fact Sheet” May 2012http://www.hcahpsonline.org/files/HCAHPS%20Fact%20Sheet%20May%202012.pdf

10

These 3 goals for H-CAHPS embody the new federal approach

Traits of CAHPS Surveys

Traits of survey

a) Frequency response categories

b) “Top box” reporting (mostly)

c) Domains of care

d) Coverage of all patient payor groups

e) Survey mode adjustments to data and adjustments based on patient characteristics

11

H-CAHPS Questions and Reporting

• Frequency scale - Never, Sometimes, Usually, Always

• Responses are not “normally” distributed but “skewed” to the positive

• Reports focus on the percentage who say “Always” – the “top box” score 12


for Audiology


4/3/2013

5

H-CAHPS Domains

Questions are grouped under 8 “domains” of care

•Communication with Nurses

•Communications with Doctors

•Staff Responsiveness

•Pain Management

•Communications about Medicines

•Discharge Information

•Hospital Environment

•Care Transitions

Plus a global rating of the hospital

13

H-CAHPS Adjustments

CMS found that a number of things influenced the results that are outside the

control of the hospitals. CMS makes adjusts to the data to control for these factors so that no hospital is penalized or benefits from factors outside of their

control. This is analogues to “risk adjustment” in health outcomes research.

•Survey mode adjustments

Survey can be collected by Mail, Telephone, or Interactive Voice Response.

Ratings on mail surveys tend to be lower so responses to these surveys are

positively adjusted

•Patient adjustments based on research

Age

Gender

Education

Service line (medical, surgical, OB)

Response date

Self reported health status (“In general, how would you rate your overall health? Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, Poor”)

Interaction of some of the above factors 14

H-CAHPS Rollout History

• Development of “patient-centered care” survey by Institute in 1980’s

• AHRQ questionnaire development begins 2002 based on Picker principles

• Voluntary participation begins 2006

• “Pay for Reporting” begins 2007

• Public reporting of H-CAHPS on Hospital Compare website 2008

• “Pay for Performance” begins in 2012 – Value Based Purchasing

�1% withhold of federal payments (grows to 2%)

�30% of these at-risk funds is determined by patient experience data, the remaining 70% is

determined by a mix of quality process and outcome data

�Based on a formula of relative performance to other hospitals, they can earn back between

0% and about 200% of the funds withheld

15


for Audiology


4/3/2013

6

Hospital Compare

The “Hospital Compare” website is accessible to the public and contains a great

deal of comparative information for most hospitals for their clinical process and outcome quality as well as the H-CAHPS patient experience survey results

www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov16

Value Based Purchasing Formula

The Value Based Purchasing was described in the “dry run” period in 2012. The initial split 70% based on clinical quality and 30% on patient

experience.

17

CG-CAHPS

• Care Givers Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems

• Two formats of survey

� Visit based (not finalized, still in consideration)

� Retrospective based for 12 months (probably the first survey required)

• It took decades H-CAHPS to get up and running and linked to Value Base

Purchasing

• CG-CAHPS took years to get up and running – the speed of roll out of these programs is increasing

• Lessons learned in these two will apply to future federal programs – and may

apply to Audiology practices

18


for Audiology


4/3/2013

7

Breakout Session 1 – Key Drivers

Among your tables, please use the provided handouts to respond to the following:

a) What do you think are key drivers of patient experience

for audiology patients?

b) How would you rank those drivers in terms of order of importance?

19

LITERATURE REVIEW OF KEY DRIVERS OF

PATIENT EXPERIENCE

Drivers of patient experience: A literature review

20

Literature Findings

• There is an extensive literature on the drivers of inpatient experience. (Picker, Gallup, Press Ganey, etc)– Patient characteristics (age, sex, race, education)

– Provider behavior characteristics (communication, helpfulness)

– Self-reported health status

• The literature on drivers in the physician's practice are

more limited since the shift to this practice setting has accelerated. (Press Ganey, CMS)

– Patient characteristics (age, sex, race, education)

– Facility process characteristics (wait times, information about

delays)

• The study of outpatient practices is relatively new.

– Press Ganey has provided some insight into this but there is little if

any formal literature specific to the outpatient area. 21


for Audiology


4/3/2013

8

Some Issues More Important to Patients?

•Managers usually like to focus their efforts and resources where it will do

the most good – hence understanding patient priorities is important

•The philosophy of the CMS appears to be that all issues covered in the

H-CAHPS are equally important and so they do not provide any guidance

•Most vendors of standardized surveys provide some guidance to their

clients of their own results and sometimes they apply their approaches to

H-CAHPS results as well.

22

Priority Index System

•Managers usually like to focus their efforts and resources where it will do

the most good – hence understanding patient priorities is important

•The Press Ganey priority index system is one way that this is done. The score of each item is ranked from low to high and the size of the

correlations correlations of each individual item and overall satisfaction is

ranked from high to low. These rankings are added together:

“To have the highest priority…items will have to have low scores

and strong associations to overall satisfaction. In other words, high priority issues are those that are important to your

respondents but ones on which you are not doing so well. Low

priority issues …consist of items having high scores but weak associations to overall satisfaction.” (“Guide to Interpreting –

Report Interpretation”, Press Ganey, Inc. 2011, p. 29 )

23

National Priority Index for Audiology

Press Ganey is believed to have the largest comparative data base of

audiology practices among survey vendors. They currently have 44 clients. This is a rollup for these practices for 2012

24


for Audiology


4/3/2013

9

25

Top 10 Priority Index Issues for Audiology

Patients at RUMC

Top 10 Priority Index Issues for Audiology

Patients Nationally

1 Our sensitivity to your needs Our sensitivity to your needs

2 Response to concerns / complaints Response to concerns / complaints

3 Ease of registration process Overall rating of care

4 Ease of finding your way around Staff worked together to provide care

5 Staff worked together to provide care Our concern for your privacy

6 Informed about delay during visit (non-standard

questions)

Likelihood of Recommending

7 Our concern for your privacy Helpfulness of registration person

8 Overall rating of care Comfort of waiting area

9 Comfort of waiting area Cleanliness

10 tie Ease of access for those with physical limitations Ease of finding your way around

10 tie Helpfulness of registration person

How Does Rush Compare?

Which leads to

How should/can we measure patient experience?

26

Review of existing tools for measuring patient experience

There are multiple tools to measure patient experience including:

• Patient Satisfaction Tools

• Patient Quality of Life Tools

• Patient Perception of Treatment Efficacy

27


for Audiology


4/3/2013

10

Patient Satisfaction Tools

• Available tools

– CMS/AHRQ

– HRSA

– RAND

– Proprietary tools

28


• CMS

– CAHPS

– http://cahps.ahrq.gov

• Benefits

– Standardized tool with large research base

– Free to use

– Available vendor(s): Press Ganey, The Myers

Group, National Research Corporation

29


• HRSA

– Primary Care Health Center Survey

– http://bphc.hrsa.gov/policiesregulations/perform

ancemeasures/patientsurvey/surveyform.html

• Benefits


– Free to use

– Available vendor(s): Midwest Clinicians

Network

30


for Audiology


4/3/2013

11


• RAND

– PSQ III and PSQ 18:

http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/psq.html

– VS 9:

http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/vsq9.html

• Benefits

– Standardized tools with large research base

– Free to use

– Scoring system published and validated.

31


• Proprietary Tools

– MGMA

– Clinical professional societies

– Press Ganey & Associates

– Bivarius, Inc.

• Benefits

– Standardized tool with a specific focal audience

– Often have research validation

– Options for advanced analytic services32

Patient Quality of Life Tools

• Available tools

– Short Form (SF) surveys (8, 12, 20, 36; Brazier,

Roberts, & Deverill, 2002; http://www.sf-

36.org/tools/sf36.shtml)

– Quality of Well-Being (QWB) Scale SA (Kaplan

and Anderson 1988, 1996;

https://hoap.ucsd.edu/qwb-info/)

– EuroQol 5-D (EuroQol Group 1990;

www.eurolqol.org)

– PROMIS (Cella et al. 2007, Revicki et al. 2009;

http://www.nihpromis.org/default) 33


for Audiology


4/3/2013

12


• SF Survey benefits


– Ability to choose length of survey

– Multiple modalities

– Analytics are available for a fee

34


• QWB SA benefits


– Established for use with economic analysis

– Available for a fee

35


• Euro-QOL benefits


– Established for use with economic analysis

– Available and validated in multiple languages


36


for Audiology


4/3/2013

13


• PROMIS benefits

– Standardized tool with growing research base

– Multiple disease specific sub scales and strata

– Free for use

37

• Available tools

– Service Satisfaction Scale (SSS; Greenfield TK,

Attkisson CC, 1994;

http://www.proqolid.org/instruments/service_sat

isfaction_scale_sss_30_sss_15_sss_res)

– International Outcome Inventory for Hearing

Aids (IOI-HA; Cox, et al, 2002)

38

Patient Perception of Treatment Efficacy


• Benefits of the SSS

– Self-report inventory

– Measures patient perception of practitioner

manner, patient perception of treatment

outcome, office procedures and accessibility


39


for Audiology


4/3/2013

14


• Benefits of the IOI-HA

– Self-report inventory

– Measures overall quality of life for the patient

and their significant other

– Administered from 1 month to 6 months post

HA fit

– Has published group norms which allows

benchmarking

40

Summary of Patient Experience Tools

Tools Cost Ease of UseNumber of

Questions

Applicability

to Audiology

Satisfaction

CMS/AHRQ $ # 18-60 !!!

HRSA $ # 33 !!

RAND $ # 9-60 !

Proprietary $ - $$$ ## Varies !!!

Quality of Life

SF $$-$$$ ### 8-36 !!

QWB $$ ## 65 !!

EuroQol $$ ## 6 !!

Promis $ # 4- 100s !!!

Treatment Efficacy

SSS $$-$$$ ## 15-30 !!

IOI-HA $ ## 7-8 !!! 41

Q & A

Session I

Question

and

Answer

42


for Audiology


4/3/2013

15

Summary – Part 1

• The healthcare environment is changing

with greater emphasis being placed on

delivering value

• This includes being able to quantify patient

experience

• Patient experience is driven by a variety of

variables

• There are free and easy to use tools that

can help you measure patient experience43

Case Study

Rush University Medical Center

Audiology Clinic

Audiology at Rush

• Urban medical center serving a

diverse, multi-cultural population

• Medical center clinic andacademic clinic

• 4 full-time + 4 part-time

audiologists (5.5 FTE)

• Approximately 3,800 patient visits/yr

• 75% Diagnostic Services

• 25% Hearing Instrument Services

45


for Audiology


4/3/2013

16

Audiology at Rush

• Doctor of Audiology (AuD) program is ranked

10th in the nation by U.S. News & World

Report in their evaluation of the best graduate

programs in the country

– 39 AuD students enrolled

– The students learn through the teacher-practitioner model

– Audiologists directly involved in both didactic and

clinical education.46

Audiology at Rush – New facility

47

Audiology at Rush – New facility

48


for Audiology


4/3/2013

17

Data Drives Patient-Centered Care

• Patient-centered care driven by:

– Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines

• American Academy of Audiology

• American Speech-Language and Hearing

Association– e.g., real ear measurement (REM) to verify appropriate access

to the speech spectrum (Valente et al,(2006). Guidelines for Audiological

Management of Adult Hearing Impairment. Audiology Today,18:5)

– Patient Satisfaction

– Treatment Efficacy

– Process Efficacy49

RUMC Data Sources

1. Patient Experience

• Press Ganey

�Patient satisfaction with how services are provided

• HHI, COSI, APHAB

�Assessment of patient needs

�Validation of treatment outcome

2. Quality of Life Measures

• IOI-HA

+ Explore the impact of treatment on overall function and quality of life

3. Efficiency of Services

• How efficient is each services we provide?

�e.g. sedated-ABR, cochlear implants, etc.

RUMC Data Sources


for Audiology


4/3/2013

18

Using Data To Quantify Our Patient’s Experience


Audiology Clinic

Measuring Our Patient’s Experience

• Three Areas of Interest:

53

1. Patient Satisfaction with Service Delivery

2. Patient Perception of Treatment Efficacy

3. Continuous Quality Improvement of

Service Efficacy (PDCA)

Our Patient’s Experience




Service Efficacy

54


for Audiology


4/3/2013

19

Patient Satisfaction(Press Ganey)


Audiology Clinic

Integrating Data�How do we get it?

�What do we focus on?

�How often do we check it?

�When and how do we act upon it?

56

Patient Satisfaction

• Online account

• Customized report options

• Support/Resources

– RUMC on-site (e.g., Francis)

– Press Ganey Customer Support

57

The Process of Obtaining Data


for Audiology


4/3/2013

20

What Data Do We Focus On?

Patient Satisfaction

59

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey

Sco

re

92.7 92.6 92.3

95.6

89.9

91.5

95.0

#1: Overall Patient Satisfaction

93rd

UHC percentile

83rd

National

percentile

60

Top 10 Priority Index Issues for Audiology Patients at


1 Our sensitivity to your needs

2 Response to concerns / complaints

3 Ease of registration process

4 Ease of finding your way around

5 Staff worked together to provide care

6 Informed about delay during visit

7 Our concern for your privacy

8 Overall rating of care

9 Comfort of waiting area

10 tie Ease of access for those with physical limitations


#2: Most Important to Patients


for Audiology


4/3/2013

21

61















62















1. The overall mean score

2. Individual question scores

3. Comparative rank among UHC members

Goals:

1. RUMC outpatient: > 90 for overall mean

score

2. Audiology: > 90 for each individual question

63

#3: Our Performance


for Audiology


4/3/2013

22

How Often Do We Check Data?

Weekly

Monthly

Quarterly

• Patient comments – majority are compliments

• “Red flags”?

• Meet with clinic managers to address any

specific concerns 65

80%

20%

Positive

Mixed/Negative

Weekly

Patient Comments

� Positive: “The visit was a very good experience. The Doctor

greeted me right away and walked me into the examining room.”

� Positive: “The took all the time I needed to make sure I

understood what was happening to me.”

� Positive: “They provided me with good explanations.”

� Mixed: “The student was a bit nervous at first.”

� Mixed: “It was hard to find the office but person on the

phone gave good directions.”

� Negative: “Waiting time too long.”

66


for Audiology


4/3/2013

23

Monthly

• Small sample

• Look for trends/movement in the data

• Begin to develop strategies for the

larger movements

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

Mea

n Pr

ess G

aney

Sco

re

Overall Patient Satisfaction

67

• Larger sample – now we have something!

• Statistically significant changes?

• Press Ganey does the math!

• We make evidence-based decisions!

• Identify areas excellence and/or opportunities for improvement

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Mea

n Pr

ess G

aney

Sco

re


68

Quarterly

An Opportunity for Improvement


Audiology Clinic


for Audiology


4/3/2013

24

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey

Sco

re


70

95.6

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey

Sco

re


71

89.0

95.6

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey

Sco

re


72

89.0

95.6

“What the H#&% happened?”


for Audiology


4/3/2013

25

73














Revisit: What is Most Important to our Patients?

74














Revisit: What is Most Important to our Patients?

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey

Sco

re

75

“Overall…” vs. “Informed…”

89.0

Overall Score 95.5


for Audiology


4/3/2013

26

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey S

core

76


“Informed about delays”

89.0

Overall Score

83.9

95.5

93.3

Investigation

• Root-Cause Analysis

– Discussed with both audiologist and

administrative staff/receptionists

• Did not reveal anything apparent (no staff changes, no policy changes, etc.)

• Agreed to remain diligent with current

practice to:

– Inform patients about delays

– See patients on time

77

• Audiologists call front desk with UPDATES and

ask administrative staff to go over to waiting

patient to inform about delay.

• Make sure patients who arrive early are aware

of their scheduled appointment time.

• Service Recovery: Free parking passes to

patients with delays 30 minutes or more.

78

Intervention - New


for Audiology


4/3/2013

27

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey S

core

79


89.0

Overall Score

83.9

95.5

93.3


76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey S

core

80


92.9

Overall Score

89.1


76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey S

core

81



91.5

Overall Score

88.1


for Audiology


4/3/2013

28

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Me

an

Pre

ss G

an

ey S

core

82


Overall Score


95.0

94.2

83

No One Likes to Wait!

• Patients are also asked to report how long

they remember having to wait to be seen.

• A growing number of our patients began to

report shorter wait times.

– FY12 Q3 = 45% reported wait time < 5 min


84


for Audiology


4/3/2013

29








85








86

1. Patient Satisfaction with Service Delivery:

• Reviewed weekly, monthly and quarterly for

timely identification and intervention to

improve patient experience

• Small changes can lead to direct and

indirect improvements in patient satisfaction

87



for Audiology


4/3/2013

30





Service Efficacy

88

89

Treatment Efficacy

• Goal: To assess self-perceivedbenefit of amplification /

rehabilitation

• Process:– 6 month post-fit mail survey

– IOI-HA (Cox, et al, 2002)

• Hearing aid satisfaction, benefit and use

• Impact on QOL (patient and SO)

• Published group norms

90

Treatment Efficacy

• Strengths– Anonymous

– Consistent use of evidence-based protocol across clinicians

– Reflects the overall effectiveness of the

program

• Challenges– Sample size


for Audiology


4/3/2013

31

91

� Future use:

� Collect demographic information

� Similar measures for CI and bone-anchored

implant patients

Treatment Efficacy


• Measurement provides opportunity to

not only gauge patient experience but

also program quality.

92






Service Efficacy

93


for Audiology


4/3/2013

32

• Metric: Completion rate

– Not “completing” delays identification and

appropriate treatment

– Not good enough to “show” for appointment,

especially when completion relies on many

factors:

• Show on time, followed pre-test instructions (e.g., NPO, medications), pre-registered appropriately, etc.

– Opportunity cost

94

Process Efficiency

PDCA for Sedated-ABR

95

Patient

� Patient showed late for the appointment

� Patient ate/drank

� Patient ill day of test


96

Procedural Patient

� H &P not completed within 30 day period

� No/not appropriate referral for sedation

� Limited flexibility with other required services when arrives late


for Audiology


4/3/2013

33


97

Operational

ProceduralPatient

� Outpatient procedure on an inpatient floor (in-patient infrastructure different from out-patient with respect to

admitting, billing, documentation, discharge, etc.)

� “Many cooks in one kitchen”


• Inter-professional collaboration was needed!

98

Operational

ProceduralPatient

• Extensive efforts led to more efficient and effective clinical processes

99

2011 2012

PDCA for Sedated-ABR Outcome


for Audiology


4/3/2013

34

• FY 2011: 68% completion rate!

• Obstacles to a better completion rate were

difficult to find.

• Discussion lead to a single modification to

our existing protocol:

– Phone call was made to patient by

administrative staff 2 days (instead of 1) prior

to appointment 100

PDCA for VNGs

Continuous Quality Improvement -PDCA

• Simple effort led to more efficient and effective clinical processes

101

2011 20122012

Case Study Summary

• Patient experience data can be measured

and incorporated in multiple ways

• Data that are regularly used can assist in identifying priority areas for change

• Small changes can lead to large

improvements in patient satisfaction data

and efficiency measures

102


for Audiology


4/3/2013

35

Incorporating measurement of patient experience

• The future of patient experience in audiology

practice: Integrating patient experience in

quality improvement

• Preparing your practice for measuring and

linking patient experience and clinical quality

improvement

• Strategies for making measurement easy

103

The future of patient experience

• Patient experience reporting will become part of

the fabric of healthcare delivery

• Patients will demand transparency and

comparability

• Increased patient sharing of information:

Opportunity to shape the narrative

104

Preparing your practice to increase measurement of Patient Experience data

Steps to preparing your practice for integrating

measurement

1. Choose what you want measure including a specific

definition

2. Examine if you might already collect that information

3. Identify whether you will measure it yourself or you’ll hire an outside vendor

4. Establish your protocols for how you want measurement to occur and data to be captured and

stored 105


for Audiology


4/3/2013

36

• Questions to ask

• What do you really want to know?

• Why is it important to you?

• Will you really use this information if you collect it?

• What is the potential patient burden that collecting this data might present?

106


• Does your organization offer data and you just

haven’t been able to use it?

• Who do you need to ask to get it?

• What is your current data capacity and systems?

107


• Do you want to collect the data yourself?

• Can you afford to hire someone else to do it?

• If you do it yourself, how much staff time will it

require

• Do you really have the expertise for complex

analytics?

• If you don’t need complex analytics, do you have the skills for basic analytics?

108


for Audiology


4/3/2013

37


• How often do you plan to collect data?

• Who will be responsible for collection and entry?

• Where will the data be stored?

• Who will have access to it?

• Do you want to have a unique identifier?

• How will you maintain patient confidentiality?

109

Considerations and rules of thumb

• Data measurement and storage

– Start small

– Resist the temptation to “throw in the kitchen

sink”

– Plan for turnover

– Create redundancy

110

Considerations and rules of thumb

• Data Collection

– Have a private place where surveys can be

returned

– Create a “Chinese” wall between the person

who enters the data and the one who

analyzes the data

– Automate whenever possible

– Plan for biases that may result from the

method of survey administration

111


for Audiology


4/3/2013

38

Breakout Session – 3 measures to improve experience

Breakout sessions discussions

a) Identify 3 measures of patient experience you currently collect in your practice (or you would like to collect). Select top 3-5 measures

b) Develop an operational measure for each of these and

how best to collect

c) Develop strategies for mitigating the challenges of

collecting each

112

Q & A

Session I

Question

and

Answer

113

Summary – Part 2

• Using data to measure patient experience

can help you prioritize areas for

improvement as well as identify strengths

• Small changes can lead to large gains in

patient experience

• Collection of patient experience data will

occur, planning now will allow you to

shape your narrative

• Four steps are all you need to integrate

data collection into your practice 114


for Audiology


4/3/2013

39

Thank you!

Documents

The Future Impact of Patient Experience 4/3/2013 for