Transcript Slide 1

Patient Experience Matters
D I R I G O H E A LT H A G E N C Y ’ S
MAINE QUALITY FORUM
Statewide Patient Experience
Survey
August 2012
The Clinical Benefits of a Good Experience of Care

Good patient experience is correlated with more
activated and engaged patients who are more
adherent to advice and treatment plans.

Better care experiences lead to better outcomes.

Measuring patient experience is first step to practice
level and system-wide improvements

Positive correlation between patient experience and
preventive/disease management processes.
Good Patient Experience: Financial Benefits!
 Better patient experience lowers likelihood of lawsuit.
 Measuring and improving patient experience enhances
culture which lowers staff turnover and increases
employee satisfaction.
 Better experience leads to patient loyalty – good for
practices and good for patient care.
 Payers planning future tie financial incentives to
patient experience.
Why Survey Patients on Experience of Care?





Surveying patients helps engage patients in delivery
of their care
Places patient at center of healthcare encounter and
re-emphasizes focus of provider to that center
It results in improved communication between
patients and providers
Through public reporting, survey results provide basis
for standards and comparison points to improve
quality
Provides patient experience data to payers and
consumers
Why is DHA-MQF interested in Collecting &
Reporting Patient Experience Data?

Law directs the Maine Quality Forum to evaluate and
compare health care quality and provider
performance

DHA-MQF is a convener together with MHMC and
Maine Quality Counts for the Patient Centered
Medical Home pilot, Medicare’s MAPCP
demonstration as well as for Aligned Forces for
Quality in Maine. As such, Patient Experience
surveying is a natural progression
Partners
Lead: DHA/Maine Quality Forum
Partners:

Maine Quality Counts

Maine Health Management Coalition

Maine’s Aligning Forces for Quality
Adviser

Dale, Shaller, Principal, Shaller Consulting, Inc.
Staff support

Muskie School of Public Service
Statewide Survey Design
 Voluntary
 Target population/practice sites:

Adult patients of primary care and specialty
care practice sites
 Parents
of children served by pediatric practice
sites
 Survey conducted & reported at practice-site
level
Use of CAHPS Survey Instruments
 Endorsed by the National Quality Forum
 Growing use of CAHPS as nationally accepted
instrument for assessing patient experience
(e.g., Medicare Compare, ACOs, Medical home
demos)
 Availability of regional and national benchmarks
Selected CAHPS Instruments
 Primary Care Adult: Adult PCMH 12-month
Survey, version 2.0
 Primary Care Child: Child PCMH 12-month
Survey, version 2.0
 Specialist Adult: Core questions from CG-CAHPS
12-month survey, version 2.0 with subset of
PCMH items to be determined with stakeholder
input
Modes of Survey Administration*
 Mail only
 Mixed mode of mail with telephone follow-up
 Mixed mode of e-mail with mail follow-up
 Mixed mode of e-mail with telephone follow-up
Sample Frame
 Sample will be based on patients seen by a
practice site over the prior 12-month period
 Size of random sample based on number of
providers per practice site and expected
response rate
 Number of required completed surveys per
practice site based on guidelines developed by
AHRQ
Estimated Sample Size
# Providers at
Practice Site*
Required # of Completed
Surveys per Practice Site**
Estimated Sample Size
per Practice Site***
1
50
143
2
100
286
3
150
429
4-9
175
500
10-13
200
571
14-19
250
714
20+
300
857
*Providers include physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants who independently manage a
patient caseload.
**Based on AHRQ guidelines for practice site sampling
*** Based on an estimated 35% response rate
Survey Administration
 Health systems/practice sites with existing
survey vendor relationships:
 Existing
vendor apply to be designated vendor
 Leverage existing efforts by replacing or
supplementing current survey with common
instrument for limited period.
 Practice sites without existing survey vendor:
 Select from DHA list of designated vendors
Subsidy
 Available to practices which use designated
vendors that:
 Use
selected CG-CAHPS PCMH instruments
 Administer survey at the practice site level between SeptNov 2012
 Follow specifications of DHA Survey Guidelines
 Submit practice site level results to CAHPS Database
 Obtain Data Use Agreement from practice sites allowing
access to survey results for public reporting by DHA
Subsidy Levels
 Based on best bid from RFP
 Practice sites contracts directly with preferred vendors
 DHA will cover 90% of survey costs up to a maximum cost
of $9.55 per completed survey.
Estimated Subsidy Levels
Number of Providers
per Practice Site
Required # Completed
Surveys
Estimated Total
Survey Costs*
Estimated DHA
Practice-Site
Subsidy**
Estimated Balance to
be Paid by Practice
Site
1
50
$600
$540
$60
2
100
$1200
$1080
$120
3
150
$1800
$1620
$180
4-9
175
$2100
$1890
$210
10-13
200
$2400
$2160
$240
14-19
250
$3000
$2700
$300
20 +
300
$3600
$3240
$360
*Estimate based on $12 per completed survey
** Assumes 90% DHA contribution
DHA Public Reporting
 Practice sites must agree to have practice site-level
survey results publicly reported as a condition of
subsidy
 Practice site level survey data will be publicly reported
on the DHA website
 Design a DHA public reporting website will be
developed with input from Maine Quality Forum
Advisory Council and stakeholders

Estimated Timeline
Apr’12
May’12
Jun’12
Ju’12l
Aug’12
Sep’12
Oct’12
Nov’12
Dec’12
Jan/Feb
2113
Mar/Apr
2013
May/Jun
2013
Survey
Monkey
DHA Survey
Guidelines
Vendor
RFP
Designated Vendor
Proces
Public Awareness Campaign
Survey Administration
Data Submission to
CAHPS Database
Preliminary Findings
Public
Reporting
Next Steps
 Vendor Selection Complete

Vendors will be announced within the next two weeks
 Public Reporting Sub-Committee
Purpose: Advise DHA on content/format of public reports on patient
experience survey results
Commitment: up to four 6-hour meetings
When: August 2012 – March 2013