Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14371/QIH.2022.28.1.14

Implementation of Patient Experience Assessment and Subsequent Changes at the Ground Level in Health Care: Patient Experience Employees' Perspective  

Song, Yeong-Chae (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Yoon, Eun-Sil (Institute of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University Medical Research Center)
Han, Se-Young (CS Team, Department of Medical Innovation, Seoul National University Hospital)
Tae, Ji-Yeon (CS Team, Department of Medical Innovation, Seoul National University Hospital)
You, Soo-Kyeong (Department of Quality Improvement & Patient Safety, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
Do, Young-Kyung (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Quality Improvement in Health Care / v.28, no.1, 2022 , pp. 14-33 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: To examine whether the Patient Experience Assessment (PEA) has led to perceptible changes at the ground level of health care, as a way of evaluating PEA as a policy intervention for quality improvement. Methods: Four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted, each comprising six to eight participants who were employees responsible for patient experience at their respective hospitals. The primary focus of the FGDs was on questions such as: 1) How do hospitals respond to PEA? 2) What significant changes were observed after the implementation of PEA? 3) What were the unintended consequences of implementing PEA, if any? 4) What areas of improvement have been identified for maximizing the potential of PEA? Results: Two broad themes emerged out of the FGDs: changes observed post implementation of PEA, and areas for improvement of PEA. Four significant changes were reported by participants: changes in perception and attitude regarding patient experience in hospital employees, increased active involvement by the hospital leadership, enhanced efforts to improve patient experience, and increased cooperation between such activities. Furthermore, eight areas of improvement were identified, which have been grouped in three categories: improving the process of data collection for PEA, introducing additional catalysts to facilitate further changes, and paying attention to structure- and patient-level constraints that must be addressed in parallel. Conclusion: The implementation of PEA led to perceptible changes within hospitals, which implies that it can serve as an effective catalyst for improving patient experience. A number of areas of improvement that would aid in maximizing the potential of PEA were also identified.
Keywords
Patient experience; Focus groups; Process evaluation; Qualitative research;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Baldie DJ, Guthrie B, Entwistle V, Kroll T. Exploring the impact and use of patients' feedback about their care experiences in general practice settings-a realist synthesis. Family Practice. 2018;35(1):13-21.   DOI
2 Ritchie J. Lewis J, Nicholls CM, Ormston R. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students & researchers (2nd Edition). California, United States: SAGE Publications; 2013.
3 Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Cooper C, et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2014;68(2):101-2.   DOI
4 Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Notice on 「2021(3rd) Patient-Centeredness Assessment」 implementation plan and information session. [internet]. Wonju, Korea: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service; 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 26]. Available from: https://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020002000100&brdScnBltNo=4&brdBltNo=8672&pageIndex=1#none.
5 Arah OA, Westert GP, Hurst J, Klazinga NS. A conceptual framework for the OECD health care quality indicators project. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2006;18(suppl_1):5-13.   DOI
6 World Health Organization. The world health report: 2000: health systems: improving performance. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000.
7 Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. What is patient experience? [Internet]. Rockville, United State: Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. 2021 [cited 2021 November 11]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/about-cahps/patient-experience/index.html.
8 Lee SU, Kwak BH, Oh SG. Significance of qualitative evaluation and its congruence in evaluating social policy. Korea Social Policy Review. 2015;22(3);165-96.   DOI
9 Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal. 2008;337:a1655.
10 Mitchell P, Cribb A, Entwistle V. Made to Measure: the ethics of routine measurement for healthcare improvement. Health Care Analysis. 2021;29(1):39-58.   DOI
11 Hibbard JH. What can we say about the impact of public reporting? inconsistent execution yields variable results. Annals Internal Medicine. 2008;148:160-1.   DOI
12 Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance. British Medical Journal. 2021;374:n2061.
13 Metcalfe D, Rios Diaz AJ, Olufajo OA, Massa MS, Ketelaar NA, Flottorp SA, et al. Impact of public release of performance data on the behaviour of healthcare consumers and providers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;9(9):CD004538
14 Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st Century. Washington D.C, United State: National Academies Press; 2001.
15 Do YK, Kim BS, Kim HB, Ahn KJ, You SK, Jung KH, et al. Mid- to long-term development of patient-centeredness assassment. Wonju, Korea: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service; 2021.
16 Kim NS, Oh YS, Park S, Park UJ, Jung Y, Kim DU, Choi JH. Development of evaluation model for health policy (I): analysis of the current status and priority setting of evaluation area. Sejong, Korea: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2016.
17 Savigny D, Adam T. Systems Thinking for health systems strengthening. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009.
18 Mannion R, Braithwaite J. Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Internal Medicine Journal. 2012;42(5):569-74.   DOI
19 Raleigh VS, Root C. Getting the measure of quality: opportunities and challenges. London, United Kingdom: The King's Fund; 2010.
20 Berwick DM, James B. Coye MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Medical Care. 2003;41(supple_1):I30-8.
21 Contandriopoulos D, Champagne F, Denis JL. The multiple causal pathways between performance measures' use and effects. Medical Care Research and Review. 2014 Feb;71(1):3-20.   DOI
22 Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program [Internet]. Baltimore, United State: Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2021 [cited 2021 November 11]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/HVBP/Hospital-Value-Based-Purchasing.
23 Marshall MN, Romano PS, Davies HTO. How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care?. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2004;16(suppl_1):i57-i63   DOI
24 Fung CH, Lim YW, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic Review: The Evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2008;148:111-23.   DOI
25 Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th Edition). United States: SAGE Publications; 2008.
26 Casalino LP, Elster A, Eisenberg A, Lewis E, Montgomery J, Ramos D. Will pay-for-performance and quality reporting affect health care disparities?. Health Affairs. 2007;26(Suppl_2):w405-14.   DOI