■患者体验是护理质量的关键方面。医疗保健提供者和系统临床医师和团体的消费者评估(CG-CAHPS®)调查衡量了门诊护理提供者的经验,以告知公众报告,按业绩付费计划,干预措施,患者选择医生/实践,和质量改进。自2007年调查发布以来,尚未发表关于其在研究中使用的系统综述.
■我们回顾了英语,自2008年以来发表的同行评审文章使用CG-CAHPS调查数据在美国我们遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,并使用分析性横断面研究的清单。
■我们检查了126篇文章,包括52篇。27篇文章侧重于一般初级保健,其他人则专注于门诊专科护理。在52项研究中,37是横截面,大多数人进行了患者水平的回归分析,控制患者特征。最常用的CAHPS指标是总体提供商评级和提供商沟通组合。CG-CAHPS数据主要用于评估干预措施(24项研究)和检查站点水平的横断面关联(21项研究)(例如,组织气候),提供者级别(医生同理心),以及患者水平(药物依从性)因素与患者体验。四项研究报告了患者体验的差异。
■CG-CAHPS数据的广泛使用意味着调查在衡量和提高护理质量方面的价值。与设施或计划调查不同,CG-CAHPS调查的目的是让医疗团体和临床医生归因,which,证据显示,是它的主要力量。政策制定者,研究人员,临床医生,医疗保健领导者可以利用CG-CAHPS数据进行质量改进工作和干预,支持以患者为中心的护理。
UNASSIGNED: Patient experience is a key aspect of care quality. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group (CG-CAHPS®) survey measures experiences with ambulatory care providers to inform public reporting, pay-for-performance initiatives, interventions, patient choice of physicians/practices, and quality improvement. Since the survey\'s 2007 release, no systematic
review of its use in research has been published.
UNASSIGNED: We reviewed English-language, peer-reviewed articles published since 2008 using CG-CAHPS survey data in the U.S. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and used the Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies.
UNASSIGNED: We examined 126 articles and included 52. Twenty-seven articles focused on general primary care, and the others focused on ambulatory specialty care. Of the 52 studies, 37 were cross-sectional, and the majority conducted patient-level regression analysis, controlling for patient characteristics. The most-used CAHPS measures were overall provider rating and the provider communication composite. CG-CAHPS data were primarily utilized to evaluate interventions (24 studies) and examine cross-sectional associations (21 studies) of site-level (eg, organizational climate), provider-level (physician empathy), and patient-level (medication adherence) factors with patient experience. Four studies reported disparities in patient experience.
UNASSIGNED: The widespread use of CG-CAHPS data implies the survey\'s value in measuring and improving care quality. Unlike facility or plan surveys, the CG-CAHPS survey was designed to allow attribution to medical groups and clinicians, which, as evidence shows, is its main strength. Policymakers, researchers, clinicians, and health care leaders can leverage CG-CAHPS data in quality improvement efforts and interventions supporting patient-centered care.