Interesting post from CMWF on bringing consumer data into healthcare for better patient engagement. Amazon and other vendors deliver just about everything but health care — yet probably know more about your habits and behaviors than your doctor does. That may be changing as health care providers begin using the consumer profiling tools that shape advertisements to get to know their patients beyond the examining room.
The Boston Globe writes of a new scoreboard for US medical centers with the best patient care, The rankings (CrowdClinical’s Top 10 Hospital Rankings) are derived not from official surveys or outcomes but from the sentiment of the masses, based on a real-time watch of what patients and their families are saying about the institutions on Twitter. CrowdClinical.com collects, aggregates and summarizes this information for a public audience in real-time. Research, published in BMJ, found that tweets describing patient experiences in hospitals cover a wide range of patient care aspects and can be identified using automated approaches. Moreover, hospital sentiment derived from these tweets correlates to established outcome metrics (e.g., 30-day hospital readmission rates). The research suggests that this data stream represents a potentially untapped indicator of quality, and may be valuable to patients, researchers, policy makers and hospital administrators.
CrowdClinical uses a combination of supervised machine learning, natural language processing and manual curation to systematically identify and rate (e.g., determine sentiment) tweets discussing a patient’s experience receiving health care. CrowdClinical began monitoring tweets on February 22, 2015 and continues to track patient experience discussion in real-time.
CrowdClinical is a site administered by HealthMap, a team of researchers, epidemiologists and software developers at Boston Children’s Hospital founded in 2006, that utilizie online informal sources for disease outbreak monitoring and real-time surveillance of emerging public health threats.
- Measuring patient-perceived quality of care in US hospitals using Twitter, British Medical Journal
- How satisfied are patients with their care? Twitter can tell, Boston Globe
- View Top 10 Hospital Ranking List: http://crowdclinical.com/blog
Beckers Infection Control & Clinical Quality writes the latest CMS updated to Hospital Compare database (Oct 8th) with new patient experience survey results, show the number of hospitals receiving a five-star HCAHPS summary rating is down significantly since the last update in July. When the ratings first went live in April, 251 hospitals earned the highest available rating of five stars. When the data were updated in July to reflect HCAHPS scores gathered from October 2013 through September 2014, that number shot up to 336. Now, however, with HCAHPS data from January 2014 through December 2014, just 207 hospitals out of 3,539 earned a five-star HCAHPS summary star rating.
Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association (VHHA) released its Quality & Patient Safety Scorecard – an interactive, online tool that enables users to review data showing hospital-specific performance on key quality, safety, and patient satisfaction measures. Each hospital’s scorecard provides information about health care-associated infections – catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) – patient safety, hospital readmission rates, mortality data, patient satisfaction, and efficiency of Medicare spending per beneficiary. The report cards chart changes in categorical performance from 2010-2014, and list the data source for each category.
View scorecards at http://www.vhha.com/quality-patient-safety/scorecard/
iHealthbeat writes: The lack of interoperability negatively affects several aspects of the health care industry, according to a report by the American Hospital Association. The report – Why Interoperability Matters – highlights three areas of health care that would benefit from improved interoperability: Care coordination; Patient engagement; and Reporting of public health, quality and safety data. The report noted that providers can use EHRs to track health care trends and analyze population health data, as well as report on quality measures. However, the process for doing so is hindered by inadequate interoperability.
Home Health quality data was updated earlier on CMS Home Health Compare as follows:
Note: number of measures are contained in () for each measure group
A) Quality of Patient Care
1. Managing daily activities measures (3): data updated to report for 14Q2_14Q1
2. Managing pain and treating symptoms measures (5): data updated to report for 14Q2_14Q1
3. Treating wounds and preventing pressure sores (bed sores) measures (4): data updated to report for 14Q2_14Q1
4. Preventing harm measures (8): data updated to report for 14Q2_14Q1
5. Preventing unplanned hospital care (4): (*2 new measures)
How often home health patients had to be admitted to the hospital: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
How often patients receiving home health care needed any urgent, unplanned care in the hospital emergency room – without being admitted to the hospital: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
*How often home health patients, who have had a recent hospital stay, had to be re-admitted to the hospital: reporting data for 12Q1_14Q4
*How often home health patients, who have had a recent hospital stay, received care in the hospital emergency room without being re-admitted to the hospital: reporting data for 12Q1_14Q4
B) Patient survey results (4): data updated to report for 14Q2_15Q1
The following is a summary of the latest data refresh (updated Oct 8th) on CMS Hospital Compare:
HCAHPS measures – data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
H_STAR_RATING (for all measures and summary star rating): Survey of patients’ experiences Star Ratings: 14Q1_14Q4
HQA measures: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4:
Heart Attack: AMI_7a, AMI_8a, AMI_2, AMI-10
Heart Failure: HF_1, HF_2, HF_3
SCI: SCIP-INF-1, SCIP_INF_3, SCIP_VTE_2, SCIP_CARD_2, SCIP_INF_2, SCIP_INF_9, SCIP_INF_10
Emergency Department measures:
EDV: Q1_ 1313Q4 (data reporting time period not updated)
ED_1b, ED_2b. OP_18b, OP_20, OP_21, OP_22, OP_23: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
Preventive Care measures:
IMM_2: 13Q4_ 14_Q1 (data reporting time period not updated)
IMM_3_OP_FAC_ADHPCT (healthcare workers given influenza vaccination): data updated to report for 14Q4_15Q1
Stroke Care measures:
STK_4, STK_5, STK_1, STK_2, STK_3, STK_6, STK_8, STK_10 : data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
Blood Clot Prevention measures:
VTE_1, VTE_2, VTE_6, VTE_3, VTE_4, VTE_5: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
Pregnancy & Delivery Care measures:
PC_01: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
Outpatients measures: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
HA: OP_3b, OP_5, OP_2, OP_4
SCI: OP_6, OP_7:
Use of Imaging:
OP_8, OP_9. OP_10, OP_11, OP_13, OP_14: 13Q3_14Q2 (data reporting time period not updated)
OP_12, OP_17: 2013Q1_2013Q4 (data reporting time period not updated)
COMP_HIP_KNEE: data updated to report for 11Q2_14Q1
PSI_90_SAFETY, PSI_4_SURG_COMP: 12Q3_ 14Q2 (data reporting time period not updated)
HAI_1_SIR, HAI_2_SIR, HAI_3_SIR, HAI_4_SIR, HAI_5_SIR, HAI_6_SIR: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
30-Day Unplanned Readmissions and Deaths (data reporting time period not updated)
READM_30_COPD, READM_30_AMI, READM_30_HF, READM_30_PN, READM_30_STK: 11Q3_14Q2
MORT_30_COPD, MORT_30_AMI, MORT_30_HF, MORT_30_PN: 11Q3_14Q2
30-Day Unplanned Readmissions & Deaths by Surgical Procedure: (data reporting time period not updated)
READM_30_CABG*, READM_30_HIP_KNEE, MORT_30_CABG*: 11Q3_14Q2
30-Day Unplanned Hospital-Wide Readmission:
READM_30_HOSP_WIDE: data updated to report 13Q3_14Q2
Payment & Value of Care measures:
MSPB_1: data updated to report for 14Q1_14Q4
PAYM_30_AMI, PAYM_30_HF, PAYM_30_PN: 11Q3_14Q2 (data reporting time period not updated)
SM_PART_CARD, SM_PART_STROKE, SM_PART_NURSE, SM_PART_GEN_SURG, OP_25: 13Q1_13Q4 (data reporting time period not updated)
ACS-REGISTRY: data updated to report for 13Q4_14Q3
Magnet-designated hospitals, which are accredited nationally for nursing excellence, also receive higher ratings from patients, a new study finds, writes Fierce Healthcare.
The study in Health Services Research compared 212 Magnet hospitals with 212 similar non-Magnet hospitals, using data from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.
The study found patients in Magnet hospitals gave their hospitals higher overall ratings, were more likely to recommend their hospital, and reported more positive care experiences with nurse communication, the researchers reported.
A separate study released this summer found that mortality rates in acute care Magnet hospitals are 20 percent less than in non-Magnet hospitals. The study largely credited better process of care in Magnet hospitals fostered by investments in nursing.
Florida Hospital Association to Release New Hospital Price, Cost, Quality Website But Need for More Comprehensive Data Still ExistsMartina Dolan | October 6, 2015
Florida Hospital Association (FHA) are in the process of developing a new website that will display hospital price, cost and quality data in a publicly available, easy-to-use format. Florida hospitals have been providing price, cost and quality data to the state and federal governments for many years – reporting extensive amounts of clinical-performance, financial and operational data to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and Department of Health.. However, unlike states like Colorado and New Hampshire who collect the most complete health-care data sets through All Payer Claims Databases (APCD), Florida does not. According to Bruce Rueben, president of the Florida Hospital Association, published in the Orlando Sentinel, an APCD will provide the most effective source of usable data to improve health-care costs, access and quality in Florida. But FHA-member hospitals are not waiting to deliver on their responsibility to provide useful price and performance information. Rueben says they are ready to work with all stakeholders, including providers, insurers, consumers, the business community, lawmakers and state officials, to improve the usefulness of the data we provide today. Hospital data is a good start, but they must work toward a more comprehensive data set that captures the full scope of where they invest their health-care dollars. Collaboration and a good-faith effort by all stakeholders is the best approach to improving our understanding of the cost and value of Florida health care.
Virginia Health Information (VHI) published their tenth Compare HMOs on Cost and Quality report to compare and track HMO performance on key cost and quality measures. Consumers can compare HMOs to each other, as well as to state and national averages on quality measurements, including but not limited to:
- Diabetes care and management
- Use of imaging for low-back pain
- Access to preventive care such as breast and colorectal cancer screenings and
- Mental health care
“Compare HMOs” also provides information on cost and member satisfaction, such as:
- Medical cost ratio
- Number of physicians in the network
- Members accessing care quickly
- Member access to needed care and
- Overall member satisfaction