TY - JOUR
T1 - Bias in Patient Experience Scores in Radiation Oncology
T2 - A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis
AU - Cha, Elaine
AU - Mathis, Noah J.
AU - Joshi, Himanshu
AU - Sharma, Sonam
AU - Zinovoy, Melissa
AU - Ru, Meng
AU - Cahlon, Oren
AU - Gillespie, Erin F.
AU - Marshall, Deborah C.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported in part by an American College of Radiation Oncology Resident Seed Grant and National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute funding (grants T32 CA225617 to D.C.M. and K08 CA252640 to E.F.G.). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the American College of Radiation Oncology. The authors state that they have no conflict of interest related to the material discussed in this article. All authors are non-partner/non-partnership track/employees.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American College of Radiology
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - Purpose: Patient experience scores are increasingly important in measuring quality of care and determining reimbursement from payers, including the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program and the Radiation Oncology Model. However, the role of bias in patient experience scores in oncology is unknown, raising the possibility that such payment structures may inadvertently perpetuate bias in reimbursement. Therefore, the authors characterized patient-, physician-, and practice-level predictors of patient experience scores in patients undergoing radiation therapy. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed patient experience surveys for radiation oncology patients treated at two large multisite academic cancer centers. The outcome was responses on four survey questions. Covariates included self-reported patient demographics, physician characteristics, practice setting characteristics, and wait-time rating linked to each survey. Multivariable ordinal regression models were fitted to identify predictors of receiving a higher score on each of the survey questions. Results: In total, 2,868 patients completed surveys and were included in the analysis. Patient experience scores were generally high, with >90% of respondents answering 5 of 5 on the four survey items. Physician gender was not associated with any measured patient experience outcomes (P > 0.40 for all). Independent predictors of higher score included a wait-time experience classified as “good” compared with “not good” (q <.001 for all). Conclusions: Oncology practices aiming to improve patient experience scores may wish to focus their attention on improving wait times for patients. Although a difference in patient experience scores on the basis of physician gender was not observed, such bias is likely to be complex, and further research is needed to characterize its effects.
AB - Purpose: Patient experience scores are increasingly important in measuring quality of care and determining reimbursement from payers, including the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program and the Radiation Oncology Model. However, the role of bias in patient experience scores in oncology is unknown, raising the possibility that such payment structures may inadvertently perpetuate bias in reimbursement. Therefore, the authors characterized patient-, physician-, and practice-level predictors of patient experience scores in patients undergoing radiation therapy. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed patient experience surveys for radiation oncology patients treated at two large multisite academic cancer centers. The outcome was responses on four survey questions. Covariates included self-reported patient demographics, physician characteristics, practice setting characteristics, and wait-time rating linked to each survey. Multivariable ordinal regression models were fitted to identify predictors of receiving a higher score on each of the survey questions. Results: In total, 2,868 patients completed surveys and were included in the analysis. Patient experience scores were generally high, with >90% of respondents answering 5 of 5 on the four survey items. Physician gender was not associated with any measured patient experience outcomes (P > 0.40 for all). Independent predictors of higher score included a wait-time experience classified as “good” compared with “not good” (q <.001 for all). Conclusions: Oncology practices aiming to improve patient experience scores may wish to focus their attention on improving wait times for patients. Although a difference in patient experience scores on the basis of physician gender was not observed, such bias is likely to be complex, and further research is needed to characterize its effects.
KW - Patient experience
KW - Radiation Oncology Model
KW - quality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126515779&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.01.013
DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.01.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 35247326
AN - SCOPUS:85126515779
SN - 1558-349X
VL - 19
SP - 542
EP - 551
JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology
JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology
IS - 4
ER -