Satisfaction with ambulatory care of persons with AIDS - Springer Link

3 downloads 0 Views 628KB Size Report
istics and site of care to the perception of ambulatory care quality by persons with AIDS (PWAs). DESIGN: Patient surveys and medical record review were used.
JGIM

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Satisfaction with Ambulatory Care of Persons with AIDS: Predictors of Patient Ratings of Quality Valerie E, Stone, MD, MPH, Joel S. Weissman, PhD, Paul D. Cleary, PhD

O B J E C T I V E : To e x a m i n e the relation o f patient characteristics and site o f care to t h e perception o f a m b u l a t o r y care quality by persons w i t h A I D S (PWAs). D E S I G N : Patient surveys and medical record review were u s e d

to determine PWAs' p e r c e p t i o n s o f their a m b u l a t o r y care, self-pereeived h e a l t h s t a t u s , primary care r e l a t i o n s h i p s , sociodemographic characteristics, and severity o f illness. S E T T I N G " A p u b l i c - h o s p i t a l HIV clinic, a n a c a d e m i c group

C O N C L U S I O N S : These results s h o w that primary nursing m a y be an important d e t e r m i n a n t o f h o w PWAs rate the quality of their ambulatory care. Furthermore, PWAs w h o are black or w h o are injection drug u s e r s are less satisfied t h a n are others w i t h the quality of their a m b u l a t o r y AIDS care. K E Y W O R D S - AIDS; HIV; quality of care; patient satisfaction;

primary n u r s e . J GEN INTERN MED 1 9 9 5 ; 1 0 " 2 3 9 - - 2 4 5 .

practice, and a staff-model h e a l t h m a i n t e n a n c e organization (HMO) that together care for 20% of all M a s s a c h u s e t t s PWAs. P A T I E N T S : All active patients as of February 12, 1 9 9 0 , a n d

all new AIDS patients at e a c h of the three sites during the s u b s e q u e n t 13 m o n t h s . The primary outcome m e a s u r e w a s a six-item scale of patient-rated quality of care (PRQC), a n e w l y d e v e l o p e d m e a s u r e that c o m b i n e d patients' ratings of their p h y s i c i a n care, n u r s i n g care, involvement in m e d i c a l d e c i s i o n s , a n d overall quality of care. Multiple logistic regression w a s carried out w i t h l o w PRQC (lowest quartile) as the d e p e n d e n t variable, to identify correlates o f patient perceptions of poor quality. Patients w h o h a d a primary nurse were significantly l e s s l i k e l y to h a v e l o w PRQC scores (OR = 0 . 5 0 , 95% CI = 0 . 2 6 to 0 . 9 7 ) . B l a c k patients and patients w h o u s e d i n j e c t i o n drugs were significantly more likely to rate their care in the l o w e s t quartile (OR = 2 . 2 2 , 95% CI = 1 . 9 4 to 4 . 7 8 ; a n d OR = 2 . 4 3 , 95% CI = 1 . 1 3 to 5 . 2 3 , respectively), as w e r e t h o s e w h o had lower self-perceived h e a l t h status, after controlling for c o n f o u n d e r s ; n o association w a s f o u n d by site or severity.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

Received from the Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston City Hospital, Boston University School of Medicine (VES), the Division of General Medicine, Section of Health Services and Policy Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital (JSW, PDC), and the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School (JSW, PDC). Boston. Massachusetts. Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, April 30, 1993. Arlington, Virginia. Supported by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, grant number HS06239. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Stone: ACC Administration Office MN-OI, Boston City Hospital, 818 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02118.

he t r e m e n d o u s i m p a c t of the HIV e p i d e m i c o n the

T health a n d quality of life of y o u n g adults i n the United States ~, 2 m a k e s it of p r e s s i n g i m p o r t a n c e to e x a m i n e the p a t i e n t care experiences of p e r s o n s living w i t h AIDS and symptomatic HIV disease. Experiences with the health care system are a very p r o m i n e n t feature i n the lives of those with AIDS, a n d m a y play a critical role i n determ i n i n g t h e i r h e a l t h o u t c o m e s . P a t i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n increasingly is viewed as a critical i n d i c a t o r of the q u a l i t y of care. a- 13 It is also likely t h a t greater s a t i s f a c t i o n leads p a t i e n t s to become m o r e involved i n t h e i r care, i n c r e a s e s adherence to r e c o m m e n d e d t r e a t m e n t protocols a n d follow-up, a n d u l t i m a t e l y m a y improve h e a l t h s t a t u s . 3-5 Consequently, efforts to a s s e s s the q u a l i t y of care provided to p a t i e n t s w i t h AIDS s h o u l d i n c o r p o r a t e d a t a des c r i b i n g p a t i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a d d i t i o n to more traditional process a n d o u t c o m e m e a s u r e s of quality. The s p r e a d of the AIDS e p i d e m i c a m o n g diverse segm e n t s of the U.S. p o p u l a t i o n ~' 2. 14-16 m a k e s it i n c r e a s ingly i m p o r t a n t to explicitly a s s e s s the p a t i e n t care experiences of different groups of p e r s o n s with AIDS (PWAs), i n c l u d i n g w o m e n , p e r s o n s of color, i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s e r s , a n d those infected t h r o u g h h e t e r o s e x u a l contact. Previous s t u d i e s e x a m i n i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h m e d i c a l care a m o n g d e m o g r a p h i c s u b g r o u p s of general medical patients have yielded i n c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s . 3. 4 For exampie, a l t h o u g h m o s t s t u d i e s r e p o r t t h a t w o m e n 4, 7. 17~t e n d to be more satisfied w i t h t h e i r care, several r e c e n t s t u d ies have f o u n d n o difference i n s a t i s f a c t i o n b y gender. 8. ~ Similarly, a l t h o u g h several s t u d i e s have reported that poorer p a t i e n t s a n d p e r s o n s of color were 239

240

]GIM

S t o n e et al., S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h A I D S C a r e

less satisfied w i t h t h e i r care, a, s, 18 o t h e r s h a v e f o u n d n o s u c h r e l a t i o n s h i p . S, 17 Prior s t u d i e s h a v e f o u n d t h a t t h o s e w h o h a v e a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a p h y s i c i a n or n u r s e t e n d to be more satisfied w i t h t h e i r care a n d r e p o r t fewer problems.a, 13, 17. 19 21 It is likely t h a t h a v i n g a f a m i l i a r s o u r c e of care facilitates a t r u s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t p r o m o t e s good c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a t i e n t a n d t h e h e a l t h care provider, a n d t h u s i m p r o v e s t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e care given. 4. 17, 1 9 In several s t u d i e s of patients" satisfaction w i t h i n p a t i e n t h o s p i t a l care, it w a s f o u n d t h a t satisfaction w i t h n u r s i n g care h a d a s t r o n g e r c o r r e l a t i o n with overall s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a n d i d s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h phys i c i a n care. s, 2~ A r e c e n t s t u d y of AIDS p a t i e n t s ' h o s p i t a l c a r e f o u n d t h a t p a t i e n t s r e p o r t e d fewer p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e i r care w h e n t r e a t e d on a n A I D S - d e s i g n a t e d i n p a t i e n t u n i t t h a n when treated on general medical-surgical floors. 23 As AIDS evolves from a h i g h - a c u i t y illness i n t o a c h r o n i c disease, a g r o w i n g p r o p o r t i o n of AIDS c a r e is b e i n g p r o v i d e d in the o u t p a t i e n t setting. To date, however, no s t u d y h a s e x a m i n e d h o w t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of a m b u l a -

Table t Patient Demographic Characteristics Patients [n]

Percentage

Gender Male Female

283 22

92.8 7.2

Race White* Black* Hispanic Asian and other

198 72 29 6

64.9 23.6 9.5 2.0

HIV risk factor Gay/bisexual Injection drug use Heterosexual/other

207 72 43

67.9 23,6 14.1

Payer status Private/fee for service+ HMO* Medicaid Uninsured

65 98 129 13

21.3 32. I 42.3 4.3

Education 12 years or less More than 12 years

123 182

40.3 59.6

Ambulatory site Group practice HMO site HIV clinic TOTAL

93 112 I00 305

*Non-Hispanic. ÷Includes three patients who had Medicare coverage. *HMO = health maintenance organization.

30.0 36.7 32.8 100

tory AIDS care is r e l a t e d to p a t i e n t s ' e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e i r o u t p a t i e n t care. A m o n g g e n e r a l m e d i c a l p o p u l a t i o n s , p a t i e n t s ' s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h care h a s b e e n s h o w n to vary across types of a m b u l a t o r y p r a c t i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 24-2s Most recently, R u b i n et al. 24 f o u n d t h a t p a t i e n t s r a t e d t h e i r visits to solo fee-for-service p r a c t i c e s best a n d r a t e d t h e i r a m b u l a t o r y c a r e in h e a l t h m a i n t e n a n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s (HMOs) worst. In this s t u d y we e x a m i n e a n d c o m p a r e AIDS pat i e n t s ' r a t i n g s of t h e i r a m b u l a t o r y care for a diverse cohort of p a t i e n t s s e e n in t h r e e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y d i s t i n c t care sites, to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p e r c e p t i o n of a m bulatory care q u a l i t y by PWAs is r e l a t e d to t h e organization of a m b u l a t o r y HW services, p a t i e n t d e m o g r a p h i c factors, HIV risk factors, severity of illness, p r i m a r y care relationships, or self-perceived h e a l t h s t a t u s .

METHODS T h i s study w a s p a r t of a b r o a d e r effort, called the Boston Health Study, t h a t e x a m i n e d costs, o u t c o m e s , a n d quality of life for PWAs. 29 Eligible s u b j e c t s i n c l u d e d all PWAs w h o were active p a t i e n t s at t h r e e a m b u l a t o r y c a r e sites in B o s t o n as of F e b r u a r y 12, 1990, or w h o b e c a m e new p a t i e n t s d u r i n g t h e s u b s e q u e n t 13 m o n t h s . New p a t i e n t s i n c l u d e d b o t h t h o s e w h o w e r e already followed at one of the sites a n d developed AIDS d u r i n g t h e s t u d y period (February 12, 1990, to M a r c h 12, 1991 ) a n d PWAs who i n i t i a t e d care at o n e of t h e s i t e s d u r i n g t h e s t u d y period. T h e sites included: i) a public-hospital HIV clinic staffed by faculty a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n s ( H I V c l i n i c ) ; 2) a g e n e r a l internal m e d i c i n e g r o u p p r a c t i c e ( g r o u p p r a c t i c e ) at a major t e a c h i n g h o s p i t a l t h a t i n t e g r a t e s faculty a n d resident practices; a n d 3) a m u l t i c e n t e r staff-model HMO with a central AIDS r e s o u r c e t e a m of a p h y s i c i a n a n d specially t r a i n e d n u r s e s ( H M O ) . P r i m a r y care in t h e HIV clinic was provided by a t t e n d i n g g e n e r a l i n t e r n i s t s a n d subspecialists. A t t e n d i n g g e n e r a l i n t e r n i s t s a n d m e d i c a l h o u s e s t a f f p r o v i d e d p r i m a r y c a r e at t h e g r o u p practice. At the HMO, m o s t PWAs received care f r o m t h e i r p r i m a r y care p h y s i c i a n s , a n d in a d d i t i o n , all p a t i e n t s were assigned a p r i m a r y n u r s e f r o m t h e c e n t r a l AIDS r e s o u r c e team. Together, t h e t h r e e s i t e s p r o v i d e d a m b u l a t o r y care for a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20% of all M a s s a c h u s e t t s PWAs at t h e time of the study. 3°

D a t a Sources Eligible p a t i e n t s were c o n t a c t e d initially by t h e i r medical care providers. If c o n s e n t w a s o b t a i n e d , t h e y were interviewed by m e m b e r s of t h e s t u d y ' s s u r v e y research team. P a t i e n t s w h o h a d AIDS at the t i m e t h e study began were interviewed d u r i n g the first four m o n t h s of the s t u d y period; n e w p a t i e n t s w e r e generally interviewed four m o n t h s a f t e r t h e y w e r e i d e n t i f i e d as eligible. English, S p a n i s h , a n d H a i t i a n Creole v e r s i o n s of t h e interview i n s t r u m e n t were available. All c o n s e n t i n g pa-

JG1M

Volume

10, M a y

tients were interviewed face-to-face to t h e i r preferred language by a m e m b e r of the survey r e s e a r c h t e a m i n a nonclinical care area. The i n t e r v i e w e r a s k e d a b o u t patient s o c i o d e m o g r a p h i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n c l u d i n g gender, race, payer, family i n c o m e , e d u c a t i o n , a n d HIV risk factors. Patient r a t i n g s of q u a l i t y of care were elicited at the interview. A b a t t e r y of six q u e s t i o n s were a d a p t e d from the Group Health A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a ' s C o n s u m e r Satisfaction Survey. al The q u e s t i o n s a s k e d a b o u t the technical a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l q u a l i t y of n u r s i n g a n d physician care, a b o u t p a t i e n t involvement i n care, a n d a b o u t overall quality. P a t i e n t s were a s k e d to rate each of t h e s e aspects of t h e i r care o n a five-point Likert scale (5 = excellent, 1 = poor). Health s t a t u s was m e a s u r e d by asking p a t i e n t s to rate t h e i r h e a l t h d u r i n g the p r e v i o u s four m o n t h s , o n a scale of 1 to 100. Severity of illness was assessed u s i n g the J u s t i c e S t a g i n g S y s t e m , w i t h data o b t a i n e d from medical record review. 32-34 P a t i e n t s were a s k e d w h e t h e r they h a d a r e g u l a r physician provider a n d n u r s e provider at t h e i r site a n d , if so, to identify those i n d i v i d u a l s . All t h r e e sites h a d the policy of a s s i g n i n g a specific p r i m a r y care p h y s i c i a n to oversee the care of each p a t i e n t . Only two of the three sites, the g r o u p practice a n d the HMO, a s s i g n e d p a t i e n t s a specific p r i m a r y n u r s e . At the t h i r d site (HIV clinic), all the n o n - E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g p a t i e n t s were k n o w n to see the s a m e n u r s e at all visits; i n a d d i t i o n , it was felt that other p a t i e n t s m a y have developed a r e l a t i o n s h i p with a regular n u r s e as well. The q u e s t i o n s a b o u t patient-rated q u a l i t y of care (PRQC), r e g u l a r providers, a n d self-perceived h e a l t h s t a t u s are listed i n A p p e n d i x A.

Statistical Analysis Our p r i m a r y objective was to e x a m i n e w h e t h e r patient a n d a m b u l a t o r y care site c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are related to p a t i e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of quality. T h e q u e s t i o n s a b o u t p a t i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n have b e e n s h o w n to be reliable a n d to have excellent c o n t e n t a n d predictive validity. 31 However, b e c a u s e the c o n t e n t a r e a s of the q u e s t i o n s varied somewhat, we c o n d u c t e d exploratory p r i n c i p a l compon e n t s factor a n a l y s i s to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r m o r e t h a n one c o n s t r u c t was b e i n g m e a s u r e d . We i d e n t i f i e d only one factor (eigenvalue = 3.2). We also e x a m i n e d Cronbach's alpha to assess the reliability of the g r o u p of items 35 a n d found t h a t : 1 ) the overall a l p h a w a s h i g h (0.87) a n d did not vary by t a k i n g o u t a n y single q u e s t i o n ; a n d 2) the item-to-total c o r r e l a t i o n s were c o n s i s t e n t l y i n the 0.6 to 0.7 range. Therefore, we c o m b i n e d a n s w e r s from each item into a single additive PRQC score. We t h e n a s s e s s e d the a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n PRQC scores a n d selected patient a n d site c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u s i n g a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (for c o n t i n u o u s variables) a n d the c h i - s q u a r e test (for categorical variables). T h e a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n PRQC a n d this g r o u p of variables was f u r t h e r e x a m i n e d u s i n g a multiple l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n model.

1995

244

Table 2 Patients at Each Site Who Could Identify a Regular Provider

HIV clinic Group practice HMO* site OVERALL

Primary Physician

Primary Nurse

98 (98%) 88 (95%) I I I (99%)

25 (25%) 54 (58%) 88 (79%)

297 (97%)

167 (55%)

*HMO - h e a l t h m a i n t e n a n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

To explore f u r t h e r the factors a s s o c i a t e d with low p a t i e n t r a t i n g s of quality, we created a d i c h o t o m o u s variable i n d i c a t i n g w h i c h p a t i e n t s h a d PRQC scores i n the lowest q u a r t i l e (actually 27.7% b e c a u s e of "ties"). We t h e n assessed the a s s o c i a t i o n s b e t w e e n low PRQC scores a n d the s a m e g r o u p of variables u s i n g the c h i - s q u a r e test. We e s t i m a t e d a m u l t i p l e logistic r e g r e s s i o n model with the s a m e d e m o g r a p h i c a n d clinical variables to identify i n d e p e n d e n t p r e d i c t o r s of low r a t i n g s of quality.

RESULTS Study P o p u l a t i o n We interviewed 305 p a t i e n t s from a total eligible pool of 505 p a t i e n t s (60%). Of the eligible p a t i e n t s , 11% refused, 10% died before interview, 4% were too sick, a n d 15% could n o t be c o n t a c t e d . Medical care providers reported selected d e m o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t n o n r e s p o n d e n t s , i n c l u d i n g race, g e n d e r , age, a n d HIV r i s k factor(s). T h e r e w a s n o s i g n i f i c a n t difference b e t w e e n the r e s p o n d e n t s a n d the total eligible pool i n t e r m s of age, gender, race/ethnicity, h o m e l e s s n e s s , or h i s t o r y of injection d r u g use, b u t the r e s p o n d e n t s were m o r e likely to be h o m o s e x u a l m e n t h a n were the n o n r e s p o n d e n t s (69% vs 62%, p < 0.05). The 305 enrolled p a t i e n t s were s i m i l a r to AIDS patients i n Massachusetts3°; t h e i r d e m o g r a p h i c characteristics are o u t l i n e d i n Table 1. T h i r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t of the total p a t i e n t s a m p l e received t h e i r care from the HIV clinic, 30% from the g r o u p practice, a n d 37% from the HMO (Table 1). Overall 97% of the p a t i e n t s could identify a r e g u l a r p h y s i c i a n (Table 2). In c o n t r a s t , only 55% of the p a t i e n t s could identify a r e g u l a r n u r s e , a n d t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l variation by site. Twenty-five p e r c e n t of the p a t i e n t s from the HIV clinic, 58% of t h o s e from the g r o u p practice, a n d 79% of t h o s e from the HMO i d e n t i f i e d a r e g u l a r nurse.

P a t i e n t - r a t e d Q u a l i t y of C a r e Means a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (SDs) of the four d o m a i n s of PRQC are s h o w n i n Table 3. T h e m e a n PRQC score, the s u m of all of these c o m p o n e n t s , was 25.9 of a p o s s i b l e 30 (SD = 4.1; m e d i a n = 27; r a n g e = 8 to

242

JGIM

S t o n e e t al., S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h A I D S C a r e

Table 3 Patient Ratings of Quality of Care

p r o p o r t i o n of p a t i e n t s w i t h low PRQC scores, w a s cons i s t e n t for all c o m p a r i s o n s .

Items

M e a n _+ SD

Quality of physician care Quality of n u r s i n g care Patient involvement in care Overall quality of care

2 2 1

8.8 ± 1.6 8.7 ± 1.6 4 . 1 ± 1.0

1

4.3

PATIENT-RATEDQUALITYOF CARE

6

In p a r t i c u l a r , w o m e n pa-

tients, black patients, injection drug using patients, and Medicaid patients were found to have significantly lower PRQC s c o r e s t h a n w e r e t h e o t h e r p a t i e n t s . T h o s e rec e i v i n g t h e i r c a r e a t t h e HIV c l i n i c h a d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o w e r

_+ 0 . 8

PRQC s c o r e s t h a n d i d t h e p a t i e n t s c a r e d for a t t h e o t h e r

25.9 + 4.1

mary n u r s e r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r PRQC s c o r e s

two sites. In a d d i t i o n , t h e p a t i e n t s w h o i d e n t i f i e d a pria n d w e r e l e s s likely to h a v e LOW P R Q C s c o r e s t h a n w e r e the other patients. Those who could not identify a pri30). T h e c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a f o r t h e P R Q C s c o r e w a s 0 . 8 7 .

m a r y p h y s i c i a n a l s o t e n d e d to b e l e s s s a t i s f i e d t h a n t h o s e

T h e m e a n PRQC s c o r e s a n d t h e p r o p o r t i o n of pa-

who could, although this difference was not statistically significant, probably because of the small number of

t i e n t s w i t h low s c o r e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to m o s t p a t i e n t a n d s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Table 4). T h e r a n k o r d e r of e a c h s t a t i s t i c , i.e., t h e m e a n P R Q C s c o r e s a n d t h e

p a t i e n t s w h o d i d n o t h a v e a p r i m a r y p h y s i c i a n . We u s e d multiple linear r e g r e s s i o n to e x a m i n e f u r t h e r the asso-

Table 4 Patient-rated Quality of Care [PRQC] and Low PRQC Stratified by Selected Patient a n d Site Characteristics

n

Mean PRQC

Gender Mate Female

270 18

26.1 23.2

Race White Black Hispanic

206 62 24

26.2 24.6 25.6

Payer Private/fee for service Health m a i n t e n a n c e organization Medicaid Uninsured

47 97 117 12

26.6 26.9 24.6 26.2

HIV risk factor Gay/bisexual Injection drug use Heterosexual/other

203 69 33

26.6 24.3 24.8

Education 12 years or less More t h a n 12 years

112 176

25.3 26.3

91 76 97

26.3 26.2 25.8

Site of care Group practice Health m a i n t e n a n c e organization site HIV clinic

92 110 86

26.6 26.5 24.5

Primary care providers Primary p h y s i c i a n - - Y e s Primary p h y s i c i a n - - N o Primary n u r s e - - Y e s Primary n u r s e - - N o

280 8 157 131

26.0 23.5 26.7 24.9

Severity of illness J u s t i c e stage 1 Justice stage 2 J u s t i c e stage 3

p-value*

Percentage Low PRQC

p-valuet

0.004 27.0 38.9

-0.28

22.6 43.5 37.5

0.004 0.001 0.27

19.4 21.6 37.6 25.0

0.09 0.1 0.002 0.83

21.6 44.9 33.3

0.0004 0.0003 0.45

31.3 25.6

-0.29

24.2 25.0 30.9

0.47 0.66 0.26

19.5 25.5 40.7

0.02 0.49 0.001

27.0 50.0 22.0 34.4

-0.15 -0.02

0.06

0.0003

0.003

0.05

0.64

0.0006

*Compares the m e a n s of the subgroups within each of the strata. +All comparisons are of the specific subgroup with the remainder of the d a t a set.

0.09 0.0004

JGIM

V o l u m e 10, M a y 1995

ciation of PRQC s c o r e s w i t h p a t i e n t a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l factors, a n d found t h a t p a t i e n t s w h o h a d a p r i m a r y n u r s e a n d those w h o r e p o r t e d b e t t e r h e a l t h s t a t u s h a d significantly h i g h e r PRQC scores. Black p a t i e n t s , t h o s e u s i n g injection drugs, a n d t h o s e i n s u r e d by M e d i c a i d h a d significantly lower PRQC s c o r e s t h a n did t h e o t h e r p a t i e n t s . In the logistic r e g r e s s i o n m o d e l i n c l u d i n g g e n d e r , race, HIV risk factor, payer, site, e d u c a t i o n , s e v e r i t y of illness, self-perceived h e a l t h s t a t u s , a n d h a v i n g a n identifiable p r i m a r y n u r s e , s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s (p < 0.05) of low PRQC were i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s e ( a d j u s t e d OR = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.13 to 5.23), b l a c k race (OR = 2.22; 95% CI = 1.04 to 4.78), a n d p r i m a r y n u r s e (OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.97). P a t i e n t s w h o h a d h i g h e r selfreported h e a l t h s t a t u s were less likely to have low PRQC scores (p = 0.004). We e v a l u a t e d several s e t s of interactions (e.g., b e t w e e n p r i m a r y n u r s e a n d site), b u t n o n e were s i g n i f i c a n t a n d so were n o t i n c l u d e d in t h e final model. B e c a u s e of c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g t h e level of cotlinearity b e t w e e n site a n d p r i m a r y n u r s i n g , a n d also between site a n d t h e p a t i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of race a n d injection d r u g use, we r e p e a t e d t h e e n t i r e r e g r e s s i o n stratifying by site. T h e s e a n a l y s e s s h o w e d t h a t t h e effects of h a v i n g a p r i m a r y n u r s e were c o m p a r a b l e w i t h i n each of the sites, a l t h o u g h t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g coefficient was not always s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e 0.05 level at every site b e c a u s e of t h e r e d u c e d s a m p l e sizes.

DISCUSSION In this s t u d y of a d i v e r s e c o h o r t of PWAs t r e a t e d in three o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y d i s t i n c t sites, we f o u n d t h a t patients' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e q u a l i t y of t h e i r care differed s u b s t a n t i a l l y by key p a t i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d o n e site characteristic, p r i m a r y n u r s i n g . After c o n t r o l l i n g for patient a n d clinical variables, i n c l u d i n g HIV r i s k factors, e d u e a t i o n as a proxy for s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , p a y e r status, a n d site of care, t h e p a t i e n t s w h o w e r e b l a c k or who were i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s e r s r a t e d t h e q u a l i t y of t h e i r care significantly lower t h a n d i d t h e o t h e r p a t i e n t s w i t h AIDS. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e p r e s e n c e of a n i d e n t i f i a b l e primary n u r s e w a s s t r o n g l y p r e d i c t i v e of g r e a t e r p a t i e n t satisfaction, i n d e p e n d e n t of site, a n d t h u s m a y be a critical aspect of the o r g a n i z a t i o n of a m b u l a t o r y HIV care. T h e s e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t a m b u l a t o r y AIDS c a r e m a y b e less effective in m e e t i n g t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s of PWAs who are black or w h o are i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s e r s . F u r t h e r more, o u r u n a d j u s t e d r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t PWAs w h o are women, o n average, also t e n d to be less satisfied. This is n o t e w o r t h y b e c a u s e in m a n y o t h e r s t u d i e s w o m e n tend to be m o r e satisfied with t h e i r a m b u l a t o r y care. 4" 7. 17 As the HIV e p i d e m i c evolves to i n c l u d e i n c r e a s i n g percentages of p e r s o n s of color, i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s e r s , a n d women, models of care t h a t h a v e g a i n e d a c c e p t a n c e a n d proven useful a m o n g t h o s e in t h e initial wave of t h e epidemic ( p r i m a r i l y h o m o s e x u a l w h i t e m e n ) n e e d to b e

243

carefully reassessed to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r they are equally effective a n d r e l e v a n t for all p a t i e n t s c u r r e n t l y affected by this disease. Several o t h e r r e c e n t s t u d i e s h a v e f o u n d t h a t pat i e n t s of lower s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , p e r s o n s of color, a n d those w i t h lower p e r c e i v e d h e a l t h s t a t u s are generally less s a t i s f i e d t h a n o t h e r p a t i e n t s . 3, ~. tg, 36. 37 S i m ilarly, the p r e s e n t s t u d y i d e n t i f i e d two g r o u p s of traditionally m o r e d i s a d v a n t a g e d p a t i e n t s as less satisfied, blacks a n d i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s e r s . Yet e d u c a t i o n , u s e d as a proxy for s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , w a s n o t r e l a t e d to patient r a t i n g s of quality. T h e only o t h e r p r e v i o u s s t u d y to examine p a t i e n t satisfaction w i t h a m b u l a t o r y HIV care also f o u n d t h a t i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s e r s a n d t h o s e w i t h lower perceived h e a l t h s t a t u s w e r e less satisfied. 36 T h e findings s u g g e s t t h a t blacks, i n j e c t i o n drug~users, a n d t h o s e of lower h e a l t h s t a t u s m a y be r e c e i v i n g m e d i c a l care of lower q u a l i t y t h a n are o t h e r p a t i e n t s , or t h a t they are not receiving t h e specific s e r v i c e s t h a t t h e y n e e d a n d expect. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y is s u p p o r t e d by several r e c e n t large s t u d i e s a m o n g c o h o r t s of s y m p t o m a t i c H1V-infected p a t i e n t s , w h i c h h a v e d o c u m e n t e d differential provision of key H1V p r e s c r i p t i o n d r u g t h e r a p i e s to b l a c k s a n d injection d r u g u s e r s , a8-4° T h e only c a r e s y s t e m v a r i a b l e t h a t was r e l a t e d to greater s a t i s f a c t i o n w a s h a v i n g a n i d e n t i f i a b l e p r i m a r y nurse. Previous s a t i s f a c t i o n s t u d i e s h a v e d o c u m e n t e d the i m p o r t a n t role of n u r s e p r o v i d e r s in d e t e r m i n i n g p a t i e n t s ' level of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r care, especially t h e i r i n p a t i e n t care. 8, 22 However, no p r e v i o u s AIDS lite r a t u r e h a s f o c u s e d on t h e p a t i e n t - n u r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p . Rather, a s u b s t a n t i a l b o d y of l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h HIV/AIDS services h a s i d e n t i f i e d t h e case m a n a g e r as a key provider w h o s e i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h PWAs is e x p e c t e d to result in i n c r e a s e d p a t i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . 36, 4~ 46 Furt h e r r e s e a r c h is n e e d e d to clarify t h e relative i m p o r t a n c e of each of t h e s e n o n p h y s i c i a n p r o v i d e r s in e n h a n c i n g p a t i e n t s ' care. T h i s s t u d y e x a m i n e d d a t a for a c o h o r t of PWAs in one state only a n d i n c l u d e d only t h r e e sites. While we collected detailed f i n a n c i a l d a t a f r o m e a c h p a t i e n t , it proved to be difficult to u s e t h e s e d a t a to r e p r e s e n t t h e p a t i e n t ' s s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s . B e c a u s e of t h e debilit a t i n g n a t u r e of AIDS, m a n y of t h e p a t i e n t s h a d b e e n out of work for v a r y i n g l e n g t h s of time, a n d t h o s e w h o were c o n t i n u i n g to w o r k were s e l d o m w o r k i n g u p to t h e i r p r e m o r b i d capacities. However, t h e r e w a s a wide r a n g e of e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t a m o n g o u r p a t i e n t s a m p l e , w h i c h a p p e a r e d to h a v e a close r e l a t i o n s h i p to p r e m o r bid o c c u p a t i o n a n d e m p l o y m e n t s t a t u s . F u r t h e r m o r e , b e c a u s e a large n u m b e r of t h e b l a c k p a t i e n t s a n d i n j e c t i o n d r u g u s i n g p a t i e n t s were at a single site, the p u b l i c - h o s p i t a l - b a s e d HIV clinic, it is possible t h a t g e n e r a l beliefs a b o u t p u b l i c h e a l t h care m a y have i n f l u e n c e d t h e p a t i e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e quality of the care t h e y receive there. T h i s m a y l i m i t t h e generalizability of o u r results.

244

S t o n e et al., S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h A I D S C a r e

Finally, we did not ask patients of their medical encounters

about specific details

that would explain the basis

of the lower evaluations of quality by injection drug users, blacks, those of lower health primary nurses. questions

Thus,

about

status,

these findings

AIDS patients'

with their ambulatory

and those without

individual

experiences

care and their perceptions

formation

research

about

acteristics reported

of ambulatory and

here

dependent

primary

that

detailed

us to evaluate

ambulatory

drug

our

char-

findings

AIDS care,

in-

and

validate

in ambulatory

20. 21.

the needs

of PWAs who are black or who are in-

users,

nursing

in-

the process

AIDS care by patient

of site, is less effective in meeting

and expectations jection

to obtain

site of care. Nevertheless, suggest

18. 19.

is required

that would enable

and content

17.

leave unanswered

the quality of that care. Further

16.

the important

22.

role of

AIDS care.

23.

24.

The authors are indebted to Arnold M. Epstein, MD, MA, the principal investigator of this study, and their co-investigators Kathryn Co#in, RN, MPH, Donald Craven, MD, Floyd Fowler, PhD, Constantine Gatsonis, PhD, Joan Goldberg, MD, Harvey Makadon, MD, Michael Massagli, PhD, George Seage, DSc, MPH, and all the providers at each of the sites who assisted with patient enrollment efforts. The authors are also indebted to Maya Y. Mauoh for assistance with preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES 1. Selik RM, Chu SY, Buehler JW. HIV Infection as leading cause of death among young adults in U.S. cities and states. JAMA. 1993; 269:2991 - 4. 2. Chu YS, Buehler JW, Berkelman RL. Impact of the h u m a n lmmunodeflclency virus epidemic on mortality of women of reproductive age, United States. JAMA. 1990;264:225-9. 3. Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S, MeMullen W, et al. The relationship between reported problems and patient s u m m a r y evaluations of hospital care. Qual Rev Bull. 1992; 18:53-9. 4. Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Patient satisfaction a s a n indicator of quality care. Inquiry. 1988;25:25--36. 5. Davies AR, Ware JE Jr. Involving consumers in quality of care assessment. Health Aft. 1988;7:33-48. 6. Berwlck DM. Health services research and quality of care: assignments for the 1990's. Med Care. 1989;27:763-71. 7. Shortell SM, Richardson WC, LoGerfo LP, et al. The relationship among dimensions of health services In two provider systems: a causal model approach. J Health Soc Behav. 1977;18:139-59. 8. Cleary PD. Keroy L, Karapanos G, et al. Patient a s s e s s m e n t s of hospital care. Qual Rev Bull. t 9 8 9 ; 1 5 : 1 7 2 - 9 . 9. Siu AL, McGlynn EA, Morgenstern H, et al. A fair approach to comparing quality of care. Health Aft. 1991 ; 10:62- 75. 10. Steffen GE. Quality medical c a r e - - a definition. JAMA. 1988;260:5661. 11. Kassirer JP. The quality of care and the quality of measuri ng it. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1263-5. 12. Donabedian A. Quality a s s e s s m e n t and assurance: unity of purpose, diversity and means. Inquiry. 1988;25:173-92. 13. Linn LS. Factors associated with patient evaluation of health care. Milbank Q. 1975;4:531-48. 14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heterosexually acquired AIDS--United States, 1993. MMWR. 1994;43:155-60. 15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: impact of the

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30. 31,

32.

33.

34.

35. 36.

37.

38.

39.

JGIM

expanded case definition for adolescents and adults on case reporting--United States. 1993. MMWR. 1994:43:160-70. Chin J. Current and future d i m e n s i o n s of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in women and children. Lancet. 1990:336:221-4. Like R, Zyzanski SJ. Patient satisfaction with the clinical encounter: social psychological determinants. Soc Sci Med. 1987;24:3517. Carmel S. Satisfaction with hospitalization: a comparative analysis of three types of services. Soc Sci Med. 1985;21:1243-9. Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S, Roberts M, etal. Datawatch: patients evaluate their hospital care: a national survey. Health Aft. 1991; 10:254-67. Hinshaw A, Atwood JR. A patient satisfaction instrument: precision by replication. Nuts Res. 1988:31:170-5. Wasson JH, Sauvigne AE, Mogielnicki P, et al. Continuity of outpatient medical care in elderly men: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1984;252:2413-7. Abramowitz S, Cote AA, Berry E. Analyzing patient satisfacation: a multianalytic approach. Qual Rev Bull. 1987;13:122-30. Cleary PD, Fahs MC, McMullen W, et al. Using patient reports to assess hospital treatment of patients with AIDS: a pilot study. AIDS Care. 1992:4:325-32. Rubin HR, Gandek B. Rogers WH, Kosinski M, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Patients' ratings of out pa t i e nt visits in different practice settings. JAMA. 1993;270:835-40. Francis AM, Polissar L, Lorenz AB. Care of patients with colorectal cancer: a comparison of a health maintenance organization and feefor-service practices. Med Care. 1984:22:418-29. Stein SR, Llnn MW, Edelstein J, Stein EM. Elderly patients' satisfaction with care under HMO versus private systems. South Med J. 1989:82:3-8. Temkin-Greener H, Wlnchell M. Medicaid beneficiaries under managed care: provi de r choice a n d s a t i s f a c t i o n . Health Serv Res. 1 9 9 1 : 2 6 : 5 0 9 - 29. Davies AIR, Ware J E Jr, Brook RH, Peterson JR, Newhouse JP. Consumer acceptance of prepaid and fee-for-service medical care: results from a randomized controlled trial. Health Serv Res. 1986; 21:429-52. Fowler FJ, Massagli MP, Weissman JS, Seage GR, Cleary PD, Epstein AM. Some methodological lessons for surveys of persons with AIDS. Med Care. 1992:30:1059-66. Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Massachusetts AIDS Surveillance Program Monthly Update. 1991:7( 1 ): 1- 3, Group Health Association of America. GHAA's Consumer Satisfaction Survey and User's Manual. First edition. Washington, DC: GHAA, 1988. Justice AC, Feinstein AR, Wells CK. A new prognostic staging system for the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:1388-93. Stone VE, Seage GR. Hertz TN, Epstein AM. The relation between hospital experience and mortality for patients with AIDS. JAMA. 1992:268:2655-61. Seage GR, Gatsonts C, Weissman JS, et al. The Boston AIDS survival score (BASS): a multidimensional AIDS severity adjustment. Unpublished data, t 994. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Stein MD, Fleishman J, Mor V, Dresser M. Factors associated with patient satisfaction among symptomatic HIV-infected patients. Med Care. 1993;31 : 182-8. Wenneker MB, Rogers WH, Greenfield S. Racial and socioeconomic differences in satisfaction with care and utilization of services in private practice offices [abstract]. Clin Res. 1992;40{suppl]:594A. Moore RD, Stanton D, Gopalan R, Chaisson RE. Racial differences in the use of drug therapy for HIV disease in an urban community. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:763-8. Stein MD, Piette J, Mor V, et al. Differences in access to zidovudine (AZT] among symptomatic HIV-infected persons. J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:35-40.

]GIM

Volume I0, May 1995

40. Weissman JS, Makadon HJ, Seage GR, et al. Changes in insurance status and access to care by persons with AIDS. Am J Public Health. 1994:84:1997-2000. 41. Fleishman JA, Mor V, Piette J. AIDS case management: the client's perspective. Health Serv Res. 1991;26:447-70. 42. Mot V, Fleishman JA, Piette JD, Allen SM. Developing AIDS community service consortia. Health Aft'. 1993;12:186-99. 43. Mor V, Piette J, Fleishman J. Community-based case m a n a g e m e n t

245

for persons with AIDS. Health Aft. 1989;8:139-53. 44. Piette J, FIeishman JA, Mot V, Dill A. A comparison of hospital and community case ma na ge me nt programs for persons with AIDS. IVied Care. 1990;28:746-55. 45. Arno PS, Hughes RG. Local policy responses to the AIDS epidemic: New York and San Francisco. N Y State J Med. 1987;87:264-71. 46. Jellinek P. Case m a n a g i n g AIDS. Issues Sci Technol. 1988;4:5963.

APPENDIX A

Q u e s t i o n s Used in the S t u d y Patient-rated Quality of Care A. How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e r e s p e c t , f r i e n d l i n e s s , a n d c o u r t e s y of t h e n u r s e s ? 1, Poor 2. F a i r 3. Good 4. Very g o o d 5. E x c e l l e n t

E. How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t h e d o c t o r s i n v o l v e you in decisions about your medical care? 1. Poor 2. F a i r 3. Good 4. Very g o o d 5. E x c e l l e n t F. How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of t h e m e d i c a l c a r e y o u a re r e c e i v i n g ?

B. How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e r e s p e c t , f r i e n d l i n e s s , a n d c o u r t e s y

I. Poor

of t h e d o c t o r s ?

2. F a i r

1. Poor 2. F a i r

3. G o o d 4. Very g o o d

3. Go od

5. E x c e l l e n t

4. Very g o o d 5. E x c e l l e n t

Regular Provider(s) A1. Do y o u h a v e o n e p a r t i c u l a r n u r s e w h o i s r e s p o n s i b l e for

C. How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e s k i l l a n d t r a i n i n g of y o u r n u r s e s ?

you at your care site?

I. Poor 2. F a i r

A2. W h a t i s h i s o r h e r n a m e ?

3. Good

B1. Do y o u h a v e o n e p a r t i c u l a r d o c t o r w h o i s r e s p o n s i b l e for you at your care site?

4. Very g o o d 5. E x c e l l e n t

B2. W h a t is h i s or h e r n a m e ? D, How w o u l d y o u r a t e t h e s k i l l a n d t r a i n i n g of y o u r d o c t o r s ? 1. Poor

Self-perceived Health Status

3. Good

T h i n k a b o u t a s c a l e f r o m 0 to I 0 0 , w i t h 0 b e i n g a s b a d a s a p e r s o n c a n b e a n d 100 b e i n g e x c e l l e n t h e a l t h , a s g o o d a s a

4. Very g o o d

p e r s o n c a n be. D u r i n g t h e l a s t 4 m o n t h s w h a t n u m b e r w o u l d

5. E x c e l l e n t

you h a v e r a t e d y o u r h e a l t h a t i t s b e s t ?

2. F a i r