Advertisement

Patient Satisfaction with Care After Coronary Revascularization

  • Danielle L. Mosby
  • Matthew J. Manierre
  • Steve S. Martin
  • Paul Kolm
  • A. Sami Abuzaid
  • Claudine T. Jurkovitz
  • Daniel J. Elliott
  • William S. Weintraub
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective

Bridging the Divides (Bridges), a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-funded program, developed a post-hospitalization care management infrastructure integrating information technology-enabled informatics with patient care for ischemic heart disease patients. The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with the Bridges program and determine the patient characteristics associated with higher satisfaction.

Methods

All adult English-speaking patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or catheterization plus acute myocardial infarction and agreed to participate in the Bridges program were eligible. A survey instrument was administered to address patient satisfaction of care received, aspects of care that patients appreciated, and challenges faced. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and primary analyses included comparisons of overall patient satisfaction after discharge between procedure type, and according to age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidity count, and length of stay.

Results

Four hundred and sixty-seven (46%) had complete or partial response rates. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall satisfaction among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or catheterization plus acute myocardial infarction (p = 0.023). There were significant procedure by sex (p = 0.052) and procedure by age (p = 0.039) interactions. There were no statistically significant differences in overall satisfaction according to age, sex, race, comorbidity count, or length of stay.

Conclusions

This study identified several important components related to patient satisfaction for patients with ischemic heart disease. Results found that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting were reportedly “very satisfied” when compared with patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and catheterization plus acute myocardial infarction, as well as significant age and sex interactions between procedures.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Diane Hess for making thousands of phone calls that were made for this project. Danielle Mosby contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision; Matthew Manierre contributed to the study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript; Steve Martin contributed to the study conception and design, and acquisition of data as well as the analysis and interpretation of data; Paul Kolm contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript and critical revision; A. Sami Abuzaid contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript; Claudine Jurkovitz contributed to the study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting of the manuscript; Daniel Elliott contributed to the study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript; and William Weintraub contributed to the study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was funded by a Grant from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Innovation Award (CMS331027-01), and an Institutional Development Award from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (U54-GM104941).

Conflict of interest

Danielle L. Mosby, Matthew J. Manierre, Steve S. Martin, Paul Kolm, A. Sami Abuzaid, Claudine T. Jurkovitz, Daniel J. Elliott, and William S. Weintraub have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

40271_2017_274_MOESM1_ESM.docx (60 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 59 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Patients’ perception of hospital care in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1921–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mann RK, Siddigui Z, Kurbanova N, Qayyum R. Effect of HCAHPS reporting on patient satisfaction with physician communication. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(2):105–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    HCAHPS hospital survey (n.d). Available from: http://www.hcahpsonline.org/home.aspx. Accessed 26 Jul 2016.
  4. 4.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. HCAHPS: patients’ perspectives of care survey (2014). Available from: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-instruments/HospitalQualityInits/HospitalHCAHPS.html. Accessed 28 Jul 2016.
  5. 5.
    Langdorf MI, Kazzi AA, Marwah RS, Bauche J. Monetary resident incentives: effect on patient satisfaction in an academic emergency department. Cal J Emerg Med. 2005;1:8–13.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grumbach K, Osmond D, Vranizan K, Jaffe D, Bindman AB. Primary care physicians’ experience of financial incentives in managed-care systems. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1516–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boulding W, Glickman SW, Manary MP, Schulman KA, Staelin R. Relationships between patient satisfaction with inpatient care and hospital readmission within 30 days. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(1):41–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glickman SW, Boulding W, Manary M, Staelin R, Roe MT, Wolosin RJ, Ohman M, Peterson ED, Schulman KA. Patient satisfaction and its relationship with clinical quality and inpatient mortality in acute myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:188–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstein JN, Hicks L, Kolm P, Weintraub WS, Elliott DJ. Is the care transitions measure associated with readmission risk? Analysis from a single academic center. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(7):732–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tijssen JGP, Kolm P. Demystifying the new statistical recommendations. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(2):231–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 14. College Station (TX): StataCorp LP;2015.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindguist R, Dupuis G, Terrin ML, Hoogwerf B, Czajkowski S, Herd JA, Barton FB, Tracy MF, Hunninghake DB, Treat-Jacobson D, Shumaker S, Zyzanski S, Goldenberg I, Knatterud GL, POST CABG Biobehavioral Study Investigators. Comparison of health-related quality of life outcomes of men and women after coronary artery bypass surgery through 1 year: findings from the Post CABG Biobehavioral Study. Am Heart J. 2003;146(6):1038–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vaccarino V, Lin ZQ, Kasl SV, Mattera JA, Roumanis SA, Abramson JL, Krumholz HM. Sex differences in health status after coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2003;108(21):2642–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seto TB, Taira DA, Berezin R, Chauhan MS, Cutlip DE, Ho KK, Kuntz RE, Cohen DJ. Percutaneous coronary revascularization in elderly patients: impact on functional status and quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:955–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Graham MM, Norris CM, Galbraith PD, Knudtson ML, Ghali WA, APPROACH Investigators. Quality of life after coronary revascularization in the elderly. Eur Heart J. 2006;14:1690–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taherzadeh G, Filippo DE, Kelly S, van Engen-Verheul M, Peek N, Oh P, Grace SL. Patient reported outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation: what do we know about program satisfaction? A review. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2015;35:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wurgler MW, Sonne LT, Kilsmark J, Voss H, Sogaard J. Danish heart patients’ participation in and experience with rehabilitation. Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(2):126–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soja AMB, Zwisler AD, Nissen NK, Rasmussen S, Melchor T, Hommel E. Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation improves self-estimated health and patient satisfaction: important factors in future risk factor and lifestyle management. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(1):523.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fatima K, Yousuf-ul-Islam M, Ansari M, Bawany FI, Khan MS, Khetpal A, Khetpal N, Lashari MN, Arshad MH, Amir RB, Kakalia HR, Zaidi QH, Mian SK, Kazani B. Comparison of postprocedural quality of life between coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review. Cardiol Res Pract. 2016;2016:7842514.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fan VS, Reiber GE, Diehr P, Burman M, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. Functional status and patient satisfaction: a comparison of ischemic heart disease, obstructive lung disease, and diabetes mellitus. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):452–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tsai TC, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Patient satisfaction and quality of surgical care in US hospitals. Ann Surg. 2015;261(1):2–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Groves RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q. 2006;70:646–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Williams B, Coyle J, Healy D. The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(9):1351–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danielle L. Mosby
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Manierre
    • 2
  • Steve S. Martin
    • 3
  • Paul Kolm
    • 4
  • A. Sami Abuzaid
    • 5
    • 6
  • Claudine T. Jurkovitz
    • 4
  • Daniel J. Elliott
    • 7
  • William S. Weintraub
    • 4
    • 8
  1. 1.National Center for Human Factors in HealthcareWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Clarkson UniversityNYUSA
  3. 3.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  4. 4.Value Institute, Christiana Care Health SystemNewarkUSA
  5. 5.Cardiology, Christiana Care Health SystemNewarkUSA
  6. 6.Sidney Kimmel Medical CollegeThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  7. 7.Christiana Care Quality Partners, Christiana Care Health SystemNewarkUSA
  8. 8.Christiana Care Health SystemNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations