Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Using the Consumer Experience with Pharmacy Services Survey as a quality metric for ambulatory care pharmacies: older adults' perspectives

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To describe older adults' perceptions of evaluating and comparing pharmacies based on the Consumer Experience with Pharmacy Services Survey (CEPSS), describe older adults' perceived importance of the CEPSS and its specific domains, and explore older adults' perceptions of the influence of specific CEPSS domains in choosing/switching pharmacies.

      Design

      Focus group methodology was combined with the administration of a questionnaire. The focus groups explored participants' perceived importance of the CEPSS and their perception of using the CEPSS to choose and/or switch pharmacies. Then, using the questionnaire, participants rated their perceived importance of each CEPSS domain in evaluating a pharmacy, and the likelihood of using CEPSS to switch pharmacies if their current pharmacy had low ratings. Descriptive and thematic analyses were done.

      Setting

      6 semistructured focus groups were conducted in a private meeting room in a Mid-Western state in the USA.

      Participants

      60 English-speaking adults who were at least 65 years, and had filled a prescription at a retail pharmacy within 90 days.

      Results

      During the focus groups, the older adults perceived the CEPSS to have advantages and disadvantages in evaluating and comparing pharmacies. Older adults thought the CEPSS was important in choosing the best pharmacies and avoiding the worst pharmacies. The perceived influence of the CEPSS in switching pharmacies varied depending on the older adult's personal experience or trust of other consumers' experience. Questionnaire results showed that participants perceived health/medication-focused communication as very important or extremely important (n=47, 82.5%) in evaluating pharmacies and would be extremely likely (n=21, 36.8%) to switch pharmacies if their pharmacy had low ratings in this domain.

      Conclusions

      The older adults in this study are interested in using patient experiences as a quality metric for avoiding the worst pharmacies. Pharmacists' communication about health and medicines is perceived important and likely to influence older adults' pharmacy selection.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 27

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care.

      Previous reviews have shown inconsistent effects of publicly reported performance data on quality of care, but many new studies have become available in the 7 years since the last systematic review. To synthesize the evidence for using publicly reported performance data to improve quality. Web of Science, MEDLINE, EconLit, and Wilson Business Periodicals (1999-2006) and independent review of articles (1986-1999) identified in a previous systematic review. Only sources published in English were included. Peer-reviewed articles assessing the effects of public release of performance data on selection of providers, quality improvement activity, clinical outcomes (effectiveness, patient safety, and patient-centeredness), and unintended consequences. Data on study participants, reporting system or level, study design, selection of providers, quality improvement activity, outcomes, and unintended consequences were extracted. Forty-five articles published since 1986 (27 of which were published since 1999) evaluated the impact of public reporting on quality. Many focus on a select few reporting systems. Synthesis of data from 8 health plan-level studies suggests modest association between public reporting and plan selection. Synthesis of 11 studies, all hospital-level, suggests stimulation of quality improvement activity. Review of 9 hospital-level and 7 individual provider-level studies shows inconsistent association between public reporting and selection of hospitals and individual providers. Synthesis of 11 studies, primarily hospital-level, indicates inconsistent association between public reporting and improved effectiveness. Evidence on the impact of public reporting on patient safety and patient-centeredness is scant. Heterogeneity made comparisons across studies challenging. Only peer-reviewed, English-language articles were included. Evidence is scant, particularly about individual providers and practices. Rigorous evaluation of many major public reporting systems is lacking. Evidence suggests that publicly releasing performance data stimulates quality improvement activity at the hospital level. The effect of public reporting on effectiveness, safety, and patient-centeredness remains uncertain.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence.

        Information about the performance of hospitals, health professionals, and health care organizations has been made public in the United States for more than a decade. The expected gains of public disclosure have not been made clear, and both the benefits and potential risks have received minimal empirical investigation. To summarize the empirical evidence concerning public disclosure of performance data, relate the results to the potential gains, and identify areas requiring further research. A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between January 1986 and October 1999 in peer-reviewed journals. Review of citations, public documents, and expert advice was conducted to identify studies not found in the electronic databases. Descriptive, observational, or experimental evaluations of US reporting systems were selected for inclusion. Included studies were organized based on use of public data by consumers, purchasers, physicians, and hospitals; impact on quality of care outcomes; and costs. Seven US reporting systems have been the subject of published empirical evaluations. Descriptive and observational methods predominate. Consumers and purchasers rarely search out the information and do not understand or trust it; it has a small, although increasing, impact on their decision making. Physicians are skeptical about such data and only a small proportion makes use of it. Hospitals appear to be most responsive to the data. In a limited number of studies, the publication of performance data has been associated with an improvement in health outcomes. There are several potential gains from the public disclosure of performance data, but use of the information by provider organizations for quality improvement may be the most productive area for further research.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Public reporting in health care: how do consumers use quality-of-care information? A systematic review.

          One of the underlying goals of public reporting is to encourage the consumer to select health care providers or health plans that offer comparatively better quality-of-care. To review the weight consumers give to quality-of-care information in the process of choice, to summarize the effect of presentation formats, and to examine the impact of quality information on consumers' choice behavior. The evidence is organized in a theoretical consumer choice model. English language literature was searched in PubMed, the Cochrane Clinical Trial, and the EPOC Databases (January 1990-January 2008). Study selection was limited to randomized controlled trails, controlled before-after trials or interrupted time series. Included interventions focused on choice behavior of consumers in health care settings. Outcome measures referred to one of the steps in a consumer choice model. The quality of the study design was rated, and studies with low quality ratings were excluded. All 14 included studies examine quality information, usually CAHPS, with respect to its impact on the consumer's choice of health plans. Easy-to-read presentation formats and explanatory messages improve knowledge about and attitude towards the use of quality information; however, the weight given to quality information depends on other features, including free provider choice and costs. In real-world settings, having seen quality information is a strong determinant for choosing higher quality-rated health plans. This review contributes to an understanding of consumer choice behavior in health care settings. The small number of included studies limits the strength of our conclusions.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]Division of Social and Administrative Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, Wisconsin, USA
            [2 ]University of Wisconsin Survey Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison, Wisconsin, USA
            Author notes
            [Correspondece to ] Dr Olayinka O Shiyanbola; Olayinka.Shiyanbola@ 123456wisc.edu
            Journal
            BMJ Open
            BMJ Open
            bmjopen
            bmjopen
            BMJ Open
            BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
            2044-6055
            2016
            26 May 2016
            : 6
            : 5
            27231004
            4885460
            bmjopen-2016-011241
            10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011241
            Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

            This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

            Product
            Categories
            Health Services Research
            Research
            1506
            1704
            1703
            1722

            Comments

            Comment on this article