Do HCAHPS doctor communication scores reflect the communication skills of the attending on record? A cautionary tale from a tertiary-care medical service
BACKGROUND
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores measure patient satisfaction with hospital care. It is not known if these reflect the communication skills of the attending physician on record. The Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS) is a validated instrument that measures bedside physician communication skills according to 4 habits, namely: investing in the beginning, eliciting the patient’s perspective, demonstrating empathy, and investing in the end.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether the 4HCS correlates with provider HCAHPS scores.
METHODS
Using a cross-sectional design, consenting hospitalist physicians (n = 28), were observed on inpatient rounds during 3 separate encounters. We compared hospitalists’ 4HCS scores with their doctor communication HCAHPS scores to assess the degree to which these correlated with inpatient physician communication skills. We performed sensitivity analysis excluding scores returned by patients cared for by more than 1 hospitalist.
RESULTS
A total of 1003 HCAHPS survey responses were available. Pearson correlation between 4HCS and doctor communication scores was not significant, at 0.098 (-0.285, 0.455; P = 0.619). Also, no significant correlations were found between each habit and HCAHPS. When including only scores attributable to 1 hospitalist, Pearson correlation between the empathy habit and the HCAHPS respect score was 0.515 (0.176, 0.745; P = 0.005). Between empathy and overall doctor communication, it was 0.442 (0.082, 0.7; P = 0.019).
CONCLUSION
Attending-of-record HCAHPS scores do not correlate with 4HCS. After excluding patients cared for by more than 1 hospitalist, demonstrating empathy did correlate with the doctor communication and respect HCAHPS scores. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:421-427. © 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine
© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings that HCAHPS scores did not correlate with the communication skills of the attending of record have some important implications. In an environment of value-based purchasing, most hospital systems are interested in identifying modifiable provider behaviors that optimize efficiency and payment structures. This study shows that directly measured communication skills do not correlate with HCAHPS scores as generally reported, indicating that HCAHPS may be measuring a broader domain than only physician communication skills. Better attribution based on the proportion of care provided by an individual physician could make the scores more useful for individual comparisons, but most institutions do not report their data in this way. Given this limitation, hospitals should refrain from comparing and incentivizing individual physicians based on their HCAHPS scores, because this measure was not designed for this purpose and does not appear to reflect an individual’s skills. This is important in the current environment in which hospitals face substantial penalties for underperformance but lack specific tools to improve their scores. Furthermore, there is concern that this type of measurement creates perverse incentives that may adversely alter clinical practice with the aim of improving scores.46
Training clinicians in communication and teaming skills is one potential means of increasing overall scores.15 Improving doctor-patient and team relationships is also the right thing to do. It is increasingly being demanded by patients and has always been a deep source of satisfaction for physicians.15,47 Moreover, there is an increasingly robust literature that relates face-to-face communication to biomedical and psychosocial outcomes of care.48 Identifying individual physicians who need help with communication skills is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, the HCAHPS survey does not appear to be the appropriate tool for this purpose.
Disclosure
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Division of Clinical Research, Research Programs Committees provided funding support. No funding source had any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The authors have no conflicts of interest for this study.
