RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Findings from implementing a patient experience survey in a quality measurement system for substance abuse disorder treatment facilities in 6 states
Zuckerbraun, S., Eicheldinger, C., Barch, D., Mark, T., Seibert, J., Thornburg, V., & Carley-Baxter, L. (2023). Findings from implementing a patient experience survey in a quality measurement system for substance abuse disorder treatment facilities in 6 states. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 17(3), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000001094
ObjectivesPatient experience surveys (PESs) are an important component of determining the quality of health care. There is an absence of PES data available to people seeking to identify higher quality substance use disorder treatment providers. Our project aimed to correct this by implementing a PES for substance use disorder treatment providers and publicly disseminating PES information.MethodsWe created a population frame of all addiction providers in 6 states. Providers were asked to disseminate a survey invitation letter directing patients to a survey Web site. No personally identifiable information was exchanged. We developed a 10-question survey, reflecting characteristics National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have identified as reflecting higher-quality addiction treatment.ResultsNineteen percent of facilities participated; among participating facilities, 9627 patients completed the survey. Patient experience varied significantly by facility with the percentage of a facility's patients who chose the most positive answer varying widely. We calculated that between-facility reliability will meet or exceed 0.80 for facilities with 20 or more responding patients. We searched for but did not find evidence of data falsification.ConclusionsThis cost-efficient survey protocol is low burden for providers and patients. Results suggest significant differences in quality of care among facilities, and facility-level results are important to provide to consumers when they evaluate the relative patient-reported quality of facilities. The data are not designed to provide population-based statistics. As more facilities and patients per facility participate, public-facing PES data will be increasingly useful to consumers seeking to compare and choose facilities.