TY - JOUR
T1 - Eliciting patient and caregiver perspectives to improve the public reporting of rehabilitation quality measures
AU - Papadimitriou, Christina
AU - Magasi, Susan
AU - Demark, Holly
AU - Taylor, Caitlin
AU - Wolf, Michael S.
AU - Heinemann, Allen W.
AU - Deutsch, Anne
PY - 2013/1
Y1 - 2013/1
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate patients' and caregivers' abilities to comprehend information on rehabilitation quality measures, and select high-quality rehabilitation facility. Design: We used exploratory, qualitative study using cognitive interviewing. Setting: Three Outpatient rehabilitation facilities in metropolitan Chicago, Illinois, USA. Participants: The study participants included 27 patients or three caregivers, 63% female; 36.7% white, 43.3% African American, 10% Asian, 10% missing/other; health literacy: 59% at the 8th grade level or lower; age range: 33-94. Main Outcome Measure(s): Patient and caregiver comprehension of quality measures. Results: Respondents understood some rehabilitation quality terms, but had difficulty with medical terminology; linking quality measures to hospital quality; explaining choice of "better" quality facility; and reading tables. The research team simplified terminology, definitions, layout, and design; added an introduction to provide a framework for understanding quality. Conclusions: Quality measure information can be difficult to understand and use. When reporting quality measures, use plain language, avoid medical jargon, follow logically sequenced content, easy-to-read layout, provide framework for understanding quality, and solicit consumer feedback.
AB - Purpose: To evaluate patients' and caregivers' abilities to comprehend information on rehabilitation quality measures, and select high-quality rehabilitation facility. Design: We used exploratory, qualitative study using cognitive interviewing. Setting: Three Outpatient rehabilitation facilities in metropolitan Chicago, Illinois, USA. Participants: The study participants included 27 patients or three caregivers, 63% female; 36.7% white, 43.3% African American, 10% Asian, 10% missing/other; health literacy: 59% at the 8th grade level or lower; age range: 33-94. Main Outcome Measure(s): Patient and caregiver comprehension of quality measures. Results: Respondents understood some rehabilitation quality terms, but had difficulty with medical terminology; linking quality measures to hospital quality; explaining choice of "better" quality facility; and reading tables. The research team simplified terminology, definitions, layout, and design; added an introduction to provide a framework for understanding quality. Conclusions: Quality measure information can be difficult to understand and use. When reporting quality measures, use plain language, avoid medical jargon, follow logically sequenced content, easy-to-read layout, provide framework for understanding quality, and solicit consumer feedback.
KW - Health care (170)
KW - Quality indicators
KW - Rehabilitation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875676827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875676827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/rnj.63
DO - 10.1002/rnj.63
M3 - Article
C2 - 23365002
AN - SCOPUS:84875676827
SN - 0278-4807
VL - 38
SP - 24
EP - 31
JO - Rehabilitation Nursing
JF - Rehabilitation Nursing
IS - 1
ER -