Abstract
Background: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality emphasized the assessment of the patients’ experiences along with other factors such as effectiveness and safety of care when demonstrating health care quality. To accurately gauge the patient’s experience, health care institutions must ask patients whether events in a healthcare setting occurred and how frequently they are with providers and the credentials of those providers.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate Medicaid recipients’ experiences with their respective primary care providers using responses from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) database.
Methods: The study was quantitative and descriptive using the secondary data source Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey results. The primary purpose of the CAHPS Database is to “boost our scientific understanding of patient experience with healthcare as part of a larger effort to advance the delivery of safe, patient-centered care. The sample included responses from 62,777 Medicaid recipients in a six-month period. Results: The results highlight that Medicaid patients consistently rated their experiences with their respective primary care providers, MD, DO, PA, and NPs, with similar high scores. Notably, our findings indicated the overall mean rating scores across the survey items used to describe the concept of patient experiences found that NPs ratings (µ = 9.1) compared favorably to MD (µ = 8.8) and PA (µ = 8.9) peers. DOs (µ = 9.4) rated highest among the four categories of providers in the aggregate.
Discussion: NP scores were high and ranked second in most survey items, but their DO counterparts scores were rated higher for the items; provider explained things clearly, provider listened carefully, provider knew important information about your medical history, provider showed respect, and provider spent enough time. These findings signal an opportunity for NPs’ practice to evolve and emphasize the importance of ongoing quality improvement initiatives. Conclusion: The clinical implication of this study underscores the scientific evidence supporting NPs’ clinical effectiveness when compared to other primary care providers. These findings can inform providers of areas of improvement needed.
Notes
References: Doyle, C., Lennox, L. and Bell, D. (2013). A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open, 3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570. [Accessed 28 Oct. 2024].
Kippenbrock, T., Emory, J., Lee, P., Odell, E., Buron, B. and Morrison, B. (2019). A national survey of nurse practitioners’ patient experiences outcomes. Nursing Outlook, 67(6), pp. 707-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.0. [Accessed 28 Oct. 2024].
Melby, C., Mosendz, P., & Buhayer, N. (2024, July 24). The miseducation of America’s nurse practitioners. Bloomberg News. Businessweek. Available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-07-24/is-the-nurse-practitioner-job-boom-putting-us-health-care-at-risk [Accessed 28 Oct. 2024].
Rickards, T. and Hamilton, S. (2020). Patient experiences of primary care provided by nurse practitioners in New Brunswick, Canada. J Nurse Pract., 16(4), pp. 299-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2019.12.027. [Accessed 28 Oct. 2024].
Robeznieks, A. (2022). Doctor shortages are here – and they’ll get worse if we don’t act fast. American Medical Association. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/sustainability/doctor-shortages-are-here-and-they-ll-get-worse-if-we-don-t-act [Accessed 25 Oct. 2024].
Sigma Membership
Pi Theta
Type
Presentation
Format Type
Text-based Document
Study Design/Type
Descriptive/Correlational
Research Approach
Quantitative Research
Keywords:
Primary Care, Promoting Clinical Outcomes, Patient-Centered Care, Patient Experience
Recommended Citation
Emory, DeAnna Jan and Kippenbrock, Thomas, "Reflection on Experiences with Primary Care Providers to Improve Patient-centered Care" (2025). Biennial Convention (CONV). 145.
https://www.sigmarepository.org/convention/2025/presentations_2025/145
Conference Name
48th Biennial Convention
Conference Host
Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Location
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Conference Year
2025
Rights Holder
All rights reserved by the author(s) and/or publisher(s) listed in this item record unless relinquished in whole or part by a rights notation or a Creative Commons License present in this item record. All permission requests should be directed accordingly and not to the Sigma Repository. All submitting authors or publishers have affirmed that when using material in their work where they do not own copyright, they have obtained permission of the copyright holder prior to submission and the rights holder has been acknowledged as necessary.
Review Type
Abstract Review Only: Reviewed by Event Host
Acquisition
Proxy-submission
Date of Issue
2025-12-01
Reflection on Experiences with Primary Care Providers to Improve Patient-centered Care
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Background: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality emphasized the assessment of the patients’ experiences along with other factors such as effectiveness and safety of care when demonstrating health care quality. To accurately gauge the patient’s experience, health care institutions must ask patients whether events in a healthcare setting occurred and how frequently they are with providers and the credentials of those providers.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate Medicaid recipients’ experiences with their respective primary care providers using responses from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) database.
Methods: The study was quantitative and descriptive using the secondary data source Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey results. The primary purpose of the CAHPS Database is to “boost our scientific understanding of patient experience with healthcare as part of a larger effort to advance the delivery of safe, patient-centered care. The sample included responses from 62,777 Medicaid recipients in a six-month period. Results: The results highlight that Medicaid patients consistently rated their experiences with their respective primary care providers, MD, DO, PA, and NPs, with similar high scores. Notably, our findings indicated the overall mean rating scores across the survey items used to describe the concept of patient experiences found that NPs ratings (µ = 9.1) compared favorably to MD (µ = 8.8) and PA (µ = 8.9) peers. DOs (µ = 9.4) rated highest among the four categories of providers in the aggregate.
Discussion: NP scores were high and ranked second in most survey items, but their DO counterparts scores were rated higher for the items; provider explained things clearly, provider listened carefully, provider knew important information about your medical history, provider showed respect, and provider spent enough time. These findings signal an opportunity for NPs’ practice to evolve and emphasize the importance of ongoing quality improvement initiatives. Conclusion: The clinical implication of this study underscores the scientific evidence supporting NPs’ clinical effectiveness when compared to other primary care providers. These findings can inform providers of areas of improvement needed.
Description
To accurately gauge the patient’s experience, health care institutions ask patients to rate their providers. For the purposes of this study, responses from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems database were used to investigate patients’ experiences. The clinical implication of this study underscores the scientific evidence supporting nurse practitioners’ clinical effectiveness when compared to medical doctors, physician’s assistants and doctor of osteopathic medicine.