Search

Background: Many different surveys have been used to evaluate the performance of medical groups, but there is a growing recognition that standardization could be helpful to consumers, purchasers, and others., Objectives: We sought to develop a version of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) survey for use with medical groups (G-CAHPS) and assess its reliability and validity., Research Design: The research team reviewed existing instruments and conducted patient focus groups in 4 sites to identify aspects of care that were especially important to patients when evaluating medical groups. We tested a draft instrument in 75 cognitive interviews with adults 18 years of age or older in Knoxville, St. Louis, and California and pretests in 4 groups of adults in Boston and Denver. We then surveyed random samples of patients from medical groups and practice sites in California, Knoxville, St. Louis, and Denver. We analyzed the psychometric characteristics of the instrument., Results: Data support the reliability and validity of 3 multi-item measures of access, office staff service, and patient clinician communication. Measures related to specialty care and preventive counseling did not differentiate among medical groups., Conclusions: The G-CAHPS instrument provides an assessment of selected aspects of care that are important to consumers and could be a useful complement to the plan-level CAHPS instrument.

Health care quality measurement initiatives often use health plans as the unit of analysis, but plans often contract with provider organizations that are managed independently. There is interest in understanding whether there is substantial variability in quality among such units. We evaluated the extent to which scores on the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) survey vary across: health plans, regional service organizations (RSOs) (similar to independent practice associations [IPAs] and physician/hospital organizations [PHOs]), medical groups, and practice sites. There was significant variation among RSOs, groups and sites, with practice sites explaining the greatest share of variation for most measures.