Measuring what matters: A proposal for reframing how we evaluate and improve experience in healthcare

The conversation on measuring experience has been a long and thoughtful one. It has reflected a dynamic tension between measures used as a lever for action in some health systems and as a mechanism to determine reimbursable dollars in others. Yet underlying all the conversation, the question of what we measure, to what end we measure and what truly matters to those who experience care remains. Through a series of conversations over the last two years senior experience leaders across healthcare organizations determined it is time to assess the current landscape of patient experience measurement, to acknowledge what the existing system of measurement has inspired in effort and outcomes and to look forward to what could really make a difference in providing actionable insight and sustainable improvement in the future. While there are policy requirements for what organizations measure and report along with financial implications, this need not be the universal means by which patient feedback is captured and issues are addressed. This is paralleled by a global call for a clear, simple, comparable and actionable system of measurement to both understand and improve experience efforts in healthcare. This article reflects those conversations and frames the opportunity we have. It acknowledges all that the current system of measurement has helped us do, offers a new view on what measurement can be and presents a call to action to convene a diverse range of voices to shape experience measurement for the future. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Age and frailty are independently associated with increased COVID-19 mortality and increased care needs in survivors: results of an international multi-centre study

Introduction: Increased mortality has been demonstrated in older adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the effect of frailty has been unclear. Methods: This multi-centre cohort study involved patients aged 18 years and older hospitalised with COVID-19, using routinely collected data. We used Cox regression analysis to assess the impact of age, frailty and delirium on the risk of inpatient mortality, adjusting for sex, illness severity, inflammation and co-morbidities. We used ordinal logistic regression analysis to assess the impact of age, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and delirium on risk of increased care requirements on discharge, adjusting for the same variables. Results: Data from 5,711 patients from 55 hospitals in 12 countries were included (median age 74, interquartile range [IQR] 54–83; 55.2% male). The risk of death increased independently with increasing age (>80 versus 18–49: hazard ratio [HR] 3.57, confidence interval [CI] 2.54–5.02), frailty (CFS 8 versus 1–3: HR 3.03, CI 2.29–4.00) inflammation, renal disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer, but not delirium. Age, frailty (CFS 7 versus 1–3: odds ratio 7.00, CI 5.27–9.32), delirium, dementia and mental health diagnoses were all associated with increased risk of higher care needs on discharge. The likelihood of adverse outcomes increased across all grades of CFS from 4 to 9. Conclusion: Age and frailty are independently associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Risk of increased care needs was also increased in survivors of COVID-19 with frailty or older age.</p