We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
With a fraction of hospices having their Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) scores on Hospice Compare, a significant reservoir of hospice quality data remains in online caregiver reviews. The purpose of this study was to develop a method and model of hospice quality assessment from caregiver reviews using Watson’s carative model.
Methods
Retrospective mixed methods of pilot qualitative thematic analysis and sentiment analysis using NLP of Google and Yelp caregiver reviews between 2013 and 2023. We employed stratified sampling, weighted according to hospice size, to emulate the daily census of enrollees across the United States. Sentiment analysis was performed (n = 3393) using Google NLP.
Results
Two themes with the highest prevalence had moderately positive sentiments (S): Caring staff (+.47) and Care quality, comfort and cleanliness (+.41). Other positive sentiment scores with high prevalence were Gratitude and thanks (+.81), “Treating the patient with respect” (+.54), and “Emotional, spiritual, bereavement support” (+.60). Lowest sentiment scores were “Insurance, administrative or billing” (–.37), “Lack of staffing” (–.32), and “Communication with the family” (–.01).
Significance of results
In the developed quality model, caregivers recommended hospices with caring staff, providing quality care, responsive to requests, and offering family support, including bereavement care. All ten Watson's carative factors and all eight CAHPS measures were presented in the discovered review themes of the quality model. Close-ended CAHPS scores and open-ended online reviews have substantial conceptual overlap and complementary insights. Future hospice quality research should explore caregiver expectations and compare review themes by profit status.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.