Caregiver and Employee Experience Among Big Hospices-Ranking of the Largest US Hospices by Three Quality Indicators

Abstract

Background: Several studies chronicle profit-making negatively impacting US hospice care quality. However, no study has reported on caregiver satisfaction expressed online by hospice.

Objectives: Assess the relationship between online caregiver sentiment, market share, profit status, and Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) scores among the 50 largest US hospices.

Methods: Retrospective mixed methods of sentiment and multivariate regression analysis. Data sources were online caregiver reviews, provider CAHPS hospice survey data.

Results: Being a larger, for-profit predicted diminished caregiver and employee satisfaction. Caregiver Sentiment and CAHPS Composite were so highly associated (r = .862, P < .001), that they are converging on overall caregiver satisfaction. With large effect, CAHPS Star Rating was significantly higher than Review Star Rating. For-profits had significantly higher overall Emotional Intensity than non-profit hospices, again with large effect. Caregiver Sentiment, Review Star Rating, and Glassdoor Composite each predicted CAHPS Composite. Lack of staffing was more frequent among for-profits (13%) than non-profits (6%). Out-of-scope expectations prevalence was 9%.

Conclusion: Caregiver and employees had better experiences with non-profits than for-profits. Anger and frustration was expressed toward large, for-profit providers more focused on admissions, profiteering, and paying dividends than actual care. The CAHPS appears to draw more satisfied caregivers. Whereas, online reviewing provides open-ended, real-time voicing of care quality concerns. Even with distinct methods, CAHPS survey and review sentiment analysis converge on caregiver satisfaction, yet CAHPS paints a much rosier picture of hospice quality than online reviews. Future research should explore sentiments by topic and hospice to increase customer advocacy.

Keywords: CAHPS® scores; consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems; hospice quality; hospice size; profit status.