Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41993602›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2026

Using a Quality Improvement Priority Metric to Promote Uniformly High-Quality Care: An Illustrative Example Using Child HCAHPS Survey Data.

Denise D Quigley, Marc N Elliott, Mary E Slaughter, Ron D Hays

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Denise D QuigleyRAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3815-908X
Marc N ElliottRAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Mary E SlaughterRAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Ron D HaysRAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6697-907X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient experience data are used to set performance targets and monitor effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) activities. However, assessing and determining areas that need improvement can be challenging, especially when there are many measures, making it harder to synthesize and identify clear priorities. We describe a QI priority metric and technique for assessing cross-sectional patient experience data that explicitly examine subgroup performance and priorities. The QI priority metric combines 2 patient experience metrics (case-mix-adjusted mean for a patient experience measure and partial correlation of that measure with an overall rating) into a single priority value, allowing leaders to quickly identify improvement areas across multiple measures and patient groups. We examined the priority metric overall and by patient groups (ie, by race, ethnicity, and language preference). We found the priority metric synthesized and identified 2 priority areas for improvement for the entire patient population and revealed several additional improvement priorities specific to patient groups. This metric has the potential to be an informative and self-educating technique for promoting uniformly high-quality care and enhancing performance.

Indexed as

high-quality carepatient experiencepriority metricquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID41993602
PMCPMC13080214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.