Skip to main content

The AHRQ National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC, qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov) Web site will not be available after July 16, 2018 because federal funding
through AHRQ will no longer be available to support the NQMC as of that date. For additional information, read our full announcement.
  • Measure Summary
  • NQMC:010642
  • Jan 2015
  • NQF-Endorsed Measure

Communication climate: mean score for the "Workforce Development" domain on the Patient (or Pediatric) Survey and Staff Survey.

Communication climate assessment toolkit: adult patient survey. Aurora (CO): University of Colorado-Center for Bioethics & Humanities; 2015. 5 p.
Communication climate assessment toolkit: pediatric patient (parents/guardians complete) survey. Aurora (CO): University of Colorado-Center for Bioethics & Humanities; 2015. 4 p.
Communication climate assessment toolkit: staff survey. Aurora (CO): University of Colorado-Center for Bioethics & Humanities; 2015. 4 p.

View the original measure documentation External Web Site Policy

This is the current release of the measure.

This measure updates previous versions:

  • Communication climate assessment toolkit: adult patient survey. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2012 Jan. 4 p.
  • Communication climate assessment toolkit: pediatric patient (parents/guardians complete) survey. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2012 Jan. 4 p.
  • Communication climate assessment toolkit: staff survey. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2012 Jan. 4 p.

Primary Measure Domain

Clinical Quality Measures: Structure

Secondary Measure Domain

Clinical Quality Measure: Patient Experience

Description

This measure is used to assess the mean score for the "Workforce Development" domain on the Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit (C-CAT) Patient (or Pediatric) Survey and Staff Survey.

This domain comprises 2 items on the Patient (or Pediatric) Survey and 21 items on the Staff Survey:

Patient (or Pediatric) Survey

  • Did doctors pay attention to what you said?
  • Did doctors describe things in a way that made sense to you?
  • Do hospital (clinic) staff come from your community?

Staff Survey

  • Senior leaders have worked to recruit employees that reflect the patient community.
  • Senior leaders have rewarded staff and departments that work to improve communication.
  • My direct supervisors have intervened if staff were not respectful towards patients.
  • My direct supervisors have monitored whether I communicate effectively with patients.
  • My direct supervisors have provided useful feedback on how to improve my communication skills.
  • My direct supervisors have asked for my suggestions on how to improve communication within the hospital (clinic).
  • My direct supervisors have used my feedback to improve communication within the hospital (clinic).
  • Hospital (clinic) staff members have communicated well with patients over the phone.
  • Hospital (clinic) staff members have communicated with each other respectfully.
  • Hospital (clinic) staff members have communicated with each other effectively to ensure high quality care.
  • Hospital (clinic) staff members have needed more time to communicate well with patients.
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on communication policies at the hospital (clinic)?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on the impact of miscommunication on patient safety?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on the importance of communicating with patients in plain language instead of using technical terms?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on ways to check whether patients understand instructions (such as the teach-back or the "show-me" methods)?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on interacting with patients from diverse cultural and spiritual backgrounds?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on how to ask patients about their health care values and beliefs?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on how to ask patients about their racial/ethnic background in a culturally appropriate way?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on finding out when patients need an interpreter?
  • Have you ever received specific and adequate training on how to work with interpreters effectively?
  • Training from the hospital (clinic) has helped me communicate better with patients.

Note: To calculate domain scores, all relevant survey item responses were first standardized to a 0-to-1 scale, with 1 being the most desired response. For each domain, the mean of all included items was calculated for each survey to obtain patient and staff survey domain means (this accounts for varying numbers of items in each domain as well as the varying numbers of surveys collected at different sites). Finally, the means of the patient survey and the staff survey domain means were calculated (so that staff and patient scores carry equal weight in the overall domain score) and multiplied by 100. The domain scores are thus reported on standardized scales of 0 to 100 for each organization, with 100 being the best possible score. Refer to the C-CAT Sampling and Analysis Guide in the "Companion Documents" field for additional information.

This measure is one of nine composite measures derived from the C-CAT.

Rationale

Effective communication is the foundation for quality health care (Kaplan, Greenfield, & Ware, 1989; Flach et al., 2004; Markova & Broome, 2007; Institute of Medicine Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century, 2002; Ashton et al., 2003; Gordon, Baker, & Levinson, 1995; Seidel, 2004; Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Gruber, 2004; Safran et al., 2001; Zolnierek & Dimatteo, 2009; Divi et al., 2007; The Joint Commission, 2007; Scalise, 2006). Communication between health care practitioners, patients, and other members of care teams affects patient satisfaction (Gordon, Baker, & Levinson, 1995; Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Gruber, 2004; Safran et al., 2001), adherence to treatment recommendations (Seidel, 2004; Safran et al., 2001; Zolnierek & Dimatteo, 2009), and patient safety (Divi et al., 2007; The Joint Commission, 2007; Scalise, 2006). According to the Joint Commission, miscommunication is the leading cause of sentinel events (serious medical errors) (The Joint Commission, 2007). In addition, health and health care disparities are created when miscommunication disproportionately affects certain patient populations (Institute of Medicine Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century, 2002; Ashton et al., 2003; Gregg, 2004; Cene et al., 2009; Weech-Maldonado et al., 2008). As a result, understanding and improving communication may be a key to addressing disparities (Institute of Medicine Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century, 2002), which is an important national health policy goal (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009).

Patient-centered communication is well recognized as a key to quality care, and an organization's climate and infrastructure can affect communication in a number of important ways. A set of assessment tools was developed to measure a hospital or clinic's organizational climate specifically in regard to patient-centered communication. The tools provide a 360° evaluation of organizational communication climate and include patient and staff surveys that can be used to derive standardized domain scores in each of 9 key areas of organizational communication climate.

An organization should ensure that the structure and capability of its workforce meets the communication needs of the populations it serves, including by employing and training a workforce that reflects and appreciates the diversity of these populations.

Evidence for Rationale

An Ethical Force Program[TM] consensus report: improving communication--improving care. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2006. 144 p.

Ashton CM, Haidet P, Paterniti DA, Collins TC, Gordon HS, O'Malley K, Petersen LA, Sharf BF, Suarez-Almazor ME, Wray NP, Street RL Jr. Racial and ethnic disparities in the use of health services: bias, preferences, or poor communication. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Feb;18(2):146-52. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Cene CW, Roter D, Carson KA, Miller ER 3rd, Cooper LA. The effect of patient race and blood pressure control on patient-physician communication. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Sep;24(9):1057-64. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Divi C, Koss RG, Schmaltz SP, Loeb JM. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Apr;19(2):60-7. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Flach SD, McCoy KD, Vaughn TE, Ward MM, Bootsmiller BJ, Doebbeling BN. Does patient-centered care improve provision of preventive services. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Oct;19(10):1019-26. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Gordon GH, Baker L, Levinson W. Physician-patient communication in managed care. West J Med. 1995 Dec;163(6):527-31. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Gregg J. The role of culture and cross-cultural miscommunication in the perpetuation of disparities. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Aug;19(8):900; author reply 901-2. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Institute of Medicine Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century, Improving the Health of Diverse Populations. Speaking of health: assessing health communication strategies for diverse populations. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2002.

Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE Jr. Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S110-27. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Markova T, Broome B. Effective communication and delivery of culturally competent health care. Urol Nurs. 2007 Jun;27(3):239-42. [25 references] PubMed External Web Site Policy

Safran DG, Montgomery JE, Chang H, Murphy J, Rogers WH. Switching doctors: predictors of voluntary disenrollment from a primary physician's practice. J Fam Pract. 2001 Feb;50(2):130-6. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Scalise D. Clinical communication and patient safety. Hosp Health Netw. 2006 Aug;80(8):49-54, 2. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Seidel RW. How effective communication promotes better health outcomes. JAAPA. 2004 Nov;17(11):22-4. PubMed External Web Site Policy

The Joint Commission. Improving America's hospitals: The Joint Commission's annual report on quality and safety, 2007. Oakbrook Terrace (IL): The Joint Commission; 2007.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010. [internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; [accessed 2009 Dec 31].

Wanzer MB, Booth-Butterfield M, Gruber K. Perceptions of health care providers' communication: relationships between patient-centered communication and satisfaction. Health Commun. 2004;16(3):363-83. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Weech-Maldonado R, Fongwa MN, Gutierrez P, Hays RD. Language and regional differences in evaluations of Medicare managed care by Hispanics. Health Serv Res. 2008 Apr;43(2):552-68. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Wynia MK, Johnson M, McCoy TP, Griffin LP, Osborn CY. Validation of an organizational communication climate assessment toolkit. Am J Med Qual. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(6):436-43. [39 references] PubMed External Web Site Policy

Zolnierek KB, Dimatteo MR. Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):826-34. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Primary Health Components

Patient experience; staff experience; communication; workforce development

Denominator Description

Total number of items in the "Workforce Development" domain on the Patient (or Pediatric) Survey and Staff Survey (see the related "Denominator Inclusions/Exclusions" field)

Numerator Description

The sum of scores for each item in the "Workforce Development" domain (see the related "Numerator Inclusions/Exclusions" field)

Type of Evidence Supporting the Criterion of Quality for the Measure

  • A formal consensus procedure, involving experts in relevant clinical, methodological, public health and organizational sciences
  • One or more research studies published in a National Library of Medicine (NLM) indexed, peer-reviewed journal

Additional Information Supporting Need for the Measure

  • Health literacy refers to a person's ability to understand and act on health information (Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2004). A growing body of evidence demonstrates that compared to individuals with adequate health literacy skills, those with limited health literacy are more likely to misunderstand health information (Friedman, Hoffman-Goetz, & Arocha, 2006); face difficulty following medical instructions (Davis et al., 2006); inappropriately or infrequently use health care services (Gazmararian et al., 1999; Sudore et al., 2006); have worse physical and mental health (Wolf, Gazmararian, & Baker, 2005); experience higher rates of hospitalization (Baker et al., 2002); and have a shorter life expectancy (Baker et al., 2007). Efforts to overcome limited health literacy have included developing plain language, patient-friendly education materials and navigation aids (Stableford & Mettger, 2007); educating healthcare professionals about health literacy issues (Riley, Cloonan, & Rogan, 2008); redesigning patient informed consent forms (Lorenzen, Melby, & Earles, 2008); and using established communication methods such as the "teach back" techniques when communicating with patients (Villaire & Mayer, 2007). While experts agree that implementing a range of system-wide strategies may be the most effective means of overcoming limited health literacy (Murphy-Knoll, 2007; O'Leary, Davis, & Cordell, 2007), system-wide change to address limited health literacy has been difficult to stimulate and slow to develop in most health care organizations (Stableford & Mettger, 2007).
  • Recent evidence suggests that even when providers know about health literacy and the need for enhanced communication techniques, they underutilize these strategies (Turner et al., 2009). Many effective health communication strategies have been studied by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, but remain unincorporated into routine clinical practice (Schwartzberg et al., 2007).
  • Obtaining informed consent is difficult when there are communication gaps between the clinician and the patient. For example, more than 90 million people in the United States (43% of adults) have literacy levels below what they need to understand most health information, including informed consent discussions (Marcus, 2006; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2006; IOM, 2004). Lack of adequate skills to read or understand health care information is a particularly serious problem for the elderly, recent immigrants, and patients with limited educational attainment (Weiss, 2005). In addition, 22 million Americans have limited English proficiency, which poses a significant hurdle to effective health care communication (Flores, 2006).
  • Research has shown that limited English proficiency (LEP) patients and patients from minority racial/ethnic groups experience communication problems more frequently than patients who speak English and those from traditionally advantaged groups. Regarding LEP patients, Flores (2005) has shown that provision of interpreters for LEP patients positively affects preventive screening rates, while those who either get no interpreter or an ad hoc interpreter have more medical tests, higher costs, and higher rates of hospitalization. Regarding patients of minority race/ethnicity, Hausman et al. (2011) have found that perceived racism is higher among African American patients than white patients, and that perceived racism negatively affects patient ratings of ease of communication (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 0.67).

Evidence for Additional Information Supporting Need for the Measure

 American Medical Association, Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (AMA-PCPI).  National Quality Forum (NQF) measure submission and evaluation worksheet 5.0: workforce development measure derived from workforce development domain of the C-CAT.  2012 Mar 29.  20 p. 

Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, Scott T, Parker RM, Green D, Ren J, Peel J. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Public Health. 2002 Aug;92(8):1278-83. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J, Thompson JA, Gazmararian JA, Huang J. Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Jul 23;167(14):1503-9. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Davis TC, Wolf MS, Bass PF, Middlebrooks M, Kennen E, Baker DW, Bennett CL, Durazo-Arvizu R, Bocchini A, Savory S, Parker RM. Low literacy impairs comprehension of prescription drug warning labels. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Aug;21(8):847-51. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Flores G. Language barriers to health care in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 20;355(3):229-31. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2005 Jun;62(3):255-99. [58 references] PubMed External Web Site Policy

Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Health literacy and the World Wide Web: comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet. Med Inform Internet Med. 2006 Mar;31(1):67-87. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Scott TL, Green DC, Fehrenbach SN, Ren J, Koplan JP. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA. 1999 Feb 10;281(6):545-51. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Hausmann LR, Hannon MJ, Kresevic DM, Hanusa BH, Kwoh CK, Ibrahim SA. Impact of perceived discrimination in healthcare on patient-provider communication. Med Care. 2011 Jul;49(7):626-33. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Institute of Medicine (IOM). Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2004.

Lorenzen B, Melby CE, Earles B. Using principles of health literacy to enhance the informed consent process. AORN J. 2008 Jul;88(1):23-9. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Marcus EN. The silent epidemic--the health effects of illiteracy. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jul 27;355(4):339-41. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Matiasek J, Wynia MK. Reconceptualizing the informed consent process at eight innovative hospitals. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Mar;34(3):127-37. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Murphy-Knoll L. Low health literacy puts patients at risk: the Joint Commission proposes solutions to national problem. J Nurs Care Qual. 2007 Jul-Sep;22(3):205-9. PubMed External Web Site Policy

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The health literacy of America's adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington (DC): National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); 2006.

O'Leary DS, Davis RM, Cordell T. Low health literacy puts patients at risk: The Joint Commission sets forth solutions to national problem. Director. 2007;15(3):44, 59. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Riley J, Cloonan P, Rogan E. Improving student understanding of health literacy through experiential learning. J Health Adm Educ. 2008;25(3):213-28. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Schwartzberg JG, Cowett A, VanGeest J, Wolf MS. Communication techniques for patients with low health literacy: a survey of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. Am J Health Behav. 2007 Sep-Oct;31 Suppl 1:S96-104. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Stableford S, Mettger W. Plain language: a strategic response to the health literacy challenge. J Public Health Policy. 2007;28(1):71-93. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Sudore RL, Mehta KM, Simonsick EM, Harris TB, Newman AB, Satterfield S, Rosano C, Rooks RN, Rubin SM, Ayonayon HN, Yaffe K. Limited literacy in older people and disparities in health and healthcare access. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 May;54(5):770-6. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Turner T, Cull WL, Bayldon B, Klass P, Sanders LM, Frintner MP, Abrams MA, Dreyer B. Pediatricians and health literacy: descriptive results from a national survey. Pediatrics. 2009 Nov;124 Suppl 3:S299-305. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Villaire M, Mayer G. Low health literacy: the impact on chronic illness management. Prof Case Manag. 2007 Jul-Aug;12(4):213-6; quiz 217-8. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Weiss B. Epidemiology of low health literacy. In: Schwartzberg JG, VanGeest JB, Wang CC, editor(s). Understanding health literacy: implications for medicine and public health. Chicago (IL): AMA Press; 2005. p. 17-39.

Wolf MS, Gazmararian JA, Baker DW. Health literacy and functional health status among older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2005 Sep 26;165(17):1946-52. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Wynia MK, Osborn CY. Health literacy and communication quality in health care organizations. J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 2:102-15. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Extent of Measure Testing

Effective communication is critical to providing quality health care and can be affected by a number of modifiable organizational factors. Wynia et al. (2010) performed a prospective multisite validation study of an organizational communication climate assessment tool in 13 geographically and ethnically diverse health care organizations. Communication climate was measured across 9 discrete domains. Patient and staff surveys with matched items in each domain were developed using a national consensus process, which then underwent psychometric field testing and assessment of domain coherence. The authors found meaningful within-site and between-site performance score variability in all domains. In multivariable models, most communication domains were significant predictors of patient-reported quality of care and trust. The authors conclude that these assessment tools provide a valid empirical assessment of organizational communication climate in 9 domains. Assessment results may be useful to track organizational performance, to benchmark, and to inform tailored quality improvement interventions.

Evidence for Extent of Measure Testing

Wynia MK, Johnson M, McCoy TP, Griffin LP, Osborn CY. Validation of an organizational communication climate assessment toolkit. Am J Med Qual. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(6):436-43. [39 references] PubMed External Web Site Policy

State of Use

Current routine use

Current Use

Internal quality improvement

Monitoring and planning

Measurement Setting

Ambulatory/Office-based Care

Hospital Inpatient

Hospital Outpatient

Professionals Involved in Delivery of Health Services

Advanced Practice Nurses

Allied Health Personnel

Clinical Administrators/Managers

Nurses

Physician Assistants

Physicians

Psychologists/Non-physician Behavioral Health Clinicians

Social Workers

Least Aggregated Level of Services Delivery Addressed

Clinical Practice or Public Health Sites

Statement of Acceptable Minimum Sample Size

Specified

Target Population Age

Unspecified

Target Population Gender

Either male or female

National Quality Strategy Aim

Better Care

National Quality Strategy Priority

Health and Well-being of Communities
Person- and Family-centered Care
Prevention and Treatment of Leading Causes of Mortality

IOM Care Need

Staying Healthy

IOM Domain

Effectiveness

Patient-centeredness

Case Finding Period

A brief, discrete data collection period is preferred. A data collection period of between 1 and 4 weeks is usually sufficient to collect needed data.

Denominator Sampling Frame

Professionals/Staff

Denominator (Index) Event or Characteristic

Does not apply to this measure

Denominator Time Window

Does not apply to this measure

Denominator Inclusions/Exclusions

Inclusions
Total number of items in the "Workforce Development" domain on the Patient (or Pediatric) Survey and Staff Survey

Note: Sites using this measure must obtain at least 50 staff responses and at least 100 patient responses.

Exclusions
Staff respondents who do not have direct contact with patients are excluded from questions that specifically address patient contact.

Exclusions/Exceptions

Does not apply to this measure

Numerator Inclusions/Exclusions

Inclusions
The sum of scores for each item in the "Workforce Development" domain

Note: To calculate domain scores, all relevant survey item responses were first standardized to a 0-to-1 scale, with 1 being the most desired response. For each domain, the mean of all included items was calculated for each survey to obtain patient and staff survey domain means. Finally, the means of the patient survey and the staff survey domain means were calculated and multiplied by 100. The domain scores are reported on standardized scales of 0 to 100, with 100 being the best possible score. Refer to the C-CAT Sampling and Analysis Guide in the "Companion Documents" field for additional information.

Exclusions
Responses of "Not Sure" and "N/A" are excluded.

Numerator Search Strategy

Fixed time period or point in time

Data Source

Health professional survey

Patient/Individual survey

Type of Health State

Does not apply to this measure

Instruments Used and/or Associated with the Measure

Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit (C-CAT):

  • Adult Patient Survey
  • Pediatric Patient Survey
  • Staff Survey

Measure Specifies Disaggregation

Does not apply to this measure

Scoring

Composite/Scale

Mean/Median

Interpretation of Score

Desired value is a higher score

Allowance for Patient or Population Factors

Unspecified

Standard of Comparison

External comparison at a point in, or interval of, time

External comparison of time trends

Internal time comparison

Original Title

Workforce development.

Measure Collection Name

Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit (C-CAT)

Submitter

University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities - Academic Affiliated Research Institute

Developer

University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities - Academic Affiliated Research Institute

Funding Source(s)

  • American Medical Association (AMA)
  • California Endowment
  • The Commonwealth Fund
  • Connecticut Health Foundation

Composition of the Group that Developed the Measure

Members of the expert advisory panel on Patient-Centered Communication: Dennis Andrulis, PhD, MPH (Drexel University School of Public Health); David W. Baker, MD, MPH, FACP (Northwestern Memorial Hospital); David Fleming, MD (Center for Health Ethics, University of Missouri - Columbia); Elizabeth Heitman, PhD (Center for Medical Ethics, Vanderbilt University); Sharon King-Donohue, JD (National Committee for Quality Assurance); Edward L. Martinez, MS (National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems); Mary A. Pittman, DrPH (Health Research and Educational Trust); Elena Rios, MD, MSPH (National Hispanic Medical Association); Stephen B. Thomas, PhD (Center for Minority Health, University of Pittsburgh); Amy Wilson, MPP (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations); Winston Wong, MD (Kaiser Permanente Community Benefit Program); Dawn E. Wood, MD, MPH (WellPoint); Mara Youdelman, JD, LLM (National Health Law Program)

Financial Disclosures/Other Potential Conflicts of Interest

Unspecified

Endorser

National Quality Forum

NQF Number

1888

Date of Endorsement

2012 Aug 9

Adaptation

This measure was not adapted from another source.

Date of Most Current Version in NQMC

2015 Jan

Measure Maintenance

Annual

Date of Next Anticipated Revision

Unspecified

Measure Status

This is the current release of the measure.

This measure updates previous versions:

  • Communication climate assessment toolkit: adult patient survey. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2012 Jan. 4 p.
  • Communication climate assessment toolkit: pediatric patient (parents/guardians complete) survey. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2012 Jan. 4 p.
  • Communication climate assessment toolkit: staff survey. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2012 Jan. 4 p.

Source(s)

Communication climate assessment toolkit: adult patient survey. Aurora (CO): University of Colorado-Center for Bioethics & Humanities; 2015. 5 p.

Communication climate assessment toolkit: pediatric patient (parents/guardians complete) survey. Aurora (CO): University of Colorado-Center for Bioethics & Humanities; 2015. 4 p.

Communication climate assessment toolkit: staff survey. Aurora (CO): University of Colorado-Center for Bioethics & Humanities; 2015. 4 p.

Measure Availability

Source available from the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities Web site External Web Site Policy.

For more information, contact the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities at Fulginiti Pavilion for Bioethics and Humanities – Mailstop B137, 13080 E. 19th Avenue, Room 201, Aurora, CO 80045; Phone: 303-724-6997; Fax: 303-724-3997; E-mail: CCAT@ucdenver.edu; Web site: www.ucdenver.edu External Web Site Policy.

Companion Documents

The following are available:

  • C-CAT sampling and analysis guide. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2011 Aug. 5 p.
  • An Ethical Force ProgramTM consensus report: improving communication--improving care. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association (AMA); 2006. 144 p. This document is available from the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities Web site External Web Site Policy.

For more information, contact the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities at Fulginiti Pavilion for Bioethics and Humanities – Mailstop B137, 13080 E. 19th Avenue, Room 201, Aurora, CO 80045; Phone: 303-724-6997; Fax: 303-724-3997; E-mail: CCAT@ucdenver.edu; Web site: www.ucdenver.edu External Web Site Policy.

NQMC Status

This NQMC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on May 30, 2013. The information was verified by the measure developer on August 9, 2013.

This NQMC summary was updated by ECRI Institute on March 23, 2016. The information was not verified by the measure developer.

Copyright Statement

This NQMC summary is based on the original measure, which is subject to the measure developer's copyright restrictions.

The Communication Climate Assessment Toolkit (C-CAT) surveys are available for viewing online. You may download and use the surveys for research purposes at no cost. If you would like to use the C-CAT for a formal, benchmarked organization assessment, send an email to ccat@ucdenver.edu and we will contact you with a trained C-CAT consultant. Qualified C-CAT consultants will help you use the surveys for your organization assessment, provide benchmarking data and offer tailored guidance for improvement.

NQMC Disclaimer

The National Quality Measures Clearinghouse™ (NQMC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the measures represented on this site.

All measures summarized by NQMC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public and private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, individuals, and similar entities.

Measures represented on the NQMC Web site are submitted by measure developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NQMC Inclusion Criteria.

NQMC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or its reliability and/or validity of the quality measures and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of measures represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NQMC, AHRQ, or its contractor, ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of measures in NQMC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding measure content are directed to contact the measure developer.

About NQMC Measure Summaries

NQMC provides structured summaries containing information about measures and their development.

Measure Summary FAQs


Measure Summaries

New This Week

View more and sign up for our Newsletter

Get Adobe Reader