Association between surgical patient satisfaction and nonmodifiable factors

Martin, Luke; Presson, Angela P.; Zhang, Chong; Ray, David M.; Finlayson, Samuel R.G.; Glasgow, Robert E.

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.03.029

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 1983, 93% of plastic surgery studies had a level of evidence of IV or V; in 2003, this number had improved to 87%, with the same findings in 2008. [6][7][8][9] As such, the objective of this study was to provide an update on the trends in level of evidence in the field of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery over the past decade.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Update on Level of Evidence Trends in Facial Plastic Surgery Research

Eggerstedt

Shay

Brown

et al. 2020

Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Knowledge of the quality of evidence in facial plastic surgery research is essential for the implementation of evidence-based practices. The purpose of this study is to provide an update over the past decade as to whether the level of evidence in leading journals featuring topics in facial plastic surgery has changed in comparison with prior reports. Materials and Methods: This study is a systematic review, designed to evaluate the level of evidence observed in the facial plastic surgery literature over time. Five journals were queried using facial plastic surgery keywords for four selected years for a 10-year period. After screening, articles were assessed for the presence of various methodological traits and were evaluated for overall level of evidence. These variables were compared across the years studied to evaluate trends in level of evidence. Results: A total of 826 articles were included for final review. For all selected years, level IV or level V evidence was the most prevalent level of evidence. Over time, significantly less level IV (p = 0.009) and significantly more level II (p = 0.007) evidence was published. The proportion of studies reporting confidence intervals (p < 0.001) and p-values (p = 0.02) were significantly greater in later years. Conclusions: The level of evidence of facial plastic surgery literature has increased over time, as demonstrated by an increased proportion of level II evidence, decreased proportion of level IV evidence, and increased use of p-values and confidence intervals. The absolute number of randomized controlled trials continues to remain low.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Update on Level of Evidence Trends in Facial Plastic Surgery Research

Eggerstedt

Shay

Brown

et al. 2020

Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PG response rates are not consistently reported in orthopedic PG studies, but when they are, the rates have been low, ranging from 12.6% to 28%. 2,4,5,7,9,[13][14][15]21 PG data, whether here or elsewhere, appear to be limited by nonresponse bias, thereby raising concerns about the instruments' ability to accurately measure patient satisfaction. 19,21 In this study, we encountered notable ceiling effects, with 64% of our patients reporting perfect satisfaction with care provider and 27% exhibiting perfect overall satisfaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of Press Ganey Satisfaction and PROMIS Function and Pain in Foot and Ankle Patients

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient satisfaction has garnered interest as a tool to measure health care quality. However, orthopedic studies in total joint arthroplasty, spine, and hand patients have offered conflicting relationships between Press Ganey (PG) satisfaction metrics and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. No prior study has assessed the relationship between PG and PROs in foot and ankle patients. Whether satisfaction and outcomes instruments, though, measure similar or differing aspects of the patient experience is unclear. Here, we tested if there was an association between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) outcomes and PG satisfaction scores. Methods: PG and PROMIS outcomes data for new patient visits to an orthopedic foot and ankle clinic between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients that completed PG satisfaction surveys were included for study. All patients who completed PG surveys and completed one or both PROMIS physical function (PF) or pain interference (PI) metrics administered by computerized adaptive testing were included. Negative binomial regressions were used to compare PRO scores to PG overall satisfaction and PG satisfaction with care provider, adjusting for patient characteristics. Results were reported as dissatisfaction score ratios, which represented the amount of PG dissatisfaction associated with a 10-point increase in PROMIS PF or PI. Of the 3984 new patient visits, only 441 completed the PG survey (11.3% response rate). Results: Ceiling effects were seen with PG data: 64% of patients reported perfect satisfaction with care provider and 27% had perfect overall satisfaction. Higher function on the PROMIS PF was weakly associated with increased overall satisfaction (ratio = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99, P = .039) and increased satisfaction with care provider (ratio = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92, P = .019). However, pain (PROMIS PI) was not associated with overall satisfaction or with satisfaction with care provider. Conclusions: Based on our data here, patient satisfaction was weakly related to patient-reported function but not pain interference among this subset of new patients presenting to a foot and ankle clinic. Given our essentially negative findings, further study is needed to determine which aspects of the PG satisfaction and PROMIS scores track similarly. Further, our findings add to the growing literature showcasing limitations of the PG tool, including low response rates and notable ceiling effects. If satisfaction metrics and patient-reported outcomes capture differing aspects of the patient experience, we need to better understand how that influences the measurement of health care quality and value. Level of Evidence: Level III, comparative study.

show abstract

“…7 As such, an in-depth understanding of factors related to patient satisfaction is valuable in the clinical setting. While patient satisfaction has been well described in primary care, medical, and general surgery specialties, [8][9][10][11][12] the determinants of patient satisfaction in hand/upper extremity patients remains poorly understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Patient Satisfaction in Hand and Upper Extremity Clinics

Shaterian

Sayadi

Santos

et al. 2019

Journal of Hand and Microsurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Patient satisfaction is an important clinical marker for hand/upper extremity patients. Few studies have investigated the predictors of patient satisfaction in the clinic setting. Our objective was to analyze patient satisfaction surveys to explore factors that influence patient satisfaction. Materials and Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis assessing patient satisfaction in the hand/upper extremity clinics at our university medical center between 2012 and 2018. Patient satisfaction was assessed via Press Ganey Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys. Patient demographics, satisfaction scores, and clinic experience questionnaire responses were evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify significant trends. Results Between 2012 and 2018, 102 surveys were completed. Scores ranged from 5 to 10 with an average provider rating of 9.56. We found six factors significantly influenced patient satisfaction: adequate time was spent with the provider, provider showed respect, patient was seen by provider within 15 minutes of appointment time, provider listened sufficiently, patient received understandable medical instructions, and understandable medical explanations (p < 0.05). Conclusion Achieving patient satisfaction is an important clinical marker in hand/upper extremity clinics. Patient satisfaction has defined predictors wherein various clinical factors can influence patient satisfaction and willingness to refer their provider to other patients.

show abstract

Association between surgical patient satisfaction and nonmodifiable factors

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

An Update on Level of Evidence Trends in Facial Plastic Surgery Research

An Update on Level of Evidence Trends in Facial Plastic Surgery Research

Relationship of Press Ganey Satisfaction and PROMIS Function and Pain in Foot and Ankle Patients

Predictors of Patient Satisfaction in Hand and Upper Extremity Clinics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About