Effects of perceptions of care, medical advice, and hospital quality on patient satisfaction after primary total knee replacement: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

IntroductionThe increase in the number of patients presenting with osteoarthritis in the past decade has led to a 32% increase in knee replacement surgeries designed to reduce restrictions on patient movement and improve their quality of life. Patient satisfaction is becoming an increasingly important indicator of quality of care. This study was designed to identify predictors of various service components in the treatment process and hospital key performance indicators significantly associated with patient satisfaction.Materials and methodsA multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted with 856 patients having their primary total knee replacements at 41 hospitals. Patient satisfaction was queried via a validated, multidimensional questionnaire mainly using a six-point scale. In addition to bivariate calculations, patient satisfaction was the dependent variable in a binary logistic regression model.ResultsThe bivariate analysis showed a strong association between satisfaction and sex (male or female), the patients’ health before admission, and the length of stay. The number of cases treated at each hospital did not reveal any impact on satisfaction. The multivariate analysis identified three predictors associated with overall satisfaction. The strongest factor was the treatment outcome and the weakest was the quality of food. It became apparent that the statutory procedure minimums were not being met.ConclusionsThe relevant factors influencing patient satisfaction were partially the same as previous study results and allowed more detailed conclusions. The results provide suggestions across hospitals that could help health care providers better meet needs of patients after knee arthroplasties.

The contribution of participant, treatment, and outcome factors to treatment satisfaction

“…The associations were the strongest with the outcome attributes ( β 's > 0.59), followed in descending order with the components and attitude toward the therapy ( β 's ranged from 0.40 to 0.63), and the therapists and mode and dose of treatment delivery ( β 's ranged from 0.21 to 0.38). These findings are consistent with those frequently reported by researchers who investigated different treatments to manage diverse health problems including pain (Andrews et al, ; George & Robinson, ), psychosis (Lawlor et al, ), knee replacement (Schaal et al, ), smoking (Alessi & Rash, ), and substance misuse (Kendra et al, ; Schulte et al, ). These results highlight the influential contribution of perceived improvement in outcomes to treatment satisfaction and have implications for revising treatments to optimize their impact on outcomes (Collins, Dziak, Kugler, & Trail, ).…”

“…The most frequently examined outcome factor is self‐reported improvement in the health problem targeted by the therapy under evaluation. Results of several studies indicate that improvement in the problem, as perceived and reported by participants, affects treatment satisfaction; high levels of self‐reported improvement are associated with high satisfaction (Alessi & Rash, ; Andrews, Browne, Wood, & Schug, ; Kendra et al, ; Lawlor et al, ; Schaal, Schoenfelder, Klewer, & Kugler, ).…”

Twenty years later: Oral health‐related quality of life and standard of treatment in patients with chronic periodontitis

“…The systematic evaluation of patients’ satisfaction and quantification of their expectation would help to improve the quality of care and enhance a shared decision‐making process in treatment. Patients’ satisfaction has been widely used as a key performance indicator in health care to measure quality of care, define value in health care, and enhance patient‐centered care …”

“…Patients' satisfaction has been widely used as a key performance indicator in health care to measure quality of care, define value in health care, and enhance patient-centered care. [1][2][3] Whereas patient-centered care in dentistry has yet not been clearly defined, 4 the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) may be used as a multidimensional parameter to subjectively assess the quality of care in terms of functional, as well as emotional well-being, expectations, and satisfaction. 5 The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), an index of social impact of oral disorders, 6 has been widely used as a reliable instrument to investigate OHRQoL.…”

The impact of variations in input directions according to ISO 14243 on wearing of knee prostheses

“…The success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for returning knee functionality has contributed to its widening application for treating diseases of the knee that have failed conservative treatments [ 1 ]. However, even with successive improvements in implant designs and materials, implant failure and patient dissatisfaction still persist [ 2 – 5 ]. Loosening of the implant is the most common reason for requiring a second TKA [ 6 – 8 ], which is reported to be linked to malalignment of the motion axis and the generation of wear particles which can induce osteolysis around the implant [ 9 – 10 ].…”