Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia - Part 2: Construction and quality assessment of questionnaires

Nübling, Matthias; Saal, D.; Heidegger, Thomas

doi:10.1111/anae.12348

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, even by combining all five answers to an overall percentage score, we did not obtain a fairly symmetric distribution. It might be argued that it is not possible to achieve a symmetrical distribution with general questions about patient satisfaction [32,33], rendering the selection of the questions used for the national benchmark disputable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing questionnaires: healthcare survey to compare two different response scales

Dell-Kuster

Sanjuan

Todorov

et al. 2014

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA widely discussed design issue in patient satisfaction questionnaires is the optimal length and labelling of the answering scale. The aim of the present study was to compare intra-individually the answers on two response scales to five general questions evaluating patients’ perception of hospital care.MethodsBetween November 2011 and January 2012, all in-hospital patients at a Swiss University Hospital received a patient satisfaction questionnaire on an adjectival scale with three to four labelled categories (LS) and five redundant questions displayed on an 11-point end-anchored numeric scale (NS). The scales were compared concerning ceiling effect, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), individual item answers (Spearman’s rank correlation), and concerning overall satisfaction by calculating an overall percentage score (sum of all answers related to the maximum possible sum).ResultsThe response rate was 41% (2957/7158), of which 2400 (81%) completely filled out all questions. Baseline characteristics of the responders and non-responders were similar. Floor and ceiling effect were high on both response scales, but more pronounced on the LS than on the NS. Cronbach’s alpha was higher on the NS than on the LS. There was a strong individual item correlation between both answering scales in questions regarding the intent to return, quality of treatment and the judgement whether the patient was treated with respect and dignity, but a lower correlation concerning satisfactory information transfer by physicians or nurses, where only three categories were available in the LS. The overall percentage score showed a comparable distribution, but with a wider spread of lower satisfaction in the NS.ConclusionsSince the longer scale did not substantially reduce the ceiling effect, the type of questions rather than the type of answering scale could be addressed with a focus on specific questions about concrete situations instead of general questions. Moreover, the low correlation in questions about information provision suggests that only three possible response choices are insufficient. Further investigations are needed to find a more sensitive scale discriminating high-end ratings. Otherwise, a longitudinal within-hospital or a cross-sectional between-hospital comparison of patient care is questionable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing questionnaires: healthcare survey to compare two different response scales

Dell-Kuster

Sanjuan

Todorov

et al. 2014

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessment of satisfaction requires psychometrically derived tools rather than the solitary global question often included in recovery tools , with the latter often being poorly defined . Few satisfaction tools are statistically robust , although the Peri‐operative Anaesthetic Care Questionnaire and the Leiden Peri‐operative Care Patient Satisfaction questionnaire report both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. However, patient satisfaction should not be neglected, is a fundamental component of quality of care assessment , and is increasingly studied using instruments such as the EuroQol‐5 Dimensions (see http://www.euroqol.org).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the scope and measurement of postoperative quality of recovery

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryTo date, postoperative quality of recovery lacks a universally accepted definition and assessment technique. Current quality of recovery assessment tools vary in their development, breadth of assessment, validation, use of continuous vs dichotomous outcomes and focus on individual vs group recovery. They have progressed from identifying pure restitution of physiological parameters to multidimensional assessments of postoperative function and patient-focused outcomes. This review focuses on the progression of these tools towards an as yet unreached ideal that would provide multidimensional assessment of recovery over time at the individual and group level. A literature search identified 11 unique recovery assessment tools. The Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale assesses recovery in multiple domains, including physiological, nociceptive, emotive, activities of daily living, cognition and patient satisfaction. It addresses recovery over time and compares individual patient data with base line, thus describing resumption of capacities and is an acceptable method for identification of individual patient recovery.

show abstract

“…All groups used questionnaires that they had developed themselves using rigorous protocols involving validation at different levels and measurement of reliability. Construction and quality assessment of questionnaires are important, but are outside the scope of this review and will be dealt with in the second part of this review .…”

Section: How To Satisfy Patients With Anaesthesia Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For these, the reader is referred to the sources cited. This article is the first of two paired reviews on the topic of patient satisfaction; the second will deal with the construction and quality assessment of questionnaires for measuring patient satisfaction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia - Part 1: Satisfaction as part of outcome - and what satisfies patients

Heidegger¹,

Saal

Nübling³

2013

Anaesthesia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Patients’ involvement in all decision processes is becoming increasingly important in modern healthcare. Patient satisfaction is a sensitive measure of a well‐functioning health service system. The objective of this review is to discuss patient satisfaction as part of outcome quality, to define the somewhat abstract term ‘satisfaction’, and to discuss the role of surrogate markers within the field of satisfaction with anaesthesia care. We critically discuss what is relevant to satisfy patients with anaesthesia care, and we provide guidance on improving satisfaction.

show abstract

Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia - Part 2: Construction and quality assessment of questionnaires

Cited by 28 publications

References 27 publications

Designing questionnaires: healthcare survey to compare two different response scales

Designing questionnaires: healthcare survey to compare two different response scales

A review of the scope and measurement of postoperative quality of recovery

Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia - Part 1: Satisfaction as part of outcome - and what satisfies patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About