BACKGROUND: Recent findings on emergency department (ED) patient experience surveys and concerns for the low response rates challenge the quality and reliability of the survey reports. We assessed the consistency of a...BACKGROUND: Recent findings on emergency department (ED) patient experience surveys and concerns for the low response rates challenge the quality and reliability of the survey reports. We assessed the consistency of an ED patient experience survey report and identifi ed the effects of patient demographics on ED patient experiences. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study at a university-based ED from July to December 2017. We obtained ED patient experience scores from an institutional version (IS) survey and the Press Ganey Associates-distributed survey (PGA). We compared top box scores from the two reports using frequency analysis and performed multivariable logistic regressions to identify associations between IS patient demographics and scores. RESULTS: We obtained 289 PGA and 234 IS responses. The IS reported signifi cant, higher top box scores in doctor-specifi c patient questions compared to PGA (all four P-values < 0.01). Female, Christian and White patients were more likely to give top box scores (OR 3.07, OR 2.22 and OR 2.41, P-value < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in ED patient experience scores between the IS and PGA surveys. We recommend that healthcare providers consider patient demographic variables when interpreting ED experience score reports. Multiple survey techniques and distribution methods may be adopted to best capture ED patient experiences.展开更多
With a portion of healthcare reimbursement now dependent on the patient’s report of the hospital experience, healthcare systems are looking for ways to improve patient satisfaction scores. In this study, one inpatien...With a portion of healthcare reimbursement now dependent on the patient’s report of the hospital experience, healthcare systems are looking for ways to improve patient satisfaction scores. In this study, one inpatient physiatrist at an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility wore a button on the right lapel of his white coat at all times which read, “Ask ME about your TREATMENT and PROGRESS!!!” in order to determine if a wearable visual cue prompting the patient to discuss his or her treatment and progress alters Press Ganey Patient Satisfaction Survey (PGPSS) scores. Mean score on the physician-specific PGPSS question “How well the rehabilitation doctor kept you informed about your treatment and progress” was calculated retrospectively for five months before and after the physiatrist donned the button. Comparisons were made to two other inpatient physiatrists. For the button-wearing physiatrist, mean score for the physician-specific patient satisfaction survey question for the five months before donning the button was 88.1 ± 11.5;and, for the five months after donning the button, the mean score was 95.8 ± 5.9. These scores were marginally statistically different (p = 0.07). Conversely, the difference in mean scores over the same time periods for two other inpatient physiatrists who did not wear the button did not approach statistical significance. In conclusion, a wearable visual cue improved the PGPSS score specific to the question the visual cue addressed.展开更多
基金supported by the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program Faculty Advisory Board at the University of California,Irvinepartially by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences,National Institutes of Health(NIH),through the Biostatistics,Epidemiology and Research Design Unit [grant number:UL1 TR001414]
文摘BACKGROUND: Recent findings on emergency department (ED) patient experience surveys and concerns for the low response rates challenge the quality and reliability of the survey reports. We assessed the consistency of an ED patient experience survey report and identifi ed the effects of patient demographics on ED patient experiences. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study at a university-based ED from July to December 2017. We obtained ED patient experience scores from an institutional version (IS) survey and the Press Ganey Associates-distributed survey (PGA). We compared top box scores from the two reports using frequency analysis and performed multivariable logistic regressions to identify associations between IS patient demographics and scores. RESULTS: We obtained 289 PGA and 234 IS responses. The IS reported signifi cant, higher top box scores in doctor-specifi c patient questions compared to PGA (all four P-values < 0.01). Female, Christian and White patients were more likely to give top box scores (OR 3.07, OR 2.22 and OR 2.41, P-value < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: We found significant differences in ED patient experience scores between the IS and PGA surveys. We recommend that healthcare providers consider patient demographic variables when interpreting ED experience score reports. Multiple survey techniques and distribution methods may be adopted to best capture ED patient experiences.
文摘With a portion of healthcare reimbursement now dependent on the patient’s report of the hospital experience, healthcare systems are looking for ways to improve patient satisfaction scores. In this study, one inpatient physiatrist at an acute inpatient rehabilitation facility wore a button on the right lapel of his white coat at all times which read, “Ask ME about your TREATMENT and PROGRESS!!!” in order to determine if a wearable visual cue prompting the patient to discuss his or her treatment and progress alters Press Ganey Patient Satisfaction Survey (PGPSS) scores. Mean score on the physician-specific PGPSS question “How well the rehabilitation doctor kept you informed about your treatment and progress” was calculated retrospectively for five months before and after the physiatrist donned the button. Comparisons were made to two other inpatient physiatrists. For the button-wearing physiatrist, mean score for the physician-specific patient satisfaction survey question for the five months before donning the button was 88.1 ± 11.5;and, for the five months after donning the button, the mean score was 95.8 ± 5.9. These scores were marginally statistically different (p = 0.07). Conversely, the difference in mean scores over the same time periods for two other inpatient physiatrists who did not wear the button did not approach statistical significance. In conclusion, a wearable visual cue improved the PGPSS score specific to the question the visual cue addressed.
