Patient Satisfaction and Short-Term Outcome in Elective Cranial Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 769-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elina Reponen ◽  
Hanna Tuominen ◽  
Juha Hernesniemi ◽  
Miikka Korja
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Major Morbidity ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Relationship Of

Abstract BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience is often used as a measure for quality of care, but no reports on patient satisfaction after cranial neurosurgery exist. OBJECTIVE: To study the association of overall patient satisfaction and surgical outcome and to evaluate the applicability of overall patient satisfaction as a proxy for quality of care in elective cranial neurosurgery. METHODS: We conducted an observational study on the relationship of overall patient satisfaction at 30 postoperative days with surgical and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score) in a prospective, consecutive, and unselected cohort of 418 adult elective craniotomy patients enrolled between December 2011 and December 2012 at Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. RESULTS: Postoperative overall (subjective and objective) morbidity was present in 194 (46.4%) patients; yet almost 94% of all study patients reported high overall satisfaction. Low overall patient satisfaction at 30 days was not associated with postoperative major morbidity in elective cranial neurosurgery. Dependent functional status (mRS score ≥3) at 30 days, minor infections, poor postoperative subjective overall health status, and patient-reported severe symptoms (double vision, poor balance) may contribute to unsatisfactory patient experience. CONCLUSION: Overall patient satisfaction with elective cranial neurosurgery is high. Even 9 of 10 patients with postoperative major morbidity rated high overall patient satisfaction at 30 days. Overall patient satisfaction may merely reflect patient experience and subjective postoperative health status, and therefore it is a poor proxy for quality of care in elective cranial neurosurgery.

scholarly journals National initiatives to promote quality of care and patient safety: achievements to date and challenges ahead

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia Dreiher ◽  
Olga Blagorazumnaya ◽  
Ran Balicer ◽  
Jacob Dreiher
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers

Abstract Background The quality of healthcare in Israel is considered “high”, and this achievement is due to the structure and organization of the healthcare system. The goal of the present review is to describe the major achievements and challenges of quality improvement in the Israeli healthcare system. Body In recent years, the Ministry of Health has made major strides in increasing the public’s access to comparative data on quality, finances and patient satisfaction. Several mechanisms at multiple levels help promote quality improvement and patient safety. These include legislation, financial incentives, and national programs for quality indicators, patient experience, patient safety, prevention and control of infection and accreditation. Over the years, improvements in quality indicators, infection prevention and patient satisfaction can be demonstrated, but other fields show little change, if at all. Challenges and barriers include reluctance by unions, inconsistent and unreliable flow of information, the fear of overpressure by management and the loss of autonomy by physicians, and doubts regarding “gaming” of data. Accreditation has its own challenges, such as the need to adjust it to local characteristics of the healthcare system, its high cost, and the limited evidence of its impact on quality. Lack of interest by leaders, lack of resources, burnout and compassion fatigue, are listed as challenges for improving patient experience. Conclusion Substantial efforts are being made in Israel to improve quality of care, based on the use of good data to understand what is working and what needs particular attention. Government and health care providers have the tools to continue to improve. However, several mechanisms for improving the quality of care, such as minimizing healthcare disparities, training for quality, and widespread implementation of the “choosing wisely” initiative, should be implemented more intensively and effectively.

scholarly journals Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e034465
Author(s):  
Helle Riisgaard ◽  
Frans Boch Waldorff ◽  
Merethe Kirstine Andersen ◽  
Line Bjørnskov Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
General Practitioner ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported

ObjectiveTo investigate whether accreditation of general practice in Denmark promotes patient-reported quality of care and patient satisfaction.DesignA national cluster randomised case control study based on an online version of the Danish Patients Evaluate Practice questionnaire. Mixed effects ordered logit regression models taking account of clustering of patients in different municipalities were used in the analyses.SettingGeneral practice in Denmark.ParticipantsA representative sample of the Danish population.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was patient-reported quality of care, and patient satisfaction with general practice and patient satisfaction with the general practitioner served as secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 3609 respondents answered the survey. We found no statistically significant relationships between patient-reported quality of care and practice accreditation (2016: OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07 and 2017: OR=0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02) and between patient satisfaction with the general practitioner and accreditation (2016: OR=0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13 and 2017: OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). However, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and recent practice accreditation compared with satisfaction with practices not yet accredited (OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) but no significant relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and previous accreditation (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09).ConclusionAccreditation does not promote patient-reported quality of care or patient satisfaction. On the contrary, patient satisfaction with the general practice decreases when general practice is recently accredited.

Defining the patient experience in medical oncology.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 167-167
Author(s):  
Ashley Odai-Afotey ◽  
Andrea Kliss ◽  
Janet Hafler ◽  
Tara B. Sanft
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Physician Communication ◽  
Coordination Of Care ◽  
Hospital Data ◽  
Negative Factors

167 Background: The relationship between the physician and patient is directly associated with positive patient satisfaction. High patient satisfaction is associated with improved health outcomes, treatment adherence, and quality of life. The goal was to explore patients’ perceptions on their hospital experience, focusing on quality of care. Methods: A mixed-methods study design with a sample of 58 patients at Yale New Haven Hospital. Data were from patient interviews and observation of rounds. Results: Two themes emerged: patient experience and patient communication with physicians. Within patient experience positive factors identified were feeling attended to (45.9%), nurses (43.2%), staff (27.0%), doctors (27.0%), facility (10.8%) and coordination of care (8.1%). Negative factors were low quality of life (82.8%), lack of physician emotional support, attentiveness and availability (24.1%), and poor coordination of care (20.7%). Within physician communication positive factors included effectively engaging the patient (27.5%) and attending to patient needs (7.5%). Negative factors were nature of distilling information (17.5%), lack of coordination of care (15.0%), inadequate involvement of the patient and/or family (12.5%), use of medical jargon (10.0%), and inability to elicit patients’ perspective (7.5%). The quantitative data supported qualitative results of overall satisfaction with 72.4% of patients (n = 58) rating their experience as an ‘A’. Areas of dissatisfaction (an ‘A’ rating < 70% of time) included describing team member roles, explaining next steps in care or treatment to the patient and/or family, and meeting patients’ needs. Conclusions: Our findings, demonstrate that physician attentiveness or lack thereof defines the quality of patient experience, is an important theme in communication and that patients perceive their needs are not being fully addressed. Agreement in themes from mixed-method approach shows effectiveness of methods in exploring patients’ perceptions on quality of care. The study intends to inform clinical and operational practices physicians can incorporate into their patient relationships. These data are being used to design a faculty development program to address physician communication.

scholarly journals Towards patient-centred care in Ghana: health system responsiveness, self-rated health and experiential quality in a nationally representative survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e000886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah L Ratcliffe ◽  
Griffith Bell ◽  
Koku Awoonor-Williams ◽  
Asaf Bitton ◽  
June-Ho Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
World Health ◽  
Self Rated Health ◽  
Experience Of Care ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Nationally Representative

IntroductionPerson-centredness, including patient experience and satisfaction, is a foundational element of quality of care. Evidence indicates that poor experience and satisfaction are drivers of underutilisation of healthcare services, which in turn is a major driver of avoidable mortality. However, there is limited information about patient experience of care at the population level, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsA multistage cluster sample design was used to obtain a nationally representative sample of women of reproductive age in Ghana. Women were interviewed in their homes regarding their demographic characteristics, recent care-seeking characteristics, satisfaction with care, patient-reported outcomes, and—using questions from the World Health Survey Responsiveness Module—the seven domains of responsiveness of outpatient care to assess patient experience. Using Poisson regression with log link, we assessed the relationship between responsiveness and satisfaction, as well as patient-reported outcomes.ResultsWomen who reported more responsive care were more likely to be more educated, have good access to care and have received care at a private facility. Controlling for respondent and visit characteristics, women who reported the highest responsiveness levels were significantly more likely to report that care was excellent at meeting their needs (prevalence ratio (PR)=13.0), excellent quality of care (PR=20.8), being very likely to recommend the facility to others (PR=1.4), excellent self-rated health (PR=4.0) and excellent self-rated mental health (PR=5.1) as women who reported the lowest responsiveness levels.DiscussionThese findings support the emerging global consensus that responsiveness and patient experience of care are not luxuries but essential components of high-performing health systems, and highlight the need for more nuanced and systematic measurement of these areas to inform priority setting and improvement efforts.

scholarly journals The Relationships Between Patient Experience and Quality and Utilization of Primary Care Services

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1678-1684
Author(s):  
Jaya Aysola ◽  
Chang Xu ◽  
Hairong Huo ◽  
Rachel M Werner
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Process Measures ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Patient Reported

We lack knowledge on how patient-reported experience relates to both quality of care services and visit attendance in the primary care setting. Therefore, in a cross-sectional analysis of 8355 primary care patients from 22 primary care practices, we examined the associations between visit-triggered patient-reported experience measures and both (1) quality of care measures and (2) number of missed primary care appointment (no shows). Our independent variables included both overall patient experience and its subdomains. Our outcomes included the following measures: smoking cessation discussion, diabetes eye examination referral, mammography, colonoscopy screening, current smoking status (nonsmoker vs smoker), diabetes control Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c [<8]), blood pressure control, cholesterol control Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) among patients with diabetes (LDL < 100), and visit no shows 2 and 5 years after the index visit that triggered the completed patient-experience survey. We found that patient experience, while an important stand-alone metric of care quality, may not relate to clinical outcomes or process measures in the outpatient setting. However, patient-reported experiences with their primary care provider appear to influence their future visit attendance.

scholarly journals Impact of Telemedicine on Patient Satisfaction and Perceptions of Care Quality in Radiation Oncology

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Narek Shaverdian ◽  
Erin F. Gillespie ◽  
Elaine Cha ◽  
Soo Young Kim ◽  
Stephanie Benvengo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Office Visit ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Office Visits ◽  
Oncology Practice

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed cancer care with the rapid expansion of telemedicine, but given the limited use of telemedicine in oncology, concerns have been raised about the quality of care being delivered. We assessed the patient experience with telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice to determine satisfaction, quality of care, and opportunities for optimization. Patients and Methods: Patients seen within a multistate comprehensive cancer center for prepandemic office visits and intrapandemic telemedicine visits in December 2019 through June 2020 who completed patient experience questionnaires were evaluated. Patient satisfaction between office and telemedicine consultations were compared, patient visit-type preferences were assessed, and factors associated with an office visit preference were determined. Results: In total, 1,077 patients were assessed (office visit, n=726; telemedicine, n=351). The telemedicine-consult survey response rate was 40%. No significant differences were seen in satisfaction scores between office and telemedicine consultations, including the appointment experience versus expectation, quality of physician’s explanation, and level of physician concern and friendliness. Among telemedicine survey respondents, 45% and 34% preferred telemedicine and office visits, respectively, and 21% had no preference for their visit type. Most respondents found their confidence in their physician (90%), understanding of the treatment plan (88%), and confidence in their treatment (87%) to be better or no different than with an office visit. Patients with better performance status and who were married/partnered were more likely to prefer in-person office visit consultations (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]; P=.047, and 2.41 [95% CI, 1.14–5.47]; P=.009, respectively). Patients with telephone-only encounters were more likely to report better treatment plan understanding with an office visit (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.00–4.77; P=.04). Conclusions: This study is the first to assess telemedicine in routine radiation oncology practice, and found high patient satisfaction and confidence in their care. Optimization of telemedicine in oncology should be a priority, specifically access to audiovisual capabilities that can improve patient–oncologist communication.

The relationship between patient experience with service quality and survival in pancreatic cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14697-e14697
Author(s):  
Christopher G. Lis ◽  
Maurie Markman ◽  
Mark Rodeghier ◽  
Digant Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Service Quality ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Relationship

e14697 Background: Despite the recognized relevance of symptom burden in pancreatic cancer, there has been limited exploration of whether an individual patient’s assessment of the overall quality-of-care received might influence outcome. To assess this issue we evaluated the relationship between patient-reported experience with service quality and overall survival. Methods: We evaluated 496 returning pancreatic cancer patients treated at Cancer Treatment Centers of America between July 2007 and December 2010. Overall patient experience “considering everything, how satisfied are you with your overall experience with CTCA?” was measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “completely dissatisfied” to “completely satisfied.” It was dichotomized into 2 categories: top box response (7) versus all others (1-6). Patient survival was the primary end point. Cox regression was used to evaluate the association between patient experience and survival. Results: 317 patients were newly diagnosed while 179 were previously treated. 16, 93, 81 and 306 patients had stage I, II, III and IV disease respectively. 292 were males and 204 females. Mean age was 57.3 years. 387 (78%) patients had expired at the time of this analysis. 345 patients were “completely satisfied” while 151 were not. Median overall survival was 7.9 months (95% CI: 7.3-8.6 months). On univariate analysis, “completely satisfied” patients had a significantly lower risk of mortality compared to those not “completely satisfied” (HR=0.62; 95% CI: 0.50-0.78; p<0.001). On multivariate analysis controlling for stage at diagnosis, treatment history, age and gender, “completely satisfied” patients demonstrated significantly lower mortality (HR=0.61; 95% CI: 0.49-0.76; p<0.001) compared to those not “completely satisfied”. Conclusions: Patient experience with service quality was an independent predictor of survival in pancreatic cancer. This finding underscores the importance of psychosocial factors in patient prognosis. Patients who evaluate their quality of care more favorably may in turn have more positive attitudes toward their treatment outcomes, and may engage in other health behaviors that could potentially increase survival.

scholarly journals LO77: Predictors of adverse self-reported 10-day outcomes in emergency department patients with acute ureteral colic

CJEM ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (S1) ◽  
pp. S34-S34
Author(s):  
G. Innes ◽  
L. Cuthbertson ◽  
F. Scheuermeyer ◽  
J.E. Andruchow ◽  
H. Boyda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Composite Measure ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Ureteral Colic ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Our objective is to investigate predictors of adverse patient reported outcomes during the 10 days after an index emergency department (ED) encounter for ureteral colic. Methods: This prospective two-city patient experience survey enrolled ED patients with confirmed 2-10 mm ureteric stones. Researchers telephoned consenting patients 10 days post-ED visit and assessed quality of life (QoL) using survey items from the VR-12 Health Outcome Survey. We used five survey items and three other variables to derive a composite measure of patient adverse experience (AE). The association between patient characteristics, symptoms and perceptions of care with outcome was determined using multiple logistic regression. Results: Of 224 patients studied (68% male, mean age 52 years) 154 (68.8%) indicated that one or more of the following AEs occurred during their 10day followup interval: 103 (46%) reported that the impact of pain on their life was >4/10; 87 (39%) described poor or fair health status; 83 (37%) required >7days for return of normal function; 66 (27.7%) had >2 severe pain episodes per day; 62 (27.7%) required ED revisit or hospitalization; 47 (21%) found usual activities were limited most or all the time; 45 (20%) required >2 opioid doses/day; and 24 (10.7%) lost >7 work days. A composite measure derived from 3 survey items (days to normal, pain impact, health status) captured 92% of patients with adverse experiences. On multivariable logistic regression modeling, the strongest predictors of adverse (composite) outcome were male sex (adjusted OR=0.44; CI, 0.22-0.85), (excellent) quality of physician answers (OR=0.40; CI,0.2-0.77), proximal or mid-ureteric stone (OR=1.9; CI, 1.1-3.5), arrival pain severity (OR=1.18 per unit increase; CI,1.01-1.4), and perceived physician skill (OR=0.81; CI, 0.65-1.0). Patient age, stone size, pain duration, nausea, discharge pain and perceived ED care quality were not independent predictors of 10-day adverse patient experience in multivariate models. Conclusion: Patient sex, quality of physician communication, patient sex, arrival pain severity, and proximal stone location are highly associated with 10-day patient reported AE.

scholarly journals Patient Satisfaction in a University Hospital Emergency Department in Turkey

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cuma Yildirim ◽  
Hasan Koçoğlu ◽  
Sıtkı Göksu ◽  
Nurullah Gunay ◽  
Haluk Savas
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Waiting Times ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Patient Dissatisfaction ◽  
Insurance Carrier

Objective: Patient satisfaction, an indicator of the quality of care provided by emergency department (ED) personnel, is a significant issue for EDs. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with patient satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and to describe demographic characteristics of those surveyed in a university hospital ED. Methods: All adult patients who consecutively presented to the ED between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays were included in the study. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire prior to discharge. The questionnaire asked about the attitude, politeness, and efficiency of the medical and ancillary staff, the reason for preferring our centre and reasons for dissatisfaction. Results: Two-hundred and forty-five adult patients presenting to our ED were included in this study. Forty-five percent of patients preferred our ED because of the previous perception of higher quality of care, informed by other people previously treated in this ED unit, and 35% because of restrictions by their health insurance carrier. The main causes of patient dissatisfaction were lengthy waiting times (27%). Conclusion: As a result, lengthy waiting time was the major reason for patient dissatisfaction, and high quality care together with insurance restrictions were the main reasons for preference of this university hospital ED.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document