2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/162809
Type:
Presentation
Title:
A Comparison of Techniques for Measuring ED Patient Satisfaction
Abstract:
A Comparison of Techniques for Measuring ED Patient Satisfaction
Conference Sponsor:Emergency Nurses Association
Conference Year:1997
Author:Koziol-McLain, Jane
P.I. Institution Name:University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Contact Address:4200 E. Ninth Avenue, Denver, CO, 80262, USA
Co-Authors:Steven Lowenstein and Leslie Beasley
Purpose: Patient satisfaction is an important measure of the quality of emergency health care. The results of a recently mailed survey at our hospital showed low patient satisfaction. Recognizing the limitations of mailed surveys, we conducted a study to examine the consistency of patient satisfaction responses across three survey techniques: a mailed survey, a face-to-face interview, and a telephone interview.

Design/Setting/Sample: This prospective study surveyed patients at an urban university emergency department. All English or Spanish-speaking adult patients discharged during 20 randomly selected four-hour time blocks during a two week period were eligible to participate.

Methods: A trained research assistant (not employed by the hospital) verbally administered a subset of 15 questions from the mailed Emergency Department Patient Satisfaction Survey (Picker Institute) to eligible, consenting patients. A subset of eligible patients were contacted two weeks later and asked the same questions in a telephone interview.

Results: Response rates were much higher in face-to-face interviews (95%, 185/195) and telephone interviews (67%, 40/60) compared to the mailed survey (26%, 135/514). Face-to-face interviewees were typically female (55%), young (mean age = 37 years), and without insurance (63%). The proportion of patients that would ôDefinitely recommend this ED to friends and familiesö varied from 46% (95% CI=0.37, 0.55) for those completing the mailed survey, to 78% (95% CI=0.72, 0.84) and 85% (95% CI=0.70, 0.94) for those surveyed face-to-face and by telephone, respectively. The most frequently cited problem areas were similar between face-to-face interviewees and mailed survey respondents: waiting time (48% mailed, 38% face-to-face), causes of problem explained well (44% mailed, 20% face-to-face), and department cleanliness (39% mailed, 13% face-to-face).

Conclusions: Satisfaction ratings based on mailed surveys significantly underestimate the degree of patient satisfaction, yet they accurately identify problem areas. The cost and feasibility of various survey techniques needs to be weighed against the representativeness of the sample achieved when monitoring patient satisfaction among ED patients. [Research Poster Presentation]
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Emergency Nurses Association

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleA Comparison of Techniques for Measuring ED Patient Satisfactionen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/162809-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">A Comparison of Techniques for Measuring ED Patient Satisfaction</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Emergency Nurses Association</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">1997</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Koziol-McLain, Jane</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Colorado Health Sciences Center <br/></td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">4200 E. Ninth Avenue, Denver, CO, 80262, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Steven Lowenstein and Leslie Beasley</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Purpose: Patient satisfaction is an important measure of the quality of emergency health care. The results of a recently mailed survey at our hospital showed low patient satisfaction. Recognizing the limitations of mailed surveys, we conducted a study to examine the consistency of patient satisfaction responses across three survey techniques: a mailed survey, a face-to-face interview, and a telephone interview.<br/><br/>Design/Setting/Sample: This prospective study surveyed patients at an urban university emergency department. All English or Spanish-speaking adult patients discharged during 20 randomly selected four-hour time blocks during a two week period were eligible to participate.<br/><br/>Methods: A trained research assistant (not employed by the hospital) verbally administered a subset of 15 questions from the mailed Emergency Department Patient Satisfaction Survey (Picker Institute) to eligible, consenting patients. A subset of eligible patients were contacted two weeks later and asked the same questions in a telephone interview.<br/><br/>Results: Response rates were much higher in face-to-face interviews (95%, 185/195) and telephone interviews (67%, 40/60) compared to the mailed survey (26%, 135/514). Face-to-face interviewees were typically female (55%), young (mean age = 37 years), and without insurance (63%). The proportion of patients that would &ocirc;Definitely recommend this ED to friends and families&ouml; varied from 46% (95% CI=0.37, 0.55) for those completing the mailed survey, to 78% (95% CI=0.72, 0.84) and 85% (95% CI=0.70, 0.94) for those surveyed face-to-face and by telephone, respectively. The most frequently cited problem areas were similar between face-to-face interviewees and mailed survey respondents: waiting time (48% mailed, 38% face-to-face), causes of problem explained well (44% mailed, 20% face-to-face), and department cleanliness (39% mailed, 13% face-to-face).<br/><br/>Conclusions: Satisfaction ratings based on mailed surveys significantly underestimate the degree of patient satisfaction, yet they accurately identify problem areas. The cost and feasibility of various survey techniques needs to be weighed against the representativeness of the sample achieved when monitoring patient satisfaction among ED patients. [Research Poster Presentation]</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T10:34:31Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T10:34:31Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipEmergency Nurses Associationen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.