Dataset Information

Patient satisfaction survey scores are not an appropriate metric to differentiate performance among anesthesiologists.

ABSTRACT:

Study objective

With the focus of patient-centered care in healthcare organizations, patient satisfaction plays an increasingly important role in healthcare quality measurement. We sought to determine whether an automated patient satisfaction survey could be effectively used to identify outlying anesthesiologists.

Design

Retrospective Observational Study.

Setting

Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC).

Measurements

Patient satisfaction data were obtained between October 24, 2016 and November 1, 2017. A multivariable ordered probit regression was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the mean scores of responses to Likert-scale questions on SurveyVitals' Anesthesia Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire 2. Fixed effects included demographics, clinical variables, providers and surgeons. Hypothesis tests to compare each individual anesthesiologist with the median-performing anesthesiologist were conducted.

Main results

We analyzed 10,528 surveys, with a 49.5% overall response rate. Younger patient (odds ratio (OR) 1.011 [per year of age]; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.008 to 1.014; p < 0.001), regional anesthesia (versus general anesthesia) (OR 1.695; 95% CI 1.186 to 2.422; p = 0.004) and daytime surgery (versus nighttime surgery) (OR 1.795; 95% CI 1.091 to 2.959; p = 0.035) were associated with higher satisfaction scores. Compared with the median-ranked anesthesiologist, we found the adjusted odds ratio for an increase in satisfaction score ranged from 0.346 (95% CI 0.158 to 0.762) to 1.649 (95% CI 0.687 to 3.956) for the lowest and highest scoring providers, respectively. Only 10.10% of anesthesiologists at our institution had an odds ratio for satisfaction with a 95% CI not inclusive of 1.

Conclusions

Patient satisfaction is impacted by multiple factors. There was very little information in patient satisfaction scores to discriminate the providers, after adjusting for confounding. While patient satisfaction scores may facilitate identification of extreme outliers among anesthesiologists, there is no evidence that this metric is useful for the routine evaluation of individual provider performance.

SUBMITTER: Freundlich RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7387167 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives:The Emergency Medicine Milestone Project, a framework for assessing competencies, has been used as a method of providing focused resident feedback. However, the emergency medicine milestones do not include specific objective data about resident clinical efficiency and productivity, and studies have shown that milestone-based feedback does not improve resident satisfaction with the feedback process. We examined whether providing performance metric reports to resident physicians improves their satisfaction with the feedback process and their clinical performance. Methods:We conducted a three-phase stepped-wedge randomized pilot study of emergency medicine residents at a single, urban academic site. In phase 1, all residents received traditional feedback; in phase 2, residents were randomized to receive traditional feedback (control group) or traditional feedback with performance metric reports (intervention group); and in phase 3, all residents received monthly performance metric reports and traditional feedback. To assess resident satisfaction with the feedback process, surveys using 6-point Likert scales were administered at each study phase and analyzed using two-sample t-tests. Analysis of variance in repeated measures was performed to compare impact of feedback on resident clinical performance, specifically patient treatment time (PTT) and patient visits per hour. Results:Forty-one residents participated in the trial of which 21 were randomized to the intervention group and 20 in the control group. Ninety percent of residents liked receiving the report and 74% believed that it better prepared them for expectations of becoming an attending physician. Additionally, residents randomized to the intervention group reported higher satisfaction (p = 0.01) with the quality of the feedback compared to residents in the control group. However, receiving performance metric reports, regardless of study phase or postgraduate year status, did not affect clinical performance, specifically PTT (183 minutes vs. 177 minutes, p = 0.34) or patients visits per hour (0.99 vs. 1.04, p = 0.46). Conclusions:While feedback with performance metric reports did not improve resident clinical performance, resident physicians were more satisfied with the feedback process, and a majority of residents expressed liking the reports and felt that it better prepared them to become attending physicians. Residency training programs could consider augmenting feedback with performance metric reports to aide in the transition from resident to attending physician.