Dataset Information

It's not you, It's me: The influence of patient and surgeon gender on patient satisfaction scores.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surgeons face the unique challenge of being responsible for both clinical encounters and surgical outcomes. We aim to explore how patient evaluations of surgeons may be influenced by patient and provider factors.

Methods

Patient responses from the 2016 CGCAHPS survey at a single institution were identified. A Poisson regression model was used to identify patient/provider factors associated with ratings.

Results

11,007 surveys of 134 surgeons were included. After adjustment, higher overall surgeon ratings were associated with older patient age (p < 0.001) and male patient gender (p = 0.001). Lower ratings were associated with higher patient education (p < 0.001) and lower patient self-health ratings (p < 0.001). Although female surgeons tended to have higher communication scores, overall scores did not differ based on any surgeon factors.

Conclusions

Patient satisfaction scores of surgeons are more closely correlated with patient variables than surgeon factors. This may have implications for physician performance evaluation in value-based care models.

SUBMITTER: Plichta JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7680394 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies, predominantly in the primary care setting, identified time spent with the physician as an important predictor of satisfaction. It is unknown if the same holds true in hand surgery.Questions/purposesIs patient satisfaction measured immediately after an office visit associated with the duration of time spent with the hand surgeon? What other factors are associated with satisfaction directly after the visits and 2 weeks after the appointment?MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 81 patients visiting our hand and upper extremity surgery outpatient clinic. We recorded their demographics and measured physical function, pain behavior, symptoms of depression, time spent in the waiting room, time spent with the physician, and patient satisfaction. Office times were measured using our patient ambulatory tracking system and by a research assistant outside the clinic room. To assess satisfaction we used items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (a federally developed standardized survey instrument) relevant to our study. Two weeks later, 51 (64%) patients were available for telephone followup and the same measures were completed. Mean time spent with the hand surgeon was 8 ± 5 minutes and mean in-office wait time to see the hand surgeon was 32 ± 18 minutes. A priori power analyses indicated that 77 patients would provide 80% power to detect an effect size f(2) = 0.18 for a regression with five predictors. This means that we would detect time spent with the physician as a significant factor if it accounted for 7% or more of the variability in satisfaction.ResultsTime spent with the hand surgeon was not associated with patient satisfaction measured directly after the visit (r = -0.023; p = 0.84). Longer time waiting to see the physician correlated with decreased patient satisfaction (r = -0.30; p = 0.0057). The final multivariable model for increased satisfaction directly after the office visit included shorter waiting time (regression coefficient [?] -0.0014; partial R(2) 0.094; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0024 to -0.00042; p = 0.006) and being married/living with a partner (? 0.057; partial R(2) 0.11; 95% CI, 0.021-0.093; p = 0.002 [adjusted R(2) 0.18; p < 0.001]). Similarly, multivariable analysis found higher patient satisfaction 2 weeks after the visit to be independently associated with shorter waiting time (? -0.0037; partial R(2) 0.10; 95% CI, -0.0070 to -0.00054; p = 0.023) and being married/living with a partner (? 0.15; partial R(2) 0.12; 95% CI, 0.033-0.26; p = 0.012 [adjusted R(2) 0.16; p = 0.0052]).ConclusionsPatient satisfaction among patients undergoing hand surgery may relate more to shorter time in the waiting room and to the quality more than the quantity of time spent with the patient.Level of evidenceLevel II, prognostic study.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of an advanced practice physiotherapist has been introduced in many countries to improve access to care for patients with hip and knee arthritis. Traditional models of care have shown a gender bias, with women less often referred and recommended for surgery than men. This study sought to understand if patient gender affects access to care in the clinical encounter with the advanced practice provider. Our objectives were: (1) To determine if a gender difference exists in the clinical decision to offer a consultation with a surgeon; (2) To determine if a gender difference exists in patients' decisions to accept a consultation with a surgeon among those patients to whom it is offered; and, (3) To describe patients' reasons for not accepting a consultation with a surgeon.MethodsThis was a prospective study of 815 patients presenting to a tertiary care centre for assessment of hip and knee arthritis, with referral onward to an orthopaedic surgeon when indicated. We performed a multiple logistic regression analysis adjusting for severity to address the first objective and a simple logistic regression analysis to answer the second objective. Reasons for not accepting a surgical consultation were obtained by questionnaire.ResultsEight hundred and fifteen patients (511 women, 304 men) fulfilled study eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the probability of being referred to a surgeon for men and women (difference adjusted for severity = - 0.02, 95% CI: - 0.07, 0.02). Neither was there a difference in the acceptance of a referral for men and women (difference = - 0.05, 95% CI: - 0.09, 0.00). Of the 14 reasons for declining a surgical consultation, 5 showed a difference with more women than men indicating a preference for non-surgical treatment along with fears/concerns about surgery.ConclusionsThere is no strong evidence to suggest there is a difference in proportion of males and females proceeding to surgical consultation in the model of care that utilizes advanced practice orthopaedic providers in triage. This study adds to the evidence that supports the use of suitably trained alternate providers in roles that reduce wait times to care and add value in contexts where health human resources are limited. The care model is a viable strategy to assist in managing the growing backlog in orthopaedic care, recently exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Study objectiveWith 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.DesignRetrospective Observational Study.SettingVanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC).MeasurementsPatient 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 resultsWe 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.ConclusionsPatient 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.