Original Research

Is Patient Satisfaction the Same Immediately After the First Visit Compared to Two Weeks Later?

Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2019 March;26(2):61-67

References

1. Jackson JL, Chamberlin J, Kroenke K. Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:609-620.

2. Menendez ME, Chen NC, Mudgal CS, et al. Physician empathy as a driver of hand surgery patient satisfaction. J Hand Surg Am. 2015;40(9):1860-1865.

3. Parrish RC 2nd, Menendez ME, Mudgal CS, et al. Patient Satisfaction and its relation to perceived visit duration with a hand surgeon. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;41(2):257-262.

4. Waters S, Edmondston SJ, Yates PJ, Gucciardi DF. Identification of factors influencing patient satisfaction with orthopaedic outpatient clinic consultation: A qualitative study. Man Ther. 2016;25:48-55.

5. Voutilainen A, Pitkaaho T, Kvist T, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K. How to ask about patient satisfaction? The visual analogue scale is less vulnerable to confounding factors and ceiling effect than a symmetric Likert scale. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72:946-957.

6. van Berckel MM, Bosma NH, Hageman MG, et al. The correlation between a numerical rating scale of patient satisfaction with current management of an upper extremity disorder and a general measure of satisfaction with the medical visit. Hand (N Y). 2017;12:202-206.

7. Garcia D, Bautista O, Venereo L, et al. Training in empathic skills improves the patient-physician relationship during the first consultation in a fertility clinic. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1413-1418.

8. Fitzpatrick RM, Hopkins A. Patients’ satisfaction with communication in neurological outpatient clinics. J Psychosom Res. 1981;25:329-334.

9. Kincey J, Bradshaw P, Ley P. Patients’ satisfaction and reported acceptance of advice in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1975;25:558-566.

10. Ley P, Whitworth MA, Skilbeck CE, et al. Improving doctor-patient communication in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1976;26:720-724.

11. Meakin R, Weinman J. The ‘Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale’ (MISS-21) adapted for British general practice. Fam Pract. 2002;19:257-263.

12. Wolf MH, Putnam SM, James SA, Stiles WB. The Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale: development of a scale to measure patient perceptions of physician behavior. J Behav Med. 1978;1:391-401.

13. Kane GC, Gotto JL, Mangione S, et al. Jefferson Scale of Patient’s Perceptions of Physician Empathy: preliminary psychometric data. Croat Med J. 2007;48:81-86.

14. Beckmann JT , Hung M, Voss MW, et al. Evaluation of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system upper extremity computer adaptive test. J Hand Surg Am. 2016;41:739-744.

15. PROMIS. PROMIS PF Scoring. Available at www.healthmeasures.net/administrator/components/com_instruments/uploads/PROMIS%20Physical%20Function%20Scoring%20Manual.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019.

16. PROMIS. PROMIS Measures. Available at wwwnihpromisorg. Accessed March 1, 2019.

17. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377-381.

18. Bot AG, Anderson JA, Neuhaus V, Ring D. Factors associated with survey response in hand surgery research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(10):3237-3242.

19. Sedgwick P, Greenwood N. Understanding the Hawthorne effect. BMJ. 2015;351:h4672.

20. Ross CK, Steward CA, Sinacore JM. A comparative study of seven measures of patient satisfaction. Med Care. 1995;33:392-406.

21. Teunis T, Thornton ER, Jayakumar P, Ring D. Time seeing a hand surgeon is not associated with patient satisfaction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:2362-2368.

Results

Respondent Characteristics

None of the 150 patients were excluded from the analysis. The study patients’ mean age was 51 ± 16 years (range, 18-87 years), and 73 (49%) were men (Table 1). Mean scores directly after the visit were 9.4 ± 1.2 (range, 2-10) for satisfaction with the surgeon, 31 ± 5.2 (range, 9-35) for perceived physician empathy, and 40 ± 10 (range 15-56) for upper extremity disability. Most patients (n = 130, 87%) were seen in 2 of 5 offices, and 106 (71%) were seen by 2 out of 6 participating surgeons.

Ninety-seven (65%) patients completed their follow-up assessment 2 weeks after their initial visit, 49 (51%) by phone and 48 (49%) by email. This is a slightly better rate than the 36% rate reported in previous research.¹⁸ After 2 weeks, the mean score for satisfaction with the surgeon was 9.1 ± 1.5 (range, 0-10), the mean perceived empathy score was 31 ± 5.1 (range, 6-35), and the mean upper extremity disability score was 40 ± 8.7 (range, 23-56). Responders did not differ from nonresponders based on demographic data (Table 2). However, nonresponders had lower perceived empathy scores directly after their visit (P = 0.03) and none had initially chosen phone as their preferred mode of contact for follow-up (P < 0.001). A list of all diagnoses with frequencies the surgeons stated is listed in Appendix 2.

Difference in Satisfaction with the Surgeon

Satisfaction with the surgeon 2 weeks after the in-person visit was slightly, but significantly, lower on bivariate analysis compared to satisfaction with the surgeon immediately after the initial visit (–0.41 ± 1.2, P = 0.001; Table 3).

Difference in Perceived Physician Empathy

Perceived physician empathy 2 weeks after the in-person visit was not significantly lower on bivariate analysis compared to perceived physician empathy immediately after the initial visit (–0.71 ± 5.3, P = 0.19; Table 3).

Factors Associated with Change in Satisfaction with the Surgeon

Accounting for potential interaction of variables using multilevel multivariable analysis, change in disability of the upper extremity was not associated with change in satisfaction with the surgeon (regression coefficient [beta], 0.00 [95% confidence interval {CI}, –0.02 to 0.03]; standard error [SE], 0.01; P = 0.79 [Table 4]). Being Latino was independently associated with less change in satisfaction with the surgeon (beta coefficient, –0.57 [95% CI, –1.1 to 0.00]; SE, 0.29; P = 0.049).

Factors Associated with Change in Perceived Physician Empathy

Accounting for potential interaction of variables using multilevel multivariable analysis, change in disability of the upper extremity was not associated with change in perceived physician empathy (beta coefficient = 0.00 [95% CI, –0.10 to 0.11]; SE, 0.06; P = 0.93 [Table 4]). Race/ethnicity other than white or Latino was independently associated with more change in perceived physician empathy (beta coefficient, 3.5 [95% CI, 0.34 to 6.6]; SE, 1.6; P = 0.030), and preferring email as mode of contact for follow-up was independently associated with less change in perceived physician empathy (beta coefficient, –3.2 [95% CI, –5.2 to –1.3]; SE, 1.0; P = 0.001).