Literature DB >> 17466197

Patient satisfaction scores for endoscopic procedures: impact of a survey-collection method.

Otto S Lin1, Drew B Schembre, Kamran Ayub, Michael Gluck, Susan E McCormick, David J Patterson, Nico Cantone, Maw-Soan Soon, Richard A Kozarek.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many endoscopy units administer patient satisfaction surveys. We hypothesized that the survey collection method would affect satisfaction scores.
OBJECTIVE: To compare satisfaction scores obtained by using on-site (OS) surveys versus mail-back (MB) surveys.
DESIGN: Quasi-randomization based on alternating weeks.
SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing elective routine outpatient colonoscopy or upper endoscopy.
INTERVENTIONS: Every patient was given an 11-question survey that asked about the patient's satisfaction with the nurses and the physician, wait times, the bowel-preparation process, patient education, procedural comfort, and sedation. Survey collection methods alternated weekly between an OS versus an MB method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Satisfaction scores on a Likert scale ranged from 1 (worst) to 7 (best).
RESULTS: A total of 1698 subjects were included. The response rate was higher for the OS group (95%) than the MB group (62%). OS scores were significantly higher than MB scores for 5 of 11 questions, which concerned nurse satisfaction, physician satisfaction, bowel-preparation comfort, postprocedure education, and overall satisfaction (Bonferroni adjusted P < .05 for all). Younger patients gave lower scores than older patients for all questions, whereas women gave significantly lower scores than men for bowel-preparation satisfaction. LIMITATIONS: Lack of true randomization and formal validation of the satisfaction survey.
CONCLUSIONS: Survey collection methods may bias not only response rates but also satisfaction scores. OS survey collection methods tend to result in higher satisfaction scores than MB methods. This bias should be noted when comparing scores among studies that used different survey collection methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17466197     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.11.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  19 in total

1.  A survey of patients' attitudes to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy identifies the value of endoscopist-patient interactive factors.

Authors:  T Hydes; A Yusuf; D S Pearl; T M Trebble
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-05-04

2.  Quality assurance in the endoscopy unit: the view of endoscopy personnel.

Authors:  V de Jonge; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-03-13

3.  Patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy procedure: endoscopists overestimate the importance of adverse physical symptoms.

Authors:  Maaike J Denters; Marije Deutekom; Bert Derkx; Patrick M Bossuyt; Paul Fockens; Evelien Dekker
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-05-06

4.  Wait times for gastroenterology consultation in Canada: the patients' perspective.

Authors:  W G Paterson; A N Barkun; W M Hopman; D J Leddin; P Paré; D M Petrunia; M J Sewitch; C Switzer; S Veldhuyzen van Zanten
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Survey mode influence on patient-reported outcome scores in orthopaedic surgery: telephone results may be positively biased.

Authors:  Jon E Hammarstedt; John M Redmond; Asheesh Gupta; Kevin F Dunne; S Pavan Vemula; Benjamin G Domb
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  Patient satisfaction with colonoscopy: a literature review and pilot study.

Authors:  L Chartier; E Arthurs; M J Sewitch
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  Differential item functioning to validate setting of delivery compatibility in PROMIS-global health.

Authors:  Dylan J Parker; Paul M Werth; David D Christensen; David S Jevsevar
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Development and validation of a patient-reported scale for tolerability of endoscopic procedures using conscious sedation.

Authors:  Nauzer Forbes; Millie Chau; Hannah F Koury; B Cord Lethebe; Zachary L Smith; Sachin Wani; Rajesh N Keswani; B Joseph Elmunzer; John T Anderson; Steven J Heitman; Robert J Hilsden
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Evaluation of patient satisfaction of an outpatient gastroscopy service in an Asian tertiary care hospital.

Authors:  Najib Azmi; Wah-Kheong Chan; Khean-Lee Goh
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial.

Authors:  E M Stoop; T R de Wijkerslooth; P M Bossuyt; J Stoker; P Fockens; E J Kuipers; E Dekker; M E van Leerdam
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.