M A A Caljouw1, M van Beuzekom, F Boer. 1. Operating Theatre Centre, Leiden University Medical Centre, Postal Zone J4-Q, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. m.a.a.caljouw@lumc.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measuring patient satisfaction after anaesthesia care is complex. The existing patient satisfaction questionnaires are limited and omit aspects of patient satisfaction, such as professional competence, information provision, service, and staff-patient relationship. The aim of our study was to develop a valid and reliable self-reported multidimensional questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction that included these issues. METHODS: The development of the Leiden Perioperative care Patient Satisfaction questionnaire (LPPSq) was as follows: expert consultation, construction of the pilot questionnaire, pilot study, statistical analysis of the results of the pilot study (validity, reliability, and factor analysis), compilation of the definitive questionnaire, main study, and repeated statistical analysis (validity, reliability, and factor analysis). The overall patient satisfaction is expressed by the mean satisfaction score. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-two patients consented to participate in the study; 80.4% of the patients (n=307) completed the questionnaire. The LPPSq isolated three dimensions: information (Cronbach's alpha=0.82), fear and concern (Cronbach's alpha=0.69), and staff-patient relationship (Cronbach's alpha=0.94). Patient satisfaction with perioperative care was not directly dependent on the outcomes of anaesthesia but how patients were approached and the amount of information they received. Age (P=0.001), gender (P=0.001), work situation (P=0.003), and specialty (P=0.017) were the characteristics most influencing patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the LPPSq questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with perioperative care, of which anaesthesia care is an important element. In this study, information provision and the relationship between staff and patient were the major determinants of patient satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: Measuring patient satisfaction after anaesthesia care is complex. The existing patient satisfaction questionnaires are limited and omit aspects of patient satisfaction, such as professional competence, information provision, service, and staff-patient relationship. The aim of our study was to develop a valid and reliable self-reported multidimensional questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction that included these issues. METHODS: The development of the Leiden Perioperative care Patient Satisfaction questionnaire (LPPSq) was as follows: expert consultation, construction of the pilot questionnaire, pilot study, statistical analysis of the results of the pilot study (validity, reliability, and factor analysis), compilation of the definitive questionnaire, main study, and repeated statistical analysis (validity, reliability, and factor analysis). The overall patient satisfaction is expressed by the mean satisfaction score. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-two patients consented to participate in the study; 80.4% of the patients (n=307) completed the questionnaire. The LPPSq isolated three dimensions: information (Cronbach's alpha=0.82), fear and concern (Cronbach's alpha=0.69), and staff-patient relationship (Cronbach's alpha=0.94). Patient satisfaction with perioperative care was not directly dependent on the outcomes of anaesthesia but how patients were approached and the amount of information they received. Age (P=0.001), gender (P=0.001), work situation (P=0.003), and specialty (P=0.017) were the characteristics most influencing patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the LPPSq questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with perioperative care, of which anaesthesia care is an important element. In this study, information provision and the relationship between staff and patient were the major determinants of patient satisfaction.
Authors: Kumiko Soejima; Aya Goto; Phan Ton Ngoc Vu; Le Huu Thien Bien; Nguyen Quang Vinh; Pham Nghiem Minh; Gautam A Deshpande; Seiji Yasumura; Akira Fukao Journal: Environ Health Prev Med Date: 2010-05-08 Impact factor: 3.674
Authors: Kira-Lee Koster; Carolin Björklund; Sebastian Fenner; Wolfgang Johann Flierler; Michael Laupheimer; Katharina Burri; Matthias Nübling; Thomas Heidegger Journal: Anaesthesiologie Date: 2022-08-29
Authors: Antonius J Poot; Monique A A Caljouw; Claudia S de Waard; Annet W Wind; Jacobijn Gussekloo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 3.240