Robert E Freundlich1, Gen Li2, Brendan Grant3, Paul St Jacques1, Warren S Sandberg4, Jesse M Ehrenfeld5, Matthew S Shotwell6, Jonathan P Wanderer1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States of America. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States of America. Electronic address: gen.li@vumc.org. 3. Tulane University, United States of America. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States of America. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, United States of America. 6. Department of Biostatistics, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States of America.
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.
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.
Authors: Jonathan P Wanderer; Yaping Shi; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Richard H Epstein Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: J Matthew Kynes; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Gerald B Hickson; James W Pichert; Xue Han; Jesse M Ehrenfeld; Margaret W Westlake; Tom Catron; Paul St Jacques Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Sarah F Barnett; Ravi K Alagar; Michael P W Grocott; Savvas Giannaris; John R Dick; Suneetha Ramani Moonesinghe Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Gen Li; Robert E Freundlich; Rajnish K Gupta; Christina J Hayhurst; Chi H Le; Barbara J Martin; Matthew S Shotwell; Jonathan P Wanderer Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 8.986
Authors: Gen Li; Jeremy P Walco; Dorothee A Mueller; Jonathan P Wanderer; Robert E Freundlich Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.920