Literature DB >> 8806045

Changing priorities for improvement: the impact of low response rates in patient satisfaction.

W M Barkley1, D H Furse.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A disturbing trend in patient satisfaction research has been a willingness to accept low response rates as inevitable. However, it may not be appropriate to generalize data based on low responses to the full population of patients, since to do so may threaten the validity of the findings.
METHOD: Satisfaction data were collected from 19,556 inpatients discharged in 1994 from 76 hospitals using the 69-item NCG Patient Viewpoint Survey, an instrument that primarily uses a set of five response options, which are transformed to a 0- to 100-point scale. Surveys were sent to random samples of 100 to 1,400 patients, and were followed by postcard reminders. For each hospital sample, results for the "First 30%" were compared with those for "All Respondents," or the total number of respondents, for which the average response rate was 58%.
FINDINGS: Results on individual scale scores and the subsequent improvement priorities for individual hospitals had a 50-50 chance of being different when the First 30% responses were compared with the All Respondents responses. For 9 out of 13 survey scales, the scores were significantly different between the First 30% and All Respondents when data were aggregated across all hospitals. For 42% of the 76 hospitals, a different set of scales would be identified as those most in need of improvement. DISCUSSION: The capriciousness of within-hospital differences based on the First 30% versus All Respondents brings into question the utility of patient satisfaction data based on low response rates even with a reliable instrument and with controlled, consistent data collection methods across hospitals. Target response rates should be set at 50% or higher. Additional research on the effects of response rates on patient satisfaction data are recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8806045     DOI: 10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30245-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Improv        ISSN: 1070-3241


  10 in total

1.  Patterns of unit and item nonresponse in the CAHPS Hospital Survey.

Authors:  Marc N Elliott; Carol Edwards; January Angeles; Katrin Hambarsoomians; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys.

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; Brian E Clauser; Terry Field; Robert A Yood; Jerry H Gurwitz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  What patients say about their doctors online: a qualitative content analysis.

Authors:  Andrea López; Alissa Detz; Neda Ratanawongsa; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  Review of the literature on survey instruments used to collect data on hospital patients' perceptions of care.

Authors:  Nicholas G Castle; Julie Brown; Kimberly A Hepner; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS).

Authors:  Ryan K Schmocker; Linda M Cherney Stafford; Alexander B Siy; Glen E Leverson; Emily R Winslow
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.982

6.  Patients' Postjudice of Tele-Neurology for Movement Disorders.

Authors:  Ishani Rajapakshe; Elisa Menozzi; Inês Cunha; Andrew J Lees; Kailash P Bhatia; Eoin Mulroy
Journal:  Mov Disord Clin Pract       Date:  2022-04-01

7.  Effects of survey mode, patient mix, and nonresponse on CAHPS hospital survey scores.

Authors:  Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Elizabeth Goldstein; William Lehrman; Katrin Hambarsoomians; Megan K Beckett; Laura Giordano
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Patient satisfaction in treatment for cervical pathology.

Authors:  M T J Hendriksen; K W M VAN Delft; G L H Bremer; H J M M Mertens
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 2.967

9.  It takes patience and persistence to get negative feedback about patients' experiences: a secondary analysis of national inpatient survey data.

Authors:  David N Barron; Elizabeth West; Rachel Reeves; Denise Hawkes
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Client Satisfaction and Experience With Telepsychiatry: Development and Validation of a Survey Using Clinical Quality Domains.

Authors:  Eva Serhal; Anne Kirvan; Marcos Sanches; Allison Crawford
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 5.428

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.