Factors Associated With Patient Satisfaction Measured Using a Guttman-Type Scale

Factors Associated With Patient Satisfaction Measured Using an Iterative Scale

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient experience measures tend to have notable ceiling effects that make it difficult to learn from gradations of satisfaction to improve care. This study tested 2 different iterative satisfaction measures after a musculoskeletal specialty care visit in the hope that they might have less ceiling effect. We measured floor effects, ceilings effects, skewness, and kurtosis of both questionnaires. We also assessed patient factors independently associated with the questionnaires and the top 2 possible scores.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 186 patients completed questionnaires while seeing 1 of 11 participating orthopedic surgeons in July and August 2019; the questionnaire measured: (1) demographics, (2) symptoms of depression, (3) catastrophic thinking in response to nociception, (4) heightened illness concerns, and (5) satisfaction with the visit on 2 iterative satisfaction scales. Bivariate and multivariable analyses sought associations of the explanatory variable with the satisfaction scales.

RESULTS

There is a small correlation between the 2 scales ( r = 0.27; P < .001). Neither scale had a floor effect and both had a ceiling effect of 45%. There is a very small correlation between greater health anxiety and lower satisfaction measured with one of the scales ( r = -0.16; P = .05).

CONCLUSION

An iterative satisfaction questionnaire created some spread in patient experience data, but could not limit ceiling effects. Additional strategies are needed to remove ceiling effects from satisfaction measures.

Patient symptom exaggeration is associated with communication effectiveness and trust

Objective

Patients might exaggerate their symptoms in an attempt to align the clinician's views with their own. A person who sees potential benefit in symptom exaggeration might also experience less trust, more difficulty communicating, and lower satisfaction with their clinician. We asked if there was an association between patient rating of communication effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and patient trust with symptom exaggeration?

Methods

One hundred and thirty-two patients in four orthopaedic offices completed surveys including demographics, Communication-Effectiveness-Questionnaire (CEQ-6), Negative-Pain-Thoughts-Questionnaire (NPTQ-4), a Guttman-style satisfaction question, PROMIS Depression, and Stanford Trust in Physician. Patients were randomly assigned to answer three questions about symptom exaggeration for two scenarios: 1) their own exaggeration during the just-completed visit or 2) the average person's tendency to exaggerate.

Results

In multivariable analysis, lower ratings of communication effectiveness were associated with greater symptom exaggeration (p=0.002), while an annual household income>$100,000 (p=0.033) was associated with higher ratings. Higher rating of satisfaction was associated with lower education attained (p=0.004). Greater trust was associated with lower personal exaggeration (p=0.002).

Conclusion

The relationship between greater exaggeration and lower ratings of communication effectiveness and trust suggests that symptom descriptions that seem more intense or diffuse than expected may indicate opportunities for more effective communication and trust.

Innovation

Patient experience can be improved by training clinicians to identify symptom exaggeration as a signal that the patient does not feel heard and understood and a cue to return to communication strategies that build trust.

Does Adjusting for Social Desirability Reduce Ceiling Effects and Increase Variation of Patient-Reported Experience Measures?

Social desirability bias (a tendency to underreport undesirable attitudes and behaviors) may account, in part, for the notable ceiling effects and limited variability of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) such as satisfaction, communication effectiveness, and perceived empathy. Given that there is always room for improvement for both clinicians and the care environment, ceiling effects can hinder improvement efforts. This study tested whether weighting of satisfaction scales according to the extent of social desirability can create a more normal distribution of scores and less ceiling effect. In a cross-sectional study 118 English-speaking adults seeking musculoskeletal specialty care completed 2 measures of satisfaction with care (one iterative scale and one 11-point ordinal scale), a measure of social desirability, and basic demographics. Normality of satisfaction scores was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk tests. After weighting for social desirability, scores on the iterative satisfaction scale had a more normal distribution while scores on the 11-point ordinal satisfaction scale did not. The ceiling effects in satisfaction decreased from 47% (n = 56) to 2.5% (n = 3) for the iterative scale, and from 81% (n = 95) to 2.5% (n = 3) for the ordinal scale. There were no differences in mean satisfaction when the social desirability was measured prior to completion of the satisfaction surveys compared to after. The observation that adjustment for levels of social desirability bias can reduce ceiling effects suggests that accounting for personal factors could help us develop PREMs with greater variability in scores, which may prove useful for quality improvement efforts.

Patient satisfaction level and its determinants after admission in public and private tertiary care hospitals in Bangladesh

Introduction

Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality of care provided by health care facilities. The objective of this study was to investigate the rate of satisfaction and its associated factors among the patients admitted to tertiary care hospitals in Bangladesh.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in a public and two private tertiary care hospitals in Bangladesh in December 2019, including 923 consecutive patients admitted to medical and surgical departments. Face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire was conducted to collect patient-level data. Logistic regression models were used to determine the factors associated with patients' satisfaction.

Results

Patients' overall satisfaction level was 65% (51% in public and 75% in private hospitals) with a satisfaction rate of 63% in hospital staff courtesy, 56.5% in a hospital environment, 67% in physician care, 63% in general patient satisfaction, and 58% in patient's family care. Private hospitals (aOR 3.64, 95% CI 2.2-6.03), conservative management (aOR 3.34, 95% CI 2.10-5.33), shorter hospital stay (aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.37) and perceived improvement after treatment (aOR 1.67, 95% CI 1.01-2.76) were associated with patients' satisfaction. In contrast, patients' accommodation on the floor (aOR 0.38, aOR 0.22-0.66) and high health care costs (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99) were associated with patients' dissatisfaction with the in-patient service they received in both public and private hospitals.

Conclusion

Almost two-thirds of the patients were satisfied with the inpatient service they received, though, the satisfaction rate was higher in private hospitals. Treatment modality, cost, and outcome, as well as hospital environment like accommodation, were associated with their satisfaction level.

Clinician Facial Expression of Emotion Corresponds with Patient Mindset

BACKGROUND

Mental health has a notable and perhaps underappreciated relationship with symptom intensity related to musculoskeletal pathophysiology. Tools for increasing awareness of mental health opportunities may help musculoskeletal specialists identify and address psychological distress and unhealthy misconceptions with greater confidence. One such type of technology-software that identifies emotions by analyzing facial expressions-could be developed as a clinician-awareness tool. A first step in this endeavor is to conduct a pilot study to assess the ability to measure patient mental health through specialist facial expressions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does quantification of clinician emotion using facial recognition software correlate with patient psychological distress and unhealthy misconceptions? (2) Is there a correlation between clinician facial expressions of emotions and a validated measure of the quality of the patient-clinician relationship?

METHODS

In a cross-sectional pilot study, between April 2019 and July 2019, we made video recordings of the clinician's face during 34 initial musculoskeletal specialist outpatient evaluations. There were 16 men and 18 women, all fluent and literate in English, with a mean age of 43 ± 15 years. Enrollment was performed according to available personnel, equipment, and room availability. We did not track declines, but there were only a few. Video recordings were analyzed using facial-emotional recognition software, measuring the proportion of time spent by clinicians expressing measured emotions during a consultation. After the visit, patients completed a demographic questionnaire and measures of health anxiety (the Short Health Anxiety Inventory), fear of painful movement (the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia), catastrophic or worst-case thinking about pain (the Pain Catastrophizing Scale), symptoms of depression (the Patient Health Questionnaire), and the patient's perception of the quality of their relationship with the clinician (Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire).

RESULTS

Clinician facial expressions consistent with happiness were associated with less patient health anxiety (r = -0.59; p < 0.001) and less catastrophic thinking (r = -0.37; p = 0.03). Lower levels of clinician expressions consistent with sadness were associated with less health anxiety (r = 0.36; p = 0.04), fewer symptoms of generalized anxiety (r = 0.36; p = 0.03), and less catastrophic thinking (r = 0.33; p = 0.05). Less time expressing anger was associated with greater health anxiety (r = -0.37; p = 0.03), greater symptoms of anxiety (r = -0.46; p < 0.01), more catastrophic thinking (r = -0.38; p = 0.03), and greater symptoms of depression (r = -0.42; p = 0.01). More time expressing surprise was associated with less health anxiety (r = -0.44; p < 0.01) and symptoms of depression (r = -0.52; p < 0.01). More time expressing fear was associated with less kinesiophobia (r = -0.35; p = 0.04). More time expressing disgust was associated with less catastrophic thinking (r = -0.37; p = 0.03) and less health anxiety (GAD-2; r = -0.42; p = 0.02) and symptoms of depression (r = -0.44; p < 0.01). There was no association between a clinicians' facial expression of emotions and patient experience with patient-clinician interactions.

CONCLUSION

The ability to measure a patient's mindset on the clinician's face confirms that clinicians are registering the psychological aspects of illness, whether they are consciously aware of them or not. Future research involving larger cohorts of patients, mapping clinician-patient interactions during consultation, and more sophisticated capture of nonverbal and verbal cues, including a broader range of emotional expressions, may help translate this innovation from the research setting to clinical practice.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Tools for measuring emotion through facial recognition could be used to train clinicians to become aware of the psychological aspects of health and to coach clinicians on effective communication strategies both for gentle reorientation of common misconceptions as well as for appropriate and timely diagnosis and treatment of psychological distress.