Do On-Site Patient Satisfaction Surveys Bias Results?

$20.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Buy Article:

Abstract:

Background: Response rates, patient sample characteristics, and patient satisfaction ratings were compared between two surveying methods: (1) surveys completed at the physician office site (on-site surveying), and (2) surveys mailed to patient homes following the encounter (mail-out/mail-back).

Methods: Surveying was completed at three physician practices within a 214-physician medical practice. Patients with physician appointments during four-hour time blocks were randomly split to receive either onsite or mail-based satisfaction surveys.

Results: Participants younger than 45 years of age provided much higher satisfaction ratings on site than they did by mail (p < .0001), and participants older than 45 years of age reported satisfaction levels consistently whether on site or by mail. Both age groups reported higher satisfaction with "people aspects" of care on site than they did by mail (p < .001).

Discussion: On-site methods may yield satisfaction results that are biased in a positive direction for younger patients and for all patients in which social desirability pressures are prominent. Therefore, organizations that rely on such information may have an inflated view of the patient's satisfaction with their care delivery experience. Secondly, because the differences in ratings are the greatest for the "people aspects" of care, if improvement efforts are prioritized on the basis of these rapid results, the wrong priorities may be set.

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: March 1, 2005

More about this publication?
  • Published monthly, The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety is a peer-reviewed publication dedicated to providing health professionals with the information they need to promote the quality and safety of health care. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety invites original manuscripts on the development, adaptation, and/or implementation of innovative thinking, strategies, and practices in improving quality and safety in health care. Case studies, program or project reports, reports of new methodologies or new applications of methodologies, research studies on the effectiveness of improvement interventions, and commentaries on issues and practices are all considered.

    Also known as Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement and Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety
  • Editorial Board
  • Information for Authors
  • Subscribe to this Title
  • Information for Advertisers
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Index
  • ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
Related content

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more