Patient satisfaction with time spent with their physician.

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
The Journal of family practice (Impact Factor: 0.74). 09/1998; 47(2):133-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We examined the variables related to patient satisfaction with the time spent with their family physician during the office visit.
Research nurses directly observed consecutive patient visits to 138 family physicians in 84 practices. Analyses examined sequential models of the association of patient and physician characteristics, visit type and length, and time use during visits, with patients' satisfaction with the amount of time spent with their physician.
Among 2315 visit by adult patients returning questionnaires, patient satisfaction with the time spent with their physician was high and strongly linked to longer visits (P < 001). After controlling for visit duration, greater patient satisfaction with time spent was associated with older patient age, white race, better perceived health status, visits for well care, and visits with a greater proportion of the visit spent chatting. The physician's discussion of test results or findings from the physical examination was associated with greater satisfaction with time spent for visits longer than 15 minutes, but with less satisfaction with time spent for shorter visits.
Physicians can enhance patient satisfaction with the amount of time spent during an office visit by spending a small proportion of time chatting about nonmedical topics, and by allowing sufficient time for exchange with the patient is feedback is necessary.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Because of previously documented health care disparities, we hypothesized that English-speaking Latino parents/caregivers would be less satisfied with care and decision making than English-speaking non-Latino white (NLW) parents/caregivers. An intensive care unit (ICU) family satisfaction survey, Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit Survey (pediatric, 24 question version), was completed by English-speaking parents/caregivers of children in a cardiothoracic ICU at a university-affiliated children's hospital in 2011. English-speaking NLW and Latino parents/caregivers of patients, younger than 18 years, admitted to the ICU were approached to participate on hospital day 3 or 4 if they were at the bedside for greater than or equal to 2 days. Analysis of variance, χ(2), and Student t tests were used. Cronbach αs were calculated. Fifty parents/caregivers completed the survey in each group. Latino parents/caregivers were younger, more often mothers born outside the United States, more likely to have government insurance or no insurance, and had less education and income. There were no differences between the groups' mean overall satisfaction scores (92.6 ± 8.3 and 93.0 ± 7.1, respectively; P = .80). The Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit Survey (pediatric, 24 question version) showed high internal consistency reliability (α = .95 and .91 for NLW and Latino groups, respectively). No disparities in ICU satisfaction with care and decision making between English-speaking NLW and Latino parents/caregivers were found. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Critical Care 12/2014; 30(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.11.009 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND The growing number of primary care physicians (PCPs) reducing their clinical work hours has raised concerns about meeting the future demand for services and fulfilling the continuity and access mandates for patient-centered care. However, the patient’s experience of care with part-time physicians is relatively unknown, and may be mediated by continuity and access to care outcomes. OBJECTIVE We aimed to examine the relationships between a physicians’ clinical full-time equivalent (FTE), continuity of care, access to care, and patient satisfaction with the physician. DESIGN We used a multi-level structural equation estimation, with continuity and access modeled as mediators, for a cross-section in 2010. PARTICIPANTS The study included family medicine (n = 104) and internal medicine (n = 101) physicians in a multi-specialty group practice, along with their patient satisfaction survey responses (n = 12,688). MAIN MEASURES Physician level FTE, continuity of care received by patients, continuity of care provided by physician, and a Press Ganey patient satisfaction with the physician score, on a 0-100 % scale, were measured. Access to care was measured as days to the third next-available appointment. KEY RESULTS Physician FTE was directly associated with better continuity of care received (0.172 % per FTE, p p p p = 0.03). The continuity of care provided was a significant mediator (0.016 % per FTE, p p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that PCPs who choose to work fewer clinical hours may have worse continuity and access, but they may provide a better patient experience. Physician workforce planning should consider these care attributes when considering the role of part-time PCPs in practice redesign efforts and initiatives to meet the demand for primary care services.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 11/2014; 30(3). DOI:10.1007/s11606-014-3104-6 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous studies, predominantly in the primary care setting, identified time spent with the physician as an important predictor of satisfaction. It is unknown if the same holds true in hand surgery. Is patient satisfaction measured immediately after an office visit associated with the duration of time spent with the hand surgeon? What other factors are associated with satisfaction directly after the visits and 2 weeks after the appointment? We prospectively enrolled 81 patients visiting our hand and upper extremity surgery outpatient clinic. We recorded their demographics and measured physical function, pain behavior, symptoms of depression, time spent in the waiting room, time spent with the physician, and patient satisfaction. Office times were measured using our patient ambulatory tracking system and by a research assistant outside the clinic room. To assess satisfaction we used items from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey (a federally developed standardized survey instrument) relevant to our study. Two weeks later, 51 (64%) patients were available for telephone followup and the same measures were completed. Mean time spent with the hand surgeon was 8 ± 5 minutes and mean in-office wait time to see the hand surgeon was 32 ± 18 minutes. A priori power analyses indicated that 77 patients would provide 80% power to detect an effect size f(2) = 0.18 for a regression with five predictors. This means that we would detect time spent with the physician as a significant factor if it accounted for 7% or more of the variability in satisfaction. Time spent with the hand surgeon was not associated with patient satisfaction measured directly after the visit (r = -0.023; p = 0.84). Longer time waiting to see the physician correlated with decreased patient satisfaction (r = -0.30; p = 0.0057). The final multivariable model for increased satisfaction directly after the office visit included shorter waiting time (regression coefficient [β] -0.0014; partial R(2) 0.094; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.0024 to -0.00042; p = 0.006) and being married/living with a partner (β 0.057; partial R(2) 0.11; 95% CI, 0.021-0.093; p = 0.002 [adjusted R(2) 0.18; p < 0.001]). Similarly, multivariable analysis found higher patient satisfaction 2 weeks after the visit to be independently associated with shorter waiting time (β -0.0037; partial R(2) 0.10; 95% CI, -0.0070 to -0.00054; p = 0.023) and being married/living with a partner (β 0.15; partial R(2) 0.12; 95% CI, 0.033-0.26; p = 0.012 [adjusted R(2) 0.16; p = 0.0052]). Patient satisfaction among patients undergoing hand surgery may relate more to shorter time in the waiting room and to the quality more than the quantity of time spent with the patient. Level II, prognostic study.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11999-014-4090-z · 2.88 Impact Factor