Patient Satisfaction With Hospitalists: Facility-Level Analyses

Department of Research and Analytics, Press Ganey Associates, 404 Columbia Place, South Bend, IN 46601, USA.
American Journal of Medical Quality (Impact Factor: 1.25). 03/2011; 26(2):95-102. DOI: 10.1177/1062860610381274
Source: PubMed


Despite concerns and disagreements about the impact of hospitalist models on health care, hospitalists are becoming the dominant means of providing inpatient care, and models continue to diversify. Understanding their impact and the factors that influence their adoption is essential. This study examined hospitalists' impact on patient satisfaction, considering a host of characteristics. Cross-sectional data received in calendar year 2008, aggregated to the facility level, represent 1777 hospitals (41% of which employed hospitalists) and 2 648 275 patients. Press Ganey's psychometrically sound inpatient satisfaction survey consists of 38 items (10 sections) rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Findings suggest that facilities with hospitalists may have an advantage regarding satisfaction with nursing and personal issues (eg, privacy, emotional needs, response to complaints), both of which may be related to broader communication issues. Moreover, teaching (overall satisfaction) and large facilities (satisfaction with admissions, nursing, and tests/treatments) might especially benefit from the presence of hospitalists. Exploring how specific hospitalist functions influence patient satisfaction may reap rewards.

1 Follower
10 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A study was undertaken to examine various factors that impact career satisfaction of hospitality. This study used data collected by the Center for Studying Health System Change's 2008 Health Tracking Physician survey. The 2008 HTP data set consisted of 4720 physicians belonging to the American Medical Association, of which 206 identified themselves as hospitalists. Results suggested that 41% of hospitalists were very satisfied with their careers in medicine. More than 26% of the hospitalists were 53 years or older. Seven of 10 hospitalists were men, whereas more than 55% were white. In addition, an average respondent earned between $150 000 and $200 000. Nearly 36% of the hospitalists in the study specialized in internal medicine. Regression analysis indicates that high-quality care had a highly significant impact on career satisfaction of hospitalists (P ≤ .00). In addition, formal written guidelines (P ≤ .07), gender (P ≤ .06), and white race (P ≤ .07) also had a significant impact on career satisfaction of hospitalists. It was concluded that perceived quality of care, presence of formal written guidelines, gender, and race were major predictors of career satisfaction of hospitalists.
    The health care manager 10/2012; 31(4):351-6. DOI:10.1097/HCM.0b013e31826fe340
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital physicians care for most seriously ill patients in the United States. We employed dimensional analysis to describe communication about death and dying in audio-recorded admission encounters between seriously ill patients and hospitalists. Acknowledging or not acknowledging the possibility of dying emerged as a key process. Acknowledgment was rare, and depended on synergistic communication behaviors between patient and physician. Facilitators included patients cuing for information and disclosing emotional distress, and physicians exploring the patient's understanding of his or her illness and emotional distress. When hospitalists focused on acute issues, stated that they were awaiting test results, and deferred to other physicians, discussion moved away from acknowledgment. Meaningful discussion of end-of-life issues, including goals and values, fears about death and dying, prognosis, and options for palliative care followed open acknowledgment. This acknowledgment process can serve as a guide for providers to sensitively and honestly discuss essential end-of-life issues.
    Qualitative Health Research 10/2012; 23(1). DOI:10.1177/1049732312461728 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The physician-patient relationship is at the heart of patient care. Dr. Michael Kahn proposed a checklist of six behaviors, defining "etiquette-based medicine", as a strategy to start each encounter respectfully and improve patient-physician rapport. To assess performance of "etiquette-based medicine" in the inpatient setting. Cross-sectional observational study using time-motion techniques between May and July, 2009. Eight hospitalists were randomly selected at each of three hospitals in the Greater Baltimore area. Each time the physician entered a patient's room, a single observer recorded whether the "etiquette-based medicine" behaviors were performed: (1) knocking or asking to enter the patient's room, (2) introducing oneself, (3) shaking the patient's hand, (4) sitting down in the patient's room, (5) explaining one's role in the patient's care, and (6) asking about the patient's feelings regarding his or her hospitalization or illness. The frequency with which physicians performed the six behaviors, predictors of behavior performance, and Press-Ganey performance scores. The etiquette-based medicine (EtBM) score was defined and calculated by dividing the number of observed behaviors by the number expected. The 24 observed hospitalists collectively saw 226 unique patients. No individual behavior was performed with a majority of patients, and, with 30 % of the patients, none of the behaviors were performed. The average EtBM score for the physicians was 22.3 % (SD 10.9 %). Physicians who spent more time with patients were more likely to perform behaviors. Sitting down (p = 0.026) and EtBM scores (p = 0.019) were associated with physician-specific Press-Ganey ratings. Cross-sectional design does not allow for determination of causality. "Etiquette-based medicine" was infrequently practiced by this sample of hospitalist physicians. Improving performance of etiquette-based medicine may improve patient satisfaction.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 02/2013; 28(7). DOI:10.1007/s11606-012-2328-6 · 3.42 Impact Factor