Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Satisfaction Instrument (satisfaction + instrument)
Selected AbstractsNurse Practitioners and Physicians: Patients' Perceived Health and Satisfaction with CareJOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS, Issue 6 2000Jo-Allyn Pinkerton PhD ABSTRACT The advent of managed care has created changes in the health care environment and nurse practitioners have found a need to evaluate their care. Perceived health and patient satisfaction were measured in a multiethnic sample of 160 clinic patients, ages 18 to 89, in a managed care setting. Results of the Medical Outcomes Study SF-20 and the Nurse Practitioner Satisfaction Instrument indicated no statistically significant difference in perceived health and satisfaction with care, whether the care was given by a nurse practitioner or a primary care physician. The findings warrant further study and may mean that nurse practitioners placed in managed care environments can be expected to perform as effectively as they have in non-managed care environments. [source] Assessment of patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical services in a Nigerian teaching hospitalINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACY PRACTICE, Issue 1 2004Azuka C. Oparah lecturer ABSTRACT Objective To assess patients' satisfaction with pharmaceutical services using an"ideal referent" model, and to further explore the validity of an existing patient satisfaction instrument. Method A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a sample of 500 outpatients recruited consecutively at the University of Benin teaching hospital, Nigeria. A self-completion questionnaire that employed a Likert-type scale was used. Data were used to calculate scores on a scale that ranged from 20 to 100, with an assumed midpoint of 60. Descriptive statistics on the sample characteristics and questionnaire items were computed including means, standard deviations and frequency distributions. Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalisation was employed in principal factor analysis. Student's t -test and one-way ANOVA were used for inferential statistics. Key findings The instrument reliability was determined to be 0.9641 and was comparable to the reference study. Nearly half of the patients (46%) rated the amount of time the pharmacist offered to spend with them as poor. About one-third rated promptness of prescription service as poor. Only 49% felt satisfied with the pharmaceutical services. Overall, pharmacy services received a satisfaction rating of 56.04±24.49, below the midpoint. Perceived satisfaction was significantly higher in "friendly explanation" than in "managing therapy" (t=3.916; P<0.0001). Conclusion The study provides evidence that patients experience low satisfaction with current pharmaceutical services at the study hospital. The sociodemographic characteristics of patients were not associated with their level of satisfaction. We further confirm the validity of the patient satisfaction questionnaire in a Nigerian practice setting. [source] An evaluation of a GP out-of-hours service: meeting patient expectations of careJOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 3 2004Kate Thompson MSc Abstract Background, The reorganized out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) service, resulting in the creation of out-of-hours cooperatives has been widely welcomed by the medical profession. However, GP satisfaction remains only one aspect of this reorganized service and patients' views and levels of satisfaction must have a contribution to make to the organization and delivery of the service. Aim, To assess patient satisfaction at two out-of-hours cooperatives in Northern Ireland. Method, A sample of 4466 patients contacting the out-of-hours service was surveyed by postal questionnaires using a previously validated patient satisfaction instrument. Results, Patients who initially requested to be seen at the out-of-hours centre were more likely to receive the contact they requested than those who requested telephone advice or a home visit. Only 41.8% of patients requesting a home visit actually received one. Patients were generally satisfied with the service provided and most satisfied with the ,doctor's manner' and the ,explanation and advice' received. Patients who received the contact they initially requested were more satisfied with all aspects of the service than other patients. The type of contact actually received had little effect on the satisfaction levels reported by patients who received the contact they initially requested. Conclusion, The population should be made fully aware of the services provided by out-of-hours cooperatives to enable them to have realistic expectations. With realistic expectations, patients are more likely to receive the medical contact they request and consequently will be more satisfied with the service provided. High satisfaction level is an important outcome measure of any out-of-hours service as it increases patient confidence and compliance and ultimately clinical outcome. [source] Towards valid measures of self-directed clinical learningMEDICAL EDUCATION, Issue 11 2003Tim Dornan Aim, To compare the validity of different measures of self-directed clinical learning. Methods, We used a quasi-experimental study design. The measures were: (1) a 23-item quantitative instrument measuring satisfaction with the learning process and environment; (2) free text responses to 2 open questions about the quality of students' learning experiences; (3) a quantitative, self-report measure of real patient learning, and (4) objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and progress test results. Thirty-three students attached to a single firm during 1 curriculum year in Phase 2 of a problem-based medical curriculum formed an experimental group. Thirty-one students attached to the same firm in the previous year served as historical controls and 33 students attached to other firms within the same module served as contemporary controls. After the historical control period, experimental group students were exposed to a complex curriculum intervention that set out to maximise appropriate real patient learning through increased use of the outpatient setting, briefing and supported, reflective debriefing. Results, The quantitative satisfaction instrument was insensitive to the intervention. In contrast, the qualitative measure recorded a significantly increased number of positive statements about the appropriateness of real patient learning. Moreover, the quantitative self-report measure of real patient learning found high levels of appropriate learning activity. Regarding outpatient learning, the qualitative and quantitative real patient learning instruments were again concordant and changed in the expected direction, whereas the satisfaction measure did not. An incidental finding was that, despite all attempts to achieve horizontal integration through simultaneously providing community attachments and opening up the hospital for self-directed clinical learning, real patient learning was strongly bounded by the specialty interest of the hospital firm to which students were attached. Assessment results did not correlate with real patient learning. Conclusions, Both free text responses and students' quantitative self-reports of real patient learning were more valid than a satisfaction instrument. One explanation is that students had no benchmark against which to rate their satisfaction and curriculum change altered their tacit benchmarks. Perhaps the stronger emphasis on self-directed learning demanded more of students and dissatisfied those who were less self-directed. Results of objective, standardised assessments were not sensitive to the level of self-directed, real patient learning. Despite an integrated curriculum design that set out to override disciplinary boundaries, students' learning remained strongly influenced by the specialty of their hospital firm. [source] | ||||||||||